Jerusalem Talmud Horayot Chapter 2

הוֹרָה כֹהֵן מָשִׁיחַ לְעַצְמוֹ שׁוֹגֵג וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא פָר. שׁוֹגֵג וְעָשָׂה מֵזִיד מֵזִיד וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג פָּטוּר שֶׁהוֹרָיַית כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ לְעַצְמוֹ כְּהוֹרָיַית בֵּית דִּין לַצִּיבּוּר: הוֹרָה כֹהֵן מָשִׁיחַ כול׳. נֶפֶשׁ אִם הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ. הֲרֵי מָשִׁיחַ כְּיָחִיד. מַה יָחִיד אִם אָכַל בְּהוֹרָיַית בֵּית דִּין פָּטוּר. אַף זֶה אִם אָכַל בְּהוֹרָיַית בֵּית דִּין פָּטוּר. מַה יָחִיד אִם אָכַל בְּלֹא הוֹרָיָיה חַיָיב. אַף זֶה אִם אָכַל בְּלֹא הוֹרָיָיה חַיָיב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם. הֲרֵי אַשְׁמָתוֹ כְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם. מָה הָעָם אֵינָן חַיָיבִין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוֹרוּ. אַף זֶה אֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוֹרָה. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. הָעָם בֵּית דִּין. מָה הָעָם הוֹרוּ הֵן וְעָשׂוּ אֲחֵרִים חַיָיבִין אַף זֶה הוֹרָה הוּא וְעָשׂוּ אֲחֵרִים יְהֵא חַיָיב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר חָטָא. עַל מַה שֶׁחָטָא הוּא מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עַל מַה שֶׁחָטְאוּ אֲחֵרִים. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. הָעָם צִיבּוּר. מָה הָעָם הוֹרוּ אֲחֵרִים וְעָשׂוּ הֵן חַיָיבִין אַף זֶה הוֹרוּ אֲחֵרִים וְעָשָׂה הוּא יְהֵא חַיָיב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר חָטָא. עַל מַה שֶׁחָטָא הוּא מֵבִיא. אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עַל מַה שֶׁחָטְאוּ אֲחֵרִים. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹדֵעַ לִישָּׂא וְלִיתֵּן בַּהֲלָכָה. דִּלֹא כֵן מָה נָן אָמְרִין. וְיֵשׁ שׁוֹטִים מוֹרִין. מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאָכַל בְּהוֹרָיַית בֵּית דִּין פָּטוּר. בָּהוֹרָיַית מָשִׁיחַ אַחֵר חַיָיב. בְּהוֹרָיַית בֵּית דִּין פָּטוּר. שֶׁאֵין הוֹרָיַית אֲחֵרִים אֵצֶל הוֹרָיָיתָן כולן. בָּהוֹרָיַית מָשִׁיחַ אַחֵר חַיָיב. וְהוא שֶׁהוֹרָה כְיוֹצֵא בוֹ.

MISHNAH: If the Anointed Priest4:1–12 for the High Priest. Since the verse refers here to “the Anointed Priest” while in Lev. 21:10 he is called “the High Priest”, it is inferred ( Mishnah 3:4 , Megillah 1:9 ) that High Priests of the Second Temple who were not anointed were not entitled to this ceremony. The Anointed has to confess his sin while leaning with his hands on the bull’s head. The remainder of the ceremony, as also that of the Court’s bull, may be performed by a common priest. Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parashah 3(6). ruled for himself in error and acted in error, he brings a bull 4:1–12 , his private purification offering. . If in error but he acted intentionally, or intentionally and he acted in error, he is not liable since the ruling of the Anointed Priest for himself is like the ruling of the Court for the public. HALAKHAH: “If the Anointed Priest ruled,” etc. A person; if the Anointed Priest. 4:2 , 3 . ” This makes the Anointed like a private person 2(1). . Since the private person is not liable if he ate on the Court’s ruling, also neither is this one liable if he ate on the Court’s ruling. Since the private person is liable if he ate without a ruling, this one also should be liable if he ate without a ruling; the verse says, for the fault of the people. As the people are liable only if they issued a ruling, this one also is liable only if he issued a ruling. There are Tannaïm who state that the people are the Court. Since the people are liable if they instructed and others acted, this one also should be liable if he ruled and others acted. The verse says, as he sinned. He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned. There are Tannaïm2(1,4). who state that the people are the public. Since the people are liable if others ruled and they acted, this one also should be liable if others ruled and he acted. The verse says, as he sinned. He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned. Rebbi Jacob in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Only if he is competent to argue about practice. Otherwise, would we say the incompetents give instructions? The anointed who ate following the Court’s prescript is not liable; following another Anointed’s prescript he is liable. Following the Court’s prescript he is not liable, since the prescript of others is nothing compared to their prescripts But as explained earlier, he cannot bring his purification offering unless his action was based on his own ruling. . Following another Anointed’s prescript he is liable, on condition that he instructed similarly.

הוֹרָה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעָשָׂה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. הוֹרָה עִם הַצִּיבּוּר וְעָשָׂה עִם הַצִּיבּוּר מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עִם הַצִּיבּוּר. שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין חַיָיבִין עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵים מִקְצָת. וְכֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ. וְלֹא בַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה עַד שֶׁיּוֹרו לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵים מִקְצָת: הוֹרָה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ כול׳. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְהוֹרָה אַחֲרֵיהֶן וְהֶחֱלִיף. פְּשִׁיטָא נַעֲשִׂית אֶצְלוֹ כַעֲקִירַת גּוּף. אֶלָּא הוֹרָה הוּא תְחִילָּה וְהוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין אַחֲרֵיהֶן וְהֶחֱלִיפוּ. אֲפִילוּ כֵן נַעֲשִׂית אֶצְלוֹ כַעֲקִירַת גּוּף. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוֹרָה הוּא תְחִילָּה וְנִדְחָה הוֹרָיָיתוֹ בְהוֹרָיָיתָן וְאֵינָהּ נַעֲשִׂית אֶצְלוֹ כַעֲקִירַת גּוּף. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְהוֹרָה אַחֲרֵיהֶן. פְּשִׁיטָא אָכַל בְּהוֹרָיַית בֵּית דִּין פָּטוּר. אֲבָל מִשֶּׁחָזְרוּ בָהֶן בֵּית דִּין חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. הוֹרָה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹרָה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעָשָׂה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הוֹרָה עִם הַצִּיבּוּר וְעָשָׂה עִם הַצִּיבּוּר מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עִם הַצִּיבּוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹרָה עִם הַצִּיבּוּר וְעָשָׂה עִם הַצִּיבּוּר. אֲבָל הוֹרָה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.

MISHNAH: If he ruled for himself and acted for himself, it is atoned for himself. If he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public 16:6 ) before he can officiate for the other priests ( v. 11 ) and the people ( v. 15 ). But here he is not acting on behalf of others. . As the Court is not liable unless they instruct to void part and confirm part, so is the Anointed 4:20 ) it is formulated the other way: All rules of the High Priest’s bull apply to the Court’s. . Also for idolatry they are not liable unless they instruct to void part and confirm part. HALAKHAH: “If he ruled for himself,” etc. The Court ruled, he ruled following them, and then changed. It is obvious that for him it is the equivalent of uprooting the whole and Mar’eh Happanim ), the author of the only complete Commentary to Horaiot , explains that the Court and the High Priest originally issued consistent rulings. Then the High Priest changed his mind, and issued a new ruling on the same subject so that the two inconsistent prohibitions together amount to a complete removal of a biblical prohibition which according to Mishnah 1:3 prevents atonement by a sacrifice. It is difficult to find this in the language of the paragraph since it says clearly that the High Priest changed his mind, i. e., he permits what the Court forbade and the Court forbids what the High Priest forbade; neither of the parties uproots the entire commandment. Therefore, it seems that at first the High Priest followed the High Court’s ruling, as stated in the text, but then reversed himself and opposed the High Court’s ruling. Then irrespective of the topic of the dispute, the High Court uprooted Deut. 17:8 – 13 . If the Court stays with its pronouncement, the High Priest is barred from rehabilitating himself by a sacrifice. . But if he ruled first, the Court then ruled following him, and afterwards they reversed themselves. Nevertheless is it for him the equivalent of uprooting the whole, or because he ruled first, but his ruling was overturned by their ruling, for him it should not be the equivalent of uprooting the whole? If the Court ruled and he ruled following them, it is obvious that he is not liable if he ate according to the ruling of the Court. But after the Court reversed itself, he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah? “If he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.” Because he ruled for himself and acted for himself. “But if he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public.” Because he ruled with the public and acted with the public, but “if he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.”

אֵין חַיָיבִין אֶלָא עַל הֶעֱלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה וְכֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ. וְלֹא בַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֶלָּא עַל הֶעֱלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה. אֵין חַיָיבִין אֶלָא עַל הֶעֱלֵם דָּבָר כול׳. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב יִרְמְיָה. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹ דִיֵיק רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. רִבִּי מֵאִיר דּוּ אָמַר. חוֹבַת בֵּית דִּין הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. תַּנֵּי תַמָּן. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְעָשׂוּ קָהָל. מֵת אֶחָד מִבֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. מֵת אֶחָד מִן הַצִּיבּוּר חַיָיבִין. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אִם לַאֲחֵרִים הוּא פוֹטֵר לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן עַל עַצְמוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. יִפְטוֹר לַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן בַּמֶּה לִתְלוֹת. וְאַל יִפְטוֹר לְעַצְמוֹ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בַּמֶּה לִתְלוֹת. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מַה כְרִבִּי. אִין. מָשִׁיחַ בִּשִׁיגְּגַת מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא. וְאִין כְרָבָּנִן. בְּהֶעֱלֵם דָּבָר הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא. עַל רַבָּנִן נִצְרְכָה. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. מָשִׁיחַ וָעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. רִבִּי אָמַר. בִּשִׁגְּגַת מַעֲשֶׂה. וְרַבָּנִן אָמְרִין. בְּהֶעֱלֵם דָּבָר. אָמַר מה לקל מה בְּגִין דְּלֹא תַנִּינָן מָשִׁיחַ. וְהָא קַדְמִיתָא לֹא תַנֵּינָן מָשִׁיחַ וּמָשִׁיחַ בִּכְלָל. וָכָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא תַנִּינָן מָשִׁיחַ מָשִׁיחַ בִּכְלָל.

MISHNAH: They are liable only for forgetting a topic with action in error; the same applies to the Anointed. Also for idolatry only for forgetting a topic with action in error. HALAKHAH: “They are liable only for forgetting,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Jeremiah. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s or has inferences like Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Meïr who said, it is an obligation of the Court. Rebbi Mana said, following Rebbi Meïr. There, it was stated: If the Court ruled and the public acted. If a member of the Court died, they are not liable. If a member of the public died, they are liable. Rebbi Meïr told them, if he relieves others of their liability, not so much more for himself? They told him, he can relieve others of their liability since they have where to hang on; he cannot relieve himself of liability since he has nothing to hang on. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Maybe following Rebbi? If the Anointed, error in action it is. But if the rabbis, oblivion of a topic it is. Rebbi Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. That you should not say, the Anointed and idolatry: Rebbi said, in acting in error; the rabbis said, in forgetting a topic. He said [ ], because we did not state about the Anointed. But in the former, we did not state about the Anointed but the Anointed is included, and here, even though we did not state about the Anointed, the Anointed is included.

אֵין חַיָיבִין אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת וְכֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ. וְלֹא בַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת: אֵין חַיָיבִין אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת כול׳. מִצְוֹת יְי. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. אַף אוֹכְלֵי שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים בְּמַשְׁמַע. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן מֵעֵינֵי וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן מֵעֵינֵי. מַה מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת. אַף מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת. אוֹ מַה מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. אַף מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה. מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְלְלוּ כָל הָעֲרָיוֹת לְהִיכָּרֵת. יָצָא אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ אֲבָל לְלַמֵּד עַל הַמַּמְזֵר. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. עָלֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ. מַה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת. אַף עָלֶיהָ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת. וְלָמָּה לֹא דָרַשׁ רִבִּי מֵעֵינֵי מֵעֵינֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִין יִדְרוֹשׁ רִבִּי מֵעֵינֵי מֵעֵינֵי. מַה מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. אַף מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. לְפוּם כֵּן לֹא דָרַשׁ רִבִּי מֵעֵינֵי מֵעֵינֵי. וְלֵית לֵיהּ סִפְרָא דְרִבִּי מִידְרוֹשׁ מֵעֵינֵי מֵעֵינֵי. דִּלֹא כֵן מְנָן לֵיהּ הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ. לֹא מֵעֵינֵי מֵעֵינֵי. דִּלֹא כֵן מְנָן לֵיהּ הוֹרָיַית בֵּית דִּין גָּדוֹל הוֹרָיַית בֵּית דִּין קָטָן לֹא מֵעֵינֵי מֵעֵינֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵים מִקְצָת לֹא מֵעֵינֵי מֵעֵינֵי. דִּלֹא כֵן מְנָן לֵיהּ הוֹרָיַית בֵּית דִּין קָטָן לֹא מֵעֵינֵי מֵעֵינֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וְלֵית סוֹפֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי מִידְרוֹשׁ מֵעֵינֵי מֵעֵינֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מָה אַתְּ בָּעֵי מֵרִבִּי. רִבִּי כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּרִבִּי אָמַר. מָשִׁיחַ בִּשִׁגְּגַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה הוּא. וְאֵין כְּתִיב זָדוֹן שְׁגָגָה לְיָחִיד אֶלָּא בְבֵית דִּין וּבִלְבַד. אוֹתוֹ. מִיעֵט קָרְבָּנוֹ לְמִצְוָה יְחִידִית שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנֵס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים. מָה כְרִבִּי. דְּרִבִּי אָמַר. מָשִׁיחַ בְּשִׁיגְגַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה הוּא. וְאִין כְתבָּנִן בְּהֶעֱלֵם דָּבָר הוּא. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא. עַל דְּרַבָּנִן נִצְרְכָה. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא בְהִיכָּרֵת יִכָּנֵס דָּמוֹ לִפְנַיי לִפְנִים. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרִיךְ מֵימַר. אוֹתוֹ. מִיעֵט קָרְבָּנוֹ לְמִצְוָה יְחִידִית שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנֵס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים.

MISHNAH: They are liable only for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation and when unintentional by a purification sacrifice which require a different kind of sacrifice as described in Lev. 5 . Cf. Mishnah 5. There remain 31 topics for which High Priest or Court may be required to sacrifice a bull. . The same applies to the Anointed. Also for idolatry only for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation and when unintentional by a purification sacrifice. HALAKHAH: “They are only liable for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation,” etc. 4:15, Notes 219–227 . The commandments of the Eternal 4:2 , seems to prescribe such a sacrifice for all the Commandments of the Eternal, it needs an argument why in all four cases (the High Priest, the High Court, Prince, and commoner) simple transgressions are excluded. . I could think that this also includes those who eat abominations and crawling things. It says here from the eyes and it says there from the eyes. Just as from the eyes mentioned there means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so from the eyes mentioned here means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Or since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here should mean something that can lead to the death penalty? (Note 220). The father’s wife who is not the mother is forbidden in Deut. 23:1 (in addition to Lev. 18:8 , 20:11 ). The bastard is mentioned in Deut. 23:3 ; it is inferred that the bastard is a child from a forbidden union exemplified by the father’s wife. One may assume that the intended quote from Yebamot was the answer given there to the question: “R. Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation ( Num. 15:31 ), there was no mention of anything but extirpation ( Num. 15:30–31 ). But the death penalty is written elsewhere ( Lev. 20:2 , Deut. 17:5 ).” (Note 226). Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the (married woman) [father’s wife] came out to tell you about the bastard. 9a . In Lev. 4:14 , speaking of the Court’s sacrifice, it is said, and the sin became known concerning which ( עָלֶיהָ ) they had sinned. In Lev. 18:18 one reads: Do not marry a woman in addition to her sister, to make them co-wives, to uncover her nakedness over her ( עָלֶיהָ ) during her lifetime. Lev. 18:29 is a blanket warning that all sexual crimes mentioned in the Chapter are punishable by extirpation. The wife’s sister is not mentioned in the list of punishments in Lev. 20 . Therefore this is a reference only to divine extirpation; even with witnesses and due warnings no death penalty is involved ( Sanhedrin 7:5, Note 78 ). Rebbi said over which, over her. Since over her mentioned there refers to something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so over which mentioned here means something for which one is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Why does Rebbi not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes ? [Rebbi Zeˋira said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then from the eyes mentioned there for the Anointed refers to action in error; also from the eyes mentioned here would have to refer to action in error. Therefore, Rebbi will not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. ] Rebbi Yose said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here means something that can lead to the death penalty. Therefore, Rebbi does not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. (Does Rebbi not have a book) [Will Rebbi not in the end have] to infer from the eyes, from the eyes ? 4(6) that from a comparison with the rules for unintentional idolatry it is established that both oblivion and unintentional action are needed. The connection is established by from the eyes, from the eyes. For if it is not so, from where would we have the rules for the individual, the chief, and the Anointed? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes ? For if it is not so, from where would we have “unless they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part”? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes ? For if it is not so, from where would we have [the difference between] a ruling of the High Court and a ruling of a lower court 4 is the High Court is proven from Num. 15:24 . The connection is established by from the eyes, from the eyes. ? Rebbi Ḥanania 3(7). The reference is to Lev. 4:5 : The Anointed Priest shall take of the bull’s blood and bring it to the Tent of Meeting. “To bring it” could have been expressed as וְהֵבִיאוֹ, but it is given as וְהֵבִיא אֹתוֹ. The choice of a separate word for “it” is read as emphasizing that precisely this blood is brought into the sanctuary, not blood of similar sacrifices. The one sacrifice similar to the bull of the High Priest and the one of the Court which follows the same rule ( Lev. 4:16 , where the language is: of the bull’s blood ) is the bull offered for inadvertent idolatry. The latter is called “the singular commandment” both because it requires a rite of atonement different from all other commandments as also it is the only sin which in one act violates all commandments (cf. Halakhah 1:6, Note 135 ). said before Rebbi Mana: Would not Rebbi in the end have to infer from from the eyes, from the eyes ? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi? Rebbi follows his own opinion, since Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error. Intentional error is only written for the Court. It. It specifies about his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary. Does this follow Rebbi, as Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error; if it would follow the rabbis, there must be an instance of forgetting. (Rav) [Rebbi] Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. Lest you say, because there is extirpation its blood should be brought into the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was necessary to say it, it specifies his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary.

אֵין חַיָיבִין עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְאֵין מְבִיאִין אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. אֲבָל חַיָיבִין עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּנִּדָּה וּמְבִיאִין אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּנִּידָּה. וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּנִּדָּה פְּרוֹשׁ מִן הַנִּדָּה. וּמִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה לֹא תָבוֹא אֶל הַנִּידָּה: וְאֵין חַיָיבִין עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ כול׳. כָּהֲנָא אָמַר. אֵיפְשַׁר שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בָהּ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִילָּה וִידִיעָה בַסּוֹף וְהֶעֱלֵם בֵּנְתַיִים. הָתִיב רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבְדַּיְמִי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וִיהֵא כֵן בַּמּוֹרִים. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֲנָן בָּעֵי נִכְנָסִין וְאַתְּ מַיְיתֵי לָן מוֹרִים. מַאי כְדוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. מִצְווֹת מִצְווֹת. מַה מִצְווֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בִּקְבוּעָה אַף כָּאן בִּקְבוּעָה. וְאֵין חַיָיבִין עַל כָּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. לָא אֲתִינָן מַתְנֵי אֶלָּא מִילָּה דַמְיָיא לְמִילָּה. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. נִכְנָס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ טָמֵא חַיָיב. נִכְנַס טָהוֹר וְנִיטְמָא. בָּא לוֹ בָּאֲרוּכָה חַיָיב וּבִקְצָרָה פָטוּר. וְדִכְוָותָהּ. הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּמֵאָה חַיָיב. הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּהוֹרָה וְאָמְרָה לוֹ. נִטְמֵאתִי. בָּא לוֹ בָּאֲרוּכָה חַיָיב וּבִקְצָרָה פָטוּר. אֵי זוֹ הִיא קְצָרָה שֶׁלּוֹ. יִצֶן. אֵי זוֹ הִיא מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבַּנִּדָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. וְהִזַּרְתֶּם אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִטּוּמְאָתָם. רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן שָׁלַח שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר לַקוֹנִיָיא. אַזְהָרָה לַמְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּמֵאָה מְנַיִין. וּבְעָא כֵיפָה מִיזְרוֹק בַּתְרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מִילָּה דְּמַיְינוּקְיָיא אָמְרִין בִּכְּנִישְׁתָּא בְּכָל יוֹם אַתְּ שְׁאִיל לִי. וְאֶל אִשָּׁה בְּנִידַּת טוּמְאָתָהּ לֹא תִקְרַב לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָתָהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לָא צְרִיכָא לֵיהּ הָדָא. וְלֵית צוֹרְכָא דְלָא. הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּמֵאָה חַיָיב. הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּהוֹרָה וְאָמְרָה לוֹ. נִטְמֵאתִי. פֵּירַשׁ מִיָּד. מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אֲנָא וְאַתְּ צְרִיכָא לָן. נֵצֵא לַחוּץ וְנִלְמַד. נָפְקִין וְשָׁמְעוּן קָלֵיהּ דְּתַנָּיָיא תַנֵּי כְּהָדָא דְחִזְקִיָּה. וְאִם שָׁכֹב יִשְׁכַּב אִישׁ אוֹתָהּ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּמֵאָה חַיָיב. הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּהוֹרָה וְאָמְרָה לוֹ. נִטְמֵאתִי. פִּירֵשׁ מִיָּד. מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. וּתְהִי נִדָּתָהּ. וַאֲפִילוּ פִירְשָׂה עָלָיו נִדָּתָהּ. מַה יַעֲשֶׁה. רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. יִצֶן. לֹא הִיצֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. קוֹרֵא אֲנִי עָלָיו אַל תִּקְרַב. אַל תִּפְרוֹשׁ. קְרִיבָה פְּרִישָׂה. רַב חוּנָא בְשֵׁם רַב אַבָּא. כְּהָדָא הָאוֹמְרִים קְרַב אֵלֶיךָ אַל תִּגַּע בִּי כִּי קְידַשְׁתִּיךָ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. יְהֵא רוֹאֶה אֶת הַחֶרֶב כִּילּוּ מְחַתֶּכֶת בִּבְשָׂרוֹ. וְכָל עַמָּה רִבִּי זְעִירָא. רִבִּי תַנְחוּמָא בְשֵׁם רַב חוּנָה. יִטּוֹחַ רָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו בַּכּוֹתֶל וִיהֵא מֵיצָן. כְּתִיב וַתֵּשֶׁב בְּאֵיתָן קַשְׁתּוֹ. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחָמָן. נִמְתְּחָה הַקֶּשֶׁת וְחָזְרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. נִתְפַּזֵּר זַרְעוּ וְיָצָא לוֹ בְצִיפָּרְנֵי יָדָיו. וַיָּפוֹזּוּ זְרֹעֵי יָדָיו. רַב חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רַב מַתָּנָה. תָּלָה עֵינָיו וְרָאָה אֵיקוֹנִין שֶׁלְּאָבִינוּ. מִיָּד הֵיצָן. מִידֵי אֲבִיר יַעֲקֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אַף אֵיקוֹנִין שֶׁלְּרָחֵל רָאָה. מִשָּׁם רֹעֶה אֶבֶן יִשְׂרָאֵל.

MISHNAH: They are not liable for a positive commandment or a prohibition in the Temple 5 , whose value depends on the wealth of the offerer. The sacrifices prescribed in Lev. 4 for the High Priest, the Court, the Prince, and private persons, all are of fixed value. It will be argued that both the sacrifice of the Court as also “suspended” sacrifices, those offered for suspected sins, are possible only under circumstances in which the certainly sinning individual would be liable for a fixed-value offering. ; one does not bring a suspended reparation sacrifice for a positive commandment or a prohibition in the Temple. But they are liable for a positive commandment or a prohibition about the menstruating woman; one brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for a positive commandment or a prohibition about the menstruating woman. What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman? Separate from the menstruating woman. The prohibition, do not copulate with a menstruating woman18:19 . . HALAKHAH: “They are not liable for a positive commandment or a prohibition in the Temple,” etc. ( ש ). Cahana said, is it impossible that there was knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end and oblivion in between 5:3 ), one of the cases for such an offering is described as or if he touch a human’s impurity, any impurity that make him impure, and it was hidden from him, and then he knew and was guilty. It is clear that causing damage by impurity is subject to a sacrifice only if there was knowledge of the impurity interrupted by a period of unawareness. Why should it be impossible that this condition be satisfied for one entering the Temple while impure? ? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon objected before Rebbi Mana: Could that be for the teachers? He told him, we have a problem with those entering and you bring us teachers? What about it? Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, commandments, commandments. Since commandments mentioned there are about fixed-value [offerings], here also about fixed-value [offerings] 5:17 ) reads: But if a person sin, violating one of the commandments of the Eternal that are prohibitions; if he is unsure whether he be guilty and have to carry his sin. The introduction to the rules of the fixed-rate purification sacrifices of an individual reads: But if a person of the people of the Land sin inadvertently, violating one of the commandments of the Eternal that are prohibitions, and is guilty. The parallel language implies parallel rules; suspended sacrifices are possible only for suspected sins whose atonement would be covered by the rules of Lev. 4 , not Lev. 5 . A different argument with identical result is in Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Parašah 12(10). . But one never is liable for any positive commandment in the Torah 1(6). ! Rebbi Mattaniah said, we only came to state matters similar to the matter. How is that? If he entered the Temple impure, he is liable 5:2 (taking together Num. 19:20 , Lev. 13:46 , 15:15 ); for the woman after childbirth Lev. 12:4 . The general prohibition covering all impurities is Lev. 15:31 as noted in the next paragraph. . If he entered pure but became impure, if he leaves on a long path he is liable, on a short one not liable 14b . There and in Nazir 3:5 (Note 68 ) it is stated that the person noticing his impurity must leave in less time than is needed to prostrate himself. . Similarly, if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he leaves on a long path he is liable, on a short one not liable 18a , last line in the Wilna ed., objects to a time limit in this case while agreeing with the practice as explained in the next paragraph. . What is his shortcut? He shall cool down. “What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman?” Rebbi Abin said, Keep the Children of Israel away from their impurities 15:31 . The verse continues: Lest they die in their impurities when they defile My abode which is in their midst. This is the positive commandment not to defile the Temple. The verse concludes the chapters on impurities created by the human body (childbirth, skin diseases, male and female venereal diseases, menstruation, and sexual relations with a menstruating woman). Therefore it also is the positive commandment regarding the menstruating woman and is interpreted to forbid sexual relations with a woman close to the expected onset of her menses. The question about the woman experiencing a discharge during sex must refer to an unexpected event. Babli Ševuot 18b , most of the paragraph. . Rebbi Jonathan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose bar Lakonia, from where a warning for one having sex with an impure woman? He wanted to throw a stone after him; he told him, you are asking me something that children recite every day in the synagogue: To a woman in the separation of her impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness . 18:19 . . He answered him, that is not my problem. My only problem is rather “if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure,” if he separates immediately, is he liable? He told him, I and you have the same problem. Let us go out and learn. They went out and heard the voice of a Tanna who stated following Ḥiskiah: If lying a man will lie with her 15:24 . . Not only that if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he separates immediately, is he liable? The verse says, her secretion shall be 15:24 . , even if her secretion starts with him. What should he do? Rav Hoshaia, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, he shall cool down. If he did not cool down? Rebbi Yose said, for him I am reading do not come near . 18:19 . as “do not separate”. Closeness is separation. Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav Abba: Those who say, be close to yourself, do not touch me for I sanctified you 65:5 . Also in the Babli the verse is quoted in support of the interpretation of the root קרב as “to separate”. . Rebbi Zeˋira said, he should imagine that a sword is cutting into his flesh. Is everybody Rebbi Zeˋira? Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Ḥuna: He shall press his fingertips on the wall, then he will cool down 18a . . 49:24 as describing Joseph’s reaction to the advances of Potiphar’s wife, as appendix on the difficulties of eliminating an unwanted erection. Gen. 98(24). It is written: His bow was sitting immobile. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: his bow was spanned and relaxed. Rebbi Abun said, his semen spread out and came out from under his fingernails, the arms of his hands were excited. Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav Mattanah, he lifted his eyes, saw the picture of his father, and cooled down immediately, from the hands of the noble Jacob. Rebbi Abin said, he also saw the picture of Rachel, from there the shepherd, the rock of Israel.

אֵין חַיָיבִין עַל שְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל וְעַל בִּיטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם וְעַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקֳדָשָׁיו. וְהַנָּשִׂיא כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶם דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר הַנָּשִׂיא חַיָיב בְּכוּלָּן חוּץ מִשְּׁמִיעַת קוֹל שֶׁהַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא דָן וְלֹא דָנִין אוֹתוֹ לֹא מֵעִיד וְלֹא מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ: אֵין חַיָיבִין עַל שְׁמִיעַת קוֹל אָלָה כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי. וְאִם דַּל הוּא וְאֵין יָדוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת. אֵת שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לָבוֹא לִידֵי דַלּוּת. יָצָא מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָבוֹא לִידֵי דַלּוּת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. וְהָיָה כִי יֶאְשַׁם לְאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה. אֵת שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב עַל כּוּלָּן חַיָיב עַל מִקְצָתָן. וְאֵת שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל כּוּלָּן אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל מִקְצָתָן. רִבִּי יִצְחָק שָׁאַל. מֵעַתָּה לֹא יִטָּמֵא בְצָרַעַת. שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָבוֹא בְקַלּוֹת וְכֵן דַּלּוּת וְכֵן דַּלֵּי דַּלּוּת. רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה בָעֵי. מֵעַתָּה אִשָּׁה לֹא תְהֵא חַיֶיבֶת עַל בִּיאַת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. אֵין הָאִשָּׁה מִבִיאָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. זֶה קָרְבַּן אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו. זֶה הוּא מֵבִיא. אֵינוּ מֵבִיא עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה אֲחֶרֶת. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא נְדָבָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִין. חוֹבָה אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא נְדָבָה הוּא מֵבִיא. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא שֶׁהַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא מֵעִיד וְלֹא מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ.

MISHNAH: They are not liable for hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta 5:1–4 ; the Mishnah uses the biblical expressions to characterize the different categories. “Hearing of a voice” refers to Lev. 5:1 : If a person sin, for he heard the sound of an imprecation when he is a witness, or saw, or knew; if he does not tell he has to bear his iniquity. If a person is asked by another to testify in his case before the court; he refuses and assents to an oath to the effect that he does not know about the case, if that was a lie he is subject to the variable reparation offering for swearing falsely. “Expression of the lips” (v.4) refers to an oath made by a person on his own initiative but not kept since he forgot about his own oath. This also subjects the maker to the same obligation. Improper handling of impurity because of oblivion is mentioned in vv. 2–3. . The same applies to the Prince, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi Aqiba says, the Prince is liable for all of them except the hearing of a sound since the king does not judge, nor may one judge him; he does not testify, nor may one testify against him 2:3 . He extends the rules created for the non-Davidic kings to all kings. . HALAKHAH: “They are not liable for hearing the sound of an imprecation,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Yose the Galilean is, if he is poor and cannot afford it 14:21 . This is a wrong quote since it refers to the sacrifice of the healed sufferer from skin disease. The expression used in Lev. 5 is וְאִם־לֹ֨א תַגִּ֣יעַ יָדוֹ֮ “if it is out of his reach” for the poor person and וְאִם־לֹא֩ תַשִּׂ֨יג יָד֜וֹ “if he cannot afford” for the poorest. . Somebody who is apt to fall into poverty; this excludes the Anointed 28:38 .) The High Priest is required ( Lev. 21:10 ) to be the richest priest; if he is not, the other priests have to make him so. R. Joseph David Sinzheim ( Yad David on Horaiot ) notes that the High Priest had the choice always to officiate at the burning of incense. Any other priest was given only a once in a lifetime occasion for this ( Mishnah Yoma 2:4 ) since presenting the incense made the presenter rich (explicit in the Babli, implicit in the Yerushalmi, Yoma Halakhah 2:4 , 40a 12). The king naturally has taxing powers. Since king and High Priest are never able to bring a sacrifice according to the rules of the poor ( Lev. 5:7–10 ) or the very poor ( vv. 11–13 ), they are prohibited from ever bringing a sacrifice depending on the offerer’s wealth. who is not apt to fall into poverty. [ They objected: There is the prince who is not apt to fall into poverty.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it shall be if he becomes guilty of any of these 5:5 . . He who can be liable for all of them is liable for part of them; but one who cannot be liable for all of them is not liable for part of them. Rebbi Isaac asked: Then he should not become impure by skin disease since he is not apt (easily and then) [to fall] into poverty or the deepest of poverty. Rav Hoshaia asked: Then a woman should not be liable for entering the Temple. Does the woman not bring 12:6–8 to bring a sacrifice after being impure. ? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Aqiba, this is the offering of Aaron and his sons 6:13 , the daily flour offering of the High Priest, identical in quantity to the variable sacrifice of the very poor. Babli 9a . . This one he brings; he does not bring another tenth of an ephah. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Yasa may he not bring a voluntary offering? He told him, yes. He does not bring an obligatory one; he may bring a voluntary one. So is the Mishnah, “since the king does not testify, nor may one testify against him.”

כָּל מִצְוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָן כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָן חַטָּאת הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא כִשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה וְהַנָּשִׂיא שָׂעִיר וּמָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין מְבִיאִין פָּר. וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ מְבִיאִין שְׂעִירָה. וּבֵית דִּין פַּר וְשָׂעִיר פַר לָעוֹלָה וְשָׂעִיר לַחַטָּאת: אָשָׁם תָּלוּי הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא חַיָיבִין וּמָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. אָשָׁם וַודַּאי הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ חַיָיבִין וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. עַל שְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל וּבִיטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם וְטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקֳדָשָׁיו בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ חַיָיבִין אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל חַיָיב עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקֳדָשָׁיו דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וּמָה הֵן מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר הַנָּשִׂיא מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר: כָּל מִצְוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה כול׳. אָשָׁם תָּלוּי הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא חַיָיבִין כול׳. נֶפֶשׁ. לְרַבּוֹת הַנָּשִׂיא. יַרְבֶּה הַמָּשִׁיחַ. בְחָטְאָה בִּשְׁגָגָה. אֵת שֶׁהוּא בְשִׁגְּגַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה. יָצָא מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְשִׁגְּגַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה. וּכְרִבִּי דוּ אָמַר מָשִׁיחַ בְּשִׁגְּגַת מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא. אֵת שֶׁהוּא בְשִׁגְּגַת מַעֲשֶׂה לְכָל הַדְּבָרִים. יָצָא מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְשִׁגְּגַת מַעֲשֶׂה לְכָל הַדְּבָרִים. נֶפֶשׁ. לְרַבּוֹת הַנָּשִׂיא וּמָשִׁיחַ. הָכָא אַתָּ מַר. לְרַבּוֹת הַנָּשִׂיא. וָכָא אַתָּ מַר. לְרַבּוֹת מָשִׁיחַ. כַּחַטָּאת אָשָׁם. מַה חַטָּאת מְכַפֶּרֶת וּמְמָרֶקֶת. אַף אָשָׁם מְכַפֵּר וּמְמָרֵק. יָצָא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי שֶׁהוּא מְכַפֵּר וּמְשַׁיֵיר. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל חַיָיב עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקֳדָשָׁיו. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. וְהַנָּשִׂיא עַל שְׁמִיעַת קוֹל. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל. הָא אִם יָצָא אֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל. רִבִּי אַשִּׁיָאן רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא מַקְשֵׁי. וְהָכְתִיב אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה זוֹנָה אֶת אֵלֶּה לֹא יַקָּח. הָא אִם לָקַח אֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל. מַאי כְדוֹן. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה. וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל. אֵת שֶׁקָּרְבָּנוֹ שָׁוֶה לַקָּהָל. יָצָא מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁלֹּא שָׁוֶה קָרְבָּנוֹ לַקָּהָל. הָתִיבוֹן. הֲרֵי נָשִׂיא לֹא שָׁוֶוה קָרְבָּנוֹ לַקָּהָל. שָׁוֶה בְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. הֲרֵי אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים לֹא שָׁווּ בְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. שָׁווּ בִשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָׁנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן בַּר שָׁלוֹם. שָׁווּ בְמַתָּן דָּמִים בַּחוּץ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי כְרִיתוֹ. רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה בָעֵי. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ בִקְבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. מִיסְבּוֹר סְבַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִכָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה. אֶלָּא כְהֶדְיוֹט עָשִׁיר עֲבִיד לֵיהּ רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אִין כְּהֶדְיוֹט עָשִׁיר עֲבִיד לֵיהּ רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אֲפִילוּ עַל שְׁמִיעַת קוֹל וְעַל בִּיטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם. דְּתַנֵּי. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וַחֲכָמִים עַל שְׁמִיעַת קוֹל וְעַל בִּיטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר אֶלָּא שְׂעִירָה. וְעַל מַה נֶחְלְקוּ. עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקֳדָשָׁיו. שֶׁרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא בְהִיכָּרֵת לָמָּה אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר אֶלָּא שְׂעִירָה. הָתִיבוֹן. הֲרֵי מָשִׁיחַ וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֲרֵי אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר אֶלָּא שְׂעִירָה.

MISHNAH: For all commandments of the Torah where one is liable to extirpation for willful infraction and a purification sacrifice for unintentional infraction, the individual brings a sheep or a she-goat. 4:28 , 32 . , the Prince a he-goat. 4:23 , and the Anointed or the Court bring a bull. For idolatry the individual, the Prince, and the Anointed bring a she-goat, the Court bring a bull as elevation offering and a goat as purification sacrifice 15:22–25 . . For a suspended reparation sacrifice the individual and the Prince are liable but the Anointed and the Court are not liable. For a certain reparation sacrifice the individual, and the Prince, and the Anointed are liable but the Court is not liable. 5:20–26 ), larceny of sancta ( Lev. 5:14–16 ), the semi-manumitted slave girl ( Lev . 19:20–22 ), the nazir ( Num. 6:12 ), and the healed sufferer from skin disease ( Lev . 14:1–32 ). Since no extirpation is involved, the Court is not liable for a sacrifice in case they rule wrongly in one of these matters. . For hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, the Court is not liable, the individual, and the Prince, and the Anointed are liable but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, the words of Rebbi Simeon 28:38 .) The High Priest is required ( Lev. 21:10 ) to be the richest priest; if he is not, the other priests have to make him so. R. Joseph David Sinzheim ( Yad David on Horaiot ) notes that the High Priest had the choice always to officiate at the burning of incense. Any other priest was given only a once in a lifetime occasion for this ( Mishnah Yoma 2:4 ) since presenting the incense made the presenter rich (explicit in the Babli, implicit in the Yerushalmi, Yoma Halakhah 2:4 , 40a 12). The king naturally has taxing powers. Since king and High Priest are never able to bring a sacrifice according to the rules of the poor ( Lev. 5:7–10 ) or the very poor ( vv. 11–13 ), they are prohibited from ever bringing a sacrifice depending on the offerer’s wealth. . What do they bring? A variable sacrifice. Rebbi Eliezer says, the Prince brings a goat. HALAKHAH: “For all commandments of the Torah,” etc. Halakhah 8: “For a suspended sacrifice the individual and the Prince are liable,” etc. A person, to include the Prince. 5:17 , the introduction to the rules for the suspended reparation sacrifice. . Should it include the Anointed? “ And sinned inadvertently. 5:15 . There are two problems with this quote: The first that it is a misquote, it reads וְחָֽטְאָה֙ בִּשְׁגָגָ֔ה not בְחָֽטְאָה֙ בִּשְׁגָגָ֔ה. This is easily explainable since in talmudic times under the influence of Greek every ב sounded like v . The serious problem is that the quote is from the paragraph detailing the rules of the fixed reparation sacrifice for larceny committed with sancta. It seems that the quote from Lev. 5:17 refers to the full text וְאִם־נֶ֙פֶשׁ֙ in addition, if a person . . which in Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 12(1) is explained as meaning that the rules of the suspended reparation sacrifice, vv. 17–19 are an appendix to the rules of the reparation sacrifice for larceny involving sancta, vv. 14–16. ” Any depending on acting inadvertently. This excludes the Anointed who is not depending on acting inadvertently. But following Rebbi who said, the Anointed is depending on acting inadvertently? One dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. This excludes the Anointed who is not dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. A person, to include the Prince and the Anointed 5:20 , the introduction to the rules for the reparation sacrifice for monetary offenses. . Here you say, to include the prince, and there you say, to include the Anointed? Like the purification sacrifices is the reparation sacrifice 7:7 . . Just as the purification sacrifice atones and wipes clean, also the reparation sacrifice atones and wipes clean. This excludes the suspended reparation sacrifice which atones but leaves a residue. So is the Mishnah: “but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, everybody’s opinion, and neither is the Prince for hearing a sound, the words of Rebbi Simeon.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and the Sanctuary he shall not leave, nor desecrate. Therefore, if he left, he would not desecrate 21:12 . The argument seems to be: If the High Priest does not leave the Sanctuary, he has no occasion to desecrate it. Therefore the verse is read as: and the Sanctuary he shall not leave; he will not desecrate. The implication would be that the High Priest not only is exempt from bringing a sacrifice (which is a dubious distinction since it denies him a means of atonement) but his infraction of the Sanctuary’s purity does not need atonement. . Rebbi Ashian, Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Abun bar Cahana found a difficulty. Is it not written, a widow, or a divorcee, or a desecrated, a harlot, these he shall not marry, therefore if he married he would not desecrate 21:13 . The next verse gives the reason for the prohibition: So he may not desecrate his descendants. Since the child of a Cohen from a woman forbidden to him by the special rules of the priesthood is desecrated, R. Johanan’s interpretation of v. 12 is shown to be unacceptable. ? What about it? Ḥizqiah said, this person would be extirpated from the community 19:19 . The entire Chapter deals with the preservation of the purity of the Sanctuary ( Sifry Num. 129). . One whose sacrifice is identical to that of the community. This excludes the Anointed whose sacrifice is not equal to that of the community. They objected, is not also the Prince’s sacrifice not equal to that of the community? It is equal on the day of Atonement 16 ) cf. Note 16 . The first one for himself and his family; the second for his fellow priests and their families, and the third a double offering for the people. There the king (unless he is a usurping High Priest and king) is included with the people. . But his brothers the priests are not equal on the day of Atonement! They are equal on the other days of the year. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, they are equal in that the blood is given outside. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer said this only because of his extirpation. Rebbi Hoshaia asked: If so, then even for a fixed [sacrifice]? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hoshaia is of the opinion that he is uprooted from the entire paragraph; but Rebbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner. Rebbi Mana said, if Rebbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner, then also for hearing a sound, or expression of the lips 5:1–4 ; the Mishnah uses the biblical expressions to characterize the different categories. “Hearing of a voice” refers to Lev. 5:1 : If a person sin, for he heard the sound of an imprecation when he is a witness, or saw, or knew; if he does not tell he has to bear his iniquity. If a person is asked by another to testify in his case before the court; he refuses and assents to an oath to the effect that he does not know about the case, if that was a lie he is subject to the variable reparation offering for swearing falsely. “Expression of the lips” (v.4) refers to an oath made by a person on his own initiative but not kept since he forgot about his own oath. This also subjects the maker to the same obligation. Improper handling of impurity because of oblivion is mentioned in vv. 2–3. , as it was stated: Rebbi (Eleazar) [Eliezer] and the Sages did not differ about hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, that he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat. About what did they differ? About impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, where Rebbi Eliezer says since he is subject to extirpation why should he not bring a male goat instead of a she-goat? They objected: Is there not the Anointed in the case of idolatry where he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat 15 , the argument made for R. Eliezer does not hold. In addition,; the she-goat of Lev. 5 is a reparation sacrifice but his he-goat of Lev. 43 a purification sacrifice. .