## Horayot Daf 7a

###### Horayot 7a:1
[Horayot 7a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:1)

צִבּוּר מוּצָא מִכְּלַל יָחִיד, וּמָשִׁיחַ מוּצָא מִכְּלַל יָחִיד. מָה צִבּוּר אֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה, אַף מָשִׁיחַ לֹא יְהֵא חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The general **public is removed from the category of an individual,** as an individual brings a ewe or female goat as a sin-offering, whereas when the general public sins the sin-offering is a bull. **And** likewise, **an anointed** priest **is removed from the category of an individual,** as his sin-offering is also a bull. Therefore, **just as** the general **public is liable only for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter** by the court together **with unwitting** performance **of an action** by the people, **so too, an anointed** priest **will be liable only for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter** together **with unwitting** performance **of an action.**


###### Horayot 7a:2
[Horayot 7a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:2)

אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נָשִׂיא מוּצָא מִכְּלַל יָחִיד, וּמָשִׁיחַ מוּצָא מִכְּלַל יָחִיד. מָה נָשִׂיא מֵבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה בְּלֹא הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר, אַף מָשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה בְּלֹא הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or** perhaps **go this way** and draw a different analogy: **A king [*Nasi*] is removed from the category of an individual,** as his sin-offering is a goat. **And an anointed** priest **is removed from the category of an individual.** Therefore, **just as a king brings** an offering **for unwitting** performance **of an action,** even **without absence** of awareness **of** the **matter** leading to an erroneous ruling, like any individual liable to bring a sin-offering, **so too, an anointed** priest **brings** an offering **for unwitting** performance **of an action,** even **without absence** of awareness **of** the **matter** leading to an erroneous ruling. It is possible to liken the anointed priest to either the general public or to the king.


###### Horayot 7a:3
[Horayot 7a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:3)

נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה? צִבּוּר – בְּפַר וְאֵין מְבִיאִין אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וּמָשִׁיחַ – בְּפַר וְאֵין מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. מָה צִבּוּר אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה, אַף מָשִׁיחַ לֹא יְהֵא חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara considers these two comparisons: **Let us see to which** of them, the general public or the king, an anointed priest **is similar.** The general **public** achieves atonement **with a bull and does not bring a provisional guilt-offering, and an anointed** priest achieves atonement **with a bull and does not bring a provisional guilt-offering.** Therefore one might say: **Just as** the general **public is liable only for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter** by the court together **with unwitting** performance **of an action** by the people, **so too, an anointed** priest **will be liable only for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter** together **with unwitting** performance **of an action.**


###### Horayot 7a:4
[Horayot 7a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:4)

אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נָשִׂיא מֵבִיא שְׂעִירָה בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּמֵבִיא אָשָׁם וַדַּאי, וּמָשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא שְׂעִירָה בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּמֵבִיא אָשָׁם וַדַּאי. מָה נָשִׂיא מֵבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה, אַף מָשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or** perhaps **go this way** and draw a different analogy: **The king brings a female goat for** unwitting **idol worship and brings a definite guilt-offering** for certain other transgressions where there is liability to bring a guilt-offering, e.g., misuse of consecrated property and robbery, **and an anointed** priest **brings a female goat for** unwitting **idol worship and brings a definite guilt-offering** for the same transgressions as the king. This is in contrast to the general public, which brings a bull as a sin-offering for unwitting idol worship and does not bring a definite guilt-offering at all. Therefore conclude: **Just as a king brings** an offering **for unwitting** performance **of an action** without absence of awareness of the matter, like any individual liable to bring a sin-offering, **so too, an anointed** priest **brings** an offering **for unwitting** performance **of an action** without absence of awareness of the matter.


###### Horayot 7a:5
[Horayot 7a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:5)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם״, הֲרֵי הוּא מָשִׁיחַ כְּצִבּוּר. מָה צִבּוּר אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה, אַף מָשִׁיחַ אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since either conclusion can be derived logically, another source is necessary. Therefore, **the verse states:** “If the anointed priest shall sin **so as to bring guilt upon the people”** (Leviticus 4:3), indicating that the status of the **anointed** priest **is like** that of the general **public.** Therefore, **just as** the general **public brings** an offering **only for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter** by the court **with unwitting** performance **of an action** by the people, **so too, an anointed** priest **brings** an offering **only for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter with unwitting** performance **of an action.**


###### Horayot 7a:6
[Horayot 7a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:6)

אֵימָא: מָה צִבּוּר הוֹרָה וְעָשׂוּ אַחֲרָיו בְּהוֹרָאָתוֹ – חַיָּיבִין, אַף מָשִׁיחַ כְּשֶׁהוֹרָה וְעָשׂוּ אַחֲרָיו בְּהוֹרָאָתוֹ – יְהֵא חַיָּיב! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיב עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא״, עַל מָה שֶׁחָטָא הוּא מֵבִיא, וְאֵין מֵבִיא עַל מָה שֶׁחָטְאוּ אֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges the comparison: Based on the comparison between the anointed priest and the general public, why not **say: Just as** with regard to the general **public,** if the court **issued a ruling and** the general public **performed** the transgression **after its** ruling and **in accordance with its ruling,** the court is **liable, so too,** with regard to **an anointed** priest, **when he issued a ruling and** the general public **performed** the transgression **after his** ruling and **in accordance with his ruling, he should be liable.** Therefore, **the verse states** with regard to the anointed priest: **“Then he shall offer for his sin that he has sinned”** (Leviticus 4:3), from which it is derived: **He brings** an offering **for that** sin **that he sinned** on the basis of his ruling, **but he does not bring** an offering **for that** sin **that others sinned** on the basis of his ruling.


###### Horayot 7a:7
[Horayot 7a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:7)

אָמַר מָר: מָשִׁיחַ בְּפַר וְאֵין מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. מְנָא לֵיהּ דְּאֵין מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates on that which **the Master said: An anointed** priest achieves atonement **with a bull and does not bring a provisional guilt-offering.** The Gemara asks: **From where does** the *tanna* derive **that** an anointed priest **does not bring a provisional guilt-offering?**


###### Horayot 7a:8
[Horayot 7a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:8)

דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר שָׁגָג״, מִי שֶׁחַטָּאתוֹ וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ שָׁוָה, יָצָא מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵין שִׁגְגָתוֹ וְחַטָּאתוֹ שָׁוָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם״, הֲרֵי הוּא מָשִׁיחַ כְּצִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, **as it is written** with regard to the *halakhot* of the guilt-offering: **“And the priest shall atone for him for his unwitting act that he performed unwittingly”** (Leviticus 5:18), from which it is derived that this *halakha* applies only to **one whose transgression and his unwitting** action **are equal,** i.e., an ordinary person, whose unwitting act is the very transgression that he performed unwittingly. This serves to **exclude an anointed** priest, **whose unwitting** action **and his transgression are not equal,** as his unwitting act is the erroneous ruling and he is liable to bring an offering only if he performed the transgression on the basis of that ruling. **As it is written** about the anointed priest: **“So as to bring guilt upon the people”** (Leviticus 4:3), indicating that the status of the **anointed** priest **is like** that of the general **public.**


###### Horayot 7a:9
[Horayot 7a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:9)

״לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם״, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא אָשָׁם כְּדִי נַסְבַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this proof: How can the Gemara base the *halakha* on an interpretation of the verse: **“So as to bring guilt upon the people”? To this point,** the *tanna* of the *baraita* **did not state** this verse. The *tanna* first states that the anointed priest does not bring a provisional guilt-offering and only then cites the verse from which he proves the *halakha* that an anointed priest brings an offering only for absence of awareness of the matter together with unwitting performance of an action. **Rather,** he stated the *halakha* of the provisional guilt-offering **for no reason.** Although the *halakha* is correct, there was no reason to cite it in the *baraita*.


###### Horayot 7a:10
[Horayot 7a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** הוֹרָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעָשָׂה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ – מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. הוֹרָה עִם הַצִּבּוּר וְעָשָׂה עִם הַצִּבּוּר – מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עִם הַצִּבּוּר, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין חַיָּיבִין עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵּים מִקְצָת, וְכֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ, וְלֹא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵּים מִקְצָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If the anointed priest **issued a ruling by himself and performed** a transgression **by himself, he achieves atonement by himself** by bringing a bull as his sin-offering. If **he issued a ruling with the** general **public,** i.e., the Sanhedrin, **and performed** a transgression **with the** general **public,** i.e., the Jewish people, **he achieves atonement with the** general **public. As, the court is not liable unless** the judges **issue a ruling to nullify part** of a commandment **and to sustain part** of that commandment, **and likewise** with regard to the ruling of **the anointed** priest. **And** the court and the priest are **not** liable for a ruling **with regard to idol worship unless they issue a ruling to nullify part** of that commandment **and to sustain part** of it.


###### Horayot 7a:11
[Horayot 7a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:11)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוֹרָה עִם הַצִּבּוּר וְעָשָׂה עִם הַצִּבּוּר, יָכוֹל יָבִיא פַּר לְעַצְמוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** Concerning the *halakha* that there is a difference between an unwitting transgression that the anointed priest performs by himself and one that he performs with the general public, the Gemara asks: **From where is this matter** derived? The Gemara explains: It is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: If the anointed priest **issued a ruling with the** general **public and performed** a transgression **with the** general **public,** one **might** have thought that he is liable to **bring a bull** as a sin-offering **for himself.**


###### Horayot 7a:12
[Horayot 7a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:12)

וְדִין הוּא: נָשִׂיא מוּצָא מִכְּלַל יָחִיד וּמָשִׁיחַ מוּצָא מִכְּלַל יָחִיד, מָה נָשִׂיא, חָטָא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ – מֵבִיא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, חָטָא עִם הַצִּבּוּר – מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עִם הַצִּבּוּר. אַף מָשִׁיחַ, חָטָא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ – מֵבִיא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, חָטָא עִם הַצִּבּוּר – מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עִם הַצִּבּוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** there **is a logical inference** to support this: **A king is removed from the category of an individual and an anointed** priest **is removed from the category of an individual,** as each brings a different sin-offering than an individual. **Just as** with regard to **a king,** if **he sinned by himself he brings** his sin-offering of a goat **by himself,** and if **he sinned with the** general **public, he achieves atonement with the** general **public, so too,** with regard to **an anointed** priest, if **he sinned by himself he brings** his sin-offering of a bull **by himself,** and if **he sinned with the** general **public, he achieves atonement with the** general **public.**


###### Horayot 7a:13
[Horayot 7a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:13)

לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּנָשִׂיא – שֶׁכֵּן מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עִם הַצִּבּוּר בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. תֹּאמַר בְּמָשִׁיחַ – שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עִם הַצִּבּוּר בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* rejects this: **No, if you said with regard to a king** that he achieves atonement with the general public, that is logical, **as he achieves atonement with the** general **public on Yom Kippur. Shall you** also **say** the same **with regard to an anointed** priest, **who does not achieve atonement with the** general **public on Yom Kippur** but rather brings his own atonement offering?


###### Horayot 7a:14
[Horayot 7a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:14)

הוֹאִיל וְאֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עִם הַצִּבּוּר בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, יָכוֹל יָבִיא פַּר לְעַצְמוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא״, הָא כֵּיצַד? חָטָא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ – מֵבִיא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, חָטָא עִם הַצִּבּוּר – מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עִם הַצִּבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Since he does not achieve atonement with the** general **public on Yom Kippur,** one **might** have thought that **he will bring a bull for himself** even if he unwittingly performed a transgression with the general public. Therefore, **the verse states:** “Then he shall offer **for his sin that he has sinned”** (Leviticus 4:3), indicating that he sinned alone, not with the general public. **How so?** If **he sinned by himself he brings** his sin-offering of a bull **by himself;** if **he sinned with the** general **public, he achieves atonement with the** general **public.**


###### Horayot 7a:15
[Horayot 7a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7a:15)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּהוּא מוּפְלָא וְהֵם אֵינָן מוּפְלָאִין, פְּשִׁיטָא דְּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, הוֹרָאָה דִּלְהוֹן וְלֹא כְּלוּם. וּבָעֵי אֵתוֹיֵי כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה כֹּל חַד וְחַד! וְאִי דְּאִינּוּן מוּפְלָאִין וְהוּא לָאו מוּפְלָא, אַמַּאי מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ? הָא הוֹרָאָה דִּידֵיהּ וְלֹא כְּלוּם הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **What are the circumstances** of an anointed priest issuing a ruling for himself? **If we say** that it is a case **where** the High Priest **is a distinguished** scholar **and** the judges of the court **are not distinguished** scholars, it is **obvious that he achieves atonement by himself,** as **their ruling is nothing** at all, since they did not consult the generation’s most prominent scholar. **And** accordingly, **each and every one** who performed a transgression **needs to bring a ewe or female goat** as an individual sin-offering. **And** if it is a case **where** the judges **are distinguished** scholars **and he is not a distinguished** scholar, **why does he achieve atonement by himself? Isn’t his ruling nothing at all,** and his transgression is an unwitting performance of an action alone, rather than a transgression performed on the basis of a ruling?