## Horayot Daf 7b

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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ מוּפְלִין שְׁנֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says:** The reference is to a case **where both** the anointed priest and the court, i.e., the judges, **were distinguished** Torah scholars with the authority to issue rulings.


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

סָבַר אַבָּיֵי לְמֵימַר: חָטָא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעָשָׂה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? דְּיָתְבִי בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת וְקָא מוֹרוּ בִּתְרֵי אִיסּוּרֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אַטּוּ שְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת גּוֹרְמִין? אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ יָתְבִי בְּחַד מָקוֹם, וְכֵיוָן דְּקָא מוֹרוּ בִּתְרֵי אִיסּוּרֵי – חָטָא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Abaye thought to say** that with regard to the cases in the mishna: If the anointed priest **sinned by himself and performed** a transgression **by himself, what are the circumstances?** It is a case **where** the priest and the court **were convened in two** different **places and issuing rulings with regard to two** different **prohibitions. Rava said to** Abaye: **Is that to say** that the fact that there are **two places determines** that he sinned by himself? **Rather,** it is **even** in a case where the High Priest and the court **are convened in one place. But since they are issuing rulings with regard to two** different **prohibitions, it is** a case where the anointed priest **sinned by himself.**


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

פְּשִׁיטָא: הוּא בְּחֵלֶב וְהֵן בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – חָטָא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוּא, דְּהָא חֲלוּקִין בְּטַעְמַיְיהוּ, וַחֲלוּקִין בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹת. דְּהוּא בְּפַר, וְהֵן בְּפַר וְשָׂעִיר – דְּהָא קָא מַיְיתוּ הָנֵי שָׂעִיר, וְהוּא לָא מַיְיתֵי. וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הוּא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהֵן בְּחֵלֶב, דַּחֲלוּקִין בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן [לִגְמָרֵי] – דְּהוּא שְׂעִירָה, וְאִינְהוּ פַּר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: It is **obvious** that in a case where the anointed priest issued a ruling **with regard to** forbidden **fat and** the judges issued a ruling **with regard to idol worship, it is** a case where the anointed priest **sinned by himself. As** in this case the rulings **are distinct in** terms of **their reasons,** as each ruling is based on a different Torah source, **and they are** also **distinct in** terms of **their offerings, since** the priest achieves atonement **with a bull** as a sin-offering, **and** the judges achieve atonement **with a bull and a goat** as a sin-offering for unwitting idol worship, **as these** judges **bring a goat and** the priest **does not bring** a goat. **And all the more so** in a case where the anointed priest issued a ruling **with regard to idol worship and** the judges issued a ruling **with regard to** forbidden **fat, it is** a case where the anointed priest sinned by himself, **as** these rulings **are totally distinct in** terms of **their offerings, since** the priest brings **a female goat** as a sin-offering **and** the judges bring **a bull.**


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

אֶלָּא הוּא בְּחֵלֶב הַמְכַסֶּה אֶת הַקֶּרֶב, וְהֵן בְּחֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַדַּקִּין, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: אַף עַל גַּב דְּקׇרְבָּנָן שָׁוֶה, כֵּיוָן דְּמִתְּרֵי קְרָאֵי קָאָתוּ, הָא פְּלִיגִין בְּטַעְמַיְיהוּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא שֵׁם חֵלֶב אֶחָד הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in a case where the anointed priest issued a ruling **with regard to** forbidden **fat that covers the innards,** for example, **and** the judges issued a ruling **with regard to** forbidden **fat that is on the small intestines, what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say: Although their offerings are equal,** nevertheless, **since it is from two** different **verses** that the prohibitions **come,** the rulings **are distinct in** terms of **their reasons? Or perhaps, the category of** forbidden **fat is one** designation, and all types of forbidden fat are considered one transgression.


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

אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר שֵׁם חֵלֶב אֶחָד הוּא, הוּא בְּחֵלֶב וְהֵן בְּדָם, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: בְּטַעְמַיְיהוּ הָא פְּלִיגִין, אוֹ דִלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁוִין בְּקׇרְבָּן בָּתַר קׇרְבָּן אָזְלִינַן? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **If you say** that **the category of** forbidden **fat is one** designation, then in a case where the priest issues a ruling **with regard to** forbidden **fat and** the judges issue a ruling **with regard to blood, what is** the *halakha*? **Do we say they are distinct in** terms of **their reasons,** as each prohibition has a different Torah source? **Or perhaps, since** forbidden **fat and blood are equal in** terms of the atonement **offering** that one is liable to bring for unwitting consumption, **we follow the offering,** so that the rulings of the priest and the judges are considered one ruling? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין חַיָּיבִין עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵּים מִקְצָת וְכוּ׳. מְנָלַן דְּעַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵּים מִקְצָת? כִּדְאָמְרִינַן בְּאִידַּךְ פִּירְקִין: ״וְנֶעֱלַם דָּבָר״ – ״דָּבָר״ – וְלֹא כָּל הַגּוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara analyzes the *halakhot* stated in the mishna: **As the court is not liable unless** the judges **issue a ruling to nullify part** of a mitzva **and to sustain part** of that mitzva. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive **that** there is no liability **unless** the judges **issue a ruling to nullify part** of a mitzva **and to sustain part** of it? The Gemara answers: It is **as we say in the other chapter** of this tractate (3b): From the verse: **“And the matter is hidden”** (Leviticus 4:13), it is derived that there is liability if only **a matter,** a single detail, is hidden, **but not** if **the entire essence** of a mitzva is hidden.


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

וְכֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם״, הֲרֵי מָשִׁיחַ כְּצִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And likewise** with regard to the ruling of **the anointed** priest. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? It is derived from a verse, **as it is written:** “If the anointed priest shall sin **so as to bring guilt upon the people”** (Leviticus 4:3), indicating that the status of **an anointed** priest **is like** that of the general **public.**


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

וְלֹא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כּוּ׳. מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: לְפִי שֶׁיָּצְאָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָדוּן בְּעַצְמָהּ, יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין עַל עֲקִירַת מִצְוָה כּוּלָּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **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 mitzva and to sustain part of it. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? It is derived **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **Due to** the fact **that idol worship left** the category of unwitting transgressions, **to be discussed by itself** (see Numbers, chapter 15), one **might** have thought **that** the court and the anointed priest **would be liable** even **for nullifying the mitzva in its entirety.**


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

נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״מֵעֵינֵי״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״מֵעֵינֵי״. מָה לְהַלָּן בְּבֵית דִּין, אַף כָּאן נָמֵי בְּבֵית דִּין. וּמָה לְהַלָּן ״דָּבָר״ וְלֹא כׇּל הַגּוּף, אַף כָּאן נָמֵי ״דָּבָר״ וְלֹא כׇּל הַגּוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, the term **“from the eyes of” is stated here,** with regard to idol worship (Numbers 15:24), **and** the term **“from the eyes of” is stated there,** with regard to an unwitting communal sin-offering for all other mitzvot (Leviticus 4:13). **Just as there** the reference is to nullifying the mitzva **in court, so too here,** the reference is to nullifying the mitzva **in court. And just as there,** with regard to an unwitting communal sin-offering, the reference is to nullifying **a matter, but not the entire essence, so too here,** the reference is to nullifying **a matter, but not the entire essence.**


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

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה, וְכֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ, וְלֹא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – אֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The court is liable only for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter,** leading to an erroneous ruling, together **with unwitting** performance **of the action** by the general public on the basis of that ruling. **And likewise, the anointed** priest is liable only for an erroneous ruling and his unwitting performance of an action on the basis of that ruling. **And** the court and the priest are liable for a ruling **with regard to idol worship only for absence** of awareness **of the matter,** leading to an erroneous ruling, together **with unwitting** performance **of the action** on the basis of that ruling.


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

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״יִשְׁגּוּ״ – יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין עַל שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִשְׁגּוּ וְנֶעֱלַם דָּבָר״, אֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the *halakha* that the court is liable only for absence of awareness of the matter together with unwitting performance of an action, the Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? It is derived from a verse, **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita* that it is stated: “And if the entire congregation of Israel **shall act unwittingly”** (Leviticus 4:13). One **might** have thought **that they will be liable** to bring a bull **for** every case of **unwitting** performance **of an action.** Therefore, **the verse states: “Shall act unwittingly, and the matter was hidden”** (Leviticus 4:13), from which it is derived that the court is **liable only for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter,** leading to an erroneous ruling, together **with unwitting** performance **of an action** on the basis of that ruling.


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

וְכֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״לְאַשְׁמַת הַעָם״, הֲרֵי מָשִׁיחַ כְּצִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **And likewise the anointed** priest. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? It is derived from a verse, **as it is written** with regard to the anointed priest: “If the anointed priest shall sin **so as to bring guilt upon the people”** (Leviticus 4:3), indicating that the status of **an anointed** priest **is like** that of the general **public.**


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

וְלֹא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה. מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **And** the court and the priest are liable for a ruling **with regard to idol worship only for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter,** leading to an erroneous ruling, together **with unwitting** performance **of an action** on the basis of that ruling. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this?


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

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: לְפִי שֶׁיָּצְאָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָדוּן בְּעַצְמָהּ, יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין עַל שִׁגְגַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״מֵעֵינֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״מֵעֵינֵי״, מָה לְהַלָּן אֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה, אַף כָּאן אֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is derived **as the Sages taught: Due to** the fact **that idol worship left** the category of unwitting transgressions **to be discussed by itself** (see Numbers, chapter 15), one **might** have thought **that** the court and the priest **would be liable for** a mere **unwitting** performance of **the action.** Therefore, the term **“from the eyes of” is stated here,** with regard to idol worship (Numbers 15:24), **and “from the eyes of” is stated there,** with regard to an unwitting communal sin-offering for all other mitzvot (Leviticus 4:13). **Just as there they are liable only for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter,** leading to an erroneous ruling, together **with unwitting** performance **of an action** on the basis of that ruling, **so too here, they are liable only for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter,** leading to an erroneous ruling, together **with unwitting** performance **of an action** on the basis of that ruling.


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

וְאִילּוּ מָשִׁיחַ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָא קָתָנֵי, מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? רַבִּי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **Whereas,** the *halakha* that the status of **an anointed** priest who issues a ruling **with regard to idol worship** is like that of the court **is not taught** in the mishna. **Whose** opinion is expressed in **the mishna? It is** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Horayot 7b:16
[Horayot 7b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7b:16)

דְּתַנְיָא: מָשִׁיחַ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר. וְשָׁוִין שֶׁבִּשְׂעִירָה, וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **an anointed** priest unwittingly engages **in idol worship, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** He brings an offering **for unwitting** performance **of an action,** like any other Jew. **And the Rabbis say:** He brings an offering **for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter,** leading to an erroneous ruling. **And they agree that** the atonement of an anointed priest is **with a female goat** as a sin-offering, **and they agree that he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering.** Since the mishna omitted the *halakha* of an anointed priest who engages in idol worship, apparently it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that the status of the anointed priest in this regard is like that of any other Jew.


###### Horayot 7b:17
[Horayot 7b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7b:17)

וְתִסְבְּרַאּ: בִּזְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וּבְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת מִי קָתָנֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **And** how can **you understand** the mishna in that manner? **In** the mishna (8a) that teaches that the court is not liable to bring an offering for absence of awareness of the matter unless they issue a ruling with regard to a matter for **whose intentional** violation one is liable to receive **excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*] and** for **whose unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering, does it teach** the *halakha* concerning an anointed priest in the latter clause of that mishna?


###### Horayot 7b:18
[Horayot 7b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7b:18)

אֶלָּא תָּנֵי הָא הוּא הַדִּין לְהָא. הָכָא נָמֵי תְּנָא הָא וְהוּא הַדִּין לְהָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rather,** the *tanna* on 8a **teaches this** *halakha*, that in the first clause the anointed priest has the same *halakha* as the court, and **the same is true with regard to that** *halakha*, i.e., that in the latter clause the anointed priest has the same *halakha* as the court. **Here too,** the *tanna* **taught this** *halakha*, that in the first clause the anointed priest has the same *halakha* as the court, **and the same is true with regard to that** *halakha*, i.e., that in the latter clause the anointed priest has the same *halakha* as the court. Therefore, there is no proof that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.


###### Horayot 7b:19
[Horayot 7b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7b:19)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִפֶּר הַכֹּהֵן עַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַשֹּׁגֶגֶת בְּחֶטְאָה בִשְׁגָגָה״. ״הַנֶּפֶשׁ״ – זֶה מָשִׁיחַ, ״הַשֹּׁגֶגֶת״ – זֶה נָשִׂיא, ״בְּחֶטְאָה בִּשְׁגָגָה״ – רַבִּי סָבַר: חֵטְא זֶה בִּשְׁגָגָה יְהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi? It is as **the verse states** with regard to idol worship: **“And the priest shall atone for the soul that acted unwittingly, when he sins unwittingly”** (Numbers 15:28). With regard to the term **“the soul,” that is** referring to **an anointed** priest; with regard to the term **“that acted unwittingly,” that is** referring to **a king;** and due to the phrase **“when he sins unwittingly,” Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds this sin shall be** one performed **unwittingly,** not the result of absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling.


###### Horayot 7b:20
[Horayot 7b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7b:20)

וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִי שֶׁחַטָּאתוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה, יָצָא מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵין חַטָּאתוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה אֶלָּא בְּהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis hold:** This phrase serves to teach that the *halakha* that this offering is brought for an unwitting sin applies to **one whose sin-offering** for all other transgressions is **for an unwitting** act. This serves to **exclude an anointed** priest, **whose** liability to bring **a sin-offering for an unwitting** act is **only for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter,** leading to an erroneous ruling, **together** with unwitting performance of an action on the basis of that ruling.


###### Horayot 7b:21
[Horayot 7b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/7b:21)

וְשָׁוִין שֶׁבִּשְׂעִירָה כְּיָחִיד. מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת״ – אֶחָד יָחִיד וְאֶחָד נָשִׂיא וְאֶחָד מָשִׁיחַ – כּוּלָּם בִּכְלַל ״נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת״ הֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches: **And they agree that** the atonement of an anointed priest is **with a female goat** as a sin-offering, **as** in the case of an ordinary **individual.** The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, **as the verse states: “And if one soul** sins unwittingly, then he shall offer a female goat of the first year as a sin-offering” (Numbers 15:27). An ordinary **individual, a king, and an anointed** priest are all liable to bring an offering, as **they are all** included **in the category of “one soul.”**