## Kli Yakar on Leviticus Chapter 4

###### Kli Yakar on Leviticus 4:2:1
[Kli Yakar on Leviticus 4:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kli%20Yakar%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:2:1)

**נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא.** מָצִינוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה לְשׁוֹנוֹת בַּחוֹטְאִים: כִּי, אִם, אֲשֶׁר. בְּיָחִיד הַחוֹטֵא כְּתִיב ״נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא״, וּבְרַבִּים הַחוֹטְאִים נֶאֱמַר (ד יג) ״וְאִם כָּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ״, וּבְנָשִׂיא כְּתִיב (ד כב) ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״. וְאָמְרוּ הַמְפָרְשִׁים שֶׁלְּשׁוֹן ״כִּי״ מוֹרֶה יוֹתֵר עַל וַדָּאוּת מִן לְשׁוֹן אִם, וּלְשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר מוֹרֶה יוֹתֵר עַל וַדָּאוּת מִן לְשׁוֹן כִּי. לְפִיכָךְ בְּחֵטְא הָרַבִּים שֶׁהוּא דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי שֶׁרַבִּים יַסְכִּימוּ עַל הַחֵטְא, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״אִם כָּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ״, שֶׁהוּא מוֹרֶה עַל הַסָּפֵק. וְכֵן בְּכֹהֵן מָשׁוּחַ נֶאֱמַר (ד ג) ״אִם הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֶחֱטָא״, כִּי רָחוֹק הוּא וּבִלְתִּי שָׁכִיחַ שֶׁהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשׁוּחַ אוֹ רַבִּים יֶחֱטָאוּ. אֲבָל סְתָם יָחִיד בְּנָקֵל יָבֹא לִידֵי חֵטְא, עַל כֵּן נֶאֱמַר ״נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא״, שֶׁלְּשׁוֹן ״כִּי״ מוֹרֶה עַל דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרוֹב לְוַדַּאי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה כֵן. אֲבָל הַנָּשִׂיא הַמִּתְנַשֵּׂא לְכָל רֹאשׁ וְנוֹהֵג נְשִׂיאָתוֹ בְּרָמָה, מִתּוֹךְ רוּם לְבָבוֹ וַדַּאי יָבֹא לִידֵי חֵטְא, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״, כִּי לְשׁוֹן ״אֲשֶׁר״ מוֹרֶה עַל דָּבָר שֶׁוַּדַּאי יִהְיֶה וְאֵין בּוֹ סָפֵק. וְכֵן תִּמְצָא בְּסֵפֶר הַזֹּהַר וּבְרַבֵּנוּ בְּחַיֵּי וּבְתוֹלְדוֹת יִצְחָק. וְקָשֶׁה לִי עַל זֶה, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (ד כז) ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא״, לָמָּה הִזְכִּיר אֵצֶל הַיָּחִיד פַּעַם לְשׁוֹן ״אִם״ וּפַעַם לְשׁוֹן ״כִּי״? וְעוֹד קָשֶׁה, לָמָּה אָמַר ״נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת״, כִּי בְּאָמְרוֹ ״נֶפֶשׁ״ יָדַעְנוּ שֶׁהִיא אַחַת וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם? וְאִם דֶּרֶךְ הַכָּתוּב לוֹמַר ״נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת״, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה אָמַר ״נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא״ וְלֹא אָמַר אַחַת?

**Sefaria Kli Yakar, 2026 (Claude 3.7, ed. Francis Nataf) ✧:**
**When a soul sins.** We find three expressions regarding sinners: *ki [when/if], im [if], and asher [that/who]*. For an individual sinner, it is written *When/if a soul sins*. For many sinners, it says (4:13) *If the entire congregation of Israel errs*. And regarding a ruler, it is written (4:22) *That a ruler sins*. The commentators have said that the term *ki* indicates more certainty than the term *im*, and the term *asher* indicates more certainty than the term *ki*. Therefore, regarding the sin of the masses, which is something uncommon — for many to agree upon a sin — it says *If the entire congregation of Israel errs*, which indicates doubt. Similarly, regarding the anointed priest, it says (4:3) *If the anointed priest sins*, because it is remote and uncommon for the anointed priest or many people to sin. But an ordinary individual easily comes to sin; therefore it says *When a soul sins*, as the term *ki* indicates something that is almost certain to happen. However, the ruler who lifts himself above everyone and conducts his authority haughtily will certainly come to sin through his pride; therefore it says *That a ruler sins*, for the term *asher* indicates something that will definitely occur without doubt. And so you will find in the Zohar, in Rabbeinu Bachya, and in Toldot Yitzchak.
But I find this difficult because if so, why does it say (4:27) *And if one soul sins* — why does it mention for an individual sometimes the term “im” and sometimes the term “ki”? And furthermore, why does it say *one soul*, since by saying *soul* we know it is one and not two? And if the Scripture’s way is to say *one soul*, then why does it say *When a soul sins* and not say “one”?


###### Kli Yakar on Leviticus 4:2:2
[Kli Yakar on Leviticus 4:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kli%20Yakar%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:2:2)

וְנִרְאֶה לוֹמַר שֶׁבְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם שֶׁכָּל יָחִיד הַחוֹטֵא בִּשְׁגָגָה, חוֹטֵא בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁהוּא רוֹאֶה רַבִּים נִכְשָׁלִים וְאֵינָן נִזְהָרִים בַּדָּבָר הַהוּא, עַל כֵּן הוּא טוֹעֶה לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרֵהוּ עָוֹן בַּדָּבָר, וּמִעוּטָא דְּמִעוּטָא הוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ אֵיזֶה יָחִיד חוֹטֵא אַף בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה רַבִּים נִכְשָׁלִים בַּדָּבָר הַהוּא וְהוּא יָחִיד בַּדָּבָר, וְזֶה דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁכִיחַ וְדַעְתּוֹ חִיצוֹנִית. לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר (ד כז) ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא״, רָצָה לוֹמַר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַחוֹטֵא נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת לְבַד וְלֹא יִהְיֶה לוֹ דִּמְיוֹן וְחָבֵר בֵּין הַבְּרִיּוֹת, זֶה דָּבָר בִּלְתִּי שָׁכִיחַ, עַל כֵּן נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ לְשׁוֹן ״אִם״, הַמּוֹרֶה עַל הַסָּפֵק, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּכֹהֵן מָשׁוּחַ וּבַסַּנְהֶדְרִין. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁאָמַר ״נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחְטָא״ לֹא הִזְכִּיר לְשׁוֹן ״אַחַת״ לְפִי שֶׁזֶּה מְדַבֵּר בְּיָחִיד הַחוֹטֵא בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁרוֹאֶה שֶׁרַבִּים אֵינָן נִזְהָרִים בּוֹ, עַל כֵּן הַדָּבָר שָׁכִיחַ וְקָרוֹב לְוַדַּאי שֶׁגַּם הוּא יִכָּשֵׁל בּוֹ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ לְשׁוֹן ״כִּי״. וְכִדְמוּת רְאָיָה לָזֶה מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא בִשְׁגָגָה מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״, רָצָה לוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא נִבְדָּל בְּחֵטְא זֶה מִן עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה אֲחֵרִים עוֹשִׂים וְעוֹשֶׂה, אֲבָל אֵצֶל לְשׁוֹן ״כִּי״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״.

**Sefaria Kli Yakar, 2026 (Claude 3.7, ed. Francis Nataf) ✧:**
**And it seems to me that it is common in the world that every individual who sins unintentionally,** sins in matters where he sees many people stumbling and not being careful about that matter. Therefore, he errs in saying that no sin will befall him in this matter. And it is an extremely rare minority where you have some individual who sins even in a matter where he does not see many people stumbling in that matter, and he is unique in this behavior. This is something that is not common and his thinking is extraordinary. Therefore, it says, *And if one soul shall sin* (Leviticus 4:27). This means that the sinner would be one soul alone and would have no parallel or companion among the creatures. This is something uncommonly found, therefore the Torah uses the language of *if*, which indicates doubt, similar to what is said regarding the anointed priest and the Sanhedrin. But when it says *a soul that sins*, it does not mention the word “one” because this speaks of an individual who sins in matters where he sees that many are not careful about it. Therefore, the matter is common and it is almost certain that he too will stumble in it, hence the Torah uses the language of *when* [ki]. And as a sort of proof for this is what is written, *and if one soul sins unintentionally, from the people of the land*. This means that he is distinct in this sin from the people of the land, as he does not see others doing it and yet he does it. But with the language of *when* [ki], the phrase *from the people of the land* is not mentioned.


###### Kli Yakar on Leviticus 4:2:3
[Kli Yakar on Leviticus 4:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kli%20Yakar%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:2:3)

וְעַל צַד הָרֶמֶז יֵשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁלְּכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״בִּשְׁגָגָה מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״, לוֹמַר לְךָ דַּוְקָא אֵצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ נֶחְשָׁב לִשְׁגָגָה אֲבָל שִׁגְגַת תַּלְמִיד חָכָם עוֹלָה זָדוֹן, וְהוּא רֶמֶז נָכוֹן. וּמַה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא״ (ה יז) הִזְכִּיר ״אִם״ וְ״כִי״, לְפִי שֶׁזֶּה מְדַבֵּר בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וְהִזְכִּיר בּוֹ לְשׁוֹן ״כִּי״, לְפִי שֶׁמְּדַבֵּר בְּיָחִיד הַקָּרוֹב לְוַדַּאי שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי חֵטְא. אָמְנָם מִצַּד עֶצֶם הַחֵטְא הִזְכִּיר לְשׁוֹן ״אִם״, כִּי חֵטְא כָּזֶה אֵינוֹ שָׁכִיחַ שֶׁיִּהְיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת אַחַת שֶׁל שֻׁמָּן וְכוּ׳. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא״, לְפִי שֶׁמְּדַבֵּר בְּיָחִיד הַפּוֹרֵשׁ עַצְמוֹ מִן הַצִּבּוּר, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״, שֶׁהוּא פּוֹרֵשׁ עַצְמוֹ מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ וְאֵינוֹ יוֹשֵׁב בְּתוֹךְ עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ, כִּי הוּא יָרֵא פֶּן יִלְמֹד מִמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶם, וְאֵינוֹ בָּזֶה קָרוֹב לְוַדַּאי שֶׁיָּבֹא לִידֵי חֵטְא, עַל כֵּן נֶאֱמַר לְשׁוֹן ״אִם״ הַמּוֹרֶה עַל הַסָּפֵק.

**Sefaria Kli Yakar, 2026 (Claude 3.7, ed. Francis Nataf) ✧:**
**And by way of allusion, one could say that this is why it is written “unintentionally from the people of the land.”** To tell you that specifically for the common person it is considered unintentional, but the error of a Torah scholar is considered intentional. This is a proper allusion. And what is written *And if a soul sins* (Leviticus 5:17), it mentions *if* and *when* because this refers to the guilt offering of uncertainty [*asham talui*], and it uses the term *when* because it speaks of an individual who is almost certainly to come to sin. However, regarding the essence of the sin, it uses the term *if*, because such a sin is not common that one would have before him two pieces, one of fat, etc. Another explanation for why it says *And if one soul sins* is because it speaks of an individual who separates himself from the community, as it is written *from the people of the land*, meaning he separates himself from the people of the land and does not dwell among the common people because he fears lest he learn from their deeds. In this case, he is not likely to come to sin, therefore the term *if* is used, indicating doubt.


###### Kli Yakar on Leviticus 4:20:1
[Kli Yakar on Leviticus 4:20:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kli%20Yakar%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:20:1)

**וְנִסְלַח לָהֶם.** מַה שֶּׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר לְשׁוֹן סְלִיחָה בְּכֹהֵן הַמָּשׁוּחַ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִזְכִּיר לְשׁוֹן סְלִיחָה בְּקָהָל וְנָשִׂיא וְיָחִיד, פֵּרֵשׁ הָרַמְבַּ״ן שֶׁלְּרֹב מַעֲלַת הַכֹּהֵן לֹא יִתְכַּפֵּר לְגַמְרֵי, כִּי מַלְאַךְ ה׳ צְבָאוֹת הוּא (מלאכי ב יז) וְגָדוֹל עֲוֹנוֹ מִנְּשֹׁא, עַד שֶׁיִּתְפַּלֵּל וְיִתְחַנֵּן לֵאלֹהָיו. וּמהרי״א כָּתַב שֶׁמַּה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּחַטַּאת הַקָּהָל ״וְנִסְלַח לָהֶם״ קָאֵי עַל הַכֹּהֵן וְעַל הַקָּהָל, וְכוֹלְלָם יַחַד לְפִי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם חָטְאוּ בִּדְבַר הוֹרָאָה שֶׁהִתִּירוּ הָאָסוּר.

**Sefaria Kli Yakar, 2026 (Claude 3.7, ed. Francis Nataf) ✧:**
**“And he shall be forgiven.”** The reason why the language of forgiveness is not mentioned regarding the anointed priest, as it is mentioned regarding the congregation, the leader, and the individual, is explained by Ramban as follows: Due to the priest’s high status, he will not be completely atoned for, because he is *a messenger of the Lord of Hosts* (Malachi 2:7), and his sin is too great to bear until he prays and beseeches his God. And Abarbanel wrote that what is said in the sin offering of the congregation, *and they shall be forgiven*, refers to both the priest and the congregation, including them together because both sinned in the matter of instruction by permitting what is forbidden.


###### Kli Yakar on Leviticus 4:20:2
[Kli Yakar on Leviticus 4:20:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kli%20Yakar%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:20:2)

וְלִי נִרְאֶה שֶׁלְּכָךְ לֹא נֶאֱמַר סְלִיחָה בְּכֹהֵן מָשׁוּחַ, לְפִי שֶׁכָּל הַמַּחֲטִיא הָרַבִּים חֵטְא הָרַבִּים תָּלוּי בּוֹ, וּבְכֹהֵן מָשׁוּחַ נֶאֱמַר ״אִם הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֶחֱטָא לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם״, פֵּרֵשׁ רַשִׁ״י שֶׁחֶטְאוֹ אַשְׁמַת הָעָם הוּא, שֶׁהֵם תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ לְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיהֶם וְנַעֲשָׂה מְקֻלְקָל. וְיוֹתֵר נָכוֹן לְפָרֵשׁ ״לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם״ שֶׁהוּא בִּכְלַל מַחֲטִיא הָרַבִּים, כִּי מִמֶּנּוּ יִרְאוּ וְכֵן יַעֲשׂוּ בְּקַל וָחֹמֶר. עַל כֵּן לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״וְנִסְלַח לוֹ״, כִּי אע״פ שֶׁהַקָּרְבָּן יַסְפִּיק לְהָסִיר מֵעָלָיו חֶטְאוֹ וְסָר עֲוֹנוֹ, מִכָּל מָקוֹם נִשְׁאַר עֲדַיִן רֹשֶׁם חֵטְא הָרַבִּים הַתָּלוּי בּוֹ, וְלָזֶה אֵין סְלִיחָה. וְאַל תְּשִׁיבֵנִי מִמַּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְשׁוֹן סְלִיחָה בְּנָשִׂיא הַחוֹטֵא, הַיְנוּ לְפִי שֶׁאֵין לְמֵדִין מִמֶּנּוּ אֲחֵרִים כְּלָל, וְאַדְּרַבָּא תּוֹלִין חֵטְא בִּנְשִׂיאָתוֹ, לוֹמַר שֶׁבַּעֲבוּר שֶׁנָּהַג נְשִׂיאָתוֹ בְּרָמָה עַל כֵּן בָּא לִידֵי חֵטְא, כִּי הַכֹּל יוֹדְעִין שֶׁגַּסּוּת הָרוּחַ שֶׁבָּאָדָם מַעֲבִירוֹ עַל דַּעַת קוֹנוֹ, וְאִם כֵּן אֵין לְמֵדִין מִמֶּנּוּ הַחֵטְא, וְאַדְּרַבָּא שֶׁלְּמֵדִין מִמֶּנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ הַתְּשׁוּבָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״ פֵּרֵשׁ רַשִׁ״י אַשְׁרֵי הַדּוֹר כו׳.

**Sefaria Kli Yakar, 2026 (Claude 3.7, ed. Francis Nataf) ✧:**
**And it seems to me that this is why forgiveness is not mentioned regarding the anointed priest,** because anyone who causes the public to sin bears the sin of the public, and regarding the anointed priest it states *if the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt to the people* (Leviticus 4:3). Rashi explains that his sin is the guilt of the people because they depend on him to atone for them, and he has become corrupted. But it is more correct to interpret *bringing guilt to the people* as meaning that he is included among those who cause the public to sin, because from him they observe and then act similarly through *a fortiori* reasoning. Therefore, “and he shall be forgiven” is not stated regarding him, because even though the sacrifice is sufficient to remove his sin from him and his iniquity is removed, nevertheless there still remains the impression of the public’s sin which depends on him, and for this there is no forgiveness. And do not challenge me from the fact that the language of forgiveness is used regarding a ruler who sins. This is because others do not learn from him at all; on the contrary, they attribute his sin to his position of authority, saying that because he conducted his authority with arrogance, he therefore came to sin, since everyone knows that haughtiness leads a person to transgress his Creator’s ways. Thus, people do not learn the sin from him; on the contrary, they learn from him the way of repentance, as it is written *When a ruler sins* (Leviticus 4:22), which Rashi interprets as “Fortunate is the generation, etc.”


###### Kli Yakar on Leviticus 4:20:3
[Kli Yakar on Leviticus 4:20:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kli%20Yakar%20on%20Leviticus/r/4:20:3)

וּמַה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְשׁוֹן סְלִיחָה בְּפָרָשַׁת ״וְאִם כָּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ״. מִמַּה נַפְשָׁךְ, אִם הַפָּרָשָׁה מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּעֵדָה שְׁלֵמָה שֶׁחָטְאוּ כֻּלָּם מַמָּשׁ, אָז אֵין כָּאן מַחֲטִיאֵי הָרַבִּים, שֶׁהֲרֵי כֻּלָּם חָטְאוּ כְּאֶחָד, וְאִם הַפָּרָשָׁה מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין, כְּמוֹ שֶׁלָּמְדוּ מִגְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה דְּעֵדָה עֵדָה, אִם כֵּן הָעֵדָה לֹא חָטְאוּ כְּלוּם, כִּי כְּבָר צִוָּה לָהֶם הקב״ה שֶׁיִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקוֹל מוֹרֵיהֶם, וְאִם הֵמָּה חָטְאוּ וַיֹּרוּ הַמּוֹרִים בְּטָעוּת, אֵלֶּה הַצֹּאן מֶה עָשׂוּ. וְאִם כֵּן אֵין כָּאן מַחֲטִיאֵי הָרַבִּים. וְאִם נַפְשְׁךָ לוֹמַר שֶׁזֶּה נִקְרָא מַחֲטִיאֵי הָרַבִּים, נוּכַל לוֹמַר שֶׁלְּכָךְ מְסַיֵּם וְאָמַר ״חַטַּאת הַקָּהָל הִיא״, לוֹמַר שֶׁאע״פ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְנִסְלַח לָהֶם״, מִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵין זֶה סְלִיחָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי חַטַּאת הַקָּהָל הִיא, וְאוֹתוֹ רֹשֶׁם נִשְׁאַר קַיָּם, וּכְאִלּוּ אָמַר שֶׁהַכֹּל נִסְלָח לָהֶם חוּץ מִמַּה שֶׁחַטַּאת הַקָּהָל הִיא, אוֹתוֹ חֵטְא נִשְׁאַר קַיָּם. וְכָל זֶה אַזְהָרָה גְּדוֹלָה לְמוֹרֵי הוֹרָאוֹת וְלִגְדוֹלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נִזְהָרִים בְּמַעֲשֵׂיהֶם בְּיוֹתֵר, כִּי שִׁגְגַת תַּלְמוּד עוֹלָה זָדוֹן, כִּי מַה שֶּׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְּשׁוֹגֵג גּוֹרֵם שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ יִרְאוּ וְכֵן יַעֲשׂוּ בְּמֵזִיד, כִּי לֹא יֵדְעוּ שֶׁשְּׁגָגָה הִיא לָהֶם.

**Sefaria Kli Yakar, 2026 (Claude 3.7, ed. Francis Nataf) ✧:**
**And regarding what [the Torah] says using the language of “forgiveness” in the section of***If the whole congregation of Israel shall err.* Whichever way you look at it — if the section is speaking about a complete congregation where literally everyone sinned, then there are no “causers of the many to sin” since everyone sinned as one. And if the section is speaking about the Sanhedrin [high court], as they learned from the *gezeirah shavah* [textual comparison] of *congregation* to *congregation*, then the [actual] congregation did not sin at all, because the Holy One, Blessed be He already commanded them to listen to the voice of their teachers. And if these [teachers] sinned and taught erroneously, what did these sheep [the people] do wrong? Thus, there are no “causers of the many to sin” here.
And if you wish to say that this is still called “causers of the many to sin,” we can say that this is why [the Torah] concludes by saying *it is a sin-offering [hatat, which can also mean sin] of the congregation* — to say that even though it says *and they shall be forgiven*, nevertheless this is not a complete forgiveness, as *it is a sin of the congregation* and that impression remains permanent. It’s as if it’s saying that everything is forgiven except for the fact that *it is a sin of the congregation* — that sin remains permanent.
And all of this serves as a great warning to teachers of rulings and to the great ones of Israel that they should be exceedingly careful in their actions, because an unintentional error in learning rises to the level of intentional sin. For what he does unintentionally causes others to see and similarly act intentionally, because they do not know that it was an error for them [the teachers].