An anointed priest who rendered a decision – A high priest who was anointed with the anointing oil ruled on a leniency for himself and acted by himself on a matter whose transgression is liable with “karet.”

He makes his atonement alone - He alone must bring a bull for a sin-offering.

If he rendered his ruling together with [the court of] the congregation – He was a member of the Sanhedrin that ruled in error.

He makes his atonement together with the congregation – With the congregation’s bull for an error-in-judgment (para ha’elem davar) sacrifice and is not obligated to bring any other sacrifice. It would have occurred to you that I might say that on Yom Kippur he does not atone with the congregation, as it is written (Leviticus 16), “and shall kill the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself,” so too he will need to bring his own sacrifice; here it teaches us that he does not. He derives it from the Torah (Leviticus 4), “on the sin which he sinned.” For a sin that is unique to him he brings his own sacrifice, but for a sin that is not unique to him he does not bring his own sacrifice.

For the court is not liable – I.e., the law is that the high priest atones with the congregation, that the beit din is not liable, etc. but that the high priest is. It follows that the high priest is equal to the beit din on all matters. If he issued a ruling for the congregation he is equal to them and must atone with the congregation.

Nor [are they liable] for idolatry unless they ruled to annul the law in part – As it is written about all the other commandments (Leviticus 4), “the thing being hidden from the eyes of the congregation.” And about idol worship it is written (Numbers 15), “If it be hidden from their eyes . . .”, in all the commandments the matter will be hidden but not from the entire body, so too with idol workshop it will be hidden [from the eyes] and not from the whole body.

.The [court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] except where ignorance of the law – A beit din that ruled for the community on one of all the commandments does not need to bring a bull for a communal error-in-judgment (para ha’elem davar) sacrifice for the community but only for the ignorance of the matter in which it ruled in error and because they did not realize that they were transgressing.

Was accompanied by an unwitting action – The majority of the community erred and acted according to their ruling, as it is written, “they erred and the thing was hidden,” an act in error and the matter was hidden.

So it is with the anointed priest – The high priest that was anointed with the anointing oil is not obligated to bring a sacrifice unless he forgets the law and he acts and rules in error, as it is written (Leviticus 4), “to bring guilt on the people,” which comes to teach that the anointed priest is like the people.

Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry – The beit din issued a mistaken ruling regarding idol worship and they are obligated to bring a bull and a goat.

Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action – Like all the other commandments. We learn about idol worship from the other commandments from a g’zeira shava (“equivalent form”) of “eyes” and “eyes”, as written above.

The court is not obligated unless they ruled concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is karet, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly – There are 36 commandments in the Torah for which the punishment is “karet” and for each one a sin offering is required if the commandment was transgressed unwittingly, except for five that do not require a sin offering if transgressed in error: brit mila and the Passover sacrifice, since they are positive commandments. Even though wilfully transgressing them has a punishment of “karet” no sin offering is required if they are transgressed in error, as it is written about a sin offering (Leviticus 4), “do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done.” And making an oath, because there is no action and the Torah says about a sin offering to transgress in error: if an oath was uttered there was no action. And impurity in the Temple and of its contents create no obligation if transgressed in error, but rather a sliding scale sacrifice (oleh ve’yored), as said in Leviticus. And a beit din does not have to bring a sin offering if these are transgressed in error and neither does a high priest. There are 31 commandments for which the punishment is wilful transgression is “karet” and for erroneous transgression is a sin-offering, for which a beit din and a high priest have to bring a sacrifice.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple – A beit din that issued a ruling and erred regarding impurity in the Temple and of its contents is not obligated to bring a communal offering.

For the transgression of a positive commandment – I.e. one who became impure while in the Temple and who is thus commanded to leave by the shortest route. If he left by a longer route, he is punished with “karet.” The beit din that ruled that he should leave by the longer route is not obligated to bring a sacrifice because on an error regarding this law one does not bring a sin-offering, i.e., an individual who erred in this commandment and left by a longer route needs to bring a sliding scale sacrifice and not a sin-offering.

For the transgression of a negative commandment – That he should not enter the Temple while he is impure.

Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui, etc. – For every commandment transgressed in error one is obligated to bring a sin-offering and an asham talui must be brought if he is in doubt whether or not he transgressed. Because transgressing in error the commandment regarding impurity in the Temple does not require a sin-offering, if it there is doubt whether he sinned he does not bring an asham talui.

For the transgression of a positive commandment relating to the menstruant – He was having relations with her when she was clean and in the midst of relations she tells him that she has become impure, the commandment is for him to withdraw. But he may not withdraw immediately because withdrawing is just as pleasurable as intercourse. Rather, he should dig his toenails in the ground and wait without moving until he loses his erection and then he should withdraw. And this is the positive commandment for the menstruant. If the beit din ruled erroneously that he should withdraw immediately, it is obligated to bring a bull for an error-in-judgment sacrifice, since the individual is obligated to bring a sin-offering for his error.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring an offering] for [an errant ruling relating to] the hearing of the voice [of adjuration] – That he adjured someone else to make a false oath that he does not know any testimony, as it is written (Leviticus 5), “And if any one sin, in that he heard the voice of adjuration, he being a witness.”

For an oath made by an expression – He swore he would not eat and he ate, or that he would eat and he did not eat. Or that he said, “I ate” but he did not eat or he said, “I did not eat” and he ate.

For impurity relating to the Temple and its holy contents – Someone who entered the Temple when he was impure or at something sanctified. If there was a ruling in error on one of these commandments, there is no obligation for the beit din or the high priest to bring a sacrifice because individuals are not obligated to bring a sin-offering when they sin in error.

And the ruler is similarly [exempt] - A king who accidently transgressed one of these commandments does not bring a goat and is exempt from bringing any sacrifice, because it is written, “And if his means do not suffice” (Leviticus 5:7,11), meaning one who is poor. A king and the high priest will never be poor.

Rabbi Akiva says the ruler is liable – Regarding the ruler it is written, (Leviticus 4) “and the priest shall make atonement for him” and the sliding scale sacrifice for hearing the voice of adjuration, making an oath and impurity in the Temple, it is written (Leviticus 5), “and the priest shall make atonement for him” to teach that the ruler is obligated regarding these commandments. The high priest is exempt from the sacrifice needed for hearing the voice of adjuration, making an oath and impurity in the Temple, according to Rabbi Akiva, as it is written, (Leviticus 6) “This is the offering of Aharon . . . the tenth part of an ephah. This excludes it, the “chavitin” offering is required of the high priest and he is not obligated in any other tenth of an ephah, except the tenth of an ephah required for hearing the voice of adjuration, etc. that the high priest does not bring. Because the Torah excludes him from the tenth of an ephah, he is also excluded from bringing two doves and any other sacrifice on this issue. At the end of the parasha it is written, “and the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things.” If one atones for one of these commandments he must atone for all of them, because it cannot be that atonement is needed for one but not for all. The law does not follow Rabbi Akiva or Rabbi Yossi’s opinions. Rather, the high priest and the ruler are obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice for hearing the voice of adjuration, making an oath and impurity in the Temple, as will be explained in our Mishnah below. When it teaches not obligated on hearing the voice of adjuration, etc., the meaning is not the beit din and not the high priest, both are not obligated to bring a bull for the other commandments, but are obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice.

In the case of idolatry, the individual and the ruler and the anointed priest bring a goat – In the parasha Shlach Lecha, the sacrifice for idol worship, it is written “And if one person sin through error, then he shall offer a goat.” And it is written, “you shall have one law for him,” meaning that this sacrifice is for all of them [high priests, rulers, regular people].

Asham talui – Commandments for which wilful transgressions receive the punishment of “karet” and accidental transgressions must bring a sin-offering, when there is doubt whether or not there was a transgression an asham talui must be brought, i.e. two amounts, one of forbidden fat and one of permissible fat and he does not know which one he ate.

But the anointed priest and the court are exempt – As it is written about a communal sacrifice (Leviticus 4), “when the sin wherein they have sinned is known, then the assembly shall offer.” There is no obligation to bring a sacrifice unless the sin is clearly known. And the law for the high priest is like that for the beit din.

Asham vadai – An asham vadai offering is required for five matters: for robbery (Leviticus 5:21-25); 2) for illegal use of sacred property (Leviticus 5:14-16); 3) for relations with a betrothed slave woman (Leviticus 19:20-22); 4) a nazir (Numbers 6:9-12); 5) a person who had tzara’at (Leviticus 14:10-12).

The individual and the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated – Because each of these is the act of an individual. There is no difference between a layman, a high priest and a ruler.

But the court is exempt – Because a beit din ruling has no bearing on these acts. And the beit din does not bring an asham offering.

Except that the anointed priest is not liable for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon – Rabbi Shimon’s meaning is that it is written “impurity relating to the Temple” (Numbers 19) and a person who is impure and transgresses, his soul will be cut off from the congregation. One who sins is equal to the congregation, but the high priest’s sin is not equal to the congregation. If any of the congregation accidentally transgresses by entering the Temple or transgressed accidentally, he is obligated only for the accidental transgression. The high priest is obligated only to bring a bull for an error-in-judgment (para ha’elem davar) sacrifice when he accidentally transgresses, as proven above. The law does not follow Rabbi Shimon’s opinion; rather, the high priest brings a sliding scale sacrifice even for impurity in the Temple and of its contents.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the ruler brings a goat – For impurity in the Temple and of its contents, because wilful transgression of these is liable for “karet.” Just as the ruler brings a goat for transgression of other commandments for which the punishment is “karet.” The law does not follow Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion because there is no obligation to bring a sin-offering for accidental transgression of impurity in the Temple and the ruler brings a sacrifice in the same way as an individual.