Source: http://halakhah.com/horayoth/horayoth_7.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 19:22:54+00:00

Document:
THE COURT IS NOT LIABLE31 UNLESS THEY RULED TO ANNUL PART OF A COMMANDMENT AND TO RETAIN A PART OF IT; AND SO [IT IS WITH] THE HIGH PRIEST. NOR [ARE THEY LIABLE] FOR IDOLATRY UNLESS THEY RULED TO ANNUL THE LAW IN PART AND TO RETAIN IT IN PART.
Lit., 'general rule', that of bringing a sin offering of a lamb or a goat (Lev. IV. 27ff). The congregation brings a bullock (ibid. 23ff).
On the part of the court.
On the part of the congregation.
Lit., 'finish and go to this way'.
Cf. n. 3. A ruler brings a goat as a sin offering (Lev. IV, 22 ff).
When his sin is in doubt, v. infra.
[H] a guilt offering brought in connection with a number of sins (v. Lev. v, 20 ff) when there is no doubt that the sin had been committed. Cf asham talui in Glos.
Though there was no ignorance of the law.
As logically it is uncertain with whom the High Priest is to be compared.
In the case of an asham talui.
I.e., an ordinary individual in whose case error in action alone involves him in the obligation of bringing a sin offering as if he was also ignorant of the law.
Lit., 'he went out', 'excluded'.
Before obligation to bring a sin offering is incurred by him, both error in action as well as ignorance of the law are necessary'.
Lit., 'until here'; i.e., iii the argument, supra, where it was attempted to show that the High Priest resembles the congregation.
Lit., 'he did not say', i.e., if the assumption is that the text had not been written, how can this presumably non-existent text be adduced as proof?
The asham talui, v. Glos.
Lit., 'he took it without any purpose,' the resemblance between an anointed High Priest and the congregation being their respective obligations to bring a bullock, and not a goat or a lamb, as a sin offering, being in itself sufficient to compare the High Priest to the Congregation.
He brings the offering of a bullock on his own behalf.
His atonement is effected by the communal offering.
Lit., 'words'; the first two laws in our Mishnah relating to an anointed High Priest.
Cf. supra p. 43, n. 6.
Lit., 'you said'. That if he sinned together with the congregation be brings his offering together with them.
Lev. IV, 3. I.e., be brings an offering alone, only where he alone has sinned.
Thus the first two laws in our Mishnah have been proved.
The court who ruled erroneously concerning a prohibition other than that permitted by the High Priest.
R. Papa replied; in the case, for instance, where both1 were mufla'in.
Abaye proposed to say that IF [THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST] GAVE [AN ERRONEOUS] DECISION2 ALONE AND ACTED [AC CORDINGLY] ALONE, is to be understood3 [as referring to a High Priest and a court] who live4 in two different places and ruled respectively concerning two different prohibitions. Raba, however, said to him; Is then diversity of domicile5 the determining factor? [Surely not]; but even if they dwell' in the same place. so long as they ruled concerning two different prohibitions, he6 is regarded as having sinned alone.
AND SO IT IS WITH THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST. Whence is this deduced? — [From the text] wherein it is written, So as to bring guilt upon the people,20 which shows21 that the anointed High Priest is like the congregation.
NOR [ARE THEY LIABLE] FOR IDOLATRY etc. Whence is this derived? — [From] what our Rabbis taught: From the fact22 that idolatry was singled out23 it might have been assumed that only the uprooting of the entire principle involves the bringing of a sacrifice,24 hence it was stated here, from the eyes25 and elsewhere it was stated, from the eyes,26 as elsewhere the court is meant27 so here also the court was meant;27 and as further on only a think28 [was hid]26 but not an entire principle so here also29 a part only, not an entire principle, must have been annulled.
MISHNAH. THE OBLIGATION [UPON THE COURT TO BRING A SACRIFICE]30 IS INCURRED ONLY WHERE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ERROR IN ACTION, AND SO [IT IS WITH THE] ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST; NOR [DO THEY INCUR OBLIGATION] IN THE CASE OF IDOLATRY UNLESS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ERROR IN ACTION.
GEMARA. Whence is this31 deduced? — [From] what our Rabbis taught: They err32 might have been assumed to imply obligation for error in action, hence it was stated, They err and a thing be hid,32 indicating that no obligation is incurred unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by error in action.
AND SO [IT IS WITH] THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST. Whence is this deduced? — From the Scriptural text, So as to bring guilt upon the people.33 which shows34 that the anointed High Priest is like the congregation.
NOR [DO THEY INCUR OBLIGATION] IN THE CASE OF IDOLATRY UNLESS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ERROR IN ACTION. Whence is this derived? — [From what] our Rabbis taught: In view of the fact that the prohibition of idolatry was singled out it might have been assumed that obligation is incurred even for error in action, hence it was stated here, from the eyes,35 and elsewhere it was stated, from the eyes.36 [to indicate that] as further on no obligation is incurred unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by error in action so here also no obligation is incurred unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by error in action.
Since the anointed High Priest was not mentioned37 in connection with idolatry, our Mishnah must represent the view of38 Rabbi. For it was taught: [As to the obligation to bring a sacrifice on the part of] an anointed High Priest in the case of idolatry, Rabbi said, [it depends] on his error in action, and the Sages said, [only if this was accompanied] by ignorance of the law. Both, however, agree39 that the sacrifice he brings is a goat, and both also agree39 that he does not bring an asham talui.40 Consider, however, [this point]; Has [the anointed High Priest] been specified37 in connection with [the offence] concerning which the punishment is kareth, if it was committed wilfully, and a Sin offering if committed unwittingly?41 And yet it must be admitted42 that though he was mentioned in the one case43 the same law applies to the other,44 so here also45 he was mentioned in the first case46 and the same law applies to the second.
'Both, however, agree that the sacrifice he brings is a goat like [that of any other] individuals' Whence is this deduced? — [From that] which Scripture stated, and if one person,54 implying that there is no difference between a private individual, a ruler, or an anointed High Priest. All of then, are included in the general expression of 'one person'.
The High Priest and the court.
So MS.M. reading [H] Cur. edd.: [H] 'he sinned'.
Lit., 'how is it to be imagined'.
I.e., by erroneous ruling and action.
Lit., 'in their reasons', each prohibition being derived from a different Biblical text.
Is the High Priest regarded as having transgressed alone.
V. supra p. 43, n. 9, and infra p. 50.
Lit., 'if you will find to say'.
Lit., 'we go after the sacrifice'.
Lit., 'went out to pass sentence (or 'to judge') separately'. i.e., Scripture did not include the sin of idolatry among the prohibitions for which a bullock is offered (Lev. IV, 13ff) but singled it out for special sacrifices (Num. XV. 22ff).
Lit., 'they are liable for'.
Num. XV, 24, referring to idolatry.
Lev. IV, 13, referring to the other commandments.
V. supra 5a. Lit., 'in (or about) the court'.
Heb. dabar, [H] read with the addition of the Mem [H] partitive, v. supra p. 21, n. 8.
The first law in our Mishnah.
Lit., 'and they are alike'.
Sanh. 61b. V. Glos. Our Mishnah thus represents the view of the Rabbi.
Lit., 'he taught that', i.e., mentioned the High Priest in the first clause of the Mishnah, infra 5a.
Lit., 'holds the view', 'is of the opinion'.
For which the must bring a sin offering.
Lit., 'this sin, in error shall be'.
In connection with other transgressions.

References: v. 
 v. 

V. 

V. 
 v. 
 V.