Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 18, scan section 71

if he sins with the congregation he need not bring a separate offering. But let us see the nature of the case : if he was the presiding justice, then only his decision must be taken into consideration, as the opinion of the rest counts for nothing, and it is obvious that the atonements must be separate ; and if he was not presid- ing, why should he be atoned for separately when kis opinion in this case does not count ? Said R. Papa : it means that he was equal to the others. Abaye was about to say that " he sinned separately " means : in a different place ; but Rabha said to him : does the difference in place cause the separation ? it may be even in one and the same place but concerning different prohibitions, and then it is considered separate sinning. ''Partly annulling^' etc. Whence is this deduced? From 14 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. what was said in the Chapter I : by forgetting something and not the whole, and whence is it deduced that the same is the case with the anointed priest ? from what is discussed above : " To bring guiltiness on the people." Finally, whence is deduced that the same is the case concerning idolatry ? From what the rabbis taught : lest one say that because concerning idolatry there is a special verse, it should hence be treated differently, — there is an analogy of expression : " From the eyes," found in both cases (idolatry and other sins) to teach that they are equal in all re- spects. MISHNA ///. : The conditions determining the liability of both the courts and the anointed priest are : Their ignorance of the thing during the rendering of the decision, and the subsequent erroneous acting. The same conditions hold in decisions regard- ing idol worship. GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? From what the rabbis taught: it reads [Lev. iv. 13] "Through ignorance, and a thing be hidden," whence we see that both ignorance and forgetting are necessary. The deduction of the case of the anointed priest is again as above. As to idolatry, lest one say : it was separately taught, hence it requires different treatment, comes the analogy of expression to teach as above. Thus we see that it does not teach concerning the anointed priest regarding idolatry ; whence it may be said that our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi of the following Boraitha : If the anointed priest has sinned in a case of idolatry, according to Rabbi, he is liable for erroneous acting, and, according to the rabbis, for forgetting ; all, however, agree that his offering must be a she-goat and that he is not under the category of those who bring a pending trespass offering, and Rabbi's reason is from [Num. xv. 28] : " And the priest shall make an atonement for the person that hath erred " ; " for the person" means the anointed priest ; " that hath erred " means the prince ; " in his sinning through ignorance " means according to Rabbi that the sinning of each of the two must be through ignorance, while according to the rabbis this part applies only to him who sins through ignorance, exclude the anointed priest who sins through forgetting; and whence do they deduce that he like any other individual must bring a she-goat ? From the above-cited verse [ibid., ibid. 27] : " And if any person sin," i.e., any one : com- mon, priest, prince, etc. And whence is it deduced that he does not bring a pending trespass-offering? From [ibid. v. 18J "for his ignorance," which TRACT HORIOTH (DECISIONS). 15 can not mean the priest in question who sins by forgetting. On the other hand, according to the rabbis, it intends to exclude the anointed who sins in any case whatsoever not by erroneous acting alone, but when such is accompanied by forgetting. MISHNA IV. : The court is not liable unless the issued decree concerns a command the intentional and unintentional violation of which entail Korath and sin-offering respectively; the same is the case with the anointed priest. The same refers to the case of idol worship. GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? As stated in the fol- lowing Boraitha : Rabbi said : It reads [Levi. v. 5] : " Alehu " [ibid, xviii. 18] : " Olehu,'' as there it is a case of Korath and a sin-offering, the same is the case here. And the deduction that the same applies to the anointed priest is made as above. As to a prince, it is inferred from the analogy of expression [ibid. iv. 22]: " Prohibitions " (J///^2/c//^), found also [ibid. ibid. 13] con- cerning the congregation ; now, as the latter treats of things the transgression of which is, if intentional under Korath, and if un- intentional under sin-offering, the same is the case with a prince ; while concerning a common individual it reads [ib. ibid. 27] : " If any person " to infer this last from the previous one. " The same refers to the case of idol ivorship!' Whence is this deduced ? From what the rabbis taught : because idolatry is mentioned specially, hence it should be treated differently, so that one be culpable even when the sin is not under the category of Korath, etc., therefore the analogy of expression " from his eyes," as there it is under the category of Korath, so also here. But this is concerning the congregation ; whence do we know this with regard to the anointed priest, prince, individual ? From [ibid. ib. 27]: ''Any person," i.e., any: be he priest, prince, etc. But again, all this is correct according to him who holds the an- logy of expression Olehu ; but to the rabbis who do not hold so, whence is this deduced ? From what R. Jehoshua b. Levi taught to his son [Num. xv. 29, 30] : " One law shall be for you, for him that acteth through ignorance. But the person that doth aught with a high hand," etc., this compares all the laws of the Torah to idolatry : as latter is under both Korath and sin-offering, so also all other cases of the same category. But from here you infer only an individual, a ruler, and an anointed priest ; whence do we know that the same is the case with the congregation ? Infer the first verse [13] from the last [27]. We thus see that according to all, the cited verses [Num. xv. 29, 30] speak of idol- i6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. atry, how is it so understood ? Said Rabha, according to others, R. Jehoshua b. Levi; according to still others, Khdi : it reads [ibid. ib. 22] : " and do not observe all these commandments " ; now, a negative commandment that is in importance equal to all other negatives is, you must say, idolatry. The disciples of Rabbi infer this from the same verse [22 and 23] " which the Lord hath spoken unto Moses, all that the Lord hath commanded you by the hand of Moses," and a com- mandment said, in the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, and commanded again by the hand of Moses is of idolatry ; as the disciples of R. Ismael taught that the commandment " I am