צבור מוצא מכלל יחיד ומשיח מוצא מכלל יחיד מה צבור אין חייבין אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה אף משיח לא יהא חייב אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה

The general public is removed from the category of an individual, as an individual brings a ewe or female goat as a sin-offering, whereas when the general public sins the sin-offering is a bull. And likewise, an anointed priest is removed from the category of an individual, as his sin-offering is also a bull. Therefore, just as the general public is liable only for absence of awareness of the matter by the court together with unwitting performance of an action by the people, so too, an anointed priest will be liable only for absence of awareness of the matter together with unwitting performance of an action.

או כלך לדרך זו נשיא מוצא מכלל יחיד ומשיח מוצא מכלל יחיד מה נשיא מביא בשגגת מעשה בלא העלם דבר אף משיח מביא בשגגת מעשה בלא העלם דבר

Or perhaps go this way and draw a different analogy: A king [ Nasi ] is removed from the category of an individual, as his sin-offering is a goat. And an anointed priest is removed from the category of an individual. Therefore, just as a king brings an offering for unwitting performance of an action, even without absence of awareness of the matter leading to an erroneous ruling, like any individual liable to bring a sin-offering, so too, an anointed priest brings an offering for unwitting performance of an action, even without absence of awareness of the matter leading to an erroneous ruling. It is possible to liken the anointed priest to either the general public or to the king.

נראה למי דומה צבור בפר ואין מביאין אשם תלוי ומשיח בפר ואין מביא אשם תלוי מה צבור אינו חייב אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה אף משיח לא יהא חייב אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה

The Gemara considers these two comparisons: Let us see to which of them, the general public or the king, an anointed priest is simi-lar. The general public achieves atonement with a bull and does not bring a provisional guilt-offering, and an anointed priest achieves atonement with a bull and does not bring a provisional guilt-offering. Therefore one might say: Just as the general public is liable only for absence of awareness of the matter by the court together with unwitting performance of an action by the people, so too, an anointed priest will be liable only for absence of awareness of the matter together with unwitting performance of an action.

או כלך לדרך זו נשיא מביא שעירה בעבודה זרה ומביא אשם ודאי ומשיח מביא שעירה בעבודה זרה ומביא אשם ודאי מה נשיא מביא בשגגת מעשה אף משיח מביא בשגגת מעשה

Or perhaps go this way and draw a different analogy: The king brings a female goat for unwitting idol worship and brings a definite guilt-offering for certain other transgressions where there is liability to bring a guilt-offering, e. g., misuse of consecrated property and robbery, and an anointed priest brings a female goat for unwitting idol worship and brings a definite guilt-offering for the same transgressions as the king. This is in contrast to the general public, which brings a bull as a sin-offering for unwitting idol worship and does not bring a definite guilt-offering at all. Therefore conclude: Just as a king brings an offering for unwitting performance of an action without absence of awareness of the matter, like any individual liable to bring a sin-offering, so too, an anointed priest brings an offering for unwitting performance of an action without absence of awareness of the matter.

תלמוד לומר לאשמת העם הרי הוא משיח כצבור מה צבור אינו מביא אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה אף משיח אינו מביא אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה

Since either conclusion can be derived logically, another source is necessary. Therefore, the verse states:“ If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt upon the people” (Leviticus 4:3), indicating that the status of the anointed priest is like that of the general public. Therefore, just as the general public brings an offering only for absence of awareness of the matter by the court with unwitting performance of an action by the people, so too, an anointed priest brings an offering only for absence of awareness of the matter with unwitting performance of an action.

אימא מה צבור הורה ועשו אחריו בהוראתו חייבין אף משיח כשהורה ועשו אחריו בהוראתו יהא חייב תלמוד לומר והקריב על חטאתו אשר חטא על מה שחטא הוא מביא ואין מביא על מה שחטאו אחרים

The Gemara challenges the comparison: Based on the comparison between the anointed priest and the general public, why not say: Just as with regard to the general public, if the court issued a ruling and the general public performed the transgression after its ruling and in accordance with its ruling, the court is liable, so too, with regard to an anointed priest, when he issued a ruling and the general public performed the transgression after his ruling and in accordance with his ruling, he should be liable. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the anointed priest:“ Then he shall offer for his sin that he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:3), from which it is derived: He brings an offering for that sin that he sinned on the basis of his ruling, but he does not bring an offering for that sin that others sinned on the basis of his ruling.

אמר מר משיח בפר ואין מביא אשם תלוי מנא ליה דאין מביא אשם תלוי

The Gemara elaborates on that which the Master said: An anointed priest achieves atonement with a bull and does not bring a provisional guilt-offering. The Gemara asks: From where does the tanna derive that an anointed priest does not bring a provisional guilt-offering?

דכתיב וכפר עליו הכהן על שגגתו אשר שגג מי שחטאתו ושגגתו שוה יצא משיח שאין שגגתו וחטאתו שוה דכתיב לאשמת העם הרי הוא משיח כצבור

The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to the halakhot of the guilt-offering:“ And the priest shall atone for him for his unwitting act that he performed unwittingly” (Leviticus 5:18), from which it is derived that this halakha applies only to one whose transgression and his unwitting action are equal, i. e., an ordinary person, whose unwitting act is the very transgression that he performed unwittingly. This serves to exclude an anointed priest, whose unwitting action and his transgression are not equal, as his unwitting act is the erroneous ruling and he is liable to bring an offering only if he performed the transgression on the basis of that ruling. As it is written about the anointed priest:“ So as to bring guilt upon the people” (Leviticus 4:3), indicating that the status of the anointed priest is like that of the general public.

לאשמת העם עד כאן לא קאמר ליה אלא אשם כדי נסבה

The Gemara questions this proof: How can the Gemara base the halakha on an interpretation of the verse: “ So as to bring guilt upon the people”? To this point, the tanna of the baraita did not state this verse. The tanna first states that the anointed priest does not bring a provisional guilt-offering and only then cites the verse from which he proves the halakha that an anointed priest brings an offering only for absence of awareness of the matter together with unwitting performance of an action. Rather, he stated the halakha of the provisional guilt-offering for no reason. Although the halakha is correct, there was no reason to cite it in the baraita.

מתני׳ הורה בפני עצמו ועשה בפני עצמו מתכפר לו בפני עצמו הורה עם הצבור ועשה עם הצבור מתכפר לו עם הצבור שאין בית דין חייבין עד שיורו לבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת וכן המשיח ולא בעבודה זרה עד שיורו לבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת

MISHNA: If the anointed priest issued a ruling by himself and performed a transgression by himself, he achieves atonement by himself by bringing a bull as his sin-offering. If he issued a ruling with the general public, i. e., the Sanhedrin, and performed a transgression with the general public, i. e., the Jewish people, he achieves atonement with the general public. As, the court is not liable unless the judges issue a ruling to nullify part of a commandment and to sustain part of that commandment, and likewise with regard to the ruling of the anointed priest. 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 commandment and to sustain part of it.

גמ׳ מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן הורה עם הצבור ועשה עם הצבור יכול יביא פר לעצמו

GEMARA: Concerning the halakha that there is a difference between an unwitting transgression that the anointed priest performs by himself and one that he performs with the general public, the Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? The Gemara explains: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita:

If the anointed priest issued a ruling with the general public and performed a transgression with the general public, one might have thought that he is liable to bring a bull as a sin-offering for himself.

ודין הוא נשיא מוצא מכלל יחיד ומשיח מוצא מכלל יחיד מה נשיא חטא בפני עצמו מביא בפני עצמו חטא עם הצבור מתכפר לו עם הצבור אף משיח חטא בפני עצמו מביא בפני עצמו חטא עם הצבור מתכפר לו עם הצבור

The baraita continues: And there is a logical inference to support this: A king is removed from the category of an individual and an anointed priest is removed from the category of an individual, as each brings a different sin-offering than an individual. Just as with regard to a king, if he sinned by himself he brings his sin-offering of a goat by himself, and if he sinned with the general public, he achieves atonement with the general public, so too, with regard to an anointed priest, if he sinned by himself he brings his sin-offering of a bull by himself, and if he sinned with the general public, he achieves atonement with the general public.

לא אם אמרת בנשיא שכן מתכפר לו עם הצבור ביום הכפורים תאמר במשיח שאין מתכפר לו עם הצבור ביום הכפורים

The baraita rejects this: No, if you said with regard to a king that he achieves atonement with the general public, that is logical, as he achieves atonement with the general public on Yom Kippur. Shall you also say the same with regard to an anointed priest, who does not achieve atonement with the general public on Yom Kippur but rather brings his own atonement offering?

הואיל ואין מתכפר לו עם הצבור ביום הכפורים יכול יביא פר לעצמו תלמוד לומר על חטאתו אשר חטא הא כיצד חטא בפני עצמו מביא בפני עצמו חטא עם הצבור מתכפר לו עם הצבור

The baraita continues: Since he does not achieve atonement with the general public on Yom Kippur, one might have thought that he will bring a bull for himself even if he unwittingly performed a transgression with the general public. Therefore, the verse states:“ Then he shall offer for his sin that he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:3), indicating that he sinned alone, not with the general public. How so? If he sinned by himself he brings his sin-offering of a bull by himself; if he sinned with the general public, he achieves atonement with the general public.

היכי דמי אילימא דהוא מופלא והם אינן מופלאין פשיטא דמתכפר לו בפני עצמו הוראה דלהון ולא כלום ובעי אתויי כשבה או שעירה כל חד וחד ואי דאינון מופלאין והוא לאו מופלא אמאי מתכפר לו בפני עצמו הא הוראה דידיה ולא כלום היא

The Gemara elaborates: What are the circumstances of an anointed priest issuing a ruling for himself? If we say that it is a case where the High Priest is a distinguished scholar and the judges of the court are not distinguished scholars, it is obvious that he achieves atonement by himself, as their ruling is nothing at all, since they did not consult the generation’s most prominent scholar. And accordingly, each and every one who performed a transgression needs to bring a ewe or female goat as an individual sin-offering. And if it is a case where the judges are distinguished scholars and he is not a distinguished scholar, why does he achieve atonement by himself? Isn’t his ruling nothing at all, and his transgression is an unwitting performance of an action alone, rather than a transgression performed on the basis of a ruling?