Sifra Chovah Chapter 2

¹1) (Vayikra 4:3): ("If the anointed Cohein shall sin) to the guilt of the people.": The high-priest is being compared to the congregation. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) only where (beth-din) erred (in the ruling), and they sinned unwittingly (on the basis of that ruling), so, the high-priest brings (a sin-offering) only where he erred (in ruling for himself) and he sinned unwittingly (on the basis of that ruling)(Why the inclusion clause for the high-priest?) Does it not follow naturally? viz.: The congregation is distinct from the individual (in its offering), and the high-priest is distinct from the individual. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) upon error in ruling and deed-unwittingness, so, the high-priest. ²2) — But why not go in this direction? The nassi is distinct from the individual, and the high-priest is distinct from the individual. Just as the nassi brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone, without an error in ruling), so, the high-priest! ³3) Let us see whom he (the high-priest) is most like. If he is most like the congregation, let us derive (his rules) from (those of) the congregation; and if he is most like the nassi, let us derive (his rules) from (those of) the nassi. The congregation brings a bullock (as a sin-offering) and it does not bring an asham talui (a "suspended" guilt-offering [see Vayikra 5:18]), and the high-priest brings a bullock, and he does not bring an asham talui. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) upon error in ruling and deed-unwittingness, so, the high-priest should bring (a sin-offering) only where these obtain. ⁴4) — But why not go in this direction? The nassi brings a she-goat (for unwitting transgression of idolatry [see Bamidbar 15:27]), and he brings a categorical guilt-offering (see Vayikra 5:15), and the high-priest brings a she-goat for idolatry and he brings a categorical gift-offering. Just as the nassi brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone, without an error in ruling), so, the high-priest! It is, therefore, written: "to the guilt of the people." The high-priest is being compared to the congregation. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) only where (beth-din) erred (in the ruling), and they (the people) sinned unwittingly (on the basis of that ruling), so, the high-priest brings (a sin-offering) only in like circumstances. ⁵5) But in that case I might think that just as when beth-din ruled (erroneously) and others acted upon their ruling, they (beth-din) are liable (for a sin-offering), so, if the high-priest ruled (erroneously) and others acted upon his ruling, he is liable (for a sin-offering); it is, therefore, written: "which he has sinned" — he brings it for what he has sinned and not for what others have sinned. ⁶6) (Vayikra 4:3): "then he shall offer for his sin." We are hereby taught that he brings his (special) sin-offering (a bullock), even (for unwitting sins committed) after removal (from office) (For if not for this inclusion clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (otherwise), viz.: If the nassi, who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone), does not bring his (special) sin-offering after removal — the high-priest, who does not bring (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone), how much more so should he not bring his (special) sin-offering after removal! It is, therefore, written: "then he shall offer for his sin," to teach that he brings his (special) sin-offering (even) after removal. ⁷7) I might think that if he sinned with the congregation (i.e., if he ruled erroneously together with beth-din and then acted upon that ruling together with the congregation), he brings a bullock for himself. And this would follow, viz.: The nassi is distinct from the congregation (in his offering), and the high-priest is distinct from the congregation. Just as when the nassi sins by himself, he brings (a sin-offering) for himself, and when he sins with the congregation he receives atonement together with (the sin-offering of) the congregation, so, the high-priest — If he sins by himself, he brings for himself, and when he sins with the congregation, he receives atonement together with the congregation. ⁸8) No, this may be so with the nassi, who atones with the congregation on Yom Kippur, as opposed to the high-priest, who does not atone with the congregation on Yom Kippur, (but who brings different sacrifices for certain sins). And since he does not atone with the congregation on Yom Kippur, I would say (if not for the inclusion clause here) that he should bring a bullock for himself. It is, therefore, written: "which he has sinned." If he sinned by himself, he brings for himself; if he sinned with the congregation, he receives atonement together with the congregation.