משנה: כָּל מִצְוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁחַייָבִין עַל זְדוֹנָן כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָן חַטָּאת הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא כִשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה וְהַנָּשִׂיא שָׂעִיר וּמָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין מְבִיאִין פָּר. וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ מְבִיאִין שְׂעִירָה. וּבֵית דִּין פַּר וְשָׂעִיר פַר לָעוֹלָה וְשָׂעִיר לַחַטָּאת׃ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא חַייָבִין וּמָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. אָשָׁם ווַדַּאי הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ חַייָבִין וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. עַל שְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל וּבִיטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם וְטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקֳדָשָׁיו בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ חַייָבִין אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל חַייָב עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקֳדָשָׁיו דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וּמָה הֵן מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר הַנָּשִׂיא מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר׃ MISHNAH: For all commandments of the Torah where one is liable to extirpation for willful infraction and a purification sacrifice for unintentional infraction, the individual brings a sheep or a she-goat94Leviticus.4.28">Lev. 4:28,Leviticus.4.32">32., the Prince a he-goat95Leviticus.4.23">Lev. 4:23, and the Anointed or the Court bring a bull96Cf. Horayot 1:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.1.6.1">Mishnaiot 1:6, Horayot 2:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.2.1.1">2:1.. For idolatry the individual, the Prince, and the Anointed bring a she-goat, the Court bring a bull as elevation offering and a goat as purification sacrifice97Numbers.15.22-25">Num. 15:22–25..
For a suspended reparation sacrifice the individual and the Prince are liable but the Anointed and the Court are not liable98Mishnah 5.. For a certain reparation sacrifice the individual, and the Prince, and the Anointed are liable but the Court is not liable99The reparation sacrifices for robberies or defrauding (Leviticus.5.20-26">Lev. 5:20–26), larceny of sancta(Leviticus.5.14-16">Lev. 5:14–16), the semi-manumitted slave girl (Leviticus.19.20-22">Lev. 19:20–22), the nazir(Numbers.6.12">Num. 6:12), and the healed sufferer from skin disease (Leviticus.14.1-32">Lev. 14:1–32). Since no extirpation is involved, the Court is not liable for a sacrifice in case they rule wrongly in one of these matters.. For hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, the Court is not liable, the individual, and the Prince, and the Anointed are liable100Mishnah 6. but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, the words of Rebbi Simeon84He is not mentioned in our Mishnah text, but Mishnah 8 states that the High Priest is exempt according to everybody; only for the king does R. Aqiba disagree; Horayot.9a">Babli 9a. According to Horayot 1:7-8" href="/Tosefta_Horayot.1.7-8">Tosephta 1:10, the king is exempted only for disregarding a request for testimony and the High Priest for violations of impurity (since his diadem is a permanent atonement for imperfect sacrifices, Exodus.28.38">Ex. 28:38.)
The High Priest is required (Leviticus.21.10">Lev.21:10) to be the richest priest; if he is not, the other priests have to make him so. R. Joseph David Sinzheim (Yad David on Horaiot) notes that the High Priest had the choice always to officiate at the burning of incense. Any other priest was given only a once in a lifetime occasion for this (Yoma 2:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yoma.2.3.1">Mishnah Yoma 2:4) since presenting the incense made the presenter rich (explicit in the Babli, implicit in the Yerushalmi, Yoma 2:3:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yoma.2.3.2">Yoma Halakhah 2:4, 40a 12). The king naturally has taxing powers.
Since king and High Priest are never able to bring a sacrifice according to the rules of the poor (Leviticus.5.7-10">Lev. 5:7–10) or the very poor (Leviticus.5.11-13">vv. 11–13), they are prohibited from ever bringing a sacrifice depending on the offerer’s wealth.. What do they bring? A variable sacrifice. Rebbi Eliezer says, the Prince brings a goat101This is qualified in the Halakhah..
הלכה: כָּל מִצְוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה כול׳. אָשָׁם תָּלוּי הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא חַייָבִין כול׳. נֶפֶשׁ. לְרַבּוֹת הַנָּשִׂיא. יַרְבֶּה הַמָּשִׁיחַ. בְחָֽטְאָה בִּשְׁגָגָ֔ה. אֵת שֶׁהוּא בְשִׁגְּגַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה. יָצָא מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְשִׁגְּגַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה. וּכְרִבִּי דוּ אָמַר מָשִׁיחַ בְּשִׁגְּגַת מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא. אֵת שֶׁהוּא בְשִׁגְּגַת מַעֲשֶׂה לְכָל־הַדְּבָרִים. יָצָא מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְשִׁגְּגַת מַעֲשֶׂה לְכָל־הַדְּבָרִים. נֶפֶשׁ. לְרַבּוֹת הַנָּשִׂיא וְמָּשִׁיחַ. הָכָא אַתָּ מַר. לְרַבּוֹת הַנָּשִׂיא. וָכָא אַתָּ מַר. לְרַבּוֹת מָשִׁיחַ. כַּֽחַטָּאת֙ אָשָׁם. מַה חַטָּאת מְכַפֶּרֶת וּמְמָרֶקֶת. אַף אָשָׁם מְכַפֵּר וּמְמָרֵק. יָצָא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי שֶׁהוּא מְכַפֵּר וּמְשַׁייֵר. HALAKHAH: “For all commandments of the Torah,” etc. Halakhah 8:“For a suspended sacrifice the individual and the Prince are liable,” etc. A person, to include the Prince102Leviticus.5.17">Lev. 5:17, the introduction to the rules for the suspended reparation sacrifice.. Should it include the Anointed? “And sinned inadvertently.103Leviticus.5.15">Lev. 5:15. There are two problems with this quote: The first that it is a misquote, it reads וְחָֽטְאָה֙ בִּשְׁגָגָ֔ה not בְחָֽטְאָה֙ בִּשְׁגָגָ֔ה. This is easily explainable since in talmudic times under the influence of Greek every ב sounded like v. The serious problem is that the quote is from the paragraph detailing the rules of the fixed reparation sacrifice for larceny committed with sancta. It seems that the quote from Leviticus.5.17">Lev. 5:17 refers to the full text וְאִם־נֶ֙פֶשׁ֙ in addition, if a person . . which in Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 12(1) is explained as meaning that the rules of the suspended reparation sacrifice, vv. 17–19 are an appendix to the rules of the reparation sacrifice for larceny involving sancta, vv. 14–16.” Any depending on acting inadvertently. This excludes the Anointed who is not depending on acting inadvertently104He is liable for a sacrifice only if there is an element of ruling falsely, Horayot 2:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.2.3.1">Mishnah 3.. But following Rebbi who said, the Anointed is depending on acting inadvertently105Horayot 2:3:2-3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.2.3.2-3">Halakhah 3. Rebbi declares him liable for a bull and a goat without an element of ruling falsely in case the subject was idolatry, not in any other case. This permits to formulate the preceding argument so it remains valid even for Rebbi.? One dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. This excludes the Anointed who is not dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. A person, to include the Prince and the Anointed106Leviticus.5.20">Lev. 5:20, the introduction to the rules for the reparation sacrifice for monetary offenses.. Here you say, to include the prince, and there you say, to include the Anointed? Like the purification sacrifices is the reparation sacrifice107Leviticus.7.7">Lev. 7:7.. Just as the purification sacrifice atones and wipes clean, also the reparation sacrifice atones and wipes clean. This excludes the suspended reparation sacrifice which atones but leaves a residue108If at the end it becomes clear that a sin had be committed which qualifies for a purification offering, the suspended offering did not take its place, and a second sacrifice is due. Therefore the rules for the suspended sacrifice are separate from those of other reparation sacrifices..
כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל חַייָב עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקֳדָשָׁיו. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. וְהַנָּשִׂיא עַל שְׁמִיעַת קוֹל. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנן. מִן־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ֙ לֹ֣א יֵצֵ֔א וְלֹ֣א יְחַלֵּ֔ל. הָא אִם יָצָא אֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל. רִבִּי אַשִּׁיָאן רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר כַּהֲנָא מַקְשֵׁי. וְהָכְתִיב אַלְמָנָה֚ וּגְרוּשָׁה֙ וַֽחֲלָלָ֣ה זוֹנָה אֶת־אֵ֖לֶּה לֹ֣א יַקָּ֑ח. הָא אִם לָקַח אֵינוֹ מְחַלֵּל. מַאי כְדוֹן. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה. וְנִכְרְתָ֛ה הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא מִתּ֣וֹךְ הַקָּהָ֑ל. אֵת שֶׁקָּרְבָּנוֹ שָׁוֶה לַקָּהָל. יָצָא מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁלֹּא שָׁוֶה קָרְבָּנוֹ לַקָּהָל. הָתִיבוֹן. הֲרֵי נָשִׂיא לֹא שָׁווֶה קָרְבָּנוֹ לַקָּהָל. שָׁוֶה בְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. הֲרֵי אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים לֹא שָׁווּ בְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. שָׁווּ בִשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָׁנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן בַּר שָׁלוֹם. שָׁווּ בְמַתָּן דָּמִים בַּחוּץ. So is the Mishnah: “but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, everybody’s opinion, and neither is the Prince for hearing a sound, the words of Rebbi Simeon.109Horayot.9a">Babli 9a; Horayot 1:7-8" href="/Tosefta_Horayot.1.7-8">Tosephta 1:10. The Horayot.9b">Babli 9b points out that there are three levels of variable sacrifices and the argument of Note 84 excludes only the sacrifice of the very poor for the High Priest. In R. Simeon’s opinion, the High Priest is still liable at least for a poor man’s sacrifice for disregarding a summons to testify.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, and the Sanctuary he shall not leave, nor desecrate. Therefore, if he left, he would not desecrate110Leviticus.21.12">Lev. 21:12. The argument seems to be: If the High Priest does not leave the Sanctuary, he has no occasion to desecrate it. Therefore the verse is read as: and the Sanctuary he shall not leave; he will not desecrate. The implication would be that the High Priest not only is exempt from bringing a sacrifice (which is a dubious distinction since it denies him a means of atonement) but his infraction of the Sanctuary’s purity does not need atonement.. Rebbi Ashian111A student of R. Jonah’s. The reading of B, R. Joshia, referring to an Amora preceding R. Jonah by two generations, is impossible., Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Abun bar Cahana found a difficulty. Is it not written, a widow, or a divorcee, or a desecrated, a harlot, these he shall not marry, therefore if he married he would not desecrate112Leviticus.21.13">Lev. 21:13. The next verse gives the reason for the prohibition: So he may not desecrate his descendants. Since the child of a Cohen from a woman forbidden to him by the special rules of the priesthood is desecrated, R. Johanan’s interpretation of v. 12 is shown to be unacceptable.? What about it? 113A slightly different version of the following is in the Horayot.9b">Babli, 9b. Ḥizqiah said, this person would be extirpated from the community114Numbers.19.19">Num. 19:19. The entire Chapter deals with the preservation of the purity of the Sanctuary (Sifry Num. 129).. One whose sacrifice is identical to that of the community. This excludes the Anointed whose sacrifice is not equal to that of the community115By his office he is excluded from being one of the community. His sacrifice is either a bull or nothing; the sacrifice of a member of the community is the variable offering (a female sheep or goat, or two pigeons, or flour.). They objected, is not also the Prince’s sacrifice not equal to that of the community116It always is a goat.? It is equal on the day of Atonement117On that day, the High Priest brings three sacrifices (Leviticus.16">Lev. 16) cf. Horayot 2:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.2.2.1">Note 16. The first one for himself and his family; the second for his fellow priests and their families, and the third a double offering for the people. There the king (unless he is a usurping High Priest and king) is included with the people.. But his brothers the priests are not equal on the day of Atonement! They are equal on the other days of the year118The lesser priests are subject to the rules of the variable value sacrifice.. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, they are equal in that the blood is given outside119On the Day of Atonement, only the blood of the first and third sacrifices are brought inside the Temple to purify the incense altar; the blood of the second sacrifice, the atonement of the priests, is sprinkled on the large outside alter like any other sacrifice. Similarly, the blood of the prince’s purification sacrifice is treated like that of a commoner, to be sprinkled on the outside altar..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי כְרִיתוֹ. רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה בָעֵי. מֵעַתָּה אֲפִילוּ בִקְבוּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. מִיסְבּוֹר סְבַר רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִכָּל־הַפָּרָשָׁה. אֶלָּא כְהֶדְיוּט עָשִׁיר עֲבִיד לֵיהּ רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אִין כְּהֶדְיוּט עָשִׁיר עֲבִיד לֵיהּ רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אֲפִילוּ עַל שְׁמִיעַת קוֹל וְעַל בִּיטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם. דְּתַנֵּי. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וַחֲכָמִים עַל שְׁמִיעַת קוֹל וְעַל בִּיטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר אֶלָּא שְׂעִירָה. וְעַל מַה נֶחְלְקוּ. עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקֳדָשָׁיו. שֶׁרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא בְהִיכָּרֵת לָמָּה אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר אֶלָּא שְׂעִירָה. הָתִיבוֹן. הֲרֵי מָשִׁיחַ וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֲרֵי אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר אֶלָּא שְׂעִירָה. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eliezer said this only because of his extirpation120Of all the sins calling for a variable sacrifice, only infractions of the purity of the sanctuary or of sacrifices are punished by extirpation. Therefore R. Eliezer lets him bring the fixed-value sacrifice prescribed for the Prince for all other cases of possible extirpation.
The entire paragraph has an inconclusive parallel in the Horayot.9b">Babli 9b.. Rebbi Hoshaia asked: If so, then even for a fixed [sacrifice]121If the argument of R. Johanan were correct, R. Eliezer also should require that the prince bring a he-goat, not a she-goat, as the fixed-value sacrifice required for inadvertent idolatry, against Mishnah 7.? Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Hoshaia is of the opinion that he is uprooted from the entire paragraph; but Rebbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner122R. Hoshaia’s argument is unacceptable since only R. Yose the Galilean denies the Prince any variable-value sacrifice; we follow R. Aqiba who is granting him a sacrifice for any sin but freeing him from any obligation regarding a summons to testify.. Rebbi Mana said, if Rebbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner, then also for hearing a sound, or expression of the lips80As explained in the preceding Halakhah, the Court does not bring a sacrifice for a false ruling in a case subject to a sacrifice which depends on the wealth of the person. These are enumerated in Leviticus.5.1-4">Lev. 5:1–4; the Mishnah uses the biblical expressions to characterize the different categories.
“Hearing of a voice” refers to Leviticus.5.1">Lev.5:1: If a person sin, for he heard the sound of an imprecation when he is a witness, or saw, or knew; if he does not tell he has to bear his iniquity. If a person is asked by another to testify in his case before the court; he refuses and assents to an oath to the effect that he does not know about the case, if that was a lie he is subject to the variable reparation offering for swearing falsely.
“Expression of the lips” (v.4) refers to an oath made by a person on his own initiative but not kept since he forgot about his own oath. This also subjects the maker to the same obligation.
Improper handling of impurity because of oblivion is mentioned in vv. 2–3., as it was stated: Rebbi (Eleazar) [Eliezer] and the Sages did not differ about hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, that he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat123In fact only for expression of the lips.. About what did they differ? About impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, where Rebbi Eliezer says since he is subject to extirpation why should he not bring a male goat instead of a she-goat124Since the king cannot become poor, he should not be under the rules of variable-value sacrifices.? They objected: Is there not the Anointed in the case of idolatry where he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat125Not only the Anointed but also the Prince are included in the rules for the individual inadvertently committing idolatry. Since there are no exceptions for the rules of Numbers.15">Num. 15, the argument made for R. Eliezer does not hold. In addition,; the she-goat of Leviticus.5">Lev. 5 is a reparation sacrifice but his he-goat of Lev. 43 a purification sacrifice..