Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "le'Ashmas ha'Am" - that a Kohen Gadol, like the Tzibur, requires He'elam Davar plus Shigegas Ma'aseh.

(b) We suggest that the Torah could dispense with the 'Hekesh', and learn Kohen Gadol from Tzibur with a 'Mah Matzinu', since they have an unusual characteristic in common. When we describe them both as being precluded from the Din of a Yachid, we mean - that unlike a Yachid, whose Chatas comprises a Kisbah or a Se'irah, they bring a Par instead.

(c) We counter this 'Mah-Matzinu' however, by comparing a Kohen Gadol to a Nasi - who brings a Sa'ir instead of a Kisbah or a Se'irah.

(d) If we did compare a Kohen Gadol to a Nasi - he would be Chayav to bring a Par for a Shigegas Ma'aseh without He'elam Davar.

(a) We point out two characteristics which both a Kohen Gadol and a Tzibur posses, and a Nasi does not. One of them is that they both bring a Par. The other is in the form of a Korban which neither of them brings (but which a Nasi does) - namely, that of an Asham Taluy.

(b) Again, we counter this with two characteristics which both a Kohen Gadol and a Nasi posses, and a Tzibur does not. One of them is that they both bring a Se'irah by Avodas-Kochavim (whereas a Tzibur brings a Par le'Chatas and a Sa'ir le'Olah). The other is a Korban which they both bring (but which a Tzibur does not) - an Asham Vaday.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Im Nefesh" - that both a Nasi and a Kohen Gadol bring a Se'irah for Avodah-Zarah, like every other Yachid.
2. ... (in connection with the Asham Gezeilos and Me'ilos) "Nefesh" - that on the one hand, they are both subject to an Asham Vaday, and on the other hand, a Tzibur is not.

(d) And that is why we need the Pasuk "le'Ashmas ha'Am", as we explained. We then learn from "Ve'hikriv al Chataso Asher Chata" - that in spite of "le'Ashmas ha'Am", it is the Kohen Gadol who must follow his own erroneous ruling, and not others (as is the case by the Beis-Din's ruling).

(e) When the Mishnah later adds to the principle 'Ein Chayavin Ela al Davar she'Zedono Kareis ve'Shigegaso Chatas', 've'Chein le'Mashi'ach', it means (not that he is Patur from bringing an Asham, but) - that the Din of Shigegas Hora'ah only applies to a La'av that is subject to Kareis be'Meizid and a Chatas be'Shogeg. It has nothing to do with a Nasi who contravenes a sin which is subject to an Asham (which incidentally, only pertains to a Meizid, and not to a Shogeg), which he is Chayav, as we just explained.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Ve'chiper Alav ha'Kohen al Shigegaso Asher Shagag" - which implies that only someone who requires a Shigegas Ma'aseh without a Hora'ah (such as a Yachid), is subject to an Asham Taluy, but not a Kohen Gadol.

(b) The snag in using this fact to prove that Kohen Gadol is compared to Tzibur - is that it is only possible to learn this D'rashah after we know that the Kohen Gadol is compared to a Tzibur (from "le'Ashmas ha'Am"), whereas the Tana is working on the premise that we do not need "le'Ashmas ha'Am").

(c) So we conclude - that the proof from Asham Taluy is not genuine, and the Tana only mentioned it by the way (because at the end of the day, it is Halachically correct).

(a) Our Mishnah obligates a Kohen Gadol who acted on his own erroneous ruling independently of the Beis-Din, to bring his own Par. Seeing as that is obvious, the Tana must be speaking - when the Beis-Din and the Kohen Gadol each issued a ruling permitting a different Isur (one Cheilev, the other, Avodah-Zarah), where the Tzibur subsequently acted on the former ruling, whereas he himself acted on the latter.

(b) When the Tana then says 'Horeh Im ha'Tzibur, Meivi Im ha'Tzibur', he is referring to - where they both issued the same ruling (e.g. Cheilev or Avodah-Zarah).

(c) The Tana then cites, as a basis for the comparison, the fact - that Tzibur and Kohen Gadol are both Chayav, provided they nullified part of the Isur, leaving part intact, as we discussed earlier ...

(d) ... and the same applies to Beis-Din or a Kohen Gadol regarding Shigegas Hora'ah by Avodah-Zarah.

(a) We suggest that the Mishnah's second ruling ('Horeh Im ha'Tzibur ... ') is based on a Nasi who did likewise, and who is atoned for together with the Tzibur. Kohen Gadol and Nasi have in common - that they are different than an ordinary Yachid (in that they bring a Par and a Sa'ir respectively [and not a Kisbah or a Se'irah]).

(b) In fact, we cannot learn from Nasi, because apart from the fact that a Nasi is different than a Kohen Gadol in that, like other Yechidim, he is Chayav for Shigegas Ma'aseh alone - he also receives atonement together with the Tzibur on Yom Kipur, whereas a Kohen Gadol does not.

(c) We therefore learn from the Pasuk "Al Chataso Asher Chata" - that the Kohen Gadol is only required to bring his own Par for his own personal sin, but not for a sin which he shared together with the Tzibur.

(a) With regard to the first case in the Mishnah (where he and the Beis-Din issued individual rulings negating two separate Mitzvos), the Tana cannot be speaking when the Beis-din ...

1. ... were not experts, and he was - because then their ruling would be invalid (and everybody who followed it would be obligated to bring a Kisbah or a Se'irah), in which case, it is obvious that the Kohen Gadol would be obligated to bring his own Par.
2. ... were experts, and he was not - because then his ruling would be invalid, and he would be Patur from a Chatas.

(b) So Rav Papa establishes the case - where both he and the Beis-Din were experts (where both their ruling and his are valid).

(c) Abaye assumed that 'two Isurim' means in two different locations. Rava objected however - on the grounds that there is no reason why the location should determine the obligation, and that consequently, even if the Kohen Gadol issued his ruling in Beis-Din, he will be Chayav to bring an independent Par.

7)

(a) It is ...

1. ... obvious that if the Kohen Gadol permitted Cheilev, and the Beis-Din, Avodas-Kochavim, he is obligated to bring his own Chatas - because a. the two Isurim are learned from different Pesukim, and b. they bring different Korbanos (inasmuch as Beis-Din bring a Sa'ir which he doesn't [even though they do both bring a bull]).
2. ... even more obvious in the reverse case, where he permitted Avodah-Zarah, and they, Cheilev - since there their respective Korbanos are totally different (since he brings a Se'irah, and they, a goat).

(b) We ask what the Din will be if he permitted the Cheilev that covers the stomach, and they, the Cheilev that covers the intestines. He might be Chayav, despite the fact that they both bring the same Korban (a bull) - since they are learned from different Pesukim.

(c) This is not considered an error with which the Tzedokim agree (and which does not therefore fall under the category of 'Shigegas Hora'ah', as we learned in the first Perek) - because neither the Cheilev that covers the stomach nor that which covers the intestines, is written explicitly in the Torah, in which case it would be an error with which the Tzedokim do not agree.

(a) Finally, we ask what the Din will be if the Kohen Gadol permitted Cheilev, and the Beis-Din permitted blood. The She'eilah assumes that in the previous case, he is Patur from a Korban, because Cheilev, when all's said and done, is Cheilev, and the question is whether he is perhaps Chayav by Cheilev and Dam which are different. On the other hand, he might be Patur, seeing as the Korban is the same in both cases.

(b) The outcome of these She'eilos is - 'Teiku' ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Iba'yos').

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ve'ne'elam Davar" - "Davar", 've'Lo Kol ha'Guf' (as we learned in the first Perek).
2. ... "le'Ashmas ha'Am" - that the Kohen Gadol has the same Din as the Tzibur (in this regard).
3. ... "me'Einei" "me'Einei" - that we learn Avodah-Zarah from other Mitzvos in this regard.

(b) We might otherwise have thought that the requirement of 'Le'vatel Miktzas u'Le'kayem Miktzas' is not necessary by Avodah-Zarah - since the Torah mentions Avodah-Zarah independently of the other Mitzvos (to conform with the principle 'Kol Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal ve'Yatza Li'don be'Davar he'Chadash, I Atah Yachol Le'hachziro li'Chelalo ad she'Yachzirenu ha'Kasuv li'Chelalo be'Feirush').

(c) We also learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - that, in order to be Chayav a Korban, Avodah-Zarah needs Hora'as Beis-Din just like the other Mitzvos.

(a) According to Rebbi in a Beraisa, a Kohen is Chayav a Korban by Avodah-Zarah for Shigegas Ma'aseh alone - for which he brings a Se'irah (like every other Yachid).

(b) According to the Chachamim - he is only Chayav if it is preceded by a He'elam Davar (like other Mitzvos).

(c) The Tana adds - that both Tana'im agree that he does not bring an Asham Taluy (in a case of Safek).

(a) We presume that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi - since our Mishnah fails to mention that the Kohen Gadol is only Chayav for He'elam Davar.

(b) Our Mishnah also fails to mention - that one is only Chayav by Avodah-Zarah for a Mitzvah which falls into the category of 'Zedono Kareis, ve'Shigegaso Chatas' ...

(c) ... leading us to the conclusion that the Tana relies on what it has already stated with regard to other Mitzvos. In that case, the author of our Mishnah could even be the Chachamim (who have already taught us [see next Mishnah] by other Mitzvos that a Kohen Gadol is only Chayav for He'elam Davar).

(d) The Machlokes between Rebbi and the Chachamim is based on their respective interpretations of the Pasuk "Ve'chiper ha'Kohen al ha'Nefesh ha'Shogeges *be'Chet'ah bi'Shegagah*". According to ...

1. ... Rebbi it means - that this sin must be performed inadvertently (and does not require He'elam Davar).
2. ... the Chachamim it means - that it only pertains to someone who would otherwise be Chayav for merely sinning inadvertently (precluding a Kohen Gadol, who requires a prior He'elam Davar).

(e) They both learn from the Pasuk there "ve'Im Nefesh Achas ... " - that even a Kohen Gadol and a Nasi a Yachid (who also fall into this category) must bring specifically a Se'irah as a Chatas (and not a Kisbah, like by other Mitzvos).