Study Horayot folio 8A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ושוין שאין מביא אשם תלוי. מנלן? דכתיב: ״וכפר [עליו] הכהן על שגגתו אשר שגג״. רבי סבר: מי שכל חטאו בשגגה, יצא זה שאין [כל] חטאו בשגגה, אלא בהעלם דבר.
The baraita teaches: And they agree that he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering. The Talmud asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to the provisional guilt-offering: “And the priest should atone for him for his unwitting act that he performed unwittingly” (Leviticus 5:18). R' Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the interpretation of this verse, in accordance with their opinions. R' Yehuda HaNasi holds: This is referring to one whose sin-offering for all transgressions is for an unwitting act. This serves to exclude that anointed priest, as all of his sin-offerings are not for an unwitting act alone; rather, he brings a sin-offering only if that unwitting act is performed on the basis of absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling.
מידי ״כל״ כתיב? אין דאם כן נכתוב ״על שגגתו״. למה לי ״אשר שגג״ הא קא משמע לן דעד דאיכא כל חטאו בשגגה. יצא משיח שאין כל חטאו בשגגה אלא בעבודה זרה, ולא בשאר מצות אלא בהעלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה.
The Talmud asks: Is it written in the verse: For all his unwitting acts that he performed unwittingly? Only the phrase “for his unwitting act that he performed unwittingly” is written. The Talmud answers: Yes, it is as though the word: All, is written. As if it were so that the verse is not referring to all unwitting acts, let the Torah write only: “For his unwitting act.” Why do I need the additional phrase: “That he performed unwittingly”? This teaches us that there is no liability to bring a provisional guilt-offering unless liability to bring all his sin-offerings is for unwitting acts. This serves to exclude an anointed priest, all of whose liability to bring a sin-offering for an unwitting act alone is only in cases of idol worship, but in cases involving the rest of the mitzvot there is liability only for absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling, together with unwitting performance of an action on the basis of that ruling.