Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 2.2

משנה: הוֹרָה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעָשָׂה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. הוֹרָה עִם הַצִּיבּוּר וְעָשָׂה עִם הַצִּיבּוּר מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עִם הַצִּיבּוּר. שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין חַיָיבִין עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵים מִקְצָת. וְכֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ. וְלֹא בַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה עַד שֶׁיּוֹרו לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵים מִקְצָת:

MISHNAH: If he ruled for himself and acted for himself, it is atoned for himself. If he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public. As the Court is not liable unless they instruct to void part and confirm part, so is the Anointed. Also for idolatry they are not liable unless they instruct to void part and confirm part.

הלכה: הוֹרָה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ כול׳. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְהוֹרָה אַחֲרֵיהֶן וְהֶחֱלִיף. פְּשִׁיטָא נַעֲשִׂית אֶצְלוֹ כַעֲקִירַת גּוּף. אֶלָּא הוֹרָה הוּא תְחִילָּה וְהוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין אַחֲרֵיהֶן וְהֶחֱלִיפוּ. אֲפִילוּ כֵן נַעֲשִׂית אֶצְלוֹ כַעֲקִירַת גּוּף. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוֹרָה הוּא תְחִילָּה וְנִדְחָה הוֹרָיָיתוֹ בְהוֹרָיָיתָן וְאֵינָהּ נַעֲשִׂית אֶצְלוֹ כַעֲקִירַת גּוּף. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְהוֹרָה אַחֲרֵיהֶן. פְּשִׁיטָא אָכַל בְּהוֹרָיַית בֵּית דִּין פָּטוּר. אֲבָל מִשֶּׁחָזְרוּ בָהֶן בֵּית דִּין חַיָיב. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. הוֹרָה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹרָה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעָשָׂה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הוֹרָה עִם הַצִּיבּוּר וְעָשָׂה עִם הַצִּיבּוּר מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עִם הַצִּיבּוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹרָה עִם הַצִּיבּוּר וְעָשָׂה עִם הַצִּיבּוּר. אֲבָל הוֹרָה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.

HALAKHAH: “If he ruled for himself,” etc. The Court ruled, he ruled following them, and then changed. It is obvious that for him it is the equivalent of uprooting the whole. But if he ruled first, the Court then ruled following him, and afterwards they reversed themselves. Nevertheless is it for him the equivalent of uprooting the whole, or because he ruled first, but his ruling was overturned by their ruling, for him it should not be the equivalent of uprooting the whole? If the Court ruled and he ruled following them, it is obvious that he is not liable if he ate according to the ruling of the Court. But after the Court reversed itself, he is liable. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah? “If he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.” Because he ruled for himself and acted for himself. “But if he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public.” Because he ruled with the public and acted with the public, but “if he ruled for himself [and acted for himself], it is atoned for himself.”