Sifra 2.0.11

Vayikra Dibbura DeChovah, Section 5

1) (Vayikra 4:22): "If (asher) a leader (nassi) sin ["asher," similar to "ashrei" ("fortunate")]: R. Yochanan b. Zakkai said: Fortunate is the generation whose nassi brings a sin-offering for his unwitting sin. If he brings a sin-offering for his unwitting sin, how much more so (is he contrite over) his deliberate sin. And if his nassi brings a sin-offering, how much more so is he (the common man) moved to bring a sin-offering (for his sin)! "a nassi": I might think the nassi of a tribe, like Nachshon; it is, therefore, written: "And he do one of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd his G d," and, elsewhere, (in respect to a king) (Devarim 17:19): "so that he may learn to fear the L–rd his G d." Just as there, the nassi is one who has no one above him but the L–rd his G d, so, here. (Scripture speaks of) a nassi who has no one over him but the L–rd his G d (i.e., a king).

2) Why "(If) a nassi shall sin" (instead of "sinned")? For otherwise I might think that he must bring (a he-goat) for (unwitting transgressions committed) prior to his appointment. But (why the exclusion clause?) Is it not a kal vachomer (that he should not bring a he-goat?), viz.: If the high-priest, who brings his sin-offering (a bullock) for (unwitting sins committed) after removal from office, does not bring (a bullock) for (unwitting sins committed) prior to his appointment — a nassi, who does not bring his sin-offering (a he-goat) for (sins committed) after removal from office, how much more so should he not bring it for (sins committed) prior to his appointment! — No, this may be so with the high-priest, who does not bring (his sin-offering, a bullock,) for deed-unwittingness (alone, but only as a result of ruling mistakenly for himself), as opposed to a nassi, who does bring (his sin-offering, a he-goat,) for deed-unwittingness (alone). And since he does, I would think that he brings (a he-goat, too,) for prior sins; it is, therefore, written (to negate this): ("If a nassi) shall sin," after he is appointed; but he does not bring it for those sins which he committed as a lay person.

3) R. Shimon says: If it became known to him (that he had sinned) before he was appointed, and then he was appointed, he is liable (for the sin-offering of a lay person). And if it became known to him after he was appointed, he is (completely) exempt. "… a nassi shall sin": I might think that this is a decree; it is, therefore, written "asher he shall sin," (the connotation being) "when" (i.e., if) he shall sin.

4) "and he do one (of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd his G d"): to make him liable for (a sin-offering) for each one. How so (If he unwittingly ate) two (olive-size pieces of) cheilev (forbidden fat): If of the same kind in two forgetfulness periods [forgetfulness of its being forbidden], or of different kinds in one forgetfulness period, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly ate) cheilev and blood, whether in one forgetfulness period or in two forgetfulness periods, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly committed) two transgressions liable to burning:

5) If of the same kind in two forgetfulness periods, or of different kinds in one forgetfulness period, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly committed one sin liable to) stoning, and (another liable to) burning, whether in one forgetfulness period or in two forgetfulness periods, he is liable for two sin-offerings.

6) ("and he do one of all) the mitzvoth of the L–rd": not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. The mitzvoth referred to in respect to the high-priest and in respect to the congregation (i.e., those liable to kareth for intentional transgression) are the mitzvoth referred to here. "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd — to exclude (the bringing of a sin-offering for) "hearing the voice of an oath" (see 5:1), and "pronouncing with the lips" (see 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see 5:2) (for all of which one brings a sliding-scale offering [oleh veyored]). "which are not to be done, unwittingly": We are hereby taught that he brings (a sin-offering) for deed- unwittingness (alone [even without an error in the ruling]). "and he be guilty": We are hereby taught that he brings an asham talui (a "suspended" guilt-offering, a ram [see 5:17 and 18]) Now (why is the inclusion clause needed?)

7) Is it not a kal vachomer (that he brings it?), viz.: If the individual (i.e., a lay person), who does not bring a male for his (subsequently) known (unwitting) sin, (but a she-lamb or a she-goat), brings an asham talui (for a possible sin). — the nassi, who brings a male (a he-goat) for his known sin, how much more so should he bring an asham talui (a ram). — This is refuted by (the instance of) the high-priest, who brings a male (bullock) for his known sin, notwithstanding which he does not bring an asham talui.

8) So, too, do not wonder if the nassi, who brings a male for his known sin, should not bring an asham talui. It is, therefore, written (to tell us that he does): "and he be guilty."

9) (But why not) adduce it differently (without the inclusion clause?), viz.: The individual is distinct from the congregation (in that he brings a "definite" ["unsuspended"] guilt-offering), and the nassi is distinct from the congregation (in the same respect). Just as the individual brings an asham talui, so the nassi should bring an asham talui!

10) — But why not go in this direction? The high-priest is distinct from the congregation (in that he brings a "definite" guilt-offering), and the nassi is distinct from the congregation (in the same respect). Just as the high-priest does not bring an asham talui, so the nassi should not bring an asham talui!

11) Let us see whom he (the nassi) is most like. We should derive (the rule) for him (the nassi), who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness alone, [without an error in ruling], from him (the individual), who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone); and this should not be refuted by (the instance of) the high-priest, who does not bring (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone). — Or go in this direction: We should derive (the rule for) him (the nassi), who brings a male for his known sin from him (the high-priest), who brings a male for his known sin, and this should not be refuted by (the instance of the individual), who does not bring a male for his known sin. It must, therefore, be written: "and he (the nassi) be guilty," to teach us that he brings an asham talui.