Sifra 2.0.3

Vayikra Dibbura DeChovah, Section 2

1) (Vayikra 4:2): ("Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A soul, if he sin, etc.) "A soul" (is juxtaposed with) "the children of Israel" (indicating that) the congregation is like the individual, viz.: Just as the individual brings (a sin-offering) only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth, so, the congregation, (who acted upon a mistaken ruling of beth-din).

2) (Why the inclusion clause for the congregation?) Does it not follow by kal vachomer? viz.: If the individual, who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone, i.e., unawareness that the deed is forbidden), brings it only for something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth — the congregation, which does not bring it for deed-unwittingness (alone, but only as a result of a mistaken ruling of beth-din), how much more so should they bring it only for something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth! — No, this may be so with the individual, who does not bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness (i.e., for possibly having sinned unwittingly), as opposed to the congregation, which does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness (e.g., the festival and Rosh Chodesh goats, which atone for possible unwitting defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects). — This is refuted by (the instance of) the high-priest, who does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness (the Yom Kippur bullock), and yet brings a sin-offering only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth.

3) — No, this may be so with the high-priest, who does not bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness, on the outer altar, as opposed to the congregation, which does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness, on the outer altar. And since it does so, let it (also) bring a sin-offering both for something, intentional violation of which is or is not liable to kareth! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "A soul," "the children of Israel." The congregation is like the individual. Just as the individual brings (a sin-offering) only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth, so, the congregation.

4) The same applies to the high-priest, viz.: Does it not follow by kal vachomer, viz.: If the individual, who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone), brings it only for something, intentional violation of which is liable for kareth — the high-priest, who does not bring it for deed-unwittingness (alone, but only as a result of ruling mistakenly for himself), how much more so should he bring it only for something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth! — No, this may be so with the individual, who does not bring a sin-offering for compete unawareness, as opposed to the high-priest, who does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness. — This is refuted by (the instance of) the congregation, which does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness, and yet brings a sin-offering only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth.

5) — No, this may be so with the congregation, which does not bring a mandatory guilt-offering (in an instance where beth-din erred in a me'ilah ruling and the congregation acted on that ruling), as opposed to a high-priest, who does bring a mandatory guilt-offering. — This is refuted by (the instance of) a nassi, who brings a mandatory gift-offering, and, nonetheless, brings (a sin-offering) only for something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth. — No, this may be so with a nassi, who does not bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness, as opposed to a high-priest, who does bring a sin-offering both for something, intentional violation of which is or is not liable to kareth. It is, therefore, written "A soul" followed by "If the high-priest" (3). The high-priest is like the individual. Just as the individual brings (a sin-offering) only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth, so, the high-priest.

6) (Vayikra 4:3): ("If the anointed Cohein shall sin"): "anointed": I might think this is the king; it is, therefore, written "Cohein." If (only) "Cohein" (were written), I might think it referred to a "many-garmented priest," (who is not anointed); it is, therefore, written "anointed." If (only) "anointed Cohein" (were written), I might think that even the priest anointed for war (was included). It is, therefore, written: "the anointed Cohein," who has no one anointed over him (i.e., the high-priest). "shall sin": Why "shall sin" (instead of "sinned," as the verse continues)? For I might otherwise think that he must bring (a bullock) (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 bullock?), viz.: If a nassi, who brings (a he-goat) for deed-unwittingness (alone), does not bring one for previous sins — the high-priest, who does not bring (a bullock) for deed-unwittingness alone — how much more so should he not bring one for previous sins! — No, this may be so with the nassi, who does not bring his sin-offering (a he-goat) once removed (from office), as opposed to the high-priest, who continues to bring his sin-offering (a bullock) after removal (from office). And since he brings his sin-offering (for unwitting sins committed) after removal from office, let him bring it for sins committed prior (to his appointment); it is, therefore, written: "If the anointed Cohein shall sin," after he is anointed; but he does not bring it for those sins which he committed as a lay person.

7) 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. "… an anointed Cohein shall sin": I might think that this is a decree; it is, therefore, written: "If he shall sin."