Rav Pappa says: The reference is to a case where both the anointed priest and the court, i.e., the judges, were distinguished Torah scholars with the authority to issue rulings.

§ Abaye thought to say that with regard to the cases in the mishna: If the anointed priest sinned by himself and performed a transgression by himself, what are the circumstances? It is a case where the priest and the court were convened in two different places and issuing rulings with regard to two different prohibitions. Rava said to Abaye: Is that to say that the fact that there are two places determines that he sinned by himself? Rather, it is even in a case where the High Priest and the court are convened in one place. But since they are issuing rulings with regard to two different prohibitions, it is a case where the anointed priest sinned by himself.

The Gemara continues: It is obvious that in a case where the anointed priest issued a ruling with regard to forbidden fat and the judges issued a ruling with regard to idol worship, it is a case where the anointed priest sinned by himself. As in this case the rulings are distinct in terms of their reasons, as each ruling is based on a different Torah source, and they are also distinct in terms of their offerings, since the priest achieves atonement with a bull as a sin-offering, and the judges achieve atonement with a bull and a goat as a sin-offering for unwitting idol worship, as these judges bring a goat and the priest does not bring a goat. And all the more so in a case where the anointed priest issued a ruling with regard to idol worship and the judges issued a ruling with regard to forbidden fat, it is a case where the anointed priest sinned by himself, as these rulings are totally distinct in terms of their offerings, since the priest brings a female goat as a sin-offering and the judges bring a bull.

But in a case where the anointed priest issued a ruling with regard to forbidden fat that covers the innards, for example, and the judges issued a ruling with regard to forbidden fat that is on the small intestines, what is the halakha? Do we say: Although their offerings are equal, nevertheless, since it is from two different verses that the prohibitions come, the rulings are distinct in terms of their reasons? Or perhaps, the category of forbidden fat is one designation, and all types of forbidden fat are considered one transgression.

The Gemara continues: If you say that the category of forbidden fat is one designation, then in a case where the priest issues a ruling with regard to forbidden fat and the judges issue a ruling with regard to blood, what is the halakha? Do we say they are distinct in terms of their reasons, as each prohibition has a different Torah source? Or perhaps, since forbidden fat and blood are equal in terms of the atonement offering that one is liable to bring for unwitting consumption, we follow the offering, so that the rulings of the priest and the judges are considered one ruling? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

§ The Gemara analyzes the halakhot stated in the mishna: As the court is not liable unless the judges issue a ruling to nullify part of a mitzva and to sustain part of that mitzva. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that there is no liability unless the judges issue a ruling to nullify part of a mitzva and to sustain part of it? The Gemara answers: It is as we say in the other chapter of this tractate (3b): From the verse: “And the matter is hidden” (Leviticus 4:13), it is derived that there is liability if only a matter, a single detail, is hidden, but not if the entire essence of a mitzva is hidden.

The mishna teaches: And likewise with regard to the ruling of the anointed priest. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt upon the people” (Leviticus 4:3), indicating that the status of an anointed priest is like that of the general public.

The mishna continues: And the court and the priest are not liable for a ruling with regard to idol worship unless they issue a ruling to nullify part of that mitzva and to sustain part of it. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? It is derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: Due to the fact that idol worship left the category of unwitting transgressions, to be discussed by itself (see Numbers, chapter 15), one might have thought that the court and the anointed priest would be liable even for nullifying the mitzva in its entirety.

Therefore, the term “from the eyes of” is stated here, with regard to idol worship (Numbers 15:24), and the term “from the eyes of” is stated there, with regard to an unwitting communal sin-offering for all other mitzvot (Leviticus 4:13). Just as there the reference is to nullifying the mitzva in court, so too here, the reference is to nullifying the mitzva in court. And just as there, with regard to an unwitting communal sin-offering, the reference is to nullifying a matter, but not the entire essence, so too here, the reference is to nullifying a matter, but not the entire essence.

MISHNA: The court is liable only for absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling, together with unwitting performance of the action by the general public on the basis of that ruling. And likewise, the anointed priest is liable only for an erroneous ruling and his unwitting performance of an action on the basis of that ruling. And the court and the priest are liable for a ruling with regard to idol worship only for absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling, together with unwitting performance of the action on the basis of that ruling.

GEMARA: With regard to the halakha that the court is liable only for absence of awareness of the matter together with unwitting performance of an action, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita that it is stated: “And if the entire congregation of Israel shall act unwittingly” (Leviticus 4:13). One might have thought that they will be liable to bring a bull for every case of unwitting performance of an action. Therefore, the verse states: “Shall act unwittingly, and the matter was hidden” (Leviticus 4:13), from which it is derived that the court is liable 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.

The mishna continues: And likewise the anointed priest. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to the anointed priest: “If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt upon the people” (Leviticus 4:3), indicating that the status of an anointed priest is like that of the general public.

The mishna continues: And the court and the priest are liable for a ruling with regard to idol worship 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. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this?

The Gemara answers: It is derived as the Sages taught: Due to the fact that idol worship left the category of unwitting transgressions to be discussed by itself (see Numbers, chapter 15), one might have thought that the court and the priest would be liable for a mere unwitting performance of the action. Therefore, the term “from the eyes of” is stated here, with regard to idol worship (Numbers 15:24), and “from the eyes of” is stated there, with regard to an unwitting communal sin-offering for all other mitzvot (Leviticus 4:13). Just as there they are liable 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, so too here, they are liable only for absence of aware-ness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling, together with unwitting performance of an action on the basis of that ruling.

The Gemara notes: Whereas, the halakha that the status of an anointed priest who issues a ruling with regard to idol worship is like that of the court is not taught in the mishna. Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

The Gemara explains: This is as it is taught in a baraita: If an anointed priest unwittingly engages in idol worship, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He brings an offering for unwitting performance of an action, like any other Jew. And the Rabbis say: He brings an offering for absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling. And they agree that the atonement of an anointed priest is with a female goat as a sin-offering, and they agree that he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering. Since the mishna omitted the halakha of an anointed priest who engages in idol worship, apparently it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that the status of the anointed priest in this regard is like that of any other Jew.

The Gemara rejects this: And how can you understand the mishna in that manner? In the mishna (8a) that teaches that the court is not liable to bring an offering for absence of awareness of the matter unless they issue a ruling with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet] and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, does it teach the halakha concerning an anointed priest in the latter clause of that mishna?

The Gemara explains: Rather, the tanna on 8a teaches this halakha, that in the first clause the anointed priest has the same halakha as the court, and the same is true with regard to that halakha, i.e., that in the latter clause the anointed priest has the same halakha as the court. Here too, the tanna taught this halakha, that in the first clause the anointed priest has the same halakha as the court, and the same is true with regard to that halakha, i.e., that in the latter clause the anointed priest has the same halakha as the court. Therefore, there is no proof that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is as the verse states with regard to idol worship: “And the priest shall atone for the soul that acted unwittingly, when he sins unwittingly” (Numbers 15:28). With regard to the term “the soul,” that is referring to an anointed priest; with regard to the term “that acted unwittingly,” that is referring to a king; and due to the phrase “when he sins unwittingly,” Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds this sin shall be one performed unwittingly, not the result of absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling.

And the Rabbis hold: This phrase serves to teach that the halakha that this offering is brought for an unwitting sin applies to one whose sin-offering for all other transgressions is for an unwitting act. This serves to exclude an anointed priest, whose liability to bring a sin-offering for an unwitting act is 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.

The baraita teaches: And they agree that the atonement of an anointed priest is with a female goat as a sin-offering, as in the case of an ordinary individual. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And if one soul sins unwittingly, then he shall offer a female goat of the first year as a sin-offering” (Numbers 15:27). An ordinary individual, a king, and an anointed priest are all liable to bring an offering, as they are all included in the category of “one soul.”