Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת הוריות דף ז', but we'll start on דף ו' עמוד ב' from the beginning of the פרק. In this פרק, the גמרא will discuss, in addition to the דינים of הוראת בית דין, if the בית דין פסק'נד that you're allowed to do an עבירה, and then the people followed the פסק דין of בית דין, so then there is a דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and if it was concerning עבודה זרה, so then they bring a פר and a שעיר for a חטאת and an עולה. In addition to that, this will also discuss the דינים of a כהן גדול, or as he is referred to here in this פרק as כהן משיח, because the דין is that a כהן גדול, when he does an עבירה בשוגג, which means also an עבירה that if he would have done it במזיד, he would have gotten כרת, so then he also has to bring a special קרבן. Not like a יחיד, an individual, when he does an עבירה בשוגג, he has to bring a כשבה or a שעירה, but a כהן גדול, if he does an עבירה בשוגג, he has to bring a פר. The same קרבן as the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So just like when the בית דין פסק'נד and the ציבור did, so then there is a דין of a פר, so too, when the כהן גדול did an עבירה בשוגג, there is a דין of a פר. In this פרק, we also discuss the קרבן of a נשיא, which really means a מלך, that if a king does an עבירה בשוגג, there is also a special קרבן that he has to bring, not like the קרבן of a יחיד. He brings a special קרבן, a שעיר. And in this פרק, we're going to discuss the דינים of a כהן גדול bringing his קרבן, and of a נשיא bringing his קרבן, and of a יחיד bringing his קרבן. Now,

one of the דינים concerning a כהן גדול is that just like concerning פר העלם דבר של ציבור, the דין is that when do you bring this קרבן? Only if this came after a הוראה, after בית דין פסק'נד by mistake that you're allowed to do the עבירה, and based on that פסק דין the people did it, that's when you bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, concerning a כהן גדול, it's the same thing: that first there has to be a פסק דין, he has to פסק'ן for himself that it's מותר, then, if he followed his own פסק דין, there is a דין of a פר of the כהן גדול. But if it was done without a פסק דין, if the כהן גדול just בשוגג did an עבירה, so then he brings no קרבן at all. Not like a יחיד that brings a קרבן just for the שגגת מעשה, just for doing the מעשה, the act בשוגג, but a כהן גדול has to bring a קרבן only if it was שגגת מעשה that came after הוראה, after a פסק דין. And this is what the משנה here is going to discuss. And the משנה starts: הורה כהן משיח לעצמו, if the כהן גדול פסק'נד to himself בשוגג, by mistake, he פסק'נד a certain דין wrong, by mistake, ועשה שוגג, and then he did the עבירה בשוגג, because of his פסק דין, מביא פר, so he brings this special קרבן חטאת, which is a פר.

שוגג ועשה מזיד, if he פסק'נד בשוגג, he made a mistake in his פסק דין and he פסק'נד you're allowed to do the עבירה, and he did that בשוגג, but when it came to do the עבירה, he did it במזיד, או מזיד ועשה שוגג, or he פסק'נד the דין wrong במזיד, and he did the עבירה בשוגג, that could be פסק'נד intentionally wrong, but when it came to do it, he didn't do it because of his פסק דין, he did it intentionally, knowing that it was wrong, and he just did it, פטור, then he is פטור from any קרבן. He doesn't bring his קרבן פר, because the פר is only brought if there was שגגת הוראה and שגגת מעשה. He made a mistake in the פסק דין, and then he made a mistake in the מעשה. But if one of the two were במזיד, he doesn't bring his פר. He also doesn't bring the regular קרבן חטאת of a יחיד, because we know that a כהן גדול never brings the regular קרבן חטאת of a יחיד. So, therefore, in this case, he would bring no קרבן at all. And the משנה explains, שהוראת כהן משיח לעצמו כהוראת בית דין לציבור, because the דין of הוראת כהן משיח for himself, the דין of the פסק דין of the כהן גדול for himself has the same דין as the פסק דין of בית דין for the ציבור. Just like in the case of the ציבור, when will there be a פר העלם דבר של ציבור? Only if they had both: there was הוראת בית דין בשוגג, and there was the שגגת מעשה בשוגג, and it has to be both. The same with a כהן גדול, when does he bring that קרבן פר? Only if there were both: he פסק'נד for himself בשוגג, and then, based on that, he did the מעשה בשוגג. But if one of the two was במזיד, then he doesn't bring this קרבן. But there is a difference between the דין of a כהן גדול and the דין of the ציבור. By the דין of the ציבור, if there wasn't הוראה, but there was just שגגת מעשה of the people, they would have to bring their own personal קרבן חטאת. But by a כהן גדול, if there wasn't the הוראה, there was just שגגת מעשה, so then he doesn't bring a קרבן at all. As the גמרא later learns out from the פסוק, מעם הארץ, so this comes to exclude the כהן משיח, because by the קרבן חטאת the פסוק says that if a person מעם הארץ, from the people of the land, from the nation of the land will do an עבירה, he brings that personal private קרבן חטאת. So from the words מעם הארץ, we דרש'ן that only if it was a simple person, an ordinary person, but if it was a כהן משיח, the כהן גדול doesn't bring ever that קרבן חטאת of a יחיד. And therefore, if the way it happened was that it doesn't fit to the conditions of his special פר, so he doesn't bring any קרבן, because the regular קרבן חטאת of a יחיד he doesn't bring ever. And the גמרא says: שוגג ועשה שוגג מביא פר, פשיטא. The משנה's first דין was that if the כהן גדול פסקנ'ד for himself בשוגג, and then he did the מעשה based on that פסק דין בשוגג, so he brings his קרבן, which is a פר, פשיטא. That is, in fact, that is the regular דין of the פר of the כהן גדול. אמר אביי, אביי said: הכא במאי עסקינן, here we're talking in a case, כגון, for instance, שהורה, that he פסקנ'ד for himself a certain עבירה is allowed, ושכח מאיזה טעם הורה, and he forgot for what reason he פסקנ'ד, and then he went along and did that עבירה, ובשעת עשיה, and when he did that עבירה, אמר, he said: הריני עושה על דעת הוראתי, I am doing this act on the דעת of my פסק דין, because I פסקנ'ד before that this is allowed, that's why I am doing this. מהו דתימא, I would think, כיון דאילו אידכריה, maybe if he would have remembered his reason that he gave before why he פסקנ'ד that it is מותר, שמא הדר ביה, he might have changed his mind, and the only reason he did the act now because of his פסק דין was because he didn't remember the reason that he פסקנ'ד. So I would think כ-מזיד דמי, it is considered like מזיד, ולא לחייב, he shouldn't have to bring this קרבן. קא משמע לן, the משנה comes to tell us, that nevertheless, it is still שוגג. And since earlier he פסקנ'ד בשוגג, and when he did the מעשה, it was בשוגג based on his פסק דין, so even though at that time he didn't remember the reason, nevertheless, he is חייב this קרבן, and we do not say that since he didn't remember it should be considered מזיד because maybe if he would have remembered now he would have realized it was wrong. Nevertheless, we say it is still שוגג, and he does bring his קרבן חטאת. Then the גמרא continues, it says in the משנה: מזיד ועשה שוגג וכולי, if he פסקנ'ד wrongly במזיד, but then he did the עבירה בשוגג, so the דין is that he is פטור. The גמרא says: מנא הני מילי? How do we know this דין? תנו רבנן, because the רבנן learned: The פסוק says: לאשמת העם. This is the פסוק in פרשת ויקרא, פרק ד, פסוק ג, and this is the פסוק that starts with the דין of the special קרבן of the כהן גדול, and the פסוק starts: אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, if the כהן who is anointed, which means the כהן גדול, would sin, לאשמת העם, for the sin of the nation, and the פסוק continues: והקריב על חטאתו אשר חטא פר בן בקר תמים לה' לחטאת, he will have to bring for his חטאת a פר בן בקר for ה'. So the פסוק says concerning the כהן גדול: לאשמת העם, to the עבירה of the nation, what does the פסוק mean with that? הרי משיח כציבור, to tell us that this כהן משיח, the כהן גדול, has the same דין as the עם, as the ציבור. And therefore, just like by the ציבור the דין is that if the בית דין פסקנ'ד בשוגג, and then the people followed the פסק דין בשוגג, that's when you bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. But if the בית דין פסקנ'ד במזיד, and the people did it בשוגג, then there is no דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. The same is concerning the כהן גדול, that if he פסקנ'ד for himself במזיד, and then he did it בשוגג, he doesn't bring this פר כהן משיח. And the גמרא continues: והלא דין הוא, but באמת, why do we need the פסוק to learn this out? There is a סברא to say that a כהן גדול has the same דין as a ציבור. Because we see that כהן גדול and ציבור are similar: ציבור מוצא מכלל יחיד, the קרבן of a ציבור is excluded from a יחיד, that if a ציבור did an עבירה they bring a different קרבן than if a יחיד did an עבירה, ומשיח מוצא מכלל יחיד, and the כהן משיח, the כהן גדול is also excluded from the יחיד, he also has a special קרבן, not the same קרבן as a יחיד. So we compare the two and say: מה ציבור אינו חייב אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה, that just like a ציבור is not חייב the פר העלם דבר של ציבור only if there was העלם דבר, which means בית דין פסקנ'ד wrong by mistake, and then with that came along the שגגת מעשה, that the people did the עבירה based on this פסק דין בשוגג, אף משיח, so too, the כהן גדול, לא יהא חייב, he shouldn't be חייב אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה, only if there was first העלם דבר, he פסקנ'ד for himself wrong בשוגג, and then there was שגגת מעשה, he did the עבירה בשוגג based on his פסק דין. So really, we don't need the פסוק 'לאשמת העם' to tell us that the כהן גדול has the same דין as a ציבור, that if he פסקנ'ד במזיד wrong, so then there would be no קרבן of פר כהן משיח, because we would learn it out by comparing it to the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. או כלך לדרך זו, but באמת we could go to a different way, which means that we don't necessarily have to say על פי סברא that a כהן גדול would have the same דין as a ציבור. Maybe he wouldn't have the same דין as a ציבור. Why? We would be able to compare it to something else: We'd say נשיא מוצא מכלל יחיד, a נשיא, which is a king, also is excluded from the יחיד, which means if a נשיא does the עבירה, he also has a different קרבן than a יחיד, ומשיח מוצא מכלל יחיד, and the כהן גדול is excluded from the יחיד, so let's compare the כהן משיח to the נשיא, and say מה נשיא מייתי בשגגת מעשה בלא העלם דבר, just like the נשיא, he brings his קרבן, just by doing the עבירה בשוגג, without a previous פסק דין, without העלם דבר which means by a wrong פסק דין. אף משיח, maybe the כהן גדול also, מייתי בשגגת מעשה בלא העלם דבר, would bring just by doing the עבירה בשוגג, without העלם דבר, without a previous פסק דין בשוגג. So we were able to compare it to ציבור, and then we would say that he only brings his קרבן if there was first העלם דבר, but on the other hand we're able to compare it to נשיא, and say that he would bring his קרבן even if there was no העלם דבר. נחזי לאי מדמי, let's see to which one of the two is it closer, is it more similar? ציבור בפר, the קרבן of the ציבור is a פר, a bull, and also there is another דין concerning ציבור, ואין מביאין אשם תלוי, ציבור doesn't bring an אשם תלוי. The דין of אשם תלוי is, you know, if a person does an act which it's possible that this is an עבירה which you are חייב a חטאת for, but he's not even sure if he did that עבירה, so for that you bring an אשם תלוי. Now the דין is that the ציבור doesn't bring an אשם תלוי. If the whole ציבור did a ספק עבירה that you are חייב a חטאת for, you don't bring an אשם תלוי at all. So we see a דין by a ציבור that ציבור has to bring a פר. The ציבור has a דין that they don't ever bring an אשם תלוי. ומשיח בפר ואין מביא אשם תלוי, the דין concerning the כהן גדול is the same, as his קרבן is also a פר, and there's another similar דין of a כהן גדול to the ציבור, that he never brings an אשם תלוי. If a כהן גדול does an עבירה which is a ספק, maybe it is an עבירה maybe not, so he also doesn't bring an אשם תלוי, as the גמרא will learn out later. So we compare the two and say מה ציבור אינו חייב אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה, that just like ציבור is only חייב if there was העלם דבר with שגגת מעשה, אף משיח לא יהא חייב אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה. So too the כהן גדול would not be חייב unless there's העלם דבר with שגגת מעשה. In other words, this answered the question we said before. Should we compare the כהן גדול to ציבור, or should we compare it to נשיא? And now we see that the כהן גדול is more similar to the ציבור than to the נשיא, because in these two ways the כהן גדול is similar to ציבור, and not to נשיא. And therefore we compare it to ציבור, and we say that just like ציבור, the only time you're חייב is if there was העלם דבר with שגגת מעשה, so too the כהן גדול is only חייב if there was העלם דבר with שגגת מעשה. או כלך לדרך זו, but on the other hand, maybe we could go to a different way, maybe we could find a different סברא that would tell us that we should better compare it to נשיא than to compare it to ציבור. Because נשיא מייתי שעירה בעבודה זרה, a נשיא, if his עבירה בשוגג was concerning עבודה זרה, he brings a שעירה like any יחיד. And this is in פרשת שלח, פיסקא ט״ו פסוק כ״ז. There it speaks about a person who does an עבירה of עבודה זרה בשוגג. It says: ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה, if one person will do this עבירה of עבודה זרה בשוגג, והקריבה עז בת שנתה לחטאת, then he has to bring a שעירה for a חטאת. And this דין applies whether this יחיד that did this עבירה of עבודה זרה was a regular ordinary person, or it was the נשיא, or it was even the כהן גדול. They all bring the same קרבן. It is only the ציבור, if they did an עבירה based on the פסק דין of בית דין concerning עבודה זרה, they bring a special קרבן which is a פר and a שעיר, a פר לעולה and a שעיר לחטאת. In other words, when there is an עבירה בשוגג done by all other עבירות that are בכרת, all other thirty עבירות, then we have four categories of a חטאת: if a יחיד does an עבירה, then he brings a כשבה or a שעירה; if the כהן גדול does an עבירה בשוגג, then he brings a פר; if the נשיא does an עבירה בשוגג, he brings a שעיר; if the ציבור does the עבירה בשוגג, then they bring a פר. But that is only concerning other עבירות. If this עבירה בשוגג was concerning עבודה זרה, there are only two categories: or the ציבור, or the יחיד. Now in this דין of יחיד includes the נשיא and the כהן גדול, which means that concerning עבודה זרה, the נשיא and the כהן גדול and the יחיד have the same דין, that they all have to bring a שעירה. There is only a ציבור that is different, that if the ציבור did the עבירה of עבודה זרה בשוגג, then they bring a פר for an עולה and a שעיר for a חטאת. And this is what the גמרא is saying here: that maybe we should compare the כהן גדול better to the נשיא, because we see in one way he is similar to the נשיא more than to the ציבור, because the נשיא brings a שעירה by עבודה זרה, and also מייתי אשם ודאי. The דין is that a נשיא has to bring a קרבן אשם, because we know amongst the אשמות we have אשם תלוי and אשם ודאי. אשם תלוי, as we said before, if you do an act which is a ספק, maybe it is an עבירה that you're חייב a חטאת for it. You cannot bring a חטאת because you're not sure, so you bring an אשם תלוי. אשם ודאי is, for instance, אשם גזלות or אשם מעילות. There's a certain condition when you steal that as a result of your stealing, you have to bring a קרבן אשם. Or if you are מועל בהקדש, you have use of הקדש if you're not allowed, you have to bring אשם מעילות. And these אשמות do not come because of a ספק, they are called אשם ודאי. So the דין is that a נשיא has to bring an אשם ודאי. If the נשיא did the עבירה, like for instance the stealing with the condition that is מחייב a person an אשם, so he also would have to bring an אשם, the אשם גזלות. Or if he was מועל בהקדש, he also has to bring the אשם מעילות. ומשיח מביא שעירה בעבודה זרה. And the כהן משיח also brings a שעירה for עבודה זרה, the same as the נשיא, which is the same really as the יחיד. ומביא אשם ודאי. And the כהן גדול also has to bring an אשם ודאי, while there is no דין of אשם ודאי by the ציבור, because by the אשם ודאי the פסוק says ונפש, and the ציבור is not נפש. So therefore the ציבור does not bring an אשם ודאי. So we see that in a certain way, the כהן גדול is more similar to the נשיא than he is to the ציבור with these two ענינים. So let's say, מה נשיא מביא בשגגת מעשה, so therefore just like a נשיא brings his קרבן חטאת just for שגגת מעשה, just for doing the act בשוגג without a previous פסק דין, אף משיח מביא בשגגת מעשה, so too the כהן משיח would bring his קרבן חטאת just for שגגת מעשה. So we're back to the question: what should we compare to? There is a סברא to compare the כהן גדול to the ציבור more than to the נשיא. On the other hand, there is a סברא to compare the כהן גדול to the נשיא more than to the ציבור. But since we don't know, תלמוד לומר, that's why we have to have the פסוק לאשמת העם, that by the קרבן חטאת of the כהן גדול it says לאשמת העם, to the עבירה of the עם, to tell us הרי הוא משיח כציבור, that the משיח is like the עם, like the ציבור. And we say, מה ציבור אינו מביא אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה, just like the ציבור brings their פר העלם דבר only if there was העלם דבר together with שגגת מעשה, אף משיח אינו מביא אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה, so too the כהן גדול doesn't bring unless there was first העלם דבר and then there was שגגת מעשה. Then the גמרא asks: if you say that the כהן גדול has the same דין like the ציבור, אי מה, we could say, מה ציבור הורו ועשו אחרים בהוראתם חייבין, just like by the ציבור the דין is that the בית דין פסק'נד and then the people followed the פסק דין of בית דין and they did like the פסק דין of בית דין, that's when you are חייב, אף משיח, also the כהן גדול, maybe the דין is כשהורה ועשו אחרים בהוראתו יהא חייב, that if the כהן גדול פסק'נד and others did according to his פסק דין, then he is חייב. We're saying the whole time that the כהן גדול is חייב if he פסק'נד for himself and then he himself did according to his פסק דין. But if we compare כהן גדול to ציבור, just like by ציבור the פסק דין came from one group of people and the מעשה was done through another group of people, the בית דין פסק'נד and the people followed, maybe by כהן גדול would be the same, that if he פסק'נד and others did according to his פסק דין, that's when he is חייב? תלמוד לומר, but the פסוק says והקריב על חטאתו אשר חטא, he should bring his קרבן for the עבירה that he did. So we דרש'ן: על מה שחטא הוא מביא, on an עבירה that he himself did he brings a קרבן, ואינו מביא על מה שחטאו אחרים, but he doesn't bring the קרבן for an עבירה that others did. Then the גמרא says: אמר מר, we learned before, משיח בפר ואין מביא אשם תלוי. That the כהן משיח, his similarity to the ציבור is that he brings a פר as a חטאת just like the ציבור, and also he doesn't bring an אשם תלוי just like the ציבור. But the גמרא asks: מנלן דאין מביא אשם תלוי, how do we know that a כהן גדול does not bring an אשם תלוי? That if he did an act which is a ספק, maybe it is an עבירה that you are חייב a חטאת for, how do we know he would not bring a קרבן אשם תלוי for that? And the גמרא answers: דכתיב, because it says in פסוק concerning אשם תלוי, and this is in פרשת ויקרא קפיטל ה, פסוק י״ח says, וכיפר עליו הכהן על שגגתו אשר שגג, that the כהן should forgive on him for the שוגג that he did בשוגג. So what is the פסוק trying to tell us? That מי שחטאתו ושגגתו שוה, that who is included in this דין of אשם תלוי? Only a person that his חטאת and his שוגג are equal, which means that he brings a חטאת for his שוגג. יצא, this comes to exclude, משיח, the כהן גדול, שאין שגגתו וחטאתו שוה, that his שוגג and his חטאת are not the same. In other words, when does he bring a חטאת? Not just for doing the עבירה בשוגג, but he brings a חטאת only if there was first העלם דבר, which means if he first פסק'נד wrong and then he did the act, that's when he brings a קרבן חטאת. So his שוגג and the חטאת are not the same. And the פסוק concerning אשם תלוי tells us that who brings an אשם תלוי? Only a person that his חטאת and his שוגג are the same. So this comes to exclude the כהן גדול, because and his שוגג and his חטאת are not the same. How do we know that? דכתיב לאשמת העם, because the פסוק by כהן גדול says לאשמת העם, which teaches us הרי הוא משיח כצבור. That the כהן גדול is like the ציבור. Just like the ציבור brings the קרבן פר העלם דבר only if

there was first העלם דבר, if first there was a mistake in פסק דין, so too, the כהן גדול would bring his קרבן חטאת only if there was first a mistake in the פסק דין. ממילא, we know from here that by the כהן גדול, his חטאת and שוגג are not the same. Now, since his חטאת and שוגג are not the same, he is excluded from the דין of אשם תלוי. Because by אשם תלוי, the פסוק says that who brings אשם תלוי? Only על שגגתו אשר שגג, which means a person that his חטאת and the שוגג are the same. But the גמרא asks, "How can you say that? לאשמת העם על כרחך לא קאי." The גמרא before, when it said that the כהן גדול does not bring an אשם תלוי, the גמרא definitely could not have meant what we just said now. Because what we just said now is that how do we know he doesn't bring an אשם תלוי? Because since the פסוק says לאשמת העם to teach us that he only brings a חטאת if there was first העלם דבר, ממילא, we know from there that his שוגג and his חטאת are not the same, and therefore, he's excluded from אשם תלוי. But the גמרא before was talking if the words לאשמת העם would not have been written. The גמרא started off by saying, "How do we know that the כהן גדול brings his קרבן חטאת only if there was העלם דבר? Because it says לאשמת העם." But then the גמרא was goes on and says, "Why do we need the פסוק לאשמת העם? Even if there wouldn't have been written לאשמת העם, we still would have known that a כהן גדול only brings it if there was first העלם דבר, because we would have compared it to ציבור. And why would we have compared him to ציבור? Because he is similar to ציבור, and one of the things he is similar is that a ציבור doesn't bring an אשם תלוי, so he doesn't bring an אשם תלוי, also. And then since we see that he is close, similar to ציבור, so we would say just like ציבור brings only with העלם דבר, so he also would bring with העלם דבר. And the question is, why do we need the פסוק לאשמת העם to teach us that?" What we're saying now is, that how do we know that a כהן גדול doesn't bring an אשם תלוי? It's all based because the פסוק says לאשמת העם, which tells us that he only brings if there was first העלם דבר. ממילא, he is excluded from the דין of אשם תלוי, because there it says, על שגגתו אשר שגג. It has to be חטאתו ושגגתו שוות. So, it means that the only way we know a כהן גדול is פטור from an אשם תלוי is only after we have the פסוק לאשמת העם, and we know from there that he only brings with העלם דבר, not just שגגת מעשה. So, then we could exclude him from אשם תלוי. But, then in the גמרא before, when we said that the כהן גדול doesn't bring an אשם תלוי, this was before we had the פסוק לאשמת העם, which means without the פסוק לאשמת העם, and before we know yet that a כהן גדול only brings his קרבן if there was העלם דבר. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what we're trying to learn out first. The גמרא there is looking a way to learn out that a כהן גדול only brings with העלם דבר. And we learned it out to the פסוק לאשמת העם, and the גמרא is saying we don't need לאשמת העם, we could have learned it out without. And what are we saying then? That how would we learn it out without לאשמת העם? In other words, without the פסוק that teaches us that he only brings with העלם דבר, we would have learned it out anyway that he brings only with העלם דבר, from the fact that he doesn't bring an אשם תלוי. When the whole דין that he doesn't bring an אשם תלוי only comes as a result of this דין that he only brings with העלם דבר? So, how can the גמרא before say that how do we know that the כהן גדול brings only with העלם דבר by comparing it to ציבור, based on the fact that he doesn't bring an אשם תלוי, which that itself comes as a result from the דין that he doesn't bring only with העלם דבר? Therefore, the גמרא says, אלא אשם כדי נסבה. You must say that when the גמרא before says that without the פסוק לאשמת העם, we would have still known that a כהן גדול only brings with העלם דבר, because we would have compared it to ציבור, and the גמרא says two ways a כהן גדול is compared to ציבור. One is because they bring a פר and he brings a פר, and other thing is because they don't bring an אשם תלוי, and he doesn't bring an אשם תלוי. The words אשם תלוי was mentioned for no reason. Really, that is extra, because it is not because of an אשם תלוי that we compare a כהן גדול to ציבור, because here we are talking in a case before we even know that a כהן גדול doesn't bring an אשם תלוי. So, therefore, what the גמרא really meant was that we compare a כהן גדול to ציבור just because the ציבור brings a פר, and the כהן גדול brings a פר. But, since לפועל ממש, a כהן גדול doesn't bring an אשם תלוי after we know the דין that he only brings with העלם דבר, we already know that he doesn't bring an אשם תלוי, so, therefore, the גמרא mentioned that there, too. But לכתחילה, to say that this was the reason the גמרא had in mind, how we could learn out without the פסוק לאשמת העם, we can't say, because if you don't have לאשמת העם and we yet don't know the דין that a כהן גדול only brings his קרבן with העלם דבר, we wouldn't know the דין either that he doesn't bring an אשם תלוי. Then we continue with the משנה.

הורה בפני עצמו ועשה בפני עצמו, מתכפר לו בפני עצמו. If the כהן גדול פסק'נט on his own for himself, and he himself did that עבירה, so then And really there's a מחלוקת in the משנה before whether the בית דין is the one that brings the קרבן, פר העלם דבר של צבור, or the צבור brings. And רבי מאיר was the one that said that the בית דין brings. So the משנה here mentions that the בית דין brings, because a סתם משנה here goes according to רבי מאיר. And therefore it mentions that the בית דין is the one that brings the קרבן. And now we will learn the גמרא. גמרא asks: מנא הני מילי? How do we know this דין, that if the כהן גדול פסקנט the same דין as the בית דין פסקנט, and he did the same עבירה as the צבור did because of the בית דין, and he did it because of himself, he doesn't have to bring his own קרבן, but is included in their קרבן? דתנו רבנן, that the רבנן learns: הורה עם הצבור ועשה עם הצבור, the כהן גדול פסקנט with the צבור, and did with the צבור. ציבור, יכול I would think יביא פר לעצמו, that he should bring his own פר, והדין הוא, but there is a סברא to say that he shouldn't bring his own פר, because נשיא מוצא מכלל יחיד, we know that the נשיא is excluded from the יחיד. A

נשיא has a special קרבן חטאת, different than a יחיד. ומשיח מוצא מכלל יחיד, the כהן משיח is also excluded from the יחיד. He also has a different קרבן than the יחיד. So we see that the נשיא and the כהן גדול are similar, so we should compare the two and say: מה נשיא חטא בפני עצמו, יביא בפני עצמו. Just like a נשיא, if he did an עבירה by himself, then he brings his own קרבן by himself; חטא עם הצבור, if he sinned together with the ציבור, מתכפר לו עם הצבור, his כפרה comes with the ציבור, which means that if he was part of the ציבור that followed the פסק דין of בית דין, then the נשיא would not bring his own private קרבן חטאת. He would be included in the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. When does a נשיא bring his own private קרבן חטאת? The same way if a יחיד would bring his own קרבן חטאת. In the same condition, when we say a יחיד would have to bring his own private חטאת, a נשיא would also have to bring. The difference is what the חטאת would be: by a יחיד it would be a כשבה או שעירה, and by a נשיא it would be a שעיר. But in the case where the יחיד doesn't have to bring his own personal חטאת, the נשיא also wouldn't bring. In other words, if the נשיא did the עבירה together with the ציבור, so then the נשיא would be included in the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So we say, אף משיח, so too concerning the כהן משיח, since he is similar to the נשיא, that חטא בפני עצמו, יביא בפני עצמו. If he sinned by himself, so he brings his own קרבן; חטא עם הצבור, מתכפר לו עם הצבור. If he

sinned together with the ציבור, then he is included in the כפרה of the ציבור. That's one סברא we could say, that he shouldn't have to bring his own קרבן. לא, no, you can't compare the two, because אם אמרת בנשיא, if we say this דין by a נשיא, it is true, שכן מתכפר לו עם הצבור ביום הכפורים. We see that at another time, the נשיא is included in the כפרה of the whole ציבור, and that is on יום כיפור. Because on יום כיפור we know there is a special קרבן that the כהן גדול brings for the whole ציבור, and the נשיא is included in that קרבן. There is no special קרבן חטאת on יום כיפור for the נשיא. So he is included in the ציבור. So since we see that a נשיא is included in the קרבן of the ציבור ביום כיפור, so ממילא we understand that in other cases, when he did the עבירה together with the ציבור, he's also included in their קרבן. תאמר במשיח, but say concerning the כהן גדול, שאינו מתכפר לו עם הצבור ביום הכפורים, that he is not מתכפר together with the ציבור on יום כיפור, because on יום כיפור we know there is a special קרבן that the כהן גדול brings for himself. So הואיל ואינו מתכפר לו עם הצבור ביום הכפורים, so therefore, since he doesn't get his כפרה together with the ציבור on יום כיפור, יכול I would think יביא פר לעצמו, that he should bring his own פר, and in the case where he did the עבירה together with the ציבור, he still should have to bring his own פר, because he never is included in the ציבור, even on יום כיפור not. תלמוד לומר, therefore we have a פסוק: על חטאתו אשר חטא. The פסוק concerning the פר of the כהן משיח says that he should bring his קרבן for the עבירה that he sinned. Okay, so what does that פסוק mean? חטא בפני עצמו, יביא בפני עצמו, that if he sinned by himself, that's when he brings his קרבן; חטא עם הצבור, but if he sinned not himself, but he sinned together with the ציבור, מתכפר לו עם הצבור. So then his כפרה is together with the ציבור, he doesn't bring his own private קרבן חטאת, but he is included in the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. And then the גמרא asks: היכי דמי, what is the case here of the כהן גדול that פסקנד the דין together with the ציבור? אילימא דהוא מופלא והן אינם מופלאים, if we're going to say that the כהן גדול is the מופלא of the בית דין, which means the head of the בית דין, and we learned earlier that if the בית דין פסקנד and the מופלא wasn't there, then the whole דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור doesn't apply. And we must say that this מופלא himself is not part of the בית דין, because if he would be himself a member of the בית דין, then even if he wouldn't be the מופלא, if he would just be an ordinary member, also it would be no דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור, because we learned before that when is there a פר העלם דבר של ציבור only if when the בית דין פסקנד every member of בית דין was there. לאו דוקא the highest member, even the simplest one. So therefore when it says דוקא that if the מופלא is missing from the בית דין, the פסק דין is no פסק דין and there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור, it means that the מופלא was not a member of the סנהדרין, and nevertheless he has to be there. So the question here is: if the כהן גדול was the מופלא, and the others were not מופלאים, they weren't in the category of מופלא, פשיטא, certainly דמתכפר לו בפני עצמו. Certainly that if he פסקנד in one דין and they פסקנד in another דין, and we said the דין is that he does have to bring his own קרבן, that is simple. Why? Because הוראה דילהון ולא כלום, because their פסק דין doesn't count at all, ובעו איתויי כשבה או שעירה כל חד וחד. And therefore, based on their פסק דין, every individual would have to bring his own private קרבן חטאת, a כשבה או שעירה. Because as we know, the only time there is a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, which automatically means that there is no דין on each individual to bring his own קרבן חטאת is only if the מופלא was there. Now if the case was that the כהן גדול was the מופלא and they are not a מופלא, and the כהן גדול פסק'נד for himself in one דין, and they פסק'נד in another דין, certainly he cannot be included in theirs. But not only because he פסק'נד a different עבירה than they did, because their פסק דין לכתחילה is no פסק דין, and they wouldn't bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור at all, but every individual would have to bring his own private קרבן חטאת. Because since the מופלא wasn't there, we learned before that if the מופלא is missing from the בית דין, there is no דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. ואי דאינהו מופלאין והוא לאו מופלא, now if the case is that they are מופלאין, they had a מופלא there, but he himself is not a מופלא, then the question is אמאי מתכפר ליה בפני עצמו? Then why should he have to bring his own קרבן בכלל? הוראה דידיה ולאו כלום היא, his פסק דין is no פסק דין. We know that when does a כהן גדול bring his פר? Only if his עבירה followed a פסק דין that he פסק'נד for himself. But if he wasn't a מופלא, then his פסק דין is not a פסק דין to begin with. So then בכלל he wouldn't have to bring a קרבן חטאת. So what do we mean that he would have to bring his own קרבן? אמר רב פפא, therefore רב פפא said, כגון, the case would be for instance שהיו מופלאין שניהם, both were מופלא. He was a מופלא, and the בית דין that פסק'נד also had a מופלא. And therefore, if the case is that he פסק'נד in one דין and they פסק'נד in another דין, then they bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and he brings his own פר כהן משיח. If it was in the same דין, so then they bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and he is included in that פר, and he doesn't have to bring his own פר כהן משיח. Then the גמרא says: סבר אביי למימר, אביי thought to say, חטא בפני עצמו והורו בפני עצמן, היכי דמי? That what do we mean when we say that he פסק'נד for himself and they פסק'נד for themselves, not together with the בית דין, so then he has to bring his own קרבן? It means דיתבי בשני מקומות, that they were sitting in

two places, וקא מורי בתרי איסורי, and they פסק'נד in two איסורים. The בית דין was in one place, he was in another place. The בית דין פסק'נד their פסק דין in one איסור, for instance in עבודה זרה, and he, sitting in the other place, פסק'נד it concerning another דין, for instance concerning חלב. So then he brings his own קרבן. But if they were sitting in the same place, even if he פסק'נד it concerning a different דין, he still would be included in the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. אמר ליה רבא, so רבא said to him: אטו שני מקומות גורמין? Do two places cause? In other words, what difference does it make if they were in two places or in one place? אלא, therefore רבא says, אפילו יתבי בחד מקום, even if they were sitting in one place, he was sitting in the same place with the בית דין, אבל כיוון דקא מורי בתרי איסורי, but since they were פסק'ענינג in two איסורים, חטא בפני עצמו הוא, so his עבירה is considered a separate עבירה, and therefore he has to bring his own separate קרבן. And now the גמרא is going to explain to give an example of what do we mean that he פסק'נד in one איסור and they פסק'נד in another איסור. פשיטא, that is simple, דהוא בחלב והם בעבודת כוכבים, that if he

פסק'נד concerning חלב, that you're allowed to eat a certain type of חלב, and they פסק'נד concerning עבודת כוכבים, חטא בפני עצמו הוא, that is definitely considered a separate עבירה. Why? דהא חלוקין בטעמייהו וחלוקין בקרבנות, it's a different reason, it's a different type of עבירה, and in addition to that, there are different קרבנות. דהוא בפר והם בפר ושעיר. Because when the כהן גדול פסק'נס that you're allowed to eat חלב for himself and then does it, he has to bring a פר כהן משיח. But the ציבור in this case when they פסק'נד concerning עבודת כוכבים, they have to bring a פר ושעיר. By other עבירות the ציבור has to bring a פר also, but if the ציבור פסק'נד concerning עבודת כוכבים, so then the דין is a פר ושעיר, so it's a complete different קרבן. דהא קא מייתי הנהו שעיר והוא לא מייתי, because you see they bring an extra שעיר, in addition to the פר they bring a שעיר, and he doesn't bring the שעיר. So therefore it's a separate עבירה, and he is not included in their קרבן, and he brings his own קרבן. וכל שכן, certainly if it was different, הוא בעבודת כוכבים והם בחלב. If he פסק'נד concerning עבודת כוכבים for himself, and they פסק'נד concerning חלב, דחלוקין בקרבנותיהן לגמרי, so here they're completely different in the קרבן. דהוא שעירה, because he brings a שעירה. As we said before, that by עבודת כוכבים a כהן גדול is the same as a regular יחיד. And therefore, he would bring a שעירה, ואינהו פר, and the ציבור would bring a פר, because the ציבור when they פסק'נד concerning חלב they bring a פר, so it's a complete different קרבן. So it's even more than the case before. In the case before, when he פסק'נד by חלב and then by עבודת כוכבים, they're also different קרבנות. The difference is only one thing: he brings a פר, and they bring a פר. The thing is they, in addition to the פר, bring a שעיר. But in one way, they are similar. Nevertheless, we said, since סוף כל סוף it's a different קרבן, we understand that he brings his own קרבן. But certainly in a case where he פסק'נד concerning עבודת כוכבים and they concerning חלב, then לכתחילה completely the קרבן is different. Not the פשט in one way is the same and in another thing is different. לכתחילה they're different. He brings a שעירה שעירה, and they bring a פר. אלא the שאלה is, הוא בחלב המכסה את הקרב, והם בחלב שעל הדקין, מהו? If he פסקנט concerning חלב, but what kind of חלב? חלב which covers the קרב, the fat of the entrails, and they פסקנט concerning the חלב which is on the דקין, the חלב of the small bowels, מהו, what is the דין here? מי אמרינן, do we say אף על גב דקרבנם שוה, even though the קרבן is the same, because they both פסקנט concerning חלב, so they both have to bring a פר. But כיוון דמתרי קראי קאתי, since these two איסורים of חלב come from two separate פסוקים, הא פליגי בטעמייהו, so they are different in their reasons, and therefore it's considered that he פסקנט it concerning a different עבירה than they did. And even though חלב is an איסור which is clearly written in the תורה, and we said in the גמרא earlier that if they פסקנט a דין concerning a דין which is clearly written in the תורה, which even the צדוקים מודו ביה, then the whole דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור doesn't apply, and the same thing would be concerning the פר כהן משיח, that if he פסקנט concerning a דין which is clearly written in the תורה, there is no דין of פר כהן משיח. So how can the גמרא give an example here of them פסקנינג concerning חלב? So רש״י explains that this is not clearly written in the תורה. We learn it out from לימודים. The תורה does mention חלב, but this type of חלב here is not really written in the תורה clearly and therefore, concerning this חלב there would be a דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור and פר כהן משיח. Or רש״י says that maybe their argument was concerning a כזית, whether you have to have a כזית in order to be חייב or not, and that is definitely not written clearly in the תורה. But whatever it is, the גמרא's question is that if he פסקנט concerning חלב which is on the קרב and they פסקנט concerning חלב of the דקין, do we say that since they are learned out from two separate פסוקים, so then it is considered that they פסקנט in two separate דינים, או דילמא, or maybe שם חלב אחד הוא, the name חלב is the same, and therefore it is considered the same איסור and he wouldn't bring his own קרבן, but he would be included in their קרבן. And the גמרא continues, אם תמצי לומר, if for some reason you are going to say that שם חלב אחד הוא, that it's one name of חלב and therefore he would not bring his own קרבן, what would be the דין הוא בחלב והם בדם, מהו?

He פסקנט concerning חלב and they פסקנט concerning blood, he allowed himself to eat חלב and the בית דין allowed the ציבור to drink blood. מי אמרינן, do we say בטעמייהו פליגי, here definitely they are different reasons, which means definitely they are two separate איסורים, and therefore he would be חייב his own קרבן, או דילמא, or maybe כיוון דשוויו בקרבן, since they are the same קרבן, because for חלב and for דם you bring the same קרבן, so I would think בתר קרבן אזלינן, we go after the קרבן, and it is considered as if they פסקנט concerning the same ענין, and therefore he would not have to bring his own קרבן. And the גמרא says תיקו, this question remains unanswered. Then the גמרא quotes from the משנה, it said שאין בית דין חייבין עד שיורו לבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת וכולי, that in what way do we see that a כהן משיח is similar to the ציבור? That just like the ציבור is not חייב unless they פסקנט to be מבטל part of the מצוה and to be מקיים part of the מצוה, the same the כהן גדול, when is he חייב? Only if he פסקנט to be מקיים part of the מצוה and to be מבטל part of the מצוה. And the גמרא says מנא הני מילי, how do we know that עד שיורו לבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת, that when is the בית דין חייב only if they פסקנט to be מבטל part and to be מקיים part? And the גמרא says כי דאמרינן באידך פירקא, like we said in the other פרק, that we learn it out from the פסוק ונעלם דבר, it says that the thing will be covered from the eyes of the עדה, so we say דבר ולא כל הגוף, only a thing, which means part of the מצוה will be hidden, will be mistaken, but not the whole גוף, not the whole מצוה, but if the whole מצוה was mistaken, then there is no דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. וכן המשיח, the

משנה says so too the כהן משיח, that he also is only חייב his פר כהן משיח if it was only לבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת. מנלן, the גמרא says how do we know that? And the answer is דכתיב, because the פסוק says לאשמת העם, the כהן גדול will sin to the עבירה of the עם. What does that mean? הרי משיח כציבור, that the משיח has the same דין as the ציבור and therefore by him we also say the דין that he's only חייב if he פסקנט לבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת. And then the משנה continued, ולא בעבודת כוכבים וכולי, and by עבודה זרה also, when is the ציבור חייב for עבודה זרה? Only if they פסקנט לבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת. But if they would have פסקנט that there is no עבודה זרה in the תורה, then they wouldn't have to bring their special קרבן concerning עבודה זרה. And the גמרא asks מנלן, how do we know this דין? And the גמרא answers דתנו רבנן, because the רבנן learned, לפי שיצאת עבודת כוכבים לדון בעצמו, since עבודה זרה went out of the rule to be judged by itself, because עבודה זרה is also an עבירה that you get כרת for. So באמת עבודה זרה is included in the general דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. Nevertheless, the תורה took out עבודה זרה from the כלל, and made עבודה זרה a special דין. For all other עבירות that you get כרת for, there is a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. For עבודה זרה, the תורה said there is a פר and a שעיר, a special דין of an עולה and a חטאת. So, since עבודה זרה was taken out of the general דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור, יכול, I would think, you were חייב on a עקירת מצוה כולה, that you should be חייב by עבודה זרה even if they tear out the whole מצוה, even if בית דין would פסקן that there is no דין of עבודה זרה at all, still, you would have to bring the קרבן of עבודה זרה. Cause this דין that we said before that we learn out only if you are מבטל מקצת ומקיים מקצת, that's when there is a דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and we learned it out from the פסוק "ונעלם דבר", that פסוק is said concerning the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. But now that עבודה זרה is taken out from the regular דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור, so this פסוק, "ונעלם דבר", which teaches us לבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת, doesn't apply to עבודה זרה. So, we

would think that by עבודה זרה, טאקע the דין is different, that even if they were מבטל the whole דין of עבודה זרה, there is also this special קרבן of עבודה זרה. Therefore, we learn out, נאמר כאן מעיני ונאמר להלן מעיני. By עבודה זרה the פסוק says "מעיני", and by the regular פר העלם דבר של ציבור the פסוק says "מעיני". מה להלן בבית דין אף כאן נמי בבית דין. So, we know that the פסוק here that it says you bring a פר and a שעיר for a חטאת and an עולה, is speaking by בית דין, just like by the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. We know that when do you bring that קרבן? Only if it came after a פסק דין of בית דין. So, we know that by עבודה זרה, when do you bring this פר ושעיר? Only if it came after a פסק דין of בית דין. And the reason we need this לימוד, because by עבודה זרה it doesn't say it has to come through the פסק דין of בית דין, cause there it says, "והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה", if from the eyes of the community it was done בשגגה. Now, there we can't say that the word עדה means the בית דין, because it says, "מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה", that from the עיני העדה it was done בשגגה. That's as if it's saying that the עדה did it. Now, if the עדה means בית דין, it's as if it's saying that the בית דין did it. And the דין is that the מעשה is תלוי in the ציבור, it is the הוראה that is תלוי in בית דין. So therefore, over there by עבודה זרה where it says "והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה", it טאקע doesn't mean בית דין. Now, since that doesn't mean בית דין, the פסוק doesn't mention that this comes only after a הוראה of בית דין. So therefore, we have to learn it out with the גזירה שוה from the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. That just like over there it definitely does mean בית דין, and that we know because the פסוק says "ונעלם דבר מעיני הקהל", and that is בית דין. So too, in the case of עבודה זרה, when are they חייב this קרבן? Only if it came through a פסק דין of בית דין. And we also learn out another דין, ומה להלן דבר ולא כל הגוף, and just like by the case of פר העלם דבר של ציבור, when is this קרבן חייב? Only if they were מבטל part of it, but not the whole גוף, אף כאן נמי דבר ולא כל הגוף. So, too by עבודה זרה, when are they חייב this special קרבן, פר ושעיר, for עבודה זרה? Only if the בית דין was מבטל part of the דין of עבודה זרה. But if the בית דין was מבטל the whole דין of עבודה זרה, then there is no special דין of the קרבן for עבודה זרה. But

תוספות asks a קשיא on the last thing that we just learned, that we learn out from the גזירה שוה "מעיני", that we learn out עבודה זרה from פר העלם דבר של ציבור. Just like by פר העלם דבר של ציבור, it came through בית דין, so too by עבודה זרה, the only time they're חייב that special קרבן, only if it comes with the הוראה of בית דין. And as we said before, because by עבודה זרה it doesn't mention בית דין. All it says is, "והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה", and that doesn't mean בית דין. So, how do we know it has to come through a הוראה from בית דין? So, we have the גזירה שוה "מעיני" "מעיני" from פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and just like over there where it says "ונעלם דבר מעיני הקהל", it means בית דין, so by עבודה זרה also it means that it came through the הוראה of בית דין. But תוספות asks a קשיא, in the first פרק in דף ה' עמוד ב' on the top of the עמוד, when the גמרא asked that according to רבי שמעון and רבי מאיר, how do we know the הוראה תלויה בבית דין ומעשה תלוי בקהל? So אביי said because the פסוק says "והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה", so from that פסוק we learn out that it has to come through a הוראה of בית דין. And the גמרא over there says, "והא כי כתיבי הני קראי בעבודה זרה הוא דכתיבי", that this פסוק that we just quoted is by עבודה זרה. So, how do we know that by all other עבירות it also depends on בית דין? And the גמרא answers, "ילפינן מעיני מעיני". We learn out a גזירה שוה "מעיני" "מעיני". Just like by עבודה זרה, where it says "מעיני", it has to come through the הוראה of בית דין, so we know by other עבירות, also it has to come through a הוראה of בית דין. So, this is ממש the opposite of what the גמרא is saying here. The גמרא here is saying that how do we know that by עבודה זרה it has to come through בית דין, we learn it out from other עבירות. And over there it said that we learn out other עבירות from עבודה זרה. So, תוספות answers that באמת what אביי meant to say there was ממש like the גמרא says here. That by עבודה זרה טאקע we don't know that it has to come through בית דין. And the only way we know that it has to come through בית דין is because we learn it with a גזירה שוה from פר העלם דבר של ציבור by all other עבירות, that just like there it comes through בית דין, so too by עבודה זרה it has to come through בית דין. What the גמרא meant over there that we learn out from עבודה זרה to other מצות, that הוראה תלויה בבית דין ומעשה תלוי בקהל, the גמרא didn't mean concerning Concerning the first part, that it has to come through a הוראה of בית דין, it meant the second half, that the מעשה has to come through the קהל, because there the גמרא said that from the פסוק we learn out הוראה תלויה בבית דין ומעשה תלוי בקהל. So concerning the second half, מעשה תלוי בקהל, that we would not know by other מצות, by פר העלם דבר של ציבור, if we would not learn it out from עבודה זרה. Because by עבודה זרה it says that והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה, so here it says that the עדה has to do the עבירה בשוגג. So by עבודה זרה we know that the מעשה is תלוי בקהל. So we learn out this part from עבודה זרה to שאר מצות, to פר העלם דבר של ציבור. And that's how the two גמרות fit: that it has to do with בית דין, we learn out עבודה זרה from פר העלם דבר של ציבור; that the מעשה is תלוי בקהל, that we learn out by פר העלם דבר של ציבור from עבודה זרה.

Concerning where the גמרא said that how do we know that when is there a דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור only if they're מבטל מקצת ומקיים מקצת is because we learn it out from the פסוק ונעלם דבר, דבר ולא כל הגוף. And then the גמרא said how do we know that a כהן משיח has the same דין? So the גמרא said, because it says לאשמת העם, that a משיח is כציבור. So the תוספות הרא"ש asks a קשיא, why do we have to learn out כהן משיח from פר העלם דבר של ציבור? And פר העלם דבר של ציבור itself is taken because the פסוק says דבר, and we say דבר ולא כל הגוף, we have a פסוק by כהן גדול himself which could tell us the same דין, because the פסוק says there that he will do an עבירה, so it says מאחת מהנה. He will do from one of them. From one of them, which means not the whole thing. So that tells us clearly that when is he חייב? Only if he was מבטל מקצת. But if he was מבטל the whole thing, he is not חייב. And the רא"ש answers from there it's no ראיה, because that is a פסוק that speaks about the עשיה. It says ועשה מאחת מהנה, he will do the עבירה from one of them. So we know that when it comes to do the עבירה, when is he חייב? Only if he is מבטל part of the עבירה, not the whole thing. But what we're trying to learn out here is not concerning the עבירה when it's done, but concerning the הוראה, the פסק דין, that when is the כהן גדול חייב? Only if his פסק דין לכתחילה was only לבטל מקצת. But let's say if his פסק דין was to מבטל the whole thing, but the עבירה he did was only מקצת, then he is also פטור. So from the פסוק מאחת מהנה we would only know that if he did part of the עבירה, then he is חייב. But how would we know that he has to פסקן also concerning part of the עבירה? So that the גמרא says we learn out because we compare משיח to ציבור from the פסוק לאשמת העם. And then the רא"ש says that anyway we couldn't use the מ of מאחת מהנה to tell us that a כהן גדול would only be חייב if it was מבטל מקצת, because that מ is used for something else. The גמרא in שבת says that we learn this פסוק to teach us that if a person wrote שם משמעון, he's חייב. If he wrote שין מם, intending to write the whole name שמעון, but he just wrote the word שם, he is also חייב. And how do we know that? Because the פסוק says מאחת מהנה, even if it was part of the name he intended to write, he is חייב. So since the פסוק is used up for that, so we already can't use the פסוק for the דין that the רא"ש asks we should use it for here.

Concerning what it said in the משנה that אין בית דין חייבין עד שיורו לבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת, that בית דין is not חייב unless they פסקן to be מבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת, so we mentioned that רש"י says that even though there is a מחלוקת who brings the קרבן, whether it's the בית דין that brings or the ציבור brings, so when the משנה says that the בית דין brings, סתם משנה כרבי מאיר, and רבי מאיר is of the opinion that holds that the בית דין brings. So the רא"ש asks a קשיא here that לכאורה this contradicts what רש"י himself said in the beginning of the פרק. Because in the beginning of the פרק, where it says that שמואל said אין בית דין חייבין עד שיאמרו להם מותרין אתם, that בית דין is not חייב unless they said in the פסק דין you are allowed to do it, so there רש"י said that when it says בית דין is not חייב, it doesn't mean because we פסקן that the בית דין is the one that's חייב, it means whoever is חייב, whether it is the בית דין or the ציבור, and when it says the לשון אין בית דין חייבין, it means because it is only if it followed the פסק דין of בית דין. So we see here that רש"י learns that when it says בית דין, it doesn't mean דוקא בית דין. It just means the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and since it comes through a הוראה of בית דין, we could use the לשון of בית דין. So how come here רש"י is מדייק that when it says in the משנה that אין בית דין חייבין עד שיורו לבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת, this is a ראיה that the משנה פסקנס that the בית דין is the one that brings? Maybe here too it means the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, but when it says בית דין is because it depends on the פסק דין of בית דין? So the רא"ש answers maybe the פשט is that over there, where it just says the לשון אין בית דין חייבין, it is not a ראיה that the בית דין is the one that brings. But here, since it says right after that וכן המשיח, and by משיח it טאקע means the כהן משיח himself who brings the קרבן, so here where it says אין בית דין חייבין, it's משמע that the בית דין טאקע themselves are the one that are חייב. And that's why here the רש"י says that it טאקע follows the opinion that the בית דין is the one that brings.