[א] "ואם" – הרי זה מוסיף על ענין הראשון; שתמצא אומר פר משיח ופר עדה עומדין – פר משיח קודם לפר עדה לכל מעשיו. 1) (Vayikra 4:13): "And if (the whole congregation of Israel err"): "And if" "adds" (i.e., is secondary) to what precedes, (the section of the high-priest), so that if the bullock of the high-priest and the bullock of the congregation are awaiting (sacrifice), the first takes precedence in all services.
[ב] "עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל" – יכול בעדה (ס"א בכל עדה וס"א בכל העדה) הכתוב מדבר? תלמוד לומר כאן 'עדה' ולהלן נאמר (במדבר לה, כד) 'עדה'. מה 'עדה' אמורה להלן – בית דין, אף כאן – בית דין. או מה 'עדה' אמורה להלן בכהן גדול אף כאן בכהן גדול! תלמוד לומר "עדת ישראל" – העדה המיוחדת שבישראל; ואיזו? זו סנהדרי גדולה היושבת בלשכת הגזית. 2) "the congregation of Israel": I might think the entire congregation is being referred to; it is, therefore, written here "congregation" and elsewhere (Numbers 35:24 and Numbers 35:25) "congregation." Just as a "congregation" there refers to beth-din, so, "congregation" here refers to beth-din. If so, I might think that just as "congregation" there refers to (a beth-din of) twenty-three, so, "congregation" here. It is, therefore, written: "the congregation of Israel." — the congregation which is "distinctive" in Israel. Which one is that? The Great Sanhedrin (of seventy-one), which sits in the lishkath hagazith (the "chamber of hewn stone").
[ג] היה אחד מהם גר או ממזר או נתין או זקן שלא ראה לו בנים – יכול יהיו חייבים? תלמוד לומר כאן 'עדה' ולהלן נאמר 'עדה'. מה 'עדה' אמורה להלן – כולם ראוים להוריה, אף 'עדה' אמורה כאן – עד שיהיו כולם ראוים להוריה. 3) I would think that if one of them (the beth-din) were a convert or a mamzer or a Nathin or an elder who never had children, they would be liable; it is, therefore, written here "congregation," and elsewhere (Numbers, Ibid.) "congregation." Just as "congregation" there refers to (a beth-din where) all are fit to judge, so, "congregation" here.
[ד] לא היה מופלא של בית דין שם, או אמר אחד מהם "איני יודע", או שאמר להם "טועים אתם!" – יכול יהיו חייבים? תלמוד לומר "עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ" – עד שיורו כולם. 4) I might think that if the mufla (the "chief justice") of beth-din were absent, or that if one of them said: "I do not know," or "you are mistaken," they are liable; it is, therefore, written: "… the congregation of Israel err" — They are not liable (for a sin-offering) until the entire (beth-din) rules (in error).
[ה] "יִשְׁגּוּ" – יכול יהיו חייבים על שגגת המעשה? תלמוד לומר "יִשְׁגּוּ וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר" – הא אינם חייבים אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת המעשה. 5) ("And if the whole congregation of Israel [the Sanhedrin]) err": I might think that they are liable (for a sin-offering) for unwittingness (of deed) alone; it is, therefore, written: (If they) "err and a thing be hid (from the eyes of the assembly"). They are liable only for "a thing being hid" (i.e., an error in judgment) with (i.e., which leads to) an unwitting sin (on the part of the people).
[ו] מתוך שיצאת עכו"ם לידון בעצמה, יכול יהיו חייבים על שגגת המעשה שלה? תלמוד לומר כאן "מעיני" ולהלן (במדבר טו, כד) נאמר "מעיני". מה "מעיני" האמור להלן – בית דין, אף כאן – בית דין; ומה "מעיני" האמור להלן – העלם דבר עם שגגת המעשה, אף "מעיני" האמור כאן – העלם דבר עם שגגת המעשה. 6) Since idolatry was singled out for an independent ruling (i.e., the bringing of a bullock for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering [for unwitting transgression, as opposed to unwitting transgression of the other mitzvoth, where a bullock is brought for a sin-offering]), I might think that they (the Sanhedrin and the majority of the people) are liable for unwittingness of deed (alone) in respect to it (idolatry, [without error in judgment]). It is, therefore, written here (in respect to idolatry) [Bamidbar 15:24]: ("If) from the eyes (of the congregation it were done in error"), and, elsewhere (in respect to other mitzvoth) (Vayikra, Ibid.): ("and a thing be hid) from the eyes (of the assembly"). Just as "from the eyes" elsewhere refers to beth-din, here, too, (in respect to idolatry) it refers to beth-din. And just as "from the eyes" elsewhere refers to hiddenness of thing (i.e., an error in judgment on the part of beth-din) with unwittingness of deed (on the part of the congregation), here, too, (in respect to idolatry) there must be hiddenness of thing and unwittingness of deed.
[ז] "וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר" – לא שתתעלם (ס"א שתעלם, וכן בהמשך) מצוה כולה. כיצד? אמרו "אין נדה בתורה"; "אין שבת בתורה"; "אין עכו"ם בתורה" – יכול יהיו חייבים? תלמוד לומר "ונעלם דבר" – לא שתתעלם מצוה כולה. 7) "and a thing be hid": Not that the entire mitzvah be hid. How so? If they ruled: There is no (law of) niddah in the Torah, there is no Shabbath in the Torah, there is no idolatry in the Torah — I might think they are liable (for a sin-offering); it is, therefore, written: "and a thing be hid" (then there is liability) — not if the entire mitzvah is hidden.
[ח] אבל אמרו "יש נדה בתורה אבל הבא על שומרת יום כנגד יום – פטור"; "יש שבת בתורה אבל המוציא מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים – פטור"; "יש עכו"ם בתורה אבל המשתחוה – פטור" – יכול יהיו פטורים? תלמוד לומר "ונעלם דבר" – לא כל הגוף. 8) But (conversely), if they ruled: There is (a law of) niddah in the Torah, but it is permitted to live with "shomereth yom keneged yom" (a woman observing a day of purity after a day of sighting between her normal niddah times); there is (a law of) Shabbath in the Torah, but it is permitted to carry from one (private) domain to another or from a private domain to a public domain, ([in a particular manner which is actually forbidden]); there is a law (against) idolatry in the Torah, but it is permitted to bow down to it, ([in a particular manner which is actually forbidden]) — I might think that they are not liable (for a sin-offering, [beth-din not having erred in an entire "thing"]); it is, therefore, written (as a prerequisite for a sin-offering): "and a thing be hid" — not (that) the entire body (of the mitzvah must be hidden).
[ט] מתוך שיצאה עכו"ם לידון בעצמה, יכול יהיו חייבים על העלם מצוה כולה? תלמוד לומר כאן "מעיני" ונאמר להלן (במדבר טו, כד) "מעיני". מה "מעיני" אמור כאן – פרט לכל הגוף, אף "מעיני" האמור להלן – פרט לכל הגוף. 9) Since idolatry was singled out for an independent ruling (see 6 above), I might think that (in the instance of idolatry) they are liable for (beth-din's) erring (even) in the entire mitzvah (i.e., ruling that idolatry itself is permitted). It is, therefore, written here (Vayikra) "from the eyes" and elsewhere (Bamidbar, in respect to idolatry), "from the eyes." Just as "from the eyes" here excludes (error in respect to) the entire body (of the mitzvah), so, "from the eyes" there.
[י] הורו בית דין ועשו – יכול יהיו חייבים? תלמוד לומר "הקהל..ועשו" – ההוראה תלויה בבית דין והמעשה תלוי בקהל. 10) If beth-din ruled (erroneously), and they (beth-din themselves) committed (the sin), I might think they are liable. It is, therefore, written: ("and a thing be hid from the eyes of) the assembly, and they do" — the ruling relates to beth-din, and the act to the people.
[יא] "מִצְוֹת יהו"ה" – ולא מצות המלך, ולא מצות בית דין. "מִצְוֹת" האמורות במשיח (ויקרא ד, ב) הן "מִצְוֹת" האמורות כאן (ויקרא ד, יג). "מִכָּל מִצְוֹת יהו"ה" – לא כל מצות ה'; פרט לשמיעת הקול ולביטוי שפתים ולטומאת מקדש וקדשיו. "וְאָשֵׁמוּ" – כשם שנפרעים מן היחיד כן נפרעין מן הצבור. 11) ("and they 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 (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, and they are guilty": Just as punishment is exacted of the individual (if he does not bring his sin-offering), so it is exacted of the congregation (even though they acted on the ruling of beth-din.)
[יב] ידעו שהורו וטעו ולא ידעו מה הורו – יכול יהיו חייבים? תלמוד לומר "וְנוֹדְעָה הַחַטָּאת…" – ולא שיודעו החוטאים. 12) (Vayikra 4:14): ("If the sin became known wherein they have sinned"): If it became known (to the people) that beth-din had ruled erroneously (in respect to one of two acts, both of which they later performed on their ruling); but they could not ascertain in which ruling they had erred — I might think that they would (nevertheless) be liable (for a sin-offering, knowing, at least, that they had acted on an erroneous ruling of beth-din); it is, therefore, written: "If the (specific) sin became known," and not: "If the sinners became known."
[יג] "אשר חטאו…והקריבו" – חטאו שני שבטים – מביאין שני פרים, חטאו שלשה – מביאין שלשה. או אינו אלא חטאו שני יחידים – מביאין שני פרים, חטאו שלשה – יביאו שלשה? תלמוד לומר "הקהל" – הקהל חייב. וכל קהל וקהל חייבים. 13) "… wherein they have sinned, then the assembly shall offer, etc.": If two tribes sinned, they bring two bullocks; if three tribes sinned, they bring three bullocks. — But perhaps the meaning is that two sinners (in an assembly of sinners) bring two bullocks; three sinners bring three bullocks (i.e., each one in the assembly brings a bullock). It is, therefore, written: "the assembly (shall offer"). The assembly (and not each individual) is liable, (one bullock for the entire assembly), and each assembly (i.e., tribe) is liable (for itself).
[יד] הכיצד? חטאו שני שבטים – מביאין שני פרים, חטאו שלשה – מביאין שלשה. ושאר שבטים שלא חטאו – מביאין על ידיהם פר; שאף אלו שלא חטאו מביאין על ידי החוטאים, לכך נאמר "הקהל" לחייב על כל קהל וקהל, דברי ר' יהודה. 14) How so? If two tribes sinned, they bring two bullocks. If three tribes sinned, they bring three. And the other tribes, which did not sin, bring a bullock (each) because of them. For even those who did not sin bring because of the sinners. These are the words of R. Yehudah.
[טו] ר' שמעון אומר: שבעה שבטים שחטאו – מביאין שבעה פרים, ובית דין מביאים עליהן פר, וכולם פטורין – שנאמר כאן "קהל" ונאמר להלן "קהל"; מה "קהל" אמור להלן – בית דין, אף כאן – בית דין. 15) R. Shimon says: If seven tribes sinned, they bring seven bullocks; and beth-din brings a bullock for them (for their erroneous ruling on which they acted), it being written here "assembly" ("the assembly shall offer"), and, elsewhere (Ibid. 4:13): "assembly" ("and a thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly"). Just as "assembly" there is beth-din, so, here, it is beth-din.
[טז] ר' מאיר אומר: חטאו שבעה שבטים או רובן – בית דין מביאין עליהן פר וכולן פטורים שנאמר כאן "קהל" ולהלן נאמר "קהל"; מה "קהל" אמור להלן – בית דין, אף כאן – בית דין. 16) R. Meir says: If seven tribes sinned, or most of them, (i.e., the majority of each), and beth-din brings a bullock for them, they are all exempt (from the sin-offering), it being written here "assembly," and elsewhere, "assembly." Just as "assembly" there is beth-din, so, here, it is beth-din.
[יז] ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משמו: חטאו ששה והן רובו, או שבעה אף על פי שאינן רובו – הרי אלו חייבין. 17) R. Shimon b. Elazar said in his name: If six (of the tribes) sinned, and they comprise the majority (of the men) of the populace, or seven, even if they do not comprise the majority, they (beth-din, and not the populace) are liable (for the sin-offering).