Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

We have already explained that for every transgression for which an ordinary person must bring a ewe or a she-goat as a fixed sin-offering, a nasi who violates it inadvertently must bring a he-goat. And if an anointed priest violates it inadvertently, he must bring a bull.

When does the statement that an anointed priest brings a bull because of his inadvertent transgression apply? When he errs in issuing a ruling and acts according to his ruling alone. And to be liable he must be a sage of distinction, as implied by Leviticus 4:3: "If the anointed priest will sin, bringing guilt to the nation," i.e., an equivalence is established between the anointed priest and the people as a whole. Just as the community, i.e., the court, are not obligated to bring a sacrifice unless the judges are sages fit to deliver rulings, they deliver an erroneous ruling, the transgressors err because of this ruling, and they ruled to nullify certain aspects of a prohibition and maintain others, so too, an anointed priest is not liable unless all these stipulations are met.

What is implied? If the anointed priest ruled erroneously for himself and thought that it was permitted to throw an article from one domain to another on the Sabbath and acted in this manner, relying on his judgment, when he becomes aware of his transgression, he should bring a bull as a sin-offering. If, however, he did not rely on his ruling, but instead, acted inadvertently and threw an article, or he relied on his ruling, but was not a distinguished sage, or he nullified a prohibition in its entirety when ruling for himself, or he ruled erroneously to negate only a portion of the prohibition, but did not act while relying on his ruling, but instead, performed the transgression inadvertently for another reason, or he purposely delivered an erroneous ruling, but performed the transgression inadvertently, he is exempt from bringing a sacrifice entirely. For the laws that apply to an anointed priest's ruling for himself are identical to those applying to the congregation with regard to the ruling of the court in all regards.

If he delivered a ruling for himself and then forgot the rationale motivating the ruling and at the time he acted said: "I am acting on the basis of my previous ruling," he must bring a bull as a sin-offering.

If he delivered a ruling for himself to nullify certain aspects of the prohibition against the worship of false deities and maintain others and he acted according to his ruling, he brings a she-goat, as does an ordinary person, provided he erred in his ruling, as we explained. For the anointed priest is not obligated to bring a sacrifice unless he has a lapse of awareness while delivering a ruling and then acts inadvertently as is the law with regard to the community as a whole. If, however, he merely acted inadvertently without delivering a ruling, whether he violated the prohibition against the worship of false deities or other commandments, he does not bring a sacrifice at all.

When the anointed priest ruled together with the High Court and he and they both erred in their ruling, the anointed priest is exempt even though he acted according to the mistaken ruling that he issued. The rationale is that he did not rely only on his ruling alone, but his ruling together with that of the court. Hence it is not necessary for him to bring a sacrifice for atonement individually. Instead, if the court bring a sacrifice, he receives atonement together with the community at large. And if the transgressors brings a sacrifice, he does not bring a sacrifice, because he does not bring a sacrifice individually.

If he together with the court ruled erroneously, they ruled concerning forbidden blood and he ruled concerning forbidden fats, he does not receive atonement together with the community. Instead, he brings a bull on his own accord.

When an anointed priest is in doubt of whether or not he committed this type of inadvertent transgression - i.e., he ruled in error and acted accordingly - he does not bring a provisional guilt offering, for he is comparable to the community at large who do not bring a provisional guilt-offering. When, by contrast, a nasi is in doubt whether he transgressed or did not transgress, he should bring a provisional guilt-offering like other ordinary people, because his obligation for an inadvertent transgression is not dependent on his ruling.

What is the connotation of the term nasi used in the Torah? A king who is not under the jurisdiction of any other man in Israel. There is no one superior to him in his sovereignty except, God, his Lord. This applies whether he is of the Davidic dynasty or of other tribes. If there were several kings and one is not subject to the other, each one should bring a goat for his inadvertent transgression.

What is meant by the term "anointed priest"? This refers to a High Priest who was anointed with the oil of anointment, not one who was installed in his office through wearing the priestly garments.

When a High Priest who had been anointed with the anointing oil, but was removed from his office, because of a physical blemish, old age, or the like, inadvertently violated a transgression in this manner, he must bring a bull for his inadvertent transgression. For there is no difference between an anointed priest who serves and one who was removed from his office except the bull offered on Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah offered each day. These are brought only by a High Priest who is serving in his office, but with regard to the bull brought for the inadvertent violation of all the mitzvot, the two are governed by the same laws.

When a nasi performs a transgression together with the community, because of a ruling of the court, he receives atonement together with the people at large. If the court were offering a sacrifice due to their error, the entire nation and the king are exempt from a sacrifice, as we explained. If those who transgressed due to the court's ruling were obligated to bring a sacrifice and the king was one of them who transgressed, he should bring a goat. For the goat brought by the nasi takes the place of a ewe or a she-goat that an ordinary person brings.

When a nasi becomes afflicted by tzara'at and is removed from his office or he is removed from his office for other reasons, he is considered as an ordinary person. If a nasi transgressed while in office and then was removed, he must still bring a goat, as can be inferred from Leviticus 4:3: "because of his transgression that he violated," i.e., the sacrifice that he brings depends on his status at the time he transgresses.

When an anointed priest or a king violate a transgression requiring a sacrifice before they are appointed to their office, they must bring a sacrifice like an ordinary person even if they become aware of it after they become appointed. This is derived from Leviticus 4:22: "When a nasi transgresses," and ibid.:3: "If the anointed priest will transgress...," i.e., these sacrifices are required only when he transgresses while a nasi or while anointed.

Accordingly, if a priest ate a piece of fat concerning which there was a question whether it was forbidden and he became aware of this question after he was appointed as a High Priest, he must bring a provisional guilt-offering.

If one ate half an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat while he was an ordinary person and another half after becoming a nasi in one lapse of awareness or he ate half an olive-sized portion while he was a nasi and half after leaving his office, they are not combined and he is exempt.

If one ate half an olive-sized portion when he was an ordinary person, he was appointed as a nasi and then was removed from his office, and ate half an olive-sized portion as an ordinary person, there is an unresolved doubt if the two times he ate are combined to make him liable or his service as a nasi creates a distinction between the two.

Blessed be God who grants assistance.