Commentaire sur Horayot 2:10

An anointed priest who rendered a decision – A high priest who was anointed with the anointing oil ruled on a leniency for himself and acted by himself on a matter whose transgression is liable with “karet.”

Introduction Leviticus 4:3 states, “If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, so that blame falls upon the people, he shall offer for the sin of which he is guilty a bull of the herd without blemish as a sin offering to the Lord.” According to the rabbis, this verse refers to a high priest who issues an errant ruling to himself. If he acts according to his errant ruling then he is not treated as if he was an individual who would have to bring a regular goat sin offering. Rather in his ruling he is considered parallel to the court and in his acting he is parallel to a community, much in the same way we learned above in mishnah 1:4. Our mishnah, and the mishnayoth that follow it, takes some of the rules that apply when a court rules and the congregation sins in error, and applies them to the high priest.

An anointed priest who rendered a decision for himself in error and acted unwittingly accordingly, must bring a bull. If he rendered the decision in error but acted upon it willfully, or made it willfully but acted upon it unwittingly, he is exempt; for a decision a high priest made for himself is like a ruling issued by the court to the community. If the high priest ruled that something was permitted, and in reality it was punishable by kareth (if done willfully) or the transgression causes one to be liable to bring a sin offering (if done unwittingly) and then he acted upon his ruling, without realizing that he is transgressing, he must bring a bull as a sin offering. In other words, instead of being just an individual who unwittingly transgresses and therefore brings a goat as a sin offering, the high priest brings a bull. If, however, either the ruling was in error but the action was an intentional transgression, or vice versa, the ruling was intentionally wrong, but the action was unwitting, he is not liable to bring the bull. As we learned at the end of mishnah four, both the ruling and the act must be done unwittingly for the court, or in this case the high priest to be liable to bring a bull.

He makes his atonement alone - He alone must bring a bull for a sin-offering.

Introduction Mishnah two continues to discuss the anointed high priest who issues an errant ruling.

If he rendered his ruling together with [the court of] the congregation – He was a member of the Sanhedrin that ruled in error.

An [anointed high priest] who rendered an errant decision alone and acted accordingly alone, he makes his atonement alone. If he rendered his ruling together with [the court of] the congregation and acted accordingly together with the congregation, he makes his atonement together with the congregation. For the court is not liable unless they ruled to annul part of a commandment and to retain a part of it; and so [it is with] the anointed [high] priest. Nor [are they liable] for idolatry unless they ruled to annul the law in part and to retain it in part. If the high priest issued an errant ruling on his own, in other words without the court having taken part in the decision making, and then he acted alone, he alone must bring a bull as a sin offering. This is basically the same rule that we learned in the previous mishnah. It is summarized here in order to offer a contrast with the following section.

He makes his atonement together with the congregation – With the congregation’s bull for an error-in-judgment (para ha’elem davar) sacrifice and is not obligated to bring any other sacrifice. It would have occurred to you that I might say that on Yom Kippur he does not atone with the congregation, as it is written (Leviticus 16), “and shall kill the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself,” so too he will need to bring his own sacrifice; here it teaches us that he does not. He derives it from the Torah (Leviticus 4), “on the sin which he sinned.” For a sin that is unique to him he brings his own sacrifice, but for a sin that is not unique to him he does not bring his own sacrifice.

If the high priest ruled in error with the court of the congregation, the sanhedrin, and transgressed together with the rest of the congregation, then he need not bring a special bull on his own. Rather he receives atonement through the same bull that the community brings.

For the court is not liable – I.e., the law is that the high priest atones with the congregation, that the beit din is not liable, etc. but that the high priest is. It follows that the high priest is equal to the beit din on all matters. If he issued a ruling for the congregation he is equal to them and must atone with the congregation.

The language of this section makes it look as if it is a commentary on the previous section, but its content seems independent. The section teaches that just as we learned above in chapter one, mishnah three, that a court is not liable to bring the bull sin-offering unless it ruled to annul part of a commandment but retain the rest, the same is true for the high priest. If he rules, for example, that there is no such thing as Shabbat, he is not liable to bring a bull; but if he rules that a certain forbidden activity is actually permitted on Shabbat, he is liable. These same rules apply with regard to both regular sins and to sins involving idolatry.

Nor [are they liable] for idolatry unless they ruled to annul the law in part – As it is written about all the other commandments (Leviticus 4), “the thing being hidden from the eyes of the congregation.” And about idol worship it is written (Numbers 15), “If it be hidden from their eyes . . .”, in all the commandments the matter will be hidden but not from the entire body, so too with idol workshop it will be hidden [from the eyes] and not from the whole body.

.The [court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] except where ignorance of the law – A beit din that ruled for the community on one of all the commandments does not need to bring a bull for a communal error-in-judgment (para ha’elem davar) sacrifice for the community but only for the ignorance of the matter in which it ruled in error and because they did not realize that they were transgressing.

Introduction Mishnah three continues to teach laws of errant rulings in which the court is treated the same way that a high priest is treated. It also continues to equate errant rulings with regard to idolatry with errant rulings with regard to other sins.

Was accompanied by an unwitting action – The majority of the community erred and acted according to their ruling, as it is written, “they erred and the thing was hidden,” an act in error and the matter was hidden.

The [court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] except where ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action. The court is not obligated unless they ruled concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless they ruled concerning a matter the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly. The court is not obligated to bring a sacrifice except in a case where they did not realize that they were issuing an errant ruling and those that acted did not realize that they were transgressing. The same is true if the high priest issues an errant ruling. He must rule and act unwittingly for him to be able to bring a bull as a sin offering. There is no difference in this rule between idolatry and all other commandments.

So it is with the anointed priest – The high priest that was anointed with the anointing oil is not obligated to bring a sacrifice unless he forgets the law and he acts and rules in error, as it is written (Leviticus 4), “to bring guilt on the people,” which comes to teach that the anointed priest is like the people.

The particular commandment with regard to which the court erred and the people transgressed unwittingly, must be one for which the punishment is kareth (heavenly excommunication) if done intentionally and a sin offering if done unwittingly. Examples of such commandments are Shabbat, many incest prohibitions, the eating of certain prohibited foods, work on Yom Kippur, and cursing God. These are all listed in tractate Karetoth 1:1-2. Idol worship is a sin for which one is potentially liable for kareth or a sin offering (if done unwittingly). However, not all forms of idol worship are punishable by kareth or a sin offering. If one worships an idol in an unusual manner, a type of worship that is not considered normal for that idol or any other idol, than he is not liable for kareth or a sin offering. If the court were to issue an errant ruling with regard to one of these types of worship, the court would not be liable to bring a bull as a sin offering.

Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry – The beit din issued a mistaken ruling regarding idol worship and they are obligated to bring a bull and a goat.

Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action – Like all the other commandments. We learn about idol worship from the other commandments from a g’zeira shava (“equivalent form”) of “eyes” and “eyes”, as written above.

The court is not obligated unless they ruled concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is karet, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly – There are 36 commandments in the Torah for which the punishment is “karet” and for each one a sin offering is required if the commandment was transgressed unwittingly, except for five that do not require a sin offering if transgressed in error: brit mila and the Passover sacrifice, since they are positive commandments. Even though wilfully transgressing them has a punishment of “karet” no sin offering is required if they are transgressed in error, as it is written about a sin offering (Leviticus 4), “do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done.” And making an oath, because there is no action and the Torah says about a sin offering to transgress in error: if an oath was uttered there was no action. And impurity in the Temple and of its contents create no obligation if transgressed in error, but rather a sliding scale sacrifice (oleh ve’yored), as said in Leviticus. And a beit din does not have to bring a sin offering if these are transgressed in error and neither does a high priest. There are 31 commandments for which the punishment is wilful transgression is “karet” and for erroneous transgression is a sin-offering, for which a beit din and a high priest have to bring a sacrifice.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple – A beit din that issued a ruling and erred regarding impurity in the Temple and of its contents is not obligated to bring a communal offering.

Introduction Mishnah four discusses errant rulings with regard to Temple-related laws and compares them with errant rulings made in connection to a menstruating woman (a menstruant). The mishnah also discusses a sacrifice known as the “asham talui” or the “hanging guilt offering”. The “asham talui” is brought by a person who may or may not have accidentally transgressed a prohibition, the punishment for which is kareth, if transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly. For instance if a person has two pieces of animal fat in front of him, one is permitted fat and the other is forbidden fat (helev) and he eats one but he doesn’t know which he ate, he brings an asham talui.

For the transgression of a positive commandment – I.e. one who became impure while in the Temple and who is thus commanded to leave by the shortest route. If he left by a longer route, he is punished with “karet.” The beit din that ruled that he should leave by the longer route is not obligated to bring a sacrifice because on an error regarding this law one does not bring a sin-offering, i.e., an individual who erred in this commandment and left by a longer route needs to bring a sliding scale sacrifice and not a sin-offering.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple; Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple. But they are liable for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the menstruant; And [individuals] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or negative commandment relating to the menstruant.
Which is the positive commandment relating to the menstruant? Separate yourself from the menstruant. An impure person is not allowed to enter the Temple precincts and if he becomes impure while in the Temple, he must leave immediately. If the court issued an errant ruling with regard to this law, and an impure person followed their ruling, the court is not liable to bring a sin offering. This is true both for positive and negative commandments. A positive commandment is that if a person should become impure while in the Temple he must leave in the quickest, most direct manner possible. If the court ruled that he can take a longer route, and he does so, the court is not obligated to bring a sin offering. A negative commandment is that an impure person in not allowed to enter the Temple. If the court ruled that he may, they are not liable to bring a sin offering. This is because the impurity laws of the Temple are atoned for by sliding scale sacrifices and not by sin offerings (see Shevuoth 2:3). As we learned above, the court is obligated for errant rulings only if the sin was atoned for by a sin offering. This exact same rule applies to the laws regarding an asham talui. A person brings an asham talui (explained above in the intro) only if the sin was usually atoned for by a sin offering, and not, as in this case, by a sliding scale sacrifice.

For the transgression of a negative commandment – That he should not enter the Temple while he is impure.

And the negative commandment? Do not have sexual relations with the menstruant. In contrast to the previous section, where the court was not held liable for their errant ruling, if they make an errant ruling with regard to a menstruant the court is liable, since transgressions of the prohibition of sexual relations with a menstruant are punishable by kareth (if done intentionally) and a sin offering (if done unwittingly). Similarly, one brings an asham talui for the transgression of positive and negative commandments involving a menstruant (such as a case where he does not know if he had relations with his wife while she was menstruating). The positive commandment with regard to a menstruant is that if a man is having sexual intercourse with his wife and she, in the middle of intercourse, tells him that she has become impure (she has begun to menstruate), he must not separate from her immediately, since his withdrawal is pleasurable (for further details see Shevuoth 2:4). Rather he must stop and wait until he loses an erection and only then withdraw. This waiting period is seen as a positive commandment. The negative commandment is the prohibition of having sexual relations with a menstruant.

Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui, etc. – For every commandment transgressed in error one is obligated to bring a sin-offering and an asham talui must be brought if he is in doubt whether or not he transgressed. Because transgressing in error the commandment regarding impurity in the Temple does not require a sin-offering, if it there is doubt whether he sinned he does not bring an asham talui.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why does the mishnah compare the laws of Temple related impurity with those of having relations with a menstruant? Why doesn’t the mishnah use other prohibitions punishable by kareth and a sin offering as points of reference?

For the transgression of a positive commandment relating to the menstruant – He was having relations with her when she was clean and in the midst of relations she tells him that she has become impure, the commandment is for him to withdraw. But he may not withdraw immediately because withdrawing is just as pleasurable as intercourse. Rather, he should dig his toenails in the ground and wait without moving until he loses his erection and then he should withdraw. And this is the positive commandment for the menstruant. If the beit din ruled erroneously that he should withdraw immediately, it is obligated to bring a bull for an error-in-judgment sacrifice, since the individual is obligated to bring a sin-offering for his error.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring an offering] for [an errant ruling relating to] the hearing of the voice [of adjuration] – That he adjured someone else to make a false oath that he does not know any testimony, as it is written (Leviticus 5), “And if any one sin, in that he heard the voice of adjuration, he being a witness.”

Introduction The main topic of our mishnah is the king (a ruler, see below 3:3) who accidentally transgresses. In Leviticus 4:22-23, we read, “In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of the Lord his God ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish.” The question asked by our mishnah is for what sins does the king bring this type of sacrifice.

For an oath made by an expression – He swore he would not eat and he ate, or that he would eat and he did not eat. Or that he said, “I ate” but he did not eat or he said, “I did not eat” and he ate.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring an offering] for [an errant ruling relating to] the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things. And the ruler is similarly [exempt]; these are the words of Rabbi Yose Hagalili. Rabbi Akiva says; the ruler is liable in the case of all these except that of hearing of the voice [of adjuration], because the king may neither judge nor be judged, neither may he testify nor may others testify against him. This section basically states what we have already learned above. A court that issues an errant ruling is liable to bring a bull as a sin offering only if the transgression was one which if done unwittingly can be atoned for with a sin offering. The three transgressions mentioned in this mishnah are atoned for by sliding scale sacrifices (the rich bring a goat, the middle class bring bird and the poor bring grain, see Leviticus 5 and tractate Shevuoth). The first transgression is the taking of a false oath that he does not know any testimony, called in our mishnah “the hearing of the voice of adjuration”. It is called this because usually someone adjures someone else to take this oath (“I adjure you that you do not know any testimony concerning me”). The second transgression is in regard to an oath of expression. This is when a person swears that he will or will not do something. The third transgression is either entering the Temple impure, or eating holy food while impure. If the court makes an errant ruling with regard to any of these laws, the court is not liable to bring a sin offering.

For impurity relating to the Temple and its holy contents – Someone who entered the Temple when he was impure or at something sanctified. If there was a ruling in error on one of these commandments, there is no obligation for the beit din or the high priest to bring a sacrifice because individuals are not obligated to bring a sin-offering when they sin in error.

According to Rabbi Yose Hagalili, the same is true if the ruler, or king, accidentally transgressed one of these commandments. The reason is that a sliding scale sacrifice is not applicable to a king, for a king never becomes poor. Leviticus 5:7, 11 state, “But if his means do not suffice”. Since this can never be true of a king, who always has financial means, Rabbi Yose Hagalili concludes that the entire law and sacrifice is not applicable to the king. In other words, the king is not simply in the category of a rich person, because rich people can become poor, while kings do not. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and says that the king can be liable to bring a sliding scale sacrifice for all of these sins, with the exception of oaths of adjuration. Since the king cannot judge or be judged, testify or be testified against, he is considered outside of the framework of the regular legal system. If someone adjures him that he doesn’t know testimony and he swears that he does not know testimony, but in reality he does, he is not liable for a false oath. This is because even if he had admitted that he knows testimony, he cannot testify in a court of law (see Sanhedrin 2:2).

And the ruler is similarly [exempt] - A king who accidently transgressed one of these commandments does not bring a goat and is exempt from bringing any sacrifice, because it is written, “And if his means do not suffice” (Leviticus 5:7,11), meaning one who is poor. A king and the high priest will never be poor.

Rabbi Akiva says the ruler is liable – Regarding the ruler it is written, (Leviticus 4) “and the priest shall make atonement for him” and the sliding scale sacrifice for hearing the voice of adjuration, making an oath and impurity in the Temple, it is written (Leviticus 5), “and the priest shall make atonement for him” to teach that the ruler is obligated regarding these commandments. The high priest is exempt from the sacrifice needed for hearing the voice of adjuration, making an oath and impurity in the Temple, according to Rabbi Akiva, as it is written, (Leviticus 6) “This is the offering of Aharon . . . the tenth part of an ephah. This excludes it, the “chavitin” offering is required of the high priest and he is not obligated in any other tenth of an ephah, except the tenth of an ephah required for hearing the voice of adjuration, etc. that the high priest does not bring. Because the Torah excludes him from the tenth of an ephah, he is also excluded from bringing two doves and any other sacrifice on this issue. At the end of the parasha it is written, “and the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things.” If one atones for one of these commandments he must atone for all of them, because it cannot be that atonement is needed for one but not for all. The law does not follow Rabbi Akiva or Rabbi Yossi’s opinions. Rather, the high priest and the ruler are obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice for hearing the voice of adjuration, making an oath and impurity in the Temple, as will be explained in our Mishnah below. When it teaches not obligated on hearing the voice of adjuration, etc., the meaning is not the beit din and not the high priest, both are not obligated to bring a bull for the other commandments, but are obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice.

In the case of idolatry, the individual and the ruler and the anointed priest bring a goat – In the parasha Shlach Lecha, the sacrifice for idol worship, it is written “And if one person sin through error, then he shall offer a goat.” And it is written, “you shall have one law for him,” meaning that this sacrifice is for all of them [high priests, rulers, regular people].

Introduction This mishnah summarizes who brings what type of sin offering for transgressions done unwittingly.

For all the commandments in the Torah, the penalty for which, if committed intentionally, is kareth and, if committed unwittingly, a sin offering, the individual brings as an offering a lamb or a goat, the ruler brings a goat, and the anointed priest and the court bring a bull. In the case of idolatry, the individual and the ruler and the anointed priest bring a goat while the court bring a bull and a goat: the bull for a burnt offering and the goat for a sin offering. The first section of the mishnah deals with all commandments except idolatry. In these cases, if an individual unwittingly transgresses, s/he brings a sin offering of a lamb or a goat. This is stated in Leviticus 4:27-28, 32. If a ruler (a king) is the unwitting transgressor, he brings a goat (Leviticus 4:22-23). If the anointed priest (the high priest) made an errant ruling and then unwittingly transgressed, he brings a bull. This is stated in Leviticus 4:3. The same is true of a court who made an errant ruling (Leviticus 4:13-14).

If the transgression was one of idolatry the individual brings a goat. As I stated in the introduction, the rabbis consider Numbers 15:22-29 to be dealing with sins of idolatry. Verse 27 states, “In case it is an individual who has sinned unwittingly, he shall offer a she-goat in its first year as a sin offering.” Since the Torah does not make any exceptions for rulers or high priests, they too bring the same sin offering in this case as does a regular Israelite. Verse 24, “If this was done unwittingly, through the inadvertence of the community, the whole community shall present one bull of the herd as burnt offering of pleasing odor to the Lord, with its proper meal offering and libation, and one he-goat as a sin offering.” The rabbis consider this verse to be dealing with a case where a court issued an errant ruling and the people followed its ruling. We saw this discussed above in mishnah 1:5.

Asham talui – Commandments for which wilful transgressions receive the punishment of “karet” and accidental transgressions must bring a sin-offering, when there is doubt whether or not there was a transgression an asham talui must be brought, i.e. two amounts, one of forbidden fat and one of permissible fat and he does not know which one he ate.

Introduction Mishnah six compared the sin offerings offered for unwitting transgressions that the individual, the ruler, the high priest and the court bring. Mishnah seven compares these parties with regard to the asham talui (see above 2:4), the asham vadai and the sliding scale sacrifice (see above 2:5). An asham vadai is a guilt offering. There are five different situations in which a person must bring an asham vadai: 1) for robbery (Lev 5:21-25; 2) for illegal use of sacred property (Lev 5:14-16); 3) for relations with an betrothed slave woman (Lev 19:20-22); 4) a nazir (Num 6:9-12); 5) a leper (Lev 14:10-12).

But the anointed priest and the court are exempt – As it is written about a communal sacrifice (Leviticus 4), “when the sin wherein they have sinned is known, then the assembly shall offer.” There is no obligation to bring a sacrifice unless the sin is clearly known. And the law for the high priest is like that for the beit din.

The individual and the ruler are both obligated to bring an asham talui, but the anointed priest and the court are exempt. The individual and the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated to bring an asham vadai, but the court is exempt. For the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things, the court is not obligated but the individual, the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated. Except that the anointed priest is not liable for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon.
What do they bring? A sliding scale sacrifice. With regard to the asham talui, the king is like any individual Israelite. If he may (or may not) have transgressed a commandment which is punishable by kareth, he brings an asham talui. However, the high priest and the court, if they made a ruling and they do not know if they erred, do not bring an asham talui. In other words, for the court or high priest to be liable for their errant ruling, it must be certain that they did so.

Asham vadai – An asham vadai offering is required for five matters: for robbery (Leviticus 5:21-25); 2) for illegal use of sacred property (Leviticus 5:14-16); 3) for relations with a betrothed slave woman (Leviticus 19:20-22); 4) a nazir (Numbers 6:9-12); 5) a person who had tzara’at (Leviticus 14:10-12).

Rabbi Eliezer says: the ruler brings a goat. All individuals, even a high priest, who unwittingly transgress one of the five commandments which are atoned for by an asham vadai, must bring the asham. However, if the court issues an errant ruling with regard to one of these commandments, and the people follow their errant ruling, the court does not bring an asham vadai, nor do they bring any sacrifice. They are liable to bring a bull as a sin offering only if they issue an errant ruling about a commandment punishable by kareth and atoned for by a sin offering (and not a guilt offering).

The individual and the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated – Because each of these is the act of an individual. There is no difference between a layman, a high priest and a ruler.

As we learned in mishnah five, if the court issues an errant ruling with regard to a commandment atoned for by a sliding scale sacrifice, they are not liable. If, however, if an individual, king or high priest were to transgress one of these commandments, he must bring a sliding scale sacrifice. The one exception is that the high priest is not obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice if he transgresses a commandment involving the purity of the Temple and its holy things. The mishnah now asks what type of sacrifice the king or the anointed priest brings should he transgress one of these commandments. According to the first opinion, they bring a sliding scale sacrifice, as do all regular Israelites. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the king brings a goat.

But the court is exempt – Because a beit din ruling has no bearing on these acts. And the beit din does not bring an asham offering.

Except that the anointed priest is not liable for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon – Rabbi Shimon’s meaning is that it is written “impurity relating to the Temple” (Numbers 19) and a person who is impure and transgresses, his soul will be cut off from the congregation. One who sins is equal to the congregation, but the high priest’s sin is not equal to the congregation. If any of the congregation accidentally transgresses by entering the Temple or transgressed accidentally, he is obligated only for the accidental transgression. The high priest is obligated only to bring a bull for an error-in-judgment (para ha’elem davar) sacrifice when he accidentally transgresses, as proven above. The law does not follow Rabbi Shimon’s opinion; rather, the high priest brings a sliding scale sacrifice even for impurity in the Temple and of its contents.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the ruler brings a goat – For impurity in the Temple and of its contents, because wilful transgression of these is liable for “karet.” Just as the ruler brings a goat for transgression of other commandments for which the punishment is “karet.” The law does not follow Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion because there is no obligation to bring a sin-offering for accidental transgression of impurity in the Temple and the ruler brings a sacrifice in the same way as an individual.