Il n'y a aucune responsabilité pour «entendre la voix» [c.-à-d., Pour connaître le témoignage et ne pas le donner, à savoir. (Lévitique 5: 1): "Et si une âme pèche et entend la voix d'un serment (c'est-à-dire s'il a été assermenté pour témoigner s'il le sait), et il était un témoin, ayant vu ou connu— s'il ne le dit pas, alors il portera son péché. "], et pour" avoir prononcé avec les lèvres "[(à savoir. Ibid. 4) S'il prêtait serment de ne pas manger et qu'il mangeait, ou qu'il mangeait et il ne mangeait pas; ou qu'il avait mangé et il n'avait pas mangé, ou qu'il n'avait pas mangé et il avait mangé]. Et pour souiller le sanctuaire et ses choses saintes, [entrer dans le sanctuaire dans un état de tumah ou manger du saint —s'ils ont commis une erreur en statuant sur l'un de tous ceux-ci, ils ne sont pas tenus d'apporter une offrande, ni Beth-Din ni le prêtre oint, parce qu'un individu n'est pas obligé d'apporter une offrande pour le péché fixe pour son inconscience.], et les Nassi (c'est-à-dire le roi) les aiment. [Si le roi était involontaire dans l'un ou l'ensemble de ceux-ci, il n'amène pas de bouc et il est exempt de toute offrande, car en ce qui concerne tous ceux-ci, il est écrit (Lévitique 5): "Et si sa main fait pas atteindre, etc. "—exclure (d'une offrande dégressive) un roi et un grand prêtre, qui ne sont jamais pauvres.] Telles sont les paroles de R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva dit: Le Nassi est responsable de tout (d'apporter une offrande à échelle variable), [car en ce qui concerne les Nassi, il est écrit (Ibid. 4:26, 5:10): "Et le Cohein fera l'expiation pour lui pour son péché, "et en ce qui concerne une offrande à échelle mobile en ce qui concerne" entendre la voix "et" prononcer avec les lèvres "et la souillure du sanctuaire, il est écrit" Et le Cohein fera l'expiation pour son péché », pour enseigner que le Nassi en est responsable. Quant au prêtre oint étant exempt de l'offrande indiquée pour «entendre la voix» et «prononcer avec les lèvres» et souiller le sanctuaire selon R. Akiva, c'est parce qu'il est écrit (Ibid. 6:13): "C'est l'offrande d'Aaron et de ses fils… la dixième partie d'un épha"— "Ceci" est un terme d'exclusion, c'est-à-dire que le "dixième d'épha" du repas-offrande de gâteaux est requis pour le prêtre oint, et aucun autre "dixième d'épha" n'est requis pour lui —sauf le dixième d'épha mentionné à propos de «entendre la voix», etc., que le prêtre oint n'apporte pas. Et comme l'Écriture l'a exclu du dixième d'épha, elle l'a exclu aussi des deux tourterelles et de toutes les offrandes qui y sont mentionnées, la section se terminant (Ibid. 5:13): «Et le Cohein fera l'expiation pour lui , pour son péché qu'il a péché avec l'un de ces "—celui qui acquiert l'expiation avec l'un de ces avantages l'expiation avec tous, et celui qui n'obtient pas l'expiation avec l'un d'entre eux ne gagne pas l'expiation avec tous. La halakha n'est conforme ni à R. Akiva ni à R. Yossi, mais le prêtre oint et les Nassi sont tenus d'apporter une offrande à échelle mobile pour «entendre la voix» et «prononcer avec les lèvres» et souiller le sanctuaire, comme indiqué plus loin dans notre Michna. Quant à ce qu'il est dit: «Ils ne sont pas tenus d '« entendre la voix », ce qui n'implique ni le beth-din ni le prêtre oint, cela signifie qu'ils ne sont pas tenus d'apporter le taureau qui est apporté pour l'autre mitsvoth, mais ils sont tenus d'apporter l'offrande à échelle mobile.], sauf pour «entendre la voix». Car un roi ne juge pas et n'est pas jugé; il ne témoigne pas et n'est pas contre.
Bartenura on Mishnah Horayot
[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.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Horayot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot
[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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Horayot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot
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).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Horayot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Horayot
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.
