Não há responsabilidade por "ouvir a voz" [isto é, por conhecer o testemunho e não dar, viz. (Levítico 5: 1): "E se uma alma pecar e ouvir a voz de um juramento (isto é, se ele fosse testemunha para testemunhar se o conhecesse), e ele fosse uma testemunha, tendo visto ou conhecido— se ele não contar, então levará o seu pecado. "], e por" pronunciar com os lábios "[(viz. Ibid. 4) Se ele fizesse um juramento de que não iria comer e comeu, ou que ele comeria e ele não comeria, ou que ele tinha comido e não tinha comido, ou que ele não tinha comido e ele tinha comido]. E por profanar o santuário e suas coisas sagradas, [entrando no santuário em um estado de tumah ou comer do sagrado —se eles erraram ao governar em uma dessas coisas, eles não são obrigados a trazer uma oferta, nem beth-din nem o sacerdote ungido, porque um indivíduo não é obrigado a trazer uma oferta fixa pelo pecado por inconsciência neles.], e os Nassi (ou seja, o rei) gostam deles. [Se o rei estava inconsciente em um ou em todos estes, ele não traz um bode e está isento de qualquer oferta, pois em relação a todos estes está escrito (Levítico 5): "E se a mão dele não atingir, etc. "—excluir (de uma oferta em escala reduzida) um rei e um sumo sacerdote, que nunca são pobres.] Essas são as palavras de R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva diz: O Nassi é responsável por todos (trazer uma oferta em escala reduzida), [pois em relação ao Nassi está escrito (Ibid. 4:26, 5:10): "E o Cohein fará expiação por ele por seu pecado ", e em relação a uma oferta em escala reduzida em relação a" ouvir a voz "e" pronunciar com os lábios "e a profanação do santuário, está escrito" E o Cohein fará expiação por sua pecado ", para ensinar que o Nassi é responsável por eles. Quanto ao sacerdote ungido estar isento da oferta indicada para "ouvir a voz" e "pronunciar com os lábios" e profanar o santuário de acordo com R. Akiva, isso ocorre porque está escrito (Ibid. 6:13): "Esta é a oferta de Arão e seus filhos ... a décima parte de um efa"— "Este" é um termo de exclusão, ou seja, o "décimo de um efa" da oferta de refeições é necessário para o sacerdote ungido, e nenhum outro "décimo de um efá" é necessário para ele —exceto o décimo de um efa mencionado em relação a "ouvir a voz", etc., que o sacerdote ungido não traz. E como as Escrituras o excluíram do décimo de um efa, ele também o excluiu das duas pombas e de todas as ofertas mencionadas ali, a seção que termina (Ibid. 5:13): "E o Cohein fará expiação por ele , por seu pecado que ele pecou com um destes "—quem obtém expiação com um desses obtém expiação com todos e quem não obtém expiação com um desses não obtém expiação com todos. A halachá não está de acordo com R. Akiva nem com R. Yossi, mas o sacerdote ungido e os Nassi precisam trazer uma oferta em escala reduzida para "ouvir a voz" e "pronunciar com os lábios" e profanar o santuário, como indicado mais tarde em nossa Mishnah. Como se afirma: "Eles não são responsáveis por 'ouvir a voz'", o que implica nem o beth-din nem o sacerdote ungido, o significado é que eles não são obrigados a trazer o boi que é trazido para as outras mitsvot, mas eles são obrigados a trazer a oferta em escala móvel.], exceto para "ouvir a voz". Pois um rei não julga e não é julgado; ele não testemunha e não é testemunha contra.
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.
