Yerushalmi Horayot 2:1 ירושלמי הוריות ב׳:א׳

MISHNAH: If the Anointed Priest¹This is the expression used in Lev.4:1–12 for the High Priest. Since the verse refers here to “the Anointed Priest” while in Lev. 21:10 he is called “the High Priest”, it is inferred (Mishnah 3:4, Megillah 1:9) that High Priests of the Second Temple who were not anointed were not entitled to this ceremony. The Anointed has to confess his sin while leaning with his hands on the bull’s head. The remainder of the ceremony, as also that of the Court’s bull, may be performed by a common priest. Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parashah 3(6). ruled for himself in error and acted in error, he brings a bull²As described in Lev. 4:1–12, his private purification offering.. If in error but he acted intentionally, or intentionally and he acted in error, he is not liable³He cannot bring a purification offering unless it was an unintentional act. If he ruled wrongly but then did not act on his ruling because he did not trust his judgment, no sacrifice is due or possible. since the ruling of the Anointed Priest for himself is like the ruling of the Court for the public.

HALAKHAH: “If the Anointed Priest ruled,” etc. A person; if the Anointed Priest.⁴Lev. 4:2,3.” This makes the Anointed like a private person⁵In v. 2, the High Priest is mentioned as “a person”; only in v. 3 as Anointed. It is concluded that the Anointed Priest follows the rules of private persons unless there is an indication to the contrary. Babli 7b, Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Paršeta 2(1).. Since the private person is not liable if he ate⁶Taking eating forbidden fat as standard example of a forbidden action. on the Court’s ruling, also neither is this one liable if he ate on the Court’s ruling. Since the private person is liable if he ate without a ruling, this one also should be liable if he ate without a ruling⁷The question is raised why does the Mishnah require a sacrifice only if the Anointed Priest first gives an inadvertent wrong instruction and then acts on it without realizing his error? This mixes required features of the purification offerings both of the Court (only after issuing a prescript, not acting on it themselves) and the private person (not instructing anybody but acting).; the verse says, for the fault of the people. As the people⁸This argument identifies “the people” as the Court. are liable only if they issued a ruling, this one also is liable only if he issued a ruling. There are Tannaïm who state that the people are the Court. Since the people⁸This argument identifies “the people” as the Court. are liable if they instructed and others acted, this one also should be liable if he ruled and others acted. The verse says, as he sinned. He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned. There are Tannaïm⁹Babli 7a, Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Pereq2(1,4). who state that the people are the public. Since the people are liable if others ruled and they acted, this one also should be liable if others ruled and he acted. The verse says, as he sinned. He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned¹⁰Including the Court. Since the High Priest is mentioned before the Court, his purification offering cannot be dependent on the Court’s ruling.. Rebbi Jacob¹¹In B: R. Jacob bar Aha. It is impossible to decide which reading is preferable or whether the same person is meant in both sources. in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. Only if he is competent to argue about practice¹²This shows that the rules are applicable to the High Priests of the Second Temple, who were invested but not anointed. The High Priests of the First Temple were supposed to be the guardians of the Law. The Hasmonean kings and the later High Priests mostly had no claim to learning.. Otherwise, would we say the incompetents give instructions? The anointed who ate following the Court’s prescript is not liable; following another Anointed’s prescript he is liable. Following the Court’s prescript he is not liable, since the prescript of others is nothing¹³The translation follows B. The text of the ms., “since the prescript of others is by all their prescripts” does not make any sense. compared to their prescripts¹⁴As explained in Note 10, the High Priests cannot be made dependent on the prescripts of others. The High Priest is “not dependent on the Court” ex officio. But as explained earlier, he cannot bring his purification offering unless his action was based on his own ruling.. Following another Anointed’s prescript he is liable, on condition that he instructed similarly¹⁵It is not required that the High Priest have original thoughts when acting; he is presumed to follow (correct) precedent..