Kommentar zu Wajikra 4:3

אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם IF THE PRIEST THAT IS ANOINTED DO SIN לאשמת העם — The Halachic explanation is that he is liable to bring a sin-offering only when there was ignorance of the real matter (of the law in question; i. e. after having considered the case in question he came to a wrong decision) together with a mistaken action (i. e. where he erred in a Halachic decision and as a result of this error acted against the true law), just as it is stated with reference to the guilt of the whole people): (v. 13) “[And if the whole congregation of Israel err] and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly and they have done [somewhat against the commandments of the Lord]" (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 2 1; Horayot 7a; Rashi on v. 13). Its literal sense is according to the Agadic explanation: When the High-priest sins this is the guilt of the people (i. e. it results in the people remaining under a load of guilt), because they are dependent on him to effect atonement for them and to pray on their behalf, and now he himself has become degenerate and can thus not expiate for them, wherefor they remain under guilt.

seeing that sinners are always on different levels morally and ethically, some being more prone to sin than others, the Torah addresses these different groups of people in different ways, each one appropriate to their specific rating in society. The Torah begins with the High Priest, the one who is least likely to commit a sin, and writes: אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם, implying that a sin by the High Priest is most likely the outcome of guilt by the people, their conduct having contributed to his committing such an error. The Talmud (Berachot 34b:29) quotes that if someone makes an error in his private prayer this is a bad omen for him. If, however, the cantor, i.e. the person hired to pray on behalf of the people makes an error, not only he but all those on whose behalf he offered his prayers will suffer the consequences of his error. The sacrifice of a priest who committed an error must be burned and no one derives the slightest benefit from such an offering. Such considerations account for the fact that the Torah did not write here ואשם, “he sinned,” which would have been a warning for the errant person to do teshuvah. Had the Torah phrased its address to the High Priest thus this would not have been appropriate as the error committed by the High Priest did not originate within his heart but his faulty prayer had been due to the sinfulness of the people he represented which had insidiously influenced the words he was uttering.

אם הכהן המשיח יחטא, If the anointed priest shall sin, etc. The Torah begins its list with the sin of an individual, although the Torah writes לאשמת העם, that this individual thereby brings guilt on the entire people. This is to tell us that an inadvertent sin committed by the High Priest is equivalent to an inadvertent sin by the whole community. If so, why did the Torah not begin the list of people who have to bring sin-offerings with 4,13 where the sin of the community is described, and wait with mentioning a sin by the High Priest until after verse 21 when inadvertent sins by individuals are listed? Perhaps the Torah meant to tell us that in the event of the High Priest and the community having committed an inadvertent sin, the sin-offering of the High Priest takes precedence over that of the community as a whole. The same rule would apply if both the King and the people had committed a sin. The reason given in Horiot 13 is that the High Priest is active in securing atonement whereas the community achieves its atonement passively. I have found in Torat Kohanim on verse 13 (item 240) in our chapter that when both a high Priest and the community have to offer bullocks as sin offerings, the bullock of the High Priest has to be offered first. This ruling is based on the word ואם in verse 13 meaning that what is listed here is only secondary to what has been listed before, i.e. the bullock of the High Priest.