Midrasch zu Wajikra 4:14

12) (Vayikra 4:14): ("If the sin became known wherein they have sinned"): If it became known (to the people) that beth-din had ruled erroneously (in respect to one of two acts, both of which they later performed on their ruling); but they could not ascertain in which ruling they had erred — I might think that they would (nevertheless) be liable (for a sin-offering, knowing, at least, that they had acted on an erroneous ruling of beth-din); it is, therefore, written: "If the (specific) sin became known," and not: "If the sinners became known."

13) "… wherein they have sinned, then the assembly shall offer, etc.": If two tribes sinned, they bring two bullocks; if three tribes sinned, they bring three bullocks. — But perhaps the meaning is that two sinners (in an assembly of sinners) bring two bullocks; three sinners bring three bullocks (i.e., each one in the assembly brings a bullock). It is, therefore, written: "the assembly (shall offer"). The assembly (and not each individual) is liable, (one bullock for the entire assembly), and each assembly (i.e., tribe) is liable (for itself).

14) How so? If two tribes sinned, they bring two bullocks. If three tribes sinned, they bring three. And the other tribes, which did not sin, bring a bullock (each) because of them. For even those who did not sin bring because of the sinners. These are the words of R. Yehudah.

15) R. Shimon says: If seven tribes sinned, they bring seven bullocks; and beth-din brings a bullock for them (for their erroneous ruling on which they acted), it being written here "assembly" ("the assembly shall offer"), and, elsewhere (Ibid. 4:13): "assembly" ("and a thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly"). Just as "assembly" there is beth-din, so, here, it is beth-din.

16) R. Meir says: If seven tribes sinned, or most of them, (i.e., the majority of each), and beth-din brings a bullock for them, they are all exempt (from the sin-offering), it being written here "assembly," and elsewhere, "assembly." Just as "assembly" there is beth-din, so, here, it is beth-din.

17) R. Shimon b. Elazar said in his name: If six (of the tribes) sinned, and they comprise the majority (of the men) of the populace, or seven, even if they do not comprise the majority, they (beth-din, and not the populace) are liable (for the sin-offering).

(Bamidbar 15:22) "And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth": Idolatry was in the category of all the mitzvoth for (unwitting transgression of) which the congregation (i.e., beth-din) brings a bullock (viz. Vayikra 4:14), and Scripture here removed it from its category (for special mention), that the congregation bring a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering, for which reason this section was stated. "And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth": Scripture here speaks of idolatry. You say idolatry, but perhaps (it speaks of his transgressing) all of the mitzvoth of the Torah. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Ibid. 24) "And it shall be, if by the eyes of the congregation it were done in error" — Scripture hereby singles out one mitzvah. And which is that? (the injunction against) idolatry. You say it is idolatry, but perhaps it is (any) one of all the mitzvoth stated in the Torah. It is, therefore, written "And if you err and do not do all of these mitzvoth": This comes to define "the one mitzvah." Just as one who transgresses all of the mitzvoth divests himself of the Yoke, and breaks the covenant, and perverts the Torah, so, he who transgresses one mitzvah does the same, as it is written (Devarim 17:2-3) "to destroy His covenant (— turning to the worship of other gods.") And "the covenant" is nothing other than Torah, as it is written (Ibid. 28:69) "These are the words of the covenant, etc." Rebbi says "all" is written here (Bamidbar 15:22), and "all" is written elsewhere, (Devarim 5:8) "all likenesses." Just as "all" there speaks of idolatry, so, "all" here. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "which the L-rd spoke to Moses": Whence is it derived that one who acknowledges idolatry denies the ten commandments? It is written (here, in respect to idolatry) "which the L-rd spoke to Moses," and there, (in respect to the ten commandments, Shemot 20:1) "And G-d spoke all these words, saying." (Psalms 62:12) "One thing has G-d spoken; (two things ['I am the L-rd your G-d, etc.' and 'There shall not be unto you other gods, etc.'] have I heard.") (Jeremiah 23:29) "Is My word not like fire, says the L-rd (and like a hammer shattering rock?") Whence do I derive (the same, i.e., that one who acknowledges idolatry denies [not only what we heard from G-d,]) but also what Moses was commanded (and relayed to us)? From (Ibid. 23) "All that the L-rd commanded you by the hand of Moses." And whence do I derive (the same for) what was commanded to the forefathers? From (Ibid.) "from the day that the L-rd commanded." And from when did the L-rd begin to command? From Adam, viz. (Bereshit 2:15) "And the L-rd G-d commanded the man, etc." And whence do I derive (the same for) what was commanded to the prophets? From (Ibid.) "and onwards throughout your generations." We are hereby apprised that one who acknowledges idolatry denies the ten commandments, and what was commanded to Moses, and what was commanded to the forefathers, and what was commanded to the prophets. And one who denies idolatry acknowledges the entire Torah.

(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "And it shall be, if by the eyes of the congregation it were done in error": This mitzvah was allotted a special section in itself. Which is that? (the injunction against) idolatry. "then all the congregation shall offer one young bullock as a burnt-offering." Why mention "one"? For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If where the congregation does not bring a bullock for a burnt-offering it brings a bullock for a sin-offering, (viz. Vayikra 4:14), then here, where the congregation does bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, how much more so should it bring a bullock for a sin-offering! It is, therefore, written "then all the congregation shall offer (only) one young bullock." "with its meal-offering and its libation": that of the burnt-offering. — But perhaps also that of the sin-offering (is intended). It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "as ordained" (and no libation is ordained for a sin-offering). "and one kid of goats as a sin-offering": Why mention "one"? For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If (on Yom Kippur), where the congregation does not bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, it brings two he-goats for a sin-offering, then here, where it does bring a bullock for a burnt-offering, how much more so should it bring two he-goats for a sin-offering! It is, therefore, written "and one kid of goats as a sin-offering."