Talmud su Levitico 4:22

MISHNAH: If they sinned before being appointed; when afterwards they were appointed, they remain commoners^1,Since at the moment of the sin they became obligated for the sacrifices, a later change of status has no influence. The difference between ecclesiastical and political offices will become clear in Mishnah 2.⁷For the purposes of this sacrifice.. Rebbi Simeon says, if it became known to them before they were appointed, they are obligated; if after they were appointed they are not liable. Who is the Prince? This is the king, as it is said⁸Lev. 4:22., if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God; a Prince who has none above him but the Eternal, his God. And who is the Anointed? This is one anointed with the anointing oil, not one clothed in multiple garb⁹Making the anointing oil was commanded personally to Moses (Ex.30:25). All High Priests up to the time of king Josiah were anointed with it. Since that time, the oil was no longer available; it cannot be reconstituted. The later High Priests were inducted into their office by investiture with the High Priest’s garments..
The only difference between the priest anointed with the anointing oil and the one clothed in multiple garb is the bull brought for all commandments¹⁰The rules about the High Priest’s purification sacrifice explained in Chapter 2 became obsolete with the destruction of the First Temple and could be restored to validity only if a dig on the Temple Mount would recover the flask containing the original oil. The High Priests of the Second Temple had the status of commoners in this respect.. And the only difference between an officiating High Priest and a deposed one is the bull of the Day of Atonement¹¹Which has to be acquired by the High Priest with his own money together with a goat (Lev. 16:3). and the tenth of an ephah¹²The personal daily offering of the High Priest, Lev. 6:12–16, of about 3.84 l of fine flour..
Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement¹³If the acting High Priest becomes impure or otherwise incapacitated, a former High Priest can replace him without special dedication. No common priest can perform any of the prescribed acts of the Day of Atonement., commanded about the virgin¹⁴Lev. 21:13. This applies only if the High Priest marries while High Priest. If he married a widow while a common priest, he still may be elevated to High Priest., and prohibited for a widow¹⁵Lev. 21:14., and do not defile themselves for close relatives¹⁶Lev. 21:11., and may not let their hair grow¹⁷Lev. 21:10. or rend their garments¹⁸Lev. 21:10. These are forbidden as mourning rites., and let the homicide return¹⁹Num. 35:25 (where anointing is mentioned), 32 (where anointing is not mentioned)..

[It is written]¹⁰¹From B, missing in L.: If the Prince sin.¹⁰²Lev. 4:22. The sermon is mentioned in the Babli 10, Tosephta Bava qamma 7:5, Sifra Hova (Wayyiqra II) Parašah 5(1). It is standard homiletics to derive the conjunction אֲשֶׁר from the root אשר “to be fortunate.” Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai said, fortunate [is the generation]¹⁰¹From B, missing in L. whose Prince brings a purification sacrifice. He brings it for his inadvertent sin, not so much more for his intentional one¹⁰³There is no formal atonement for intentional sin. If the Prince is aware of his unintentional missteps, he will be careful to avoid intentional ones.? If its Prince brings, not so much more the commoner?

“The Prince.” I could think a tribal chieftain like Naḥshon; the verse says, “if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God⁸Lev. 4:22.; and further it says, that he may learn to fear the Eternal, his God¹⁰⁴Deut. 17:19. This is justification for the short statement in the Mishnah. Babli 11a/b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parašah5(1).. “His God, [his God]” for an equal cut. Since “his God” mentioned there refers to a Prince over whom there is only [the Eternal]¹⁰¹From B, missing in L. his God, so also “his God” mentioned here refers to a Prince over whom there is only [the Eternal]¹⁰¹From B, missing in L. his God⁹⁵The argument is the same as in the case of three pieces discussed earlier; one constructs a case for five only because for R. Joḥanan in the case of three only one animal was needed. One could have done with four pieces.
For R. Joḥanan, the validity of the dedication of the first animal can be extended to cover all five pieces. The other four animals cannot be used, but dedicated animals cannot become undedicated. They are sent to graze until they either develop a defect which makes them unfit for the altar or they exceed the age limit for sacrificial animals (Mishnah Parah 1:1) when they can be sold and the money used for voluntary elevation offerings..