Counting Sin-Offerings and the Ruler's Suspended Guilt-Offering

Forbidden fat and blood, whether in a single lapse of awareness or in two separate lapses, render one liable for a sin-offering for each. Two acts each punishable by stoning, whether the same prohibition in two lapses or two distinct prohibitions in one lapse, render one liable for two sin-offerings. An act punishable by stoning and one punishable by burning, whether in one lapse or two, render one liable for two sin-offerings. "The commandments of the LORD" (Leviticus 4:13) means His commandments, and not the command of a king, nor the command of a court. The commandments spoken of regarding the anointed priest and the commandments spoken of regarding the congregation are the same commandments spoken of here. "From any of the commandments of the LORD" and not all of them, excluding the failure to answer a summons to testify, the rash oath of the lips, and the defilement of the Sanctuary and its holy things. "Which are not to be done in error" teaches that he brings his offering for an erroneous act. "And he is guilty" teaches that he brings a suspended guilt-offering. Now is this not a matter for logical inference? If the ordinary individual, who does not bring an offering when informed by a single witness, nonetheless brings a suspended guilt-offering, then the ruler, who does bring an offering when so informed, should all the more bring a suspended guilt-offering. But the anointed priest disproves this, for he brings an offering when informed by a single witness and yet does not bring a suspended guilt-offering. So do not be astonished if the ruler, although he brings an offering when informed, would not bring a suspended guilt-offering. Therefore Scripture teaches "and he is guilty," to establish that he does bring a suspended guilt-offering. By another line of reasoning: the individual is set apart from the congregation and the ruler is set apart from the congregation; just as the individual brings a suspended guilt-offering, so the ruler brings a suspended guilt-offering. Or take this path instead: the anointed priest is set apart from the congregation and the ruler is set apart from the congregation; just as the anointed priest does not bring a suspended guilt-offering, so the ruler would not bring one. Let us see which case the ruler more resembles. We derive a law about one who brings an offering for an erroneous deed from another who brings for an erroneous deed, and let not the anointed priest, who does not bring for an erroneous deed, disprove it. Or take this path: we derive a law about one who brings an offering when informed by a single witness from another who likewise brings when so informed, and let not the individual, who does not bring when informed by a single witness, disprove it. Therefore Scripture teaches "and he is guilty," to establish that he brings a suspended guilt-offering.