Atonement for One Soul and the Sinner Who Acts on His Own

"And he shall make atonement for him" - that the atonement be for his own sake, that one not atone for two as one; and that a priest may atone for himself. "And he shall be forgiven" - we do not leave anything over for him until the Day of Atonement. One might think that even if he sat and did not bring the offering he is forgiven; the verse teaches "for him" [only the one who brings it]. "If a soul shall sin" (Leviticus 4:27): "a soul shall sin," "one shall sin," "in doing it shall sin" - these are restrictive terms. The one who acts on his own judgment is liable, but not one who acts according to the ruling of a court. How so? If a court ruled to transgress one of all the commandments stated in the Torah, and the individual went and acted inadvertently according to their ruling - whether they acted and he acted with them, whether they acted and he acted after them, or whether they did not act and he acted - one might think he is liable; the verse teaches "a soul shall sin," "one shall sin," "in doing it shall sin," these are restrictive terms: the one who acts on his own judgment is liable, but not one who acts according to the ruling of a court. Rabbi Shimon adds: if a court ruled and knew that they had erred and retracted, whether after they had brought their atonement or before they had brought their atonement, and the individual went and acted according to them, he is exempt. Rabbi Meir holds him liable. Rabbi Elazar says: it is doubtful. Sumchos says: it is suspended. "In doing it": the one who relies on himself is liable; the one who relies on the court is exempt. How so? If a court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred, or a seasoned disciple worthy of ruling, like Shimon ben Azzai, was sitting before them, and he went and acted according to them - one might think he is exempt; the verse teaches "in doing it," the one who relies on himself is liable. Do you say these restrictive terms were stated for this purpose - "a soul shall sin," "one shall sin," "in doing it shall sin" - or rather only that the individual who acts is liable while two who act are exempt? The verse teaches "the common people" - even many. And still I might say a minority of the congregation who acted are liable, since the court does not bring a bull on their behalf, but the majority of the congregation who acted are exempt, since the court does bring a bull on their behalf; the verse teaches "the common people" - even its majority and even all of it.