"The common people" - excluding the prince [king]; "of the common people" - excluding the anointed [high] priest. And if you should say, the anointed priest has already been singled out to be judged with a bull and the prince with a he-goat - for one might think, since for a forgotten matter together with an inadvertent act he brings a bull, then for an inadvertent act alone he should bring a ewe-lamb or a she-goat; the verse teaches "the common people," excluding the prince, "of the common people," excluding the anointed priest. The anointed priest fits, since he brings for a forgotten matter; but the prince brings for an inadvertent act - [how exclude him?]. Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: here we are dealing with a case where he ate an olive's-bulk of forbidden fat while he was a commoner, and was then appointed, and afterward it became known to him. You might have thought he should bring a ewe-lamb or a she-goat; therefore it teaches us [otherwise]. This works for Rabbi Shimon, who follows the awareness, but for the Rabbis who follow the sinning, what can be said? Here we are dealing with one who ate half an olive's-bulk of forbidden fat while a commoner, was appointed, and completed it [eating the second half], and afterward it became known to him. You might have thought the two halves combine and he should bring a ewe-lamb or she-goat; therefore it teaches us [otherwise]. "Of the common people" - excluding the apostate. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: why does the verse state "which may not be done in error" (Leviticus 4:22)? One who returns from his awareness brings an offering for his inadvertence; this excludes the apostate, who does not return from his awareness. What is the difference between them? Rav Hamnuna said: the case of one who is an apostate regarding eating forbidden fat yet brings an offering for [forbidden] blood is the difference between them. One master holds: since he is an apostate regarding fat, he is also an apostate regarding blood. The other master holds: regarding blood at least, he does return from his awareness. Rava said: all agree that an apostate regarding fat is not an apostate regarding blood; rather, here they dispute the case of one who is an apostate to eat forbidden fat out of appetite, and forbidden fat was switched for him with permitted fat and he ate it. One master holds: since he eats out of appetite, he is intentionally an apostate. The other master holds: since he could find permitted food, he would not leave the permitted and eat the forbidden, so he is not an apostate. "In doing it" - the one who does all of it and not the one who does part of it. How so? Two who hold a sickle and reap together, or who hold a weaver's shuttle and beat, or a quill and write, or a reed, and they carried it out into the public domain - one might think they are liable; the verse teaches "in doing it," the one who does all of it and not the one who does part of it. Regarding a round cake of pressed figs that two carried out into the public domain, Rabbi Yehudah says: if one alone could not carry it out and the two carried it, they are liable. Rabbi Shimon says: even if one alone could not carry it and the two carried it, they are exempt. One who carries out a loaf into the public domain is liable. If two carried it out, Rabbi Meir holds them liable; Rabbi Yehudah says: if one alone could not carry it and the two carried it, they are liable, but if not, they are exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: even if one alone could not carry it and the two carried it, they are exempt. Rabbi Shimon holds: three restrictive terms are written - "a soul shall sin," "one shall sin," "in doing it shall sin" - one to exclude where this one uproots and that one sets down, one to exclude where this one is able and that one is able, and one to exclude where this one is unable and that one is unable. Rabbi Yehudah holds: one to exclude where this one uproots and that one sets down, one to exclude where this one is able and that one is able, and one to exclude an individual who acted by the ruling of a court. Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning, for he says an individual who acted by the ruling of a court is liable. Rabbi Meir holds: two restrictive terms are written - "a soul, one, shall sin," which is the manner of the verse, and "in doing it shall sin" - one to exclude where this one uproots and that one sets down, and one to exclude an individual who acted by the ruling of a court.
The Sin Offering Excludes the King, the Anointed Priest, and the Apostate
Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 469:35
עַם הָאָרֶץ, פְּרָט לְנָשִׂיא, מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ פְּרָט לְמָשִׁיחַ, וְאִם תֹּאמַר כְּבָר יָצָא מָשִׁיחַ לִדּוֹן בְּפַר, וְנָשִׂיא בְּשָׂעִיר, שֶׁיָּכוֹל הוֹאִיל וְעַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה מֵבִיא פַּר, עַל שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה יָבִיא כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "עַם הָאָרֶץ" פְּרָט לְנָשִׂיא, מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ פְּרָט לְמָשִׁיחַ. תִּינַח מָשִׁיחַ דְּמַיְתִי בְּהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר, אֶלָּא נָשִׂיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא דְּמַיְתֵי, אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עַסְקִינָן כְּגוֹן דְּאָכַל כַּזַּיִת חֵלֶב כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט וְנִתְמַנָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ. סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֲמִינָא נֵיתִי כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן. הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דַּאֲזִיל בְּתַר יְדִיעָה, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנָן דְּאָזְלֵי בָּתַר חַטָּאָה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינָן דְּאָכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט וְנִתְמַנָּה וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ. סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֲמִינָא לִיצְטָרֵף וְלֵייתִי כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן. מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ פְּרָט לְמוּמָר, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (לעיל פסוק כב) "אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵעָשֶׂינָה בִּשְׁגָגָה", הַשָּׁב מִידִיעָתוֹ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ, יָצָא מוּמָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁב מִידִיעָתוֹ. מַאי בֵּינַיְהוּ, אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא מוּמָר לֶאֱכֹל חֵלֶב וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל הַדָּם אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְהוּ. מַר סָבַר כֵּיוָן דְּהָוֵי מוּמָר לְחֵלֶב, לְדָם נַמִּי הָוֵי מוּמָר. וּמַר סָבַר לְדָם מִיהָא שָׁב מִידִיעָתוֹ הוּא. רָבָא אָמַר כֻּלֵּי עָלְמָא מוּמָר עַל הַחֵלֶב לָא הָוֵי מוּמָר לְדָם, אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמוּמָר לֶאֱכֹל חֵלֶב לְתֵאָבוֹן וְנִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ חֵלֶב בְּשֻׁמָּן וַאֲכָלוֹ קָמִיפְלָגֵי, מַר סָבַר כֵּיוָן דִּלְתֵאָבוֹן אוֹכֵל בְּמֵזִיד מוּמָר הָוֵי, וּמַר סָבַר כֵּיוָן דְּמַשְׁכַּח הֶתֵּרָא לָא שְׁבִיק הֶתֵּרָא וְאָכִיל אִסּוּרָא, לָאו מוּמָר הוּא. בַּעֲשׂתָהּ, הָעוֹשֶׂה אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְלֹא הָעוֹשֶׂה אֶת מִקְצָתָהּ, כֵּיצַד שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּמַלְגֵז וְלוֹגְזִין בְּכֻרְכָּר וְשׁוֹבְטִין, בְּקֻלְמוּס וְכוֹתְבִין, בְּקָנֶה, וְהוֹצִיאוּהוּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּבִין, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "בַּעֲשׂתָהּ", הָעוֹשֶׂה אֶת כֻּלָּהּ וְלֹא הָעוֹשֶׂה אֶת מִקְצָתָהּ. בְּעִגּוּל שֶׁל דְּבֵלָה וְהוֹצִיאוּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אִם [אֵין] יָכוֹל אֶחָד לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם חַיָּבִין. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אֶחָד יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם פְּטוּרִין. הַמּוֹצִיא כִּכָּר לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים חַיָּב. הוֹצִיאוּ שְׁנַיִם רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא יָכוֹל אֶחָד לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם חַיָּבִין, וְאִם לָאו פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָכוֹל אֶחָד לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבַר תְּלָתָא מִעוּטֵי כְּתִיבֵי, נֶפֶשׁ תֶּחֱטָא, אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא, בַּעֲשׂתָהּ תֶּחֱטָא, חַד לְמִעוּטֵי זֶה עוֹקֵר וְזֶה מַנִּיחַ, וְחַד לְמִעוּטֵי זֶה יָכוֹל וְזֶה יָכוֹל, וְחַד לְמִעוּטֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה חַד לְמִעוּטֵי זֶה עוֹקֵר וְזֶה מַנִּיחַ, וְחַד לְמִעוּטֵי זֶה יָכוֹל וְזֶה יָכוֹל, וְחַד לְמִעוּטֵי יָחִיד שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר יָחִיד שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין חַיָּב. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר תְּרֵי מִעוּטֵי כְּתִיבֵי, נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא דְּהוּא אוֹרְחֵיהּ דִּקְרָא, בַּעֲשׂתָהּ תֶּחֱטָא, חַד לְמִעוּטֵי זֶה עוֹקֵר וְזֶה מַנִּיחַ, וְחַד לְמִעוּטֵי יָחִיד שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין.