Yalkut Shimoni on Torah Reader

"You shall eat no fat and no blood" (Leviticus 3:17). Rabbi Yehuda says: it likens blood to fat - just as fat falls under two prohibitions, and so forth. And the Sages say: there is in it only a single warning. One might think that for the blood of consecrated animals that became unfit one would be liable under two prohibitions; therefore Scripture says, "Only the blood you shall not eat" (Deuteronomy 12:16) - there is in it only a single warning. I have only their blood; from where their fat? Scripture says "fat and blood" - it likens fat to blood: just as blood is under one prohibition, so too fat is under one prohibition. For since the firstborn went out from the category of consecrated animals that became unfit, one might think one would be liable for its blood under two prohibitions; therefore Scripture says, "Only its blood you shall not eat" (Deuteronomy 15:23) - there is in it only a single warning. I have only its blood; from where its fat? Scripture says "fat and blood" - just as blood is under one prohibition, so too fat is under one prohibition.

Our Rabbis taught: one who eats the fat of a carcass receives two sets of lashes; the fat of consecrated animals, two sets of lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: the fat of a carcass, two sets of lashes; the fat of consecrated animals, three sets of lashes. Rav Sheizvi said to Rabbi Abba: granted according to Rabbi Yehuda, this is why three verses are written - "an eternal statute," "you shall eat no fat and no blood" (Leviticus 3:17); "all the fat of ox and lamb and goat you shall not eat" (Leviticus 7:23); and "no stranger shall eat the holy thing" - here are three prohibitions. But according to the Sages, what is their reasoning? They hold that the prohibition of "an eternal statute" concerns consecrated animals, and the prohibition of "all the fat of ox and lamb" concerns unconsecrated animals, and both are necessary. For if the Merciful One had written only of consecrated animals, I would have said: consecrated animals, which are stringent, their fat is forbidden, but unconsecrated animals, say it is not. And if the Merciful One had written "all the fat of ox and lamb," I would have said: the fat of unconsecrated animals is forbidden because it was never permitted from its general category, but the fat of consecrated animals, which was permitted from its general category - I would say that since their flesh was permitted, their fat too was permitted; therefore Scripture teaches us otherwise. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that since "all the fat of ox" is written in the context of consecrated animals, it follows that the Sages do not derive a matter from its context, whereas everyone derives a matter from its context. Here Rabbi Yehuda holds we derive one prohibition from another prohibition and a prohibition from a karet-penalty, while the Sages hold we derive a prohibition from a prohibition but do not derive a prohibition from a karet-penalty. Our Rabbis taught: "you shall eat no fat and no blood" - just as fat brings two sets of lashes, so too blood brings two sets of lashes, the words of Rabbi Yehuda; and the Sages say there is in it only a single warning. What is different about fat, that it brings two sets of lashes without an analogy, since two verses are written about it - "you shall eat no fat and no blood" and "all the fat of ox and lamb and goat you shall not eat"? Blood too, without an analogy, should bring two sets of lashes, since two prohibitions are written about it - "all blood you shall not eat" of "an eternal statute," and "all blood you shall not eat in any of your dwellings" (Leviticus 7:26). Rather, say: just as fat brings three sets of lashes, so too blood brings three sets of lashes. What is different about fat, that it brings three, since these two verses we mentioned are written, plus the prohibition of being a stranger - here are three? Blood too should bring three lashes, since these two prohibitions are written about it plus the prohibition of being a stranger - here are three. It was needed, lest you say: since blood was excluded, perhaps blood was also excluded from the prohibition of being a stranger; therefore the analogy teaches us. But according to the Sages, why do I need the analogy? It is needed for what was taught: "you shall eat no fat and no blood" - Rabbi says: just as fat, since its fat is separate from its flesh, they do not combine with one another, so too blood, since its blood is separate, they do not combine with one another. I would exclude the blood of creeping things, since its blood is not separate from its flesh, so that they do combine with one another. But does this come from here? It comes from this verse, "And this is for you the unclean" (Leviticus 11:29), which teaches about the blood of the creeping thing and its flesh that they combine with one another. Were it not for the analogy, I would have said this applies only to impurity but not to eating; the analogy teaches us it applies to eating. Ravina said: therefore the blood of a snake and its flesh combine with one another. What does this teach us - is this not the very analogy? Lest you say: a creeping thing, which was included regarding impurity, was included regarding eating, but a snake, which was not included regarding impurity, say it is not; therefore it teaches us that for every matter its blood is not separate from its flesh.

"A soul, when it sins" (Leviticus 4:1-2). Ten things serve the soul, and these are they: the gullet for food, the windpipe for the voice, the liver for anger, the gallbladder for jealousy, the lung for drinking, the maw for grinding, the spleen for laughter, the stomach for sleep, the tongue for speech, the heart for understanding, the kidneys for counsel - and the soul is above them all. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the soul: I made you above them all, and you go out and sin, as it says, "A soul, when it sins." Rabbi Yishmael taught a parable: it is like a king who had an orchard with fine early figs, and he set in it two watchmen, one lame and one blind. He said to them: be careful with the early figs. The king departed. The lame one said to the blind one: I see fine early figs. The blind one said: bring them and let us eat. The lame one said: but can I walk? The blind one said: but can I see? What did they do? The lame one rode upon the back of the blind one, and they took the early figs and ate them, and they went and each sat in his place. After some days the king came and said to them: where are the early figs? The blind one said: but can I see? The lame one said: but can I walk? What did the king, who was clever, do? He set the lame one upon the back of the blind one and judged them as one. He said to them: thus you did and ate. So in the time to come, the Holy One, blessed be He, says to the soul: why did you sin? And it says before Him: Master of the universe, it is the body that sinned, for from the day I left it, am I not cast before You like a shard? And the body says: from the day the soul left me, am I not cast before You like a shard? What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He returns the soul to the body and judges them both as one. This is what is written, "He calls to the heavens above" (Psalms 50:4) - to bring the soul - "and to the earth" - to bring the body - and afterward, "to judge His people." Rabbi Hiyya taught a parable: it is like a priest who had two wives, one the daughter of a priest and one the daughter of an Israelite. He gave them dough of terumah, and they defiled it. He contended with the daughter of the priest and let the daughter of the Israelite be. She said to him: my lord priest, you gave it to both of us as one; why do you contend with me and let her be? He said to her: you are a priest's daughter and learned it in your father's house; this one is an Israelite's daughter and did not learn it in her father's house; therefore I contend with you. So in the time to come the Holy One, blessed be He, says to the soul: why did you sin before Me? It says before Him: Master of the universe, I and the body sinned as one; why do You contend with me and let this one be? He says to her: you are from the upper realms, from a place where they do not sin; therefore I contend with you. A parable: to what may the matter be compared? To two men who sinned against the king, one a provincial and one a son of the palace. He saw that both had committed the same sin. He turned to the provincial and gave the son of the palace a sentence. The members of his palace said to him: both committed the same sin; you turned away from the provincial and gave the son of the palace a sentence. He said to them: I turned from the provincial, for he does not know the customs of the kingdom; but the son of the palace is with me every day and knows the customs of the kingdom, and yet he sins. So too the body is the provincial - "And the LORD God formed the man" (Genesis 2:7); and the soul is the son of the palace from above - "and He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" - and both sin. Therefore Scripture expresses wonder: "A soul, when it sins." What is "unintentionally, from any of the commandments"? To teach you that whoever sins unintentionally is as one who transgressed the commandments of the LORD. And so it says, "And when you err and do not perform all these commandments" (Numbers 15:22), and it says, "Errors, who can discern them? Clear me from hidden faults; keep Your servant also from willful sins" (Psalms 19:13-14) - an error in study mounts up to a willful transgression. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: in this world, because the evil inclination rules over you, you sin; but in the time to come I will uproot it from you, as it says, "And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh" (Ezekiel 36:26).

"A soul, when it sins" (Leviticus 4:2) - the children of Israel bring a sin-offering, but the nations do not bring a sin-offering. And it need not be said concerning the commandments that the descendants of Noah were not commanded; but even concerning the commandments that the descendants of Noah were commanded, the descendants of Noah do not bring a sin-offering for them. "The children of Israel" - I have only the children of Israel; from where to include the converts and the freed slaves? Scripture says "a soul, when it sins."

"In error" (Leviticus 4:2): for an act done in error one brings the offering, but one does not bring it for a deliberate act. Is this not a matter of logic? If for grave idolatry the deliberate act was not treated like the inadvertent act, then surely for the lighter commandments the deliberate act should not be treated like the inadvertent act. If so, perhaps the deliberate transgression of idolatry, being grave, is set aside until the Day of Atonement, and the deliberate transgression of the commandments, being light, is likewise set aside until the Day of Atonement; rather one would bring a sin offering and gain atonement at once. Therefore Scripture teaches "if a person shall sin in error": for error he brings it and not for the deliberate act. The verse "the commandments of the LORD" excludes the commandments of the king and the commandments of a court. "From all the commandments of the LORD" teaches "some" and not "all," excluding the hearing of a summons, the utterance of the lips, and the defilement of the Sanctuary and its holy things. From "which ought not to be done" we learn that liability is only for an act whose deliberate doing carries excision and whose inadvertent doing requires a sin offering. Thus "one law shall there be for you for him who acts in error" (Numbers 15:29): everyone who acts in error is judged like one who served idols, and just as idolatry is singled out as an act whose deliberate doing carries excision and whose inadvertent doing requires a sin offering, so too every such act. By this measure the sages drew in forbidden unions and the desecration of the Sabbath, since from the day they were forbidden they were never permitted, a court imposes death for them, and their prohibition binds the descendants of Noah as it binds Israel.

"And he does one" (Leviticus 4:22): one might think one is liable only after writing the whole word, weaving the whole garment, or completing the whole sieve; therefore Scripture says "from one." If "from one," one might think even writing a single letter, weaving a single thread, or making a single mesh in a sieve makes one liable; therefore Scripture says "and he does one." How so? Only when one writes a small name that is part of a larger name, such as Shem from Shimon or Shmuel, Noach from Nachor, Dan from Daniel, Gad from Gadiel. Rabbi Yehudah says: even if one wrote two letters that form a single name he is liable, such as Shesh, Tet, Gag, Chach, Rar. Rabbi Yosi said: is he liable on account of writing? He is liable only on account of marking, for so they would mark on the boards of the Tabernacle to know which board was its match. Therefore one who scratches a single scratch across two boards, or two scratches on one board, is liable. Rabbi Shimon says: "and he does one"; how so? Only when he performs labor of a kind that endures. Rabbi Yosi says: "and he does one," "and he does these": sometimes a person is liable once for them all, and sometimes for each one. How so? If he forgot the very principle of the Sabbath and did many labors, even of the categories of principal labors, he is liable only one sin offering for all his days. But one who knew the principle of the Sabbath yet erred and did not know which day was the Sabbath, or knew it was the Sabbath yet did not know which labor was forbidden, and did many labors, is liable for each category of labor, or for each lapse of awareness.

Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat-market of Emaus, when they went to buy an animal for the feast of Rabban Gamliel's son: one who lay with his sister, his father's sister, and his mother's sister in a single lapse of awareness, what is the law? Is he liable once for them all, or for each one? They said to him: this we have not heard, but we have heard that one who lay with his five menstruant wives in a single lapse is liable for each one, and we see that the matter is an argument from the lighter to the heavier. Rabbi Akiva further asked about a dangling limb on an animal; they said: we have not heard, but we have heard about a dangling limb on a person, that he remains pure, and so those afflicted with boils in Jerusalem would do: a man would go on the eve of Passover to the physician, who would cut until he left a hair's breadth, stick it on a thorn, and the man would pull away from it, and that man would offer his Passover lamb and the physician his, and we see the matter is an argument from light to heavy. Rabbi Akiva further asked about one who slaughters five sacrifices outside the courtyard in a single lapse; they said: we have not heard. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard that one who eats from a single sacrifice in five servings in one lapse is liable for each on account of misuse of sacred property, and I see the matter as an argument from light to heavy. Rabbi Shimon said: what proof is one who eats to one who slaughters? Rabbi Akiva said: if it is a received tradition we accept it, but if it is reasoning, there is a reply. He said: reply. He said: no, for in misuse of sacred property the law made the feeder like the eater and the one who benefits another like one who benefits himself, joining the misuse over a long span; can you say this here, where none of these applies? Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer about one who does many labors on many Sabbaths of a single kind, whether he is liable once or for each, arguing from the menstruant, and he answered me that the Sabbath has only one warning, while the menstruant has two; and so the back-and-forth continued. "The children of Israel, a soul" (compare Leviticus 4:27): thus the community is like the individual; just as the individual brings only for a matter whose deliberate doing carries excision and whose inadvertent doing requires a sin offering, so too the community.

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 out and two carried it out, they are liable, but if one alone could, they are exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: even if one alone could not carry it out and two carried it out, they are exempt. Rabbi Shimon reasons that three exclusionary 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 not able and that one is not able. Rabbi Yehudah uses one to exclude this one uproots and that one sets down, one to exclude this one is able and that one is able, and one to exclude an individual who acted on a court's ruling. Rabbi Shimon follows his own view that an individual who acts on a court's ruling is liable. Rabbi Meir holds two exclusions are written, "a soul, one, shall sin" being the ordinary way of the verse, and "in doing it" excluding an individual who acted on a court's ruling. If a court ruled that forbidden fat is permitted, and a person confused forbidden fat with permitted fat, Rav says he is exempt and Rabbi Yochanan says he is liable. It is objected: "of the people of the land" excludes an apostate. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: "which ought not to be done in error, and it becomes known to him" teaches that one who returns from his error through knowledge brings an offering for his inadvertence. Rava said that Rav concedes the offender does not complete a majority of the community, for Scripture says "for it was in error to all the people" (Numbers 15:26), until all of them are in one error. "And he does one of these" is written in the symbol marked at 391.

"If the anointed priest" (Leviticus 4:3): the anointed priest is like an individual; just as the individual brings only for a matter whose deliberate doing carries excision and whose inadvertent doing requires a sin offering, so too the anointed priest. As we learned: for every commandment in the Torah whose deliberate doing carries excision and whose inadvertent doing requires a sin offering, the individual brings a lamb or a goat, the prince brings a he-goat, and the anointed priest and the court bring a bull; while for idolatry the prince, the anointed priest, and the individual bring a she-goat, and the community brings a bull and a he-goat, the bull for a burnt offering and the he-goat for a sin offering. Whence these matters? As the sages taught: "and the sin becomes known wherein they sinned" (Leviticus 4:14): Rabbi says, "wherein" is said here and "wherein" is said there, and just as there it is a matter whose deliberate doing carries excision, so too here. Whence the anointed priest? As it is taught, "if the anointed priest shall sin to the guilt of the people" makes the anointed priest like the community. And from where do we learn the individual and the prince? By the analogy of "commandment" with "commandment" drawn from the community. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught his son from "one law shall there be for you for him who acts in error, and the soul that acts with a high hand" (Numbers 15:29-30) that the whole Torah is likened to idolatry: just as idolatry carries excision for the deliberate act, so all the rest. "If the anointed priest" excludes a prior sin; the verse "the anointed shall sin" teaches that he brings if he sinned while anointed, but if a commoner, he does not bring. Rabbi Shimon says: if it became known to him before he was appointed and he was appointed afterward, he is liable; if after appointment, exempt. "And he shall offer for his sin" teaches he atones for his own sin and not for what others sinned. The court is not liable until it rules to nullify part and uphold part, and so the anointed priest, and not in idolatry, for Scripture says "and a matter is hidden," a matter and not the whole body.

A court is liable only for a hidden matter together with an inadvertent act. As the sages taught: "they err" (compare Numbers 15:24); one might think they are liable for an inadvertent act alone, therefore Scripture says "they err and a matter is hidden": they are liable only for a hidden matter together with an inadvertent act. And so the anointed priest, for it is written "to the guilt of the people," which makes the anointed priest like the community. And so in idolatry, as the sages taught, since idolatry went out to be judged on its own. As for the anointed priest in idolatry, Rabbi says: by an inadvertent act, while the sages say: by a hidden matter together with an inadvertent act; and they agree that with a she-goat he is like the individual, and they agree that he does not bring a suspended guilt offering. What is Rabbi's reason? It is written "and the priest shall atone for the soul that erred" (Numbers 15:28): "the soul," this is the anointed priest; "that erred," this is the prince. "In sinning in error," Rabbi holds "sin" here means an inadvertent act, while the sages hold this means one whose sin offering comes for inadvertence, excluding the anointed priest whose offering comes not for inadvertence but for a hidden matter. And whence that with a she-goat he is like the individual? Scripture says "if one soul" (Numbers 15:27): each of them, individual, prince, and anointed priest, is included in "one soul." And whence that he brings no suspended guilt offering? This is Rabbi's reason: if so, let Scripture write "for his error"; why "that he erred"? This teaches there is liability only when his whole sin is in error.

"And he shall offer for his sin" (Leviticus 4:3) teaches that he brings the sin offering even after he has left office. Is this not a matter of logic? If the prince, who brings for an inadvertent act, does not bring his sin offering once he has stepped down, then the anointed priest, who does not bring for a mere inadvertent act, surely should not bring his sin offering after stepping down. Therefore Scripture says "and he shall offer for his sin which he sinned": it teaches that he brings his sin offering even after he has stepped down. One might think that if he sinned together with the community he brings a bull for himself, and this is logical, since the prince is set apart from the community and the anointed priest is set apart from the community; just as the prince who sinned by himself brings for himself, and who sinned with the community is atoned for with the community. But not so: for the prince is atoned for with the community on the Day of Atonement, whereas the anointed priest is not atoned for with the community on the Day of Atonement; therefore, since he is not atoned for with the community, he should bring a bull for himself. Scripture says "and he shall offer for his sin which he sinned." How so? If he sinned by himself he brings for himself; if he sinned with the community he is atoned for with the community. "A bull": one might think an old one; Scripture says "a young one." If young, one might think a small calf; Scripture says "a bull," so one of three years, in the view of the sages. Rabbi Meir says even one of four or five years is fit, but they do not bring the old ones out of respect. Rabbi Yosi the Galilean says: what does "and a second bull, a young of the herd, you shall take for a sin offering" (Numbers 8:8) teach? If to teach that they are two, it already says "and make one a sin offering and one a burnt offering"; so why say "a second bull"? To teach one of two years.

Another interpretation: since it says "and make one a sin offering and one a burnt offering," one might think the sin offering always precedes the burnt offering; Scripture says "and a second bull you shall take for a sin offering." One might then think the burnt offering precedes the sin offering in every act; Scripture says "and make one a sin offering and one a burnt offering to the LORD." How so? The blood of the sin offering precedes the blood of the burnt offering, because it secures favor, while the limbs of the burnt offering precede the portions of the sin offering, because they are wholly consumed by the fire. Rabbi Shimon says: what does "a second bull" teach? If to say they are two, it already says "and make one a sin offering and one a burnt offering"; so why "a second bull"? Lest one think this sin offering is eaten; Scripture says "a second bull," second to the burnt offering: just as the burnt offering is not eaten, so this sin offering is not eaten. Similarly Rabbi Yosi said of "those who came from the captivity, the children of the exile, offered burnt offerings to the God of Israel, twelve bulls for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs, twelve he-goats for a sin offering, all a burnt offering to the LORD" (Ezra 8:35): can you say a sin offering is a burnt offering? Rather, just as the burnt offering is not eaten, so the sin offering was not eaten. And so Rabbi Yehudah would say: they brought them for idolatry. Rabbi Shimon says: wherever "calf" is said in the Torah without qualification it means one of a year, as it says "a calf and a lamb of a year" (Leviticus 9:3); "a young of the herd" means one of two years, as it says "a calf, a young of the herd, for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, unblemished" (Leviticus 9:2), so too unblemished in years; a bull without qualification is one of three years, and those of four and five are fit, but they do not bring the old ones out of respect.

If the anointed priest sins: the judgment of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like the judgment of flesh and blood. Flesh and blood shows favor to the community but does not show favor to the individual; the Holy One, blessed be He, is not so. The anointed priest sins, and he brings the bull. "And if the whole congregation of Israel errs, then the assembly shall offer" (Leviticus 4:13-14). If the anointed priest sins: the anointed priest atones, yet himself needs atonement. Rabbi Chiya taught: since the one who atones atones and the community is atoned for, better that the one who atones should precede the one being atoned for. We have learned, "And he shall make atonement for himself and for his household" (Leviticus 16:17) — this refers to his wife. If the anointed priest sins: Rabbi Levi said, wretched is the province whose physician is gout-ridden, and whose champion is blind in one eye, and whose defending advocate turns prosecutor in capital cases. "For the guilt of the people" (Leviticus 4:3): Rabbi Yitzchak said, a parable to a bear's claw [text uncertain] that was eating the arrangements set out for a bear. The king said, since it has eaten the bear's arrangements, let the bear eat it. So said the Holy One, blessed be He: since Shevna enjoyed consecrated property, let fire consume him.

"And he shall bring the bull to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting" (Leviticus 4:4). Rabbi Yitzchak said: a parable to a king whose friend honored him with a fine gift and a fine loaf of bread. The king said, set the gift at the entrance of the palace, so that everyone going out and coming in will see it — as it is said, "And he shall bring the bull," and so on. "And he shall bring the bull": even after the Day of Atonement. He brings a bull and does not bring a substitute. And is this not a matter of logic? If the individual, whose offering for all the commandments is not equal to the offering of the Day of Atonement, has his offering for all commandments equal to the offering for a single commandment — then the anointed one, whose offering for all the commandments is equal to the offering of the Day of Atonement, is it not right that his offering should equal the offering for a single commandment? Let the prince prove it, whose offering for all the commandments equals the offering of the Day of Atonement, yet whose offering for all the commandments does not equal the offering of the individual. So too you need not wonder about the anointed one, that even though his offering for all the commandments equals the offering of the Day of Atonement, his offering for all commandments does not equal the offering for a single commandment. Rather, why is it said "And he shall bring"? One might think he may bring a substitute; therefore Scripture teaches "a bull" — a bull he brings, and he does not bring a substitute.

"And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the bull" (Leviticus 4:4) — to include the bull of the Day of Atonement for the laying on of hands. And is this not a matter of logic? If this one [the anointed priest's bull], which does not require two confessions and does not require the "Please" [formula], requires the laying on of hands, then the bull of the Day of Atonement, which requires two confessions and requires the "Please," is it not right that it should require the laying on of hands? No: if you have said this concerning this bull, which comes for the transgression of a known commandment, would you say the same of the bull of the Day of Atonement, which does not come for the transgression of a known commandment? Since it does not come for the transgression of a known commandment, let it not require the laying on of hands. Therefore Scripture teaches, "And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the bull" — to include the bull of the Day of Atonement for the laying on of hands. "And he shall slaughter the bull before the LORD" (Leviticus 4:4) — in the north.

"And he shall take" (Leviticus 4:5-6): "taking" is stated here and "taking" is stated elsewhere; just as the taking stated elsewhere is in a vessel, so the taking stated here is in a vessel. "And the anointed priest shall take": I have only the anointed priest; how do I know to include another priest? Scripture teaches, "the priest." If we are ultimately to include another priest, why does Scripture say "the anointed priest"? Rather, it is a commandment that the anointed priest receive it, but if an ordinary priest received it, his service is valid. "Of the blood of the bull": of the lifeblood, and not of the blood of the hide, and not of the squeezed-out blood. "From the bull": he receives blood from the bull. From here they said: if the blood was spilled on the floor and he gathered it, it is invalid; from a vessel and he gathered it, it is valid. "Blood from the bull he shall receive": for if it should enter your mind [to read] "of the blood of the bull" as written, "of the blood," then even part of the blood [would suffice]. But Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: the slaughterer must receive all the blood of the bull, as it is said, "And all the blood of the bull he shall pour out" (Leviticus 4:7). And this is written concerning the remainder; if it is not relevant to the remainder, since it is not all the blood, apply it to the receiving — and he holds that we subtract and add and expound. "And they shall bring it": valid and not invalid. "It to the Tent of Meeting": to exclude the offering for a single commandment, that its blood should not be placed upon the golden altar. "And he shall dip": and not one who blots. "And he shall dip, and he shall sprinkle": every sprinkling is a dipping. "His finger": "his finger" is stated here, and "his finger" is stated elsewhere (Leviticus 14:16); just as the finger stated elsewhere is the right, the most prominent of the right hand, so the finger stated here is the right, the most prominent of the right hand. "In the blood": that there be in the blood enough for a dipping [from the start]. "And he shall sprinkle": and not one who drips. "And he shall sprinkle": and not one who throws. "Of the blood": of the blood that is in question. "Seven times": not seven drops. "Seven times": that he should count seven times and not one and seven, in the manner he counts on the Day of Atonement. "Before the LORD": one might think the whole house; Scripture teaches "the face of the curtain." One might think upon the whole curtain; Scripture teaches "the holy," teaching that he directs it opposite the poles [of the Ark].

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: the slaughterer must raise the knife upward, as it is said, "And he shall take of the blood of the bull" — and not of the blood of the bull together with something else. And with what does he wipe the blood of the knife? Abaye said, on the rim of the basin, as it is written, "basins of gold" (Ezra 1:10). Rav Chisda said in the name of Rav Yirmiyah bar Abba: the slaughterer must let the veins drip into the vessel. Rabbi Zeira said: one who notches the ear of the bull and afterward receives its blood — it is invalid, as it is said, "And he shall take of the blood of the bull" — a bull that was already whole. We have found this for the most holy offerings; how do we know it for the offerings of lesser sanctity? Rava said, it is taught, "an unblemished lamb" (written at remez 195).

"With his finger... and he shall take" (Leviticus 4:25): that the receiving be only with the right. "With his finger... and he shall place": teaching that the placing be only with the right. Rabbi Shimon said: but was "hand" stated regarding the receiving? Since "hand" was not stated regarding the receiving, if he received with the left it is valid. Abaye said: they disagree over [whether] a verse is expounded before it and after it. Abaye said: this teaching of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon diverges from his father and diverges from the rabbis, for it is taught: Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says, every place where "finger" is stated regarding receiving, if he changed in the receiving it is invalid, but in the placing it is valid; and every place where "finger" is stated regarding placing, if he changed in the placing it is invalid, but in the receiving it is valid. And where is "finger" stated regarding placing? As it is written, "And you shall take of the blood of the bull and place it upon the horns of the altar with your finger" (Exodus 29:12). And he holds that a verse is expounded before it, but not before what is before it, nor after it.

"And he shall dip": and not one who blots. "In the blood": until there be in the blood, and so on. And it was necessary to write "and he shall dip," and it was necessary to write "in the blood." For if the Merciful One had written only "and he shall dip," I would have said even though there is not the measure for dipping; therefore the Merciful One wrote "in the blood." And if the Merciful One had written only "in the blood," I would have said even by blotting; therefore the Merciful One wrote "and he shall dip." "Of the blood that is in question": to exclude the remainders on the finger, which are invalid.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: why is it said "the lobe and the two kidneys" (Leviticus 4:9) regarding the bull of the anointed priest, but not said regarding the bull for the inadvertent error of the community? A parable to a king of flesh and blood who grew angry at his friend, yet minimizes his offense out of his affection for him. And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: why is "the curtain of the holy" said regarding the bull of the anointed priest, but not said regarding the bull for the inadvertent error? A parable to a king of flesh and blood against whom a province rebelled: if a minority rebelled, his retinue endures; but if the majority rebelled, his retinue does not endure. One verse says "the face of the curtain," and one verse says "the face of the curtain of the holy." Chizkiyah taught a hint: every place where there is an anointed one, there is the Ark; where there is no anointed one, there is no Ark. And five things the Second Temple lacked: the perpetual fire, the Ark, the Urim and Tummim, the anointing oil, and the holy spirit. What is the reason? "And I will take pleasure in it and be glorified" (Haggai 1:8) — the letter heh is written missing.

"And the priest shall put some of the blood" (Leviticus 4:7) that is spoken of in this matter "upon the horn" -- "horns" makes two, and below it says "upon the horn, the horns" -- behold four; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehudah says: "(upon the altar) which is in the Tent of Meeting" -- to include the horns that are in the Tent of Meeting. "The altar of incense" -- so that the altar should be inaugurated with incense. "Incense" -- that it should be from the community. "The spices" -- that its spices should be from within it. "Before the LORD" -- what does the text come to teach? Rabbi Nechemyah said: Because we find regarding the bull of the Day of Atonement that the priest stands inside, before the altar, and sprinkles upon the curtain at the time he sprinkles, one might think this one is so too; the text therefore says "the altar of fragrant incense before the LORD" -- and the priest is not before the LORD. The sin-offering of the community and of the individual requires four applications upon the four horns. How does he do it? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar: one said he applies a cubit this way and a cubit that way, and one said he sharpens his finger and brings it down along the point of the horn. According to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, who said it is itself done only at the point of the horn, all agree; where they differ is according to Rabbi, as it was taught: the lower bloods are applied from the red line downward, and the upper from the red line upward. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: in what case is this said? Regarding the bird burnt-offering; but a beast sin-offering is itself done only on the body of the horn. They raised an objection: the sin-offerings of the community and of the individual, how is the order of applying their blood? He would ascend the ramp and turn to the ledge, come to the southeastern horn, dip his designated right finger -- the chief one of the right hand -- in the blood that is in the basin, pressing his thumb here and his little finger there, and apply it and bring it down along the point of the horn until all the blood on his finger is used up, and so for each and every horn. This is what it means: the commandment is at its point, and if he did a cubit this way and a cubit that way, we have no objection to it. "And all the blood [of the bull] he shall pour out" -- what does "the bull" come to teach? To include the bull of the Day of Atonement, which requires application of blood to the base; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael said: it is an inference from minor to major [kal vachomer]. If one whose blood does not enter within as an obligation requires a base, one whose blood enters within as an obligation -- is it not right that it should require a base? Rabbi Akiva said: and if one whose blood does not enter within -- neither commandment nor obligation nor into the innermost place -- requires a base, one whose blood enters within as an obligation, whether for obligation or for commandment, is it not right that it should require a base? One might think this would invalidate the rite; the text says "and he shall make an end of atoning for the holy place and the Tent of Meeting and the altar" (Leviticus 16:20) -- all the atonements have been completed; these are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. An inference from minor to major to the anointed priest's bull: now if one whose blood does not enter within for neither obligation nor commandment requires a base, this one whose blood enters within whether for commandment or obligation -- is it not right that it should require a base? One might think this would invalidate the rite; the text says "and all the blood [of the bull] he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering" -- Scripture detached it and made it the remnant of a commandment, to say that remnants do not invalidate.

"At the base of the altar of burnt-offering" -- and not the inner altar. "At the base of the altar of burnt-offering" -- give a base to the altar of burnt-offering. Or perhaps the altar of burnt-offering is itself the base? Rabbi Yishmael said: it is an inference from minor to major. If the remnants of a sin-offering, which do not atone, require a base first, the burnt-offering, which atones, is it not right that it should require a base first? Rabbi Akiva said: and if remnants, which neither atone nor come for atonement, require a base, the burnt-offering, which comes for atonement, is it not right that it should require a base? The text says "at the base of the altar of burnt-offering" -- give a base to the altar of burnt-offering. The master said: "at the base of the altar of burnt-offering" -- and not the inner altar. But this is needed for itself! Its own teaching comes from "which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting." "At the base of the altar of burnt-offering" (Leviticus 4:25) -- give it a base for the altar of burnt-offering. For what law? If you should think it is as written, regarding remnants, the remnants are done on the outside! One might say: reverse it, so that what is outside becomes inside and what is inside becomes outside -- then the inner altar itself has no base; the text says "at the base of the altar of burnt-offering" -- give a base to the altar of burnt-offering. Or perhaps the altar of burnt-offering is itself the base? Is it written "at the base of the burnt-offering"? It is written "at the base of the altar of burnt-offering." Had it written "at the base of the burnt-offering," I would say at the upright of the base; now that it is written "at the base of the altar of burnt-offering," it means at the top of the base. Rabbi Yishmael said an inference from minor to major: if remnants, which do not atone, require the top of the base first, the burnt-offering, which atones, is it not right that it should require the top of the base? Rabbi Akiva said an inference: if remnants, which do not atone and do not come for atonement, require the top of the base first, the burnt-offering, which atones and comes for atonement, is it not right that it should require the top of the base? The text says "at the base of the altar -- give a base to the altar of burnt-offering." What is the difference between them? Rav Adda bar Ahavah said: Rabbi Yishmael holds that remnants invalidate, and Rabbi Akiva holds they do not invalidate. Rav Pappa said: all agree that remnants do not invalidate, and here they differ regarding the squeezing-out of the bird sin-offering: one master holds it invalidates and one master holds it does not. "At the base of the altar of burnt-offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting" -- this is the western base.

"And all the fat of the bull of the sin-offering" -- to include the bull of the Day of Atonement for the two kidneys and the lobe of the liver. "The sin-offering" -- to include the goats of idolatry and all that is stated in the matter. "From it" -- from what is attached. "As it is taken up from the ox of the peace sacrifice" -- what is explained in the ox of the peace sacrifice that is not explained here? Rather: just as peace-offerings are for their own sake, so too this is for its own sake. Just as peace-offerings bring peace to the world, so too this brings peace to the world. If so, just as peace-offerings require separation of the fat-tail, should this too require separation of the fat-tail? The text says "from the ox of the peace sacrifice" -- I likened it to the peace-offering of an ox and not to the peace-offering of a lamb. Yehudah ben Shmuel says: just as peace-offerings bring peace to the world, so too this brings peace to the world. If so, just as communal peace-sacrifices override the Sabbath and impurity, should this too override the Sabbath and impurity? The text says "from the ox of the peace sacrifice" -- I likened it to the peace-offering of an ox and did not liken it to the peace-offering of a lamb. Rava said: a thing learned by analogy [hekkesh] does not return and teach by analogy. From here: "as it is taken up from the ox of the peace sacrifice" -- for what law? For the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys and the goats of idolatry. And the bull for the community's inadvertent ruling -- in its own case it is not written, but it comes by analogy, and it is learned from the bull of the anointed priest. Therefore "as it is taken up" was needed, to be as if it were written in its own case, so that a thing learned by analogy should not return and teach by analogy. Rav Pappa said to Rava: let it write it in its own case and not draw the analogy. Had it written it in its own case and not drawn the analogy, I would say a thing learned by analogy returns and teaches; and if you say, if so, let it draw the analogy -- it preferred to write it in its own case rather than derive it by analogy. Therefore it wrote and drew the analogy, so that a thing learned by analogy should not return and teach by analogy.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: what have we now learned for the bull of the anointed priest from the ox of the peace sacrifice? Rather, it likens the bull of the anointed priest to the ox of the peace sacrifice: just as the ox of the peace sacrifice -- its thoughts and its actions must be in the outer house [the Temple court] -- so too the bull of the anointed priest -- its thoughts and its actions must be in the outer house. There is a stringency in fat over blood, and in blood over fat. For the fat -- one is liable for misuse of sacred property [me'ilah] regarding it, and is liable for it on account of piggul [improper intent], remnant, and impurity, which is not so for blood. There is a stringency in blood over fat -- for blood applies to beast, wild animal, and bird, whether pure or impure, while fat applies only to a pure domestic animal. From where are these things derived? Rabbi Yannai said: because the verse says "as it is taken up from the ox of the peace sacrifice" -- and what have we learned from the ox of the peace sacrifice for the bull of the anointed priest now? This comes to teach and is found to be taught: it likens the ox of the peace sacrifice to the bull of the anointed priest -- just as the bull of the anointed priest is subject to misuse, so too the ox of the peace sacrifice is subject to misuse. Rabbi Chananyah said to him: how ugly is this that Rabbi taught -- "all fat is the LORD's" (Leviticus 3:16) to include the sacrificial portions of lesser holy things for misuse! Abaye said: it was necessary, for had the Merciful One written only "all fat," I would say fat yes, the lobe and the two kidneys no; therefore the Merciful One wrote "as it is taken up." And had the Merciful One written only "as it is taken up," I would say the fat-tail, which is not in an ox, no; therefore the Merciful One wrote "all fat." Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid: if the fat-tail is called fat, let one be forbidden in the fat-tail. He said to him: regarding it Scripture says "all fat of ox and sheep and goat" (Leviticus 7:23) -- a thing equal in ox and sheep and goat. "And the priest shall burn them upon the altar of burnt-offering" -- and not upon the inner altar. Is this not a logical inference? The outer altar merited the application of blood, and the inner altar merited the application of blood. Just as the outer altar -- the place where its horns receive blood, there the fats are burned -- so too the inner altar, the place of blood, there the fats are burned. How then do I uphold "you shall offer no strange incense upon it, nor burnt-offering nor meal-offering" (Exodus 30:9)? Holy things that did not merit the application of blood; but holy things that merited the application of blood, since they merited blood, let them merit the burning of fats. The text says "and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of burnt-offering" -- and not upon the inner altar. "The hide of the bull and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs" (Leviticus 4:11). "And he shall carry forth" -- this teaches that he carries it forth whole when it is intact. One might think he carries it out whole and burns it whole; the text says "its head and its legs" -- just as "its head and its legs" stated further on is done by means of cutting up, so too here by means of cutting up. Rava said: a thing learned by a gezeira shava [verbal analogy] returns and teaches by a gezeira shava. As it was taught: "and its entrails and its dung -- and he shall carry forth" teaches that he carries it forth whole; one might think he burns it whole; it says here "its head and its legs" and it says further on (Leviticus 1:8-9) "its head and its legs" -- just as further on by cutting up, so too here by cutting up. If so, just as further on with flaying, so too here with flaying? The text says "and its entrails and its dung." What is the proof? Rav Pappa said: just as its dung is within its entrails, so its flesh is within its hide. It was taught, Rabbi says: it says here hide and flesh and dung, and it says further on "hide and flesh and dung" -- just as here by cutting up without flaying, so too further on cutting up without flaying.

"And he shall carry forth the whole bull to outside the camp" -- outside three camps. Or perhaps outside one camp? When it says regarding the bull of the congregation (Leviticus 4:21) "to outside the camp," which need not have been stated -- for it has already been said (there) "and he shall burn it as he burned the first bull" -- if so, why is "outside the camp" stated? To give it a second camp. When it says regarding the ashes "to outside the camp," which need not have been stated -- for it has already been said "to a pure place, to where the ashes are poured out" -- if so, why is "to outside the camp" stated? To give it a third camp.

"To a pure place" -- that its place should be pure, and if it was impure he shall purify it. That a place should be prepared for them for this purpose. "To where the ashes are poured out" -- that there should be ashes there; that he should put the ashes there first; that there they should place the ashes. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: that its place should be sloping. "And he shall burn it" -- one that is fit and not one that is unfit. "Upon wood in the fire" -- what does the text teach? For one might think, since burning is stated inside and burning is stated outside, just as the burning stated inside is with wood fit for the arrangement on the altar, so too the burning stated outside is with wood fit for the arrangement; the text says "upon wood" -- to include anything at all, even straw or stubble or brushwood. "In the fire" -- and not in lime and not in embers. "It shall be burned" -- even though there are no ashes there. "It shall be burned" -- even though one kindles the fire on its own body.

It is written (Leviticus 21:9) "And the daughter of a priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she shall be burned with fire" -- with a wick of lead, as it is written "she shall be burned with fire," to include any burning that comes by means of fire. And wherever it is written "with fire," it is to include any burning that comes by means of fire. But it is written "and he shall burn it upon wood in the fire," and it was taught "in the fire" and not in boiling lime! There, "she shall be burned with fire" is written at the end -- burning, to include any burning that comes by means of fire. Here it is written "and he shall burn it upon wood in the fire" -- in fire yes, anything else no. There too it is written "upon the place where the ashes are poured it shall be burned" -- that is needed for what was taught: "it shall be burned" even though there are no ashes there, even though one kindled the fire on most of it. "And if" (Leviticus 4:13) -- this adds to the first matter; when you come to say, the anointed-priest's bull and the congregation's bull stand together, the anointed-priest's bull precedes the congregation's bull in all its rites. "The congregation of Israel" -- one might think the verse speaks of the whole congregation; it says here "congregation" and it says further on "congregation" -- just as the "congregation" stated further on is a court, so too the congregation stated here is a court. If so, just as the congregation stated further on is twenty-three, so too the congregation here is twenty-three? The text says "and if the whole congregation of Israel" -- a congregation designated for all Israel, and which is that? The Great Sanhedrin sitting in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Rabbi Yochanan said: a hundred who sat to issue a ruling -- the ruling is not finalized until all of them rule, as it says "and if the whole congregation of Israel errs," until all of them err, until the ruling spreads through all the congregation of Israel. Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: know that throughout the whole Torah we hold that a majority is as the whole, yet here the Merciful One wrote "the whole congregation," until there is the entirety -- therefore even if they are a hundred. Rav Mesharshya objected: a decree is not imposed on the community unless the majority of the community can endure it; what is the verse? (Malachi 3:9) "With a curse you are cursed, yet me you rob, the whole nation" -- here it is written "the whole nation," and a majority is as the whole; the refutation of Rabbi Yochanan is a refutation. Rather, what is "the whole congregation" that the Merciful One said? This is what it means: if the entire Sanhedrin is present it is a ruling, and if not, not. If a court ruled and one of them knew they had erred and said to them "you are mistaken," or the distinguished sage of the court was not present, or one of them was a convert or a mamzer or a Gibeonite or an elder who had no children, this one is exempt. It says here "congregation" and it says further on "congregation" -- just as the congregation stated further on, all of them are fit to rule, so too the congregation stated here, until all of them are fit to rule. From where? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: the verse says (Numbers 11:17) "and they shall bear with you" -- those like you. If one of them said "I do not know," or said to them "you are mistaken," one might think they are liable; the text says "the congregation of Israel errs" -- that all of them err. One might think they are liable for an inadvertent act; the text says "errs and the matter is hidden" -- they are liable only for a hidden matter together with an inadvertent act. Since idolatry came out to be judged on its own, one might think they are liable for the inadvertent act of it; the text says here "from the eyes" and further on it says "from the eyes" -- just as "from the eyes" stated further on means a court, so too "from the eyes" stated here means a court; and just as "from the eyes" stated further on means a hidden matter together with an inadvertent act, so too here. If a court ruled to uproot an entire body of law -- they said there is no menstrual law in the Torah, there is no Sabbath in the Torah, there is no idolatry prohibition in the Torah -- these are exempt. If they ruled to nullify part and uphold part, these are liable. How so? If they said there is a menstrual law in the Torah but one who has relations with a woman observing day-against-day is exempt; there is a Sabbath in the Torah but one who carries from the public domain to the private domain is exempt; there is an idolatry prohibition in the Torah but one who bows to idolatry is exempt -- these are liable, as it says "and the matter is hidden" and not the whole body of law. Our rabbis taught: "and the matter is hidden" -- and not that the entire commandment be hidden. If they ruled to nullify part and uphold part, one might think they are exempt; and if for upholding part they are exempt and for uprooting the whole body they are exempt, for what are they liable? The Tanna found this difficult: say the reverse, for "matter" implies the whole thing. The text says "and the matter is hidden" -- read it as "and part of the matter is hidden." Chizkiyah said: the verse says "and does one of all the commandments" -- "of all," and not all the commandments; "commandments" implies two. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: "commandments" is written. Rav Ashi said: he derives "matter" and "matter" from the rebellious elder, regarding whom it is written (Deuteronomy 17:8) "if a matter be too hard for you... you shall not turn aside from the matter which they tell you" -- just as there "from the matter" and not the whole matter, so too in a ruling, from the matter and not the whole matter. The commandments stated regarding the anointed one are the commandments stated here. "Of all the commandments of the LORD" -- excluding the hearing of a voice [oath], and utterance of the lips, and impurity of the sanctuary and its holy things.

"Which may not be done, and they become guilty" -- just as punishment is exacted from the individual, so it is exacted from the community. If they ruled and erred in what they ruled, one might think they are liable; the text says "and the sin becomes known" -- and not that the sinners become known. "Which they have sinned... and they shall bring" -- if two tribes sinned, they bring two bulls, and the rest who did not sin bring a bull on their behalf; for even these who did not sin bring on account of the sinners. Therefore it says "the assembly" -- to make liable for each and every assembly; these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Shimon says: seven tribes that sinned bring seven bulls, and the court brings a bull on their behalf. It says above "assembly" and below "assembly" -- just as the assembly stated above is a court, so too the assembly stated below is a court, and not the community. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in his name: if six tribes sinned and they are the majority, or seven tribes even though they are not the majority of the assembly, they bring a bull. The master said: "and the sin becomes known" -- and not that the sinners become known. Who is the Tanna? Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: not like Rabbi Eliezer, for it was taught, Rabbi Eliezer said: whichever way you turn -- he ate fat, he is liable; he ate remnant, he is liable. Rav Ashi said: you may even say it is Rabbi Eliezer; it is different here, for it is written "which they have sinned thereby." What is Rabbi Yehudah's reasoning? He holds four mentions of "assembly" are written -- assembly, the assembly, assembly, the assembly: one to make liable for each assembly, one for a ruling that depends on the court while the act depends on the assembly, one for drawing-along, and one for a tribe that acted on its court's ruling. And Rabbi Shimon: three verses are written -- the assembly, assembly, the assembly; "from the eyes of the assembly" is the manner of the verse, as people say "from the eyes of so-and-so." One for the court, one to make liable for each assembly, and one: it says "assembly" above and "assembly" below -- just as further on a court with the community, so too here a court with the community. And Rabbi Meir does not expound "assembly, the assembly"; therefore two mentions of assembly are written, one for itself and one for a verbal analogy. And what is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar's reasoning? It is written "and it shall be if it is hidden from the eyes of the assembly," implying even a minority, since "from the eyes" is written; and it is written (verse 26) "for it was in error for all the people," to say a majority of the community yes, a minority no. How so? If six acted and they are its majority, or seven even though they are not the majority, they are liable. How do Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir know that ruling depends on the court and the act on the assembly? Abaye said: the verse says "and it shall be if it is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, it was done in error" -- until error is done by means of others. Rava said: "for it was in error for all the people." And both are needed, for had the Merciful One written only "if it is hidden from the eyes of the assembly," I would say even a minority; the Merciful One wrote "for it was in error for all the people." And had it written only that, I would say a court along with the majority; the Merciful One wrote "if it is hidden from the eyes of the assembly." And though these verses are written regarding idolatry, one derives "from the eyes" from "from the eyes." If a court ruled inadvertently and the whole assembly acted inadvertently, they bring a bull. If the court ruled deliberately and the people acted inadvertently, they bring a ewe-lamb and a she-goat. If the court ruled inadvertently and the people acted deliberately, they are exempt. If a court ruled and the whole assembly or its majority acted on their word, they bring a bull, and for idolatry they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says: twelve tribes bring twelve bulls, and for idolatry twelve bulls and twelve goats. Rabbi Shimon says: thirteen bulls and thirteen goats, a bull and a goat for the court. If a court ruled and seven tribes or their majority acted on their word, they bring a bull, and for idolatry a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says: seven tribes that sinned bring seven bulls, and the remaining tribes that did not sin bring a bull on their behalf, for even these who did not sin bring on account of the sinners. Rabbi Shimon says: they bring eight bulls, and for idolatry eight bulls and eight goats -- a bull and a goat for each and every tribe, and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court of one of the tribes ruled and that tribe acted on their word, that tribe is liable and all the rest of the tribes are exempt; and by ruling of the Great Court, even the rest of the tribes are liable; these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. The Sages say: they are liable only for a ruling of the Great Court, as it says "the congregation of Israel" and not the congregation of that tribe. Who are the Sages? Rabbi Shimon, for if it were Rabbi Meir he requires a majority. And learn from this that a single tribe that acted on a ruling of the Great Court -- for Rabbi Shimon brings an offering. And how do Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon know that a single tribe is called an assembly? Rav Acha bar Yaakov said: it is written (Genesis 48:4) "and He said to me, behold I will make you fruitful and multiply you and make you into a company of peoples" -- learn from it that the Merciful One said: now another company will be born to you, namely Benjamin. But perhaps the Merciful One said to him: when Benjamin is born to you, who will be the twelfth, that will be called an assembly? He said to him: now two tribes are called an assembly -- eleven, all the more so.

"And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands" (Leviticus 4:15). One might think this means elders of the marketplace; Scripture therefore says "congregation." If "congregation," one might think even the junior members of the congregation; Scripture therefore says "the congregation" [with the definite article], meaning the distinguished ones among the congregation. And how many are they? "And they shall lay" implies two; "the elders" implies another two; and since a court may not have an even number, they add one more to them, so there are five here. These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Shimon says: "the elders" implies two, and since a court may not have an even number, they add one more, so there are three here. According to Rabbi Shimon, what does he do with the written word "and they shall lay"? He needs that word for its own plain requirement [that the laying-on actually be done]. And Rabbi Yehudah holds that for its own requirement no extra word is needed, for if so, let Scripture simply have written "the elders of the congregation their hands upon the head." And Rabbi Shimon answers: had it written thus, I would have said "upon" means upon someone standing nearby. And Rabbi Yehudah derives "head" "head" by verbal analogy from the burnt-offering.

"And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bull": the bull requires laying-on of hands, but the goats brought for communal idolatry do not require laying-on of hands. These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Shimon says: the bull requires laying-on of hands by the elders, while the idolatry goats do not require laying-on of hands by the elders but rather by Aaron. They raised an objection from the verse "And Aaron shall lay his two hands upon the head of the live goat" (Leviticus 16:21): the live one requires laying-on of hands, but the idolatry goats do not require laying-on of hands. These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Shimon says: "the live one" means the live goat requires laying-on of hands by Aaron, while the idolatry goats do not require laying-on of hands by Aaron but rather by the elders. Rav Sheshet said: Can you really suppose that first teaching was correctly framed? Did not Rabbi Shimon say we require laying-on of hands by the owners? Rather, frame it thus: "the bull" means the bull requires laying-on of hands but the idolatry goats do not; these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Shimon says: "the live one" means the live goat requires laying-on of hands by Aaron, while the idolatry goats do not require it by Aaron but by the elders. And this is what Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehudah: the idolatry goats do require laying-on of hands, and if you have heard that they do not, it was only with respect to Aaron that you heard it, and that exclusion comes from "the live one." And as for Rabbi Yehudah, why does he need to exclude them from verses? Did not Ravina say it is a received tradition that there are two layings-on of hands in a communal offering? That is merely a textual marker. And Rabbi Shimon, from where does he derive that the idolatry goats require laying-on of hands? He derives it from what was taught (on verse 24): "And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat"—to include the goat of Nachshon for laying-on of hands, the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Shimon says: to include the idolatry goats for laying-on of hands; for Rabbi Shimon used to say, every sin-offering whose blood is brought inside requires laying-on of hands. Why then is the verse needed? It is merely a textual marker. And one might say it refers to the goat made inside; it is analogous to the goat of the prince, which atones for a transgression of a known commandment. And according to Ravina, who said it is a received tradition that there are two layings-on of hands in a communal offering, why are the verses needed? Both the law and the verse are needed, for from the verse alone I would have said it refers to communal peace-offerings, and so forth.

"And he shall slaughter the bull before the LORD" (Leviticus 4:15)—in the north. "Before the curtain": just as the curtain mentioned further on (above, verse 6) is "the curtain of the holy place," so too the curtain mentioned here is the curtain of the holy place.

"And he shall do to the bull as he did to the bull" and so forth, "the first bull": that it should be first to the bull of the congregation in all its rites. The bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation stand together: the bull of the anointed priest takes precedence over the bull of the congregation in all its rites. Since the anointed one atones and the congregation is atoned for, it is fitting that the one who atones precede the one atoned for. And so Scripture says, "And he shall make atonement for himself and for his household and for all the assembly of Israel" (Leviticus 16:17). "And he shall do to the bull as he did"—what does Scripture teach? To repeat regarding the sprinklings, to teach that if he omitted one of the applications he has accomplished nothing. And I know only of the application of seven, which is indispensable everywhere; from where the application of four? Scripture says "so shall he do." "To the bull"—this is the bull of the Day of Atonement. "As he did to the bull"—this is the bull of the anointed priest. "The sin-offering"—these are the idolatry goats. One might think I should include even the festival goats and the new-moon goats; Scripture says "the sin-offering, so shall he do to it." And what did you see to include these and exclude those? After Scripture both included and excluded, I include these, which atone for a transgression of a known commandment, and I exclude those, which do not atone for a transgression of a known commandment. "And he shall make atonement"—even though he did not lay on hands. "And it shall be forgiven"—even though he did not pour out the remnants. And what did you see to invalidate regarding the sprinklings and to permit regarding the laying-on of hands and the remnants? You say: I invalidate regarding the sprinklings, which are indispensable everywhere, and I permit regarding the remnants and the laying-on of hands, which are not indispensable everywhere. Where is the application of seven that is indispensable everywhere? Rav Pappa said: by the [red] heifer and by the leprous marks. From where the application of four? Scripture says "so shall he do." What is the difference that the application of seven is written and repeated—the application of four is also written and repeated! Rabbi Yirmiyah said: it is needed only according to Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught: above it says "horn, horns," two; below it says "horn, horns" (above, verse 18), four, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehudah says: it is not needed, for behold it says "upon the horns of the altar... which is in the tent of meeting," to include all the horns that are in the tent of meeting. And Rabbi Yehudah, this "so shall he do," what does he do with it? For what was taught: since we have not learned regarding the bull of the Day of Atonement the laying-on of hands and the remnants of blood, from where are they derived? Scripture says "so shall he do." And have we not learned about the bull of the Day of Atonement? You said: "to the bull"—this is the bull of the Day of Atonement. It was necessary, for it might enter your mind to say these matters apply only to a rite that is indispensable for atonement, but a rite that is not indispensable for atonement, say not; it teaches us otherwise. And Rabbi Shimon, this "in the tent of meeting," what does he do with it? He needs it to teach that if the ceiling of the sanctuary were broken open, one would not sprinkle. And the other derives it from "which," and the other does not expound "which." Abaye said: according to Rabbi Yehudah too it is necessary; for it might enter your mind to say, just as with the laying-on of hands and the remnants of blood, which though written and repeated are not indispensable, so too the application of four should not be indispensable; it teaches us otherwise.

"To the bull"—this is the bull of the anointed priest. For what legal purpose? To make it indispensable. "To the bull"—this is the bull of the Day of Atonement. For what legal purpose? To make it indispensable. But that is obvious, for "a statute" is written regarding it! Rav Nachman said: it is needed only according to Rabbi Yehudah, who said that when "a statute" is written, it is written concerning the matters performed in the white garments inside, but as for the matters performed in the white garments outside, if one did a rite before its fellow, what he did is done. One might say: just as when out of order they are not indispensable, so too the sprinklings should not be indispensable; it teaches us otherwise. Rav Pappa objected: can you really say so? But it was taught, "And when he has finished atoning": if he atoned he finished, and if he did not atone he did not finish, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehudah said: why should we not say, if he finished he atoned and if he did not finish he did not atone, that is, that if he omitted one of the applications he accomplished nothing? Rather, Rav Pappa said: it is needed only for "the" with the blood, and for the dipping. "The": Rav Acha bar Yaakov said it is needed only to permit the blood on the side of the finger. "With the blood": that there should be in the blood the measure of a dipping from the outset.

"And he shall dip"—and not wipe. And it was necessary to write "and he shall dip," and it was necessary to write "in the blood." For had the Merciful One written only "and he shall dip," I would have said it applies even when there is not the measure of a dipping from the outset; therefore the Merciful One wrote "in the blood." And had the Merciful One written only "in the blood," I would have said even by wiping; therefore the Merciful One wrote "and he shall dip." Why do I need "the altar of the incense of spices" (above, verse 7)? To teach that if the altar had not been dedicated with the incense of spices, one would not sprinkle. It was taught in accordance with Rav Pappa: "And he shall do as he did"—what does Scripture teach by "to the bull"? To include the bull of the Day of Atonement for all that is stated in the matter, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says: it is an argument from the lesser to the greater. If in a place where one offering was not equated to another offering, the rites were nonetheless equated to the rites, then in a place where one offering was equated to another offering, is it not right that the rites be equated to the rites? Rather, what does Scripture teach by "to the bull"? This is the bull of the matter of a forgotten ruling of the community. "As he did to the bull"—this is the bull of the anointed priest. What is meant by "one offering was not equated to another offering"? The bull of a forgotten ruling and the goats of the Day of Atonement; and this is what it says: just as in a place where one offering was not equated to another (this being a bull and that a goat) the rites were equated to the rites for what is written of them, so in a place where one offering was equated to another (this a bull and that a bull) is it not right that the rites be equated to the rites for what is written of them? And does a matter learned by analogy turn and teach by an argument from lesser to greater? Yes. "To the bull"—this is the bull of a forgotten ruling; but that is written in its own case! Rav Pappa said: because one needs to teach about the bull of a forgotten ruling of the community concerning the lobe and the two kidneys to the idolatry goats, and the bull of a forgotten ruling, of which it is not written, comes by analogy, "to the bull" was needed so that it should be as though written in its own case, so that a matter learned by analogy should not turn and teach by analogy. It was taught in accordance with Rav Pappa: "And he shall do as he did"—what does Scripture teach by "to the bull"? Since it is said (Numbers 15:25), "And they shall bring their offering, a fire-offering to the LORD, and their sin-offering," "their sin-offering" refers to the idolatry goats, "their error" is the bull of a forgotten ruling, and "their sin-offering for their error" means the Torah said: their sin-offering shall be to you like their error. And error, from where did you learn it? By analogy; and a matter learned by analogy turns and teaches by analogy. Rather, what does Scripture teach by "to the bull"? This is the bull of a forgotten ruling; "to the bull," this is the bull of the anointed priest. The Master said: "their sin-offering" refers to the idolatry goats; derive it from the first verse, for the Master said "the sin-offering" refers to the idolatry goats. Rav Pappa said: it was necessary, for it might enter your mind to say these matters apply to the sprinklings written in its own case, but the lobe and the two kidneys, of which it is not written in its own case, say not; it teaches us otherwise. Rav Huna son of Rav Natan said to Rav Pappa: but this teacher says "to include the bull of the Day of Atonement for all that is stated in the matter"! It is a dispute among teachers: the teacher of the school of Rav includes in this way, and the teacher of the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not include in this way.

"And he shall bring forth the bull outside the camp" (Leviticus 4:21)—outside the three camps. "And he shall burn it"—while fit, and not unfit. "As he burned the first bull"—from here they said: the bull of the anointed one and the bull of the congregation stand together; the bull of the anointed one takes precedence over the bull of the congregation in all its rites. One might think the idolatry goats should also precede it. And it would follow by reasoning: if a single bull takes precedence over it, should not a bull and a goat take precedence over it? Scripture says "the first bull"—and the idolatry goats are not first. "The sin-offering of the assembly": Scripture made it a paradigm for every sin-offering of the assembly, that it be burned. One might think even the festival goats; Scripture says "it." And what did you see to include the idolatry goats and to exclude the festival goats? After Scripture included and excluded: just as these are distinct in that they come for a transgression of a known commandment, the festival goats are excluded, since they do not come for a transgression of a known commandment. But is not the goat of the Day of Atonement not brought for a transgression of a known commandment, and yet it requires burning? Rather, just as this one is distinct in that its blood is brought into the innermost chamber, the festival goats are excluded, since their blood is not brought into the innermost chamber. "Sin-offering"—that all its rites be for the sake of a sin-offering. "It"—to exclude the case where he slaughtered it not for its own sake.

"When a prince sins" (Leviticus 4:22). Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai says: happy is the generation whose prince brings a sin-offering for his unintentional error. If he brings a sin-offering for his unintentional error, how much more so for his deliberate sin; and if a prince brings an offering for his error, how much more so a commoner. Rav Acha son of Rava objected: if so, since it is written "and that which he sinned against the holy thing he shall repay" (Leviticus 5:16), and concerning Jeroboam it is written "who sinned and who caused others to sin" (1 Kings 14:16)—should that generation too be called happy? It is different here, for Scripture varied its wording. "A prince": one might think a tribal prince like Nachshon ben Amminadav; Scripture says "from all the commandments of the LORD his God." And further on it says (Deuteronomy 17:19), "that he may learn to fear the LORD his God"—just as there it means one who has none above him except the LORD his God, so here "prince" means one who has none above him except the LORD his God. Rabbi asked Rabbi Chiyya: one such as I, what is my status regarding the goat? He said to him: behold, your rival is in Babylon. He objected: the kings of Israel and the kings of the house of David, these bring offerings for themselves and those bring offerings for themselves! There they were not subject to one another. Rav Safra taught it thus: Rabbi asked Rav, one such as I, what is my status regarding the goat? He said to him: there it is a scepter, here a lawgiver; and it is taught, "The scepter shall not depart from Judah" (Genesis 49:10)—this is the exilarch in Babylon, who rules Israel with a rod; "nor the staff from between his feet"—these are the descendants of Hillel who teach Torah in public. "When a prince sins"—excluding sins committed before he became prince. And would it not follow by reasoning: if the anointed priest, who brings a sin-offering after leaving office, does not bring for prior sins, then a prince, who does not bring a sin-offering after leaving office, surely should not bring for prior sins? But the anointed priest is distinct in that he does not bring for an unintentional act, whereas a prince does bring for an unintentional act; therefore Scripture says "when a prince sins"—when he sins while he is prince, and not when he sins while he is a commoner. "When a prince sins": one might think it is a decree [that he will sin]; Scripture says (above, verse 3) "if the anointed priest sins"—meaning when he sins. The Master said: one might think it is a decree—from where would that arise? Yes, for it is written "And I put a mark of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession"—it was good news to them that leprous marks would come upon them, the words of Rabbi Yehudah. "When a prince sins"—excluding one who is ill; because he became ill he is removed from his office of prince. Rabbi Avdimi bar Chama said: excluding a prince who became leprous, as it is said (2 Kings 15:5), "And the LORD afflicted the king, and he was leprous until the day of his death, and he dwelt in a separate house"—since it says "in a separate house," it implies that until now he had been like a slave. Yes, as in the case of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua who were traveling in a ship. Rabbi Yehoshua had bread and fine flour, while Rabban Gamliel had only bread. When Rabban Gamliel's bread ran out he relied on Rabbi Yehoshua's flour. He said to him: did you know we would be delayed this long, that you brought flour as well? He said to him: there is a certain star that rises once in seventy years and leads sailors astray, and I thought it might rise and lead us astray. He said to him: you have so much knowledge, and yet you travel by ship! He said to him: before you wonder at me, wonder at two disciples on dry land, Rabbi Elazar Chisma and Rabbi Yochanan ben Gudgada, who know how to reckon how many drops are in the sea, yet have neither bread to eat nor a garment to wear. He resolved to seat them at the head. When he reached dry land he sent for them and they did not come; he sent again and they came. He said to them: do you imagine I am giving you authority? I am giving you servitude, as it is said (1 Kings 12:7), "And they spoke to him saying, if today you will be a servant to this people." "When a prince sins"—when he is prince, yes; when he is a commoner, no. And would it not follow by reasoning: if the anointed priest, who does not bring for an unintentional act, brings his sin-offering after leaving office, then a prince, who does bring for an unintentional act, surely should bring his sin-offering after leaving office? Scripture says "when a prince sins"—when he is prince, yes; when he is a commoner, no. And by an argument from lesser to greater regarding the anointed priest now: if a prince, who brings for an unintentional act [and so forth], then for a forgotten ruling together with an unintentional act, all the more so; Scripture says "and he shall offer for his sin which he sinned," teaching that he brings his sin-offering after leaving office.

(Above, verse 2) "And he does one of them" and "and he does of these" (Leviticus 4:2) come to make one liable for each and every act. So that if he ate forbidden fat and again forbidden fat, the same prohibition in two separate lapses of awareness, he is liable for two sin-offerings; and two distinct prohibitions in a single lapse, he is liable for two. Rami bar Hama said to Rav Hisda: It is well that for the same prohibition in two separate lapses he is liable for two, since the separate lapses divide the act into two. But for two distinct prohibitions in a single lapse, why is he liable for two? Surely we require separate lapses, and here there are none. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of ben Tumnai: With what case are we dealing here? With one who ate from two separate dishes, and according to the view of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that separate dishes divide the act into two.

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.

(Leviticus 4:23) "If his sin be made known to him" implies that he himself came to know, and not that others informed him. I would know this only when a maidservant told him. From where do I learn that it applies even if a woman told him? I might exclude the case where a woman told him, since a woman is not fit to give testimony. From where do I learn even if relatives told him? I might exclude the case where relatives told him, since they are not fit to testify. From where even if a single witness told him? I might exclude the case where a single witness told him, since he can impose only an oath and not a monetary obligation. From where even if two told him? Therefore Scripture teaches "if it be made known to him," and not that others make it known to him. Or perhaps he is liable even when he does not contradict them? Therefore Scripture teaches "or if his sin be made known to him, then he shall bring." I would include the case where two told him, since they can subject him to death; and from where even if a single witness told him, since he can subject him to an oath; and from where even if relatives told him, since they are fit to testify elsewhere; and from where even if a woman told him, even a maidservant? Therefore Scripture teaches "or if his sin be made known to him, the sin he has committed, then he shall bring his offering." Rabbi Meir said: If two witnesses could bring him to the severe penalty of death, shall they not bring him to the lighter penalty of an offering? Rabbi Yehuda said to him: But how can one say to him, "Stand and confess," while he himself says, "I did not sin"? Rabbi Shimon said: And if he says "I acted deliberately," he is exempt. Rabbi Meir says: If he said from the start "I acted deliberately," we listen to him; but if he argued with them the whole day and only at the end said "I acted deliberately," we do not listen to him. Similarly Rabbi Meir said: If they said to a man, "You are a nazirite," and he said, "There was a condition in my heart," we listen to him; but if he denied it all day and only at the last said, "There was a condition in my heart," we do not listen to him.

Our Rabbis taught: "Or if his sin be made known to him" means by himself, and not that others make it known to him. Perhaps he is liable even when he does not contradict them? Therefore Scripture teaches "or if it be made known to him" in any case. With what case are we dealing? If we say with two witnesses and he does not contradict them, would a verse be needed? Rather it must be with a single witness, teaching that when he does not contradict him, the witness is believed. "Or if it be made known to him": the term "made known" is written regarding the individual, the ruler, and the congregation, and all three are necessary, for if Scripture had written it only regarding the individual I would have said the others cannot be derived from him, since each could be refuted in turn. Therefore all three are stated. Rather, said Abaye, derive it from here: since "commandments, commandments" are learned one from another, why do I need three statements of "made known"? If they are not needed for their own subjects, since they are already derived from one another by the words "commandments, commandments," apply them to the case where one comes to know of his sin after the Day of Atonement, that he must still bring a sin-offering. One might say the Day of Atonement does not atone for this particular sin, but the suspended guilt-offering, which does come for this sin, would indeed atone, so that once he has brought it he need not bring a sin-offering. Why then does the suspended guilt-offering come at all? Rava said: to shield him from suffering. "The sin he has committed in it" (Leviticus 4:23): forbidden fat and leftover sacrifice lay before him and he ate one of them but does not know which; his wife was menstruant and his sister was in the house and he erred with one of them but does not know which; the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement, and he performed labor at twilight but does not know on which day. Rabbi Eliezer obligates a sin-offering and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts. Rabbi Eliezer said: whichever way you turn, if he ate forbidden fat he is liable, if he ate leftover sacrifice he is liable, if he lay with his wife he is liable, if with his sister he is liable, if he labored on the Sabbath he is liable, if on the Day of Atonement he is liable. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: behold it says "the sin he has committed in it," meaning until it becomes known to him in what he sinned. And what does Rabbi Eliezer do with this word "in it"? He needs it to exclude one who acts without intent. Acting without intent in what? If regarding forbidden fats and forbidden unions, he is liable since he derived benefit, for Rav Nachman said in the name of Shmuel that one who acts unintentionally regarding forbidden fats and unions is liable since he benefited. Rather, acting without intent on the Sabbath, where he is exempt, for the Torah forbade only purposeful labor. According to Rava you find it where he intended to cut something detached and cut something attached; according to Abaye where he intended to lift something detached and cut something attached. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about one who labored at twilight, that he is exempt, for I say he did part of the labor today and part tomorrow. About what did they dispute? About one who labored within the day and does not know whether he did it on the Sabbath or on the Day of Atonement; Rabbi Eliezer obligates a sin-offering and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts. It was taught: Rabbi Yose said to them, you scrutinized me; they said to him, what of one who lifted at twilight? He said, you scrutinized me and gained nothing. As it says (Leviticus 5:17) "if a person sins... and knew not," excluding this one who knew that he sinned. Rabbi Shimon said to him: he himself brings a suspended guilt-offering, as it says (there) "and did it and knew not," for surely he did not know in what he sinned, but in a case of doubt, whether he ate forbidden fat or not, go and inquire about him whether he brings a suspended guilt-offering or not. What is the conclusion? Come and hear, for it was taught: one who sinned and does not know in what he sinned, doubtfully sinned or did not sin, brings a suspended guilt-offering. Whom did you hear say that one who sinned and does not know in what he sinned brings a suspended guilt-offering? Rabbi Shimon. And the latter clause teaches: doubtfully sinned or did not sin, he brings a suspended guilt-offering. Learn from this that Rabbi Shimon holds that even in doubt whether he sinned at all, he brings a suspended guilt-offering.