[א] "אשר נשיא יחטא" – אמר ר' יוחנן בן זכאי, אשרי הדור שהנשיא שלו מביא חטאת על שגגתו. אם על שגגתו מביא חטאת, צריך לומר מהו על זדונו. אם נשיא שלו מביא חטאת, צריך לומר מהו הדיוט. "נשיא" – יכול נשיא שבט כנחשון? תלמוד לומר "ועשה אחת מכל מִצְוֹת השם אלקיו" ולהלן הוא אומר (דברים יז, יט) "למען ילמד ליראה את השם אלקיו". מה אמור להלן – נשיא שאין על גביו אלא ה' אלקיו, אף נשיא האמור כאן – שאין על גביו אלא ה' אלקיו. 1) (Vayikra 4:22): "If (asher) a leader (nassi) sin ["asher," similar to "ashrei" ("fortunate")]: R. Yochanan b. Zakkai said: Fortunate is the generation whose nassi brings a sin-offering for his unwitting sin. If he brings a sin-offering for his unwitting sin, how much more so (is he contrite over) his deliberate sin. And if his nassi brings a sin-offering, how much more so is he (the common man) moved to bring a sin-offering (for his sin)! "a nassi": I might think the nassi of a tribe, like Nachshon; it is, therefore, written: "And he do one of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd his G d," and, elsewhere, (in respect to a king) (Devarim 17:19): "so that he may learn to fear the L–rd his G d." Just as there, the nassi is one who has no one above him but the L–rd his G d, so, here. (Scripture speaks of) a nassi who has no one over him but the L–rd his G d (i.e., a king).
[ב] "נשיא יחטא" מה תלמוד לומר? שיכול יביא על הקודמות? והלא דין הוא! ומה אם משיח – שמביא חטאתו משעבר – אין מביא על הקודמות, נשיא – שאין מביא חטאתו משעבר – אינו דין שלא יביא על הקודמות?! לא! אם אמרת במשיח – שאין מביא על שגגת מעשה; תאמר בנשיא שמביא על שגגת מעשה! הואיל ומביא על שגגת מעשה – יביא על הקודמות! תלמוד לומר "יחטא" – לכשיחטא והוא נשיא, לא כשיחטא ועודהו הדיוט. 2) Why "(If) a nassi shall sin" (instead of "sinned")? For otherwise I might think that he must bring (a he-goat) for (unwitting transgressions committed) prior to his appointment. But (why the exclusion clause?) Is it not a kal vachomer (that he should not bring a he-goat?), viz.: If the high-priest, who brings his sin-offering (a bullock) for (unwitting sins committed) after removal from office, does not bring (a bullock) for (unwitting sins committed) prior to his appointment — a nassi, who does not bring his sin-offering (a he-goat) for (sins committed) after removal from office, how much more so should he not bring it for (sins committed) prior to his appointment! — No, this may be so with the high-priest, who does not bring (his sin-offering, a bullock,) for deed-unwittingness (alone, but only as a result of ruling mistakenly for himself), as opposed to a nassi, who does bring (his sin-offering, a he-goat,) for deed-unwittingness (alone). And since he does, I would think that he brings (a he-goat, too,) for prior sins; it is, therefore, written (to negate this): ("If a nassi) shall sin," after he is appointed; but he does not bring it for those sins which he committed as a lay person.
[ג] ר' שמעון אומר, אם נודע לו עד שלא נתמנה ואחר כך נתמנה – חייב; אם משנתמנה – פטור. "נשיא" – יכול גזירה? תלמוד לומר "יחטא" – כשיחטא. 3) R. Shimon says: If it became known to him (that he had sinned) before he was appointed, and then he was appointed, he is liable (for the sin-offering of a lay person). And if it became known to him after he was appointed, he is (completely) exempt. "… a nassi shall sin": I might think that this is a decree; it is, therefore, written "asher he shall sin," (the connotation being) "when" (i.e., if) he shall sin.
[ד] "ועשה אחת" – לחייב על כל אחת ואחת. כיצד? חלב וחלב: משם אחד בשני העלמות או משני שמות בהעלם אחד – חייב שני חטאות. חלב ודם: בין בהעלם אחד בין בשתי העלמות – חייב שני חטאות. 4) "and he do one (of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd his G d"): to make him liable for (a sin-offering) for each one. How so (If he unwittingly ate) two (olive-size pieces of) cheilev (forbidden fat): If of the same kind in two forgetfulness periods [forgetfulness of its being forbidden], or of different kinds in one forgetfulness period, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly ate) cheilev and blood, whether in one forgetfulness period or in two forgetfulness periods, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly committed) two transgressions liable to burning:
[ה] סקילה וסקילה: משם אחד בשני העלמות או משני שמות בהעלם אחד – חייב שני חטאות. סקילה ושריפה: בין בהעלם אחד בין בשני העלמות – חייב שתי חטאות. 5) If of the same kind in two forgetfulness periods, or of different kinds in one forgetfulness period, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly committed one sin liable to) stoning, and (another liable to) burning, whether in one forgetfulness period or in two forgetfulness periods, he is liable for two sin-offerings.
[ו] "מִצְוֹת השם" – לא מצות המלך ולא מצות בית דין. ("מצות" האמורות במשיח "מצות" האמורות בעדה – הן "מצות" האמורות כאן.) "מכל מִצְוֹת השם" – ולא כל מצות ה'; פרט לשמיעת קול ולביטוי שפתים ולטומאת מקדש וקדשיו. "אשר לא תעשינה בשגגה" – מלמד שמביא על שגגת מעשה. "וְאָשֵׁם…" – מלמד שמביא אשם תלוי. 6) ("and he do one of all) the mitzvoth of the L–rd": not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. The mitzvoth referred to in respect to the high-priest and in respect to the congregation (i.e., those liable to kareth for intentional transgression) are the mitzvoth referred to here. "of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd": and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd — to exclude (the bringing of a sin-offering for) "hearing the voice of an oath" (see 5:1), and "pronouncing with the lips" (see 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see 5:2) (for all of which one brings a sliding-scale offering [oleh veyored]). "which are not to be done, unwittingly": We are hereby taught that he brings (a sin-offering) for deed- unwittingness (alone [even without an error in the ruling]). "and he be guilty": We are hereby taught that he brings an asham talui (a "suspended" guilt-offering, a ram [see 5:17 and 18]) Now (why is the inclusion clause needed?)
[ז] והלא דין הוא! ומה אם היחיד – שאין מביא על הודעו זכר – מביא אשם תלוי, נשיא – שמביא על הודעו זכר – אינו דין שיביא אשם תלוי?! משיח יוכיח! שמביא על הודעו זכר ואין מביא אשם תלוי. 7) Is it not a kal vachomer (that he brings it?), viz.: If the individual (i.e., a lay person), who does not bring a male for his (subsequently) known (unwitting) sin, (but a she-lamb or a she-goat), brings an asham talui (for a possible sin). — the nassi, who brings a male (a he-goat) for his known sin, how much more so should he bring an asham talui (a ram). — This is refuted by (the instance of) the high-priest, who brings a male (bullock) for his known sin, notwithstanding which he does not bring an asham talui.
[ח] ואף אתה אל תתמה על הנשיא שאף על פי שמביא על הודעו זכר, לא יביא אשם תלוי! תלמוד לומר "וְאָשֵׁם…" – מלמד שמביא אשם תלוי. 8) So, too, do not wonder if the nassi, who brings a male for his known sin, should not bring an asham talui. It is, therefore, written (to tell us that he does): "and he be guilty."
[ט] דין אחר: יחיד מוצא מכלל צבור ונשיא מוצא מכלל צבור. מה יחיד מביא אשם תלוי, אף נשיא מביא אשם תלוי. 9) (But why not) adduce it differently (without the inclusion clause?), viz.: The individual is distinct from the congregation (in that he brings a "definite" ["unsuspended"] guilt-offering), and the nassi is distinct from the congregation (in the same respect). Just as the individual brings an asham talui, so the nassi should bring an asham talui!
[י] או כלך לדרך זו: משיח מוצא מכלל יחיד ונשיא מוצא מכלל יחיד. מה משיח אין מביא אשם תלוי, אף נשיא לא יביא אשם תלוי. 10) — But why not go in this direction? The high-priest is distinct from the congregation (in that he brings a "definite" guilt-offering), and the nassi is distinct from the congregation (in the same respect). Just as the high-priest does not bring an asham talui, so the nassi should not bring an asham talui!
[יא] נראה למי דומה. דנין מי שמביא על שגגת מעשה ממי שמביא על שגגת מעשה ואל יוכיח משיח שאינו מביא על שגגת מעשה. או כלך לדרך זו: דנים מי שמביא על הודעו זכר ממי שמביא על הודעו זכר ואל יוכיח יחיד שאין הודעו זכר. תלמוד לומר "וְאָשֵׁם…" – מלמד שמביא אשם תלוי. 11) Let us see whom he (the nassi) is most like. We should derive (the rule) for him (the nassi), who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness alone, [without an error in ruling], from him (the individual), who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone); and this should not be refuted by (the instance of) the high-priest, who does not bring (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone). — Or go in this direction: We should derive (the rule for) him (the nassi), who brings a male for his known sin from him (the high-priest), who brings a male for his known sin, and this should not be refuted by (the instance of the individual), who does not bring a male for his known sin. It must, therefore, be written: "and he (the nassi) be guilty," to teach us that he brings an asham talui.