Horayos Daf 6 הוריו דַף 6

When Klal Yisroel returned from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel, they brought korbanos to atone for the idolatry of Tzidkiyahu’s generation. The Gemara asks that the original sinners died, and a חטאת whose owner dies is disqualified!? Rav Pappa answers that the law condemning such a חטאת only applies to an individually owned chatas, but not to a צבור, לפי שאין מיתה בצבור – because there is no death for the congregation. This is derived from עגלה ערופה, where the elders ask Hashem to forgive His nation "אשר פדית" – that You have redeemed, which teaches: ראויה כפרה זו שתכפר על יוצאי מצרים – this atonement is fit to atone for those who left Mitzrayim. This proves that atonement of a חטאת צבור is even effective for the dead. The Gemara objects that in the case of עגלה ערופה, all the primary recipients of the כפרה are alive; therefore, מגו דמכפרה אחיים מכפרה נמי אמתים – since it atones for the living, it also atones (by extension) for the dead. But were the sinners of Tzidkiyahu’s generation still alive when the korbanos were brought? The Gemara answers that some of the original exiles were alive, and demonstrates that they were actually a majority of those who returned.

Abaye says that Rebbe Shimon holds חטאת שותפין אינה מתה – a chatas of partners is not left to die when one of the owners dies, but remains a valid korban (thus, if a judge of Beis Din dies, the Beis Din still brings a פר העלם דבר). This is based on a Baraisa which states that if the פר and שעיר of Yom Kippur were lost, and others were brought in their place, and the original animals were later found, Rebbe Yehudah says they are left to die, like a private חטאת whose owner already received כפרה. Rebbe Elazar and Rebbe Shimon say: ירעו – they should graze until they develop a מום, לפי שאין חטאת צבור מתה – because a communal chatas is not left to die. Since the פר of Yom Kippur is for Kohanim, this proves that Rebbe Shimon holds even a חטאת of שותפין is not left to die when they obtain כפרה and would hold the same if a partner dies. Rav Yosef objects that Kohanim are called "קהל" in a passuk, and constitute a צבור, so their חטאת is not a true חטאת שותפין!? The Gemara counters that if so, they should be liable to their own פר העלם דבר, and Rebbe Shimon should have obligated thirteen פרים for all שבטים sinning!? Rather, the שבט of לוי is not considered a קהל in this regard (and שבט יוסף is considered two שבטים).

The second Perek begins: הורה כהן משיח לעצמו שוגג ועשה שוגג – if the Anointed Kohen ruled incorrectly for himself unintentionally, and acted on his ruling unintentionally, מביא פר – he brings a bull as a chatas. If either the ruling or transgression was intentional, he does not bring a korban, שהוראת כהן משיח לעצמו כהוראת ב"ד לצבור – because the כהן משיח’s ruling for himself is like Beis Din’s ruling for the community, and requires an unintentional ruling and transgression to obligate a korban. A Baraisa derives this from a passuk about the כהן משיח which says "לאשמת העם" – to the guilt of the people, הרי משיח כצבור – thus, the anointed [Kohen] is like the community regarding the chatas obligation. The Gemara wonders that if the ruling and transgression were both בשוגג, it is obvious that there is a korban!? It answers that the Mishnah’s case is where the כהן משיח forgot his reasoning behind his (incorrect) ruling, and when following it he said, “I am hereby acting according to my initial ruling.” Although it is possible that, had he recalled his initial reasoning, he may have retracted, it is still considered בשוגג.