Horayos Daf 7 הוריו דַף 7

The next Mishnah states: הורה בפני עצמו ועשה בפני עצמו – if [the כהן משיח] ruled on his own and acted on his own, independent of Beis Din’s ruling, מתכפר לו בפני עצמו – he is atoned for on his own, requiring his own korban. הורה עם הצבור ועשה עם הצבור – However, if he ruled with the community (Beis Din) and acted with the community, מתכפר לו עם הצבור – he is atoned for with the community with their פר העלם דבר, and does not bring his own korban. A Baraisa derives this law from the passuk על חטאתו אשר חטא – [he shall offer] for the sin which he sinned [a young bull]. This teaches: חטא בפני עצמו מביא בפני עצמו – if he sinned on his own, he brings [a korban] on his own; חטא עם הצבור מתכפר לו עם הצבור – if he sinned together with the community, he is atoned together with the community.

The Mishnah taught that if the כהן משיח ruled independently of Beis Din, he brings his own korban. The Gemara clarifies that if the judges of Beis Din were not מופלאין – distinguished sages, their own ruling is not legitimate and would obviously not exempt him from his korban (since it does not even exempt ordinary people from their חטאת). If the כהן משיח is not a מופלא, his own ruling is invalid and cannot obligate a korban. Therefore, Rav Pappa explained: כגון שהיו מופלין שניהן – the case is where both (he and the Beis Din) are distinguished sages. Abaye thought that the כהן משיח’s ruling must be in a different location to be considered independent, but Rava said that as long as the ruling was about a different prohibition, it is considered independent. The Gemara proceeds to define “different prohibitions”: if the כהן משיח permitted חלב, and Beis Din permitted idolatry, they are different, since the כהן משיח’s korban is a פר, and Beis Din’s is a פר and a שעיר. In the reverse case, they are certainly different, since his korban for idolatry is a שעירה, and theirs is a פר. The Gemara asks if rulings permitting different kinds of חלב (taught in different pesukim), or rulings permitting דם and חלב (respectively), are considered different prohibitions for this halachah.

The next Mishnah states that a כהן משיח, like Beis Din, only brings a korban if he made an incorrect הוראה and it was acted upon. A Baraisa discusses this regarding avodah zarah. Rebbe says: בשגגת מעשה – he is liable for an unintentional act, even without an incorrect ruling. The Chochomim say he is only liable for העלם דבר – a mistake in a matter [of halachah], i.e., an incorrect ruling (which was acted upon), like all other aveiros. The Baraisa concludes that they agree that the korban he brings for avodah zarah is a שעירה, like a commoner (and not a פר ושעיר, like a צבור). They also agree that he never brings an אשם תלוי for a doubtful transgression. The passuk says about avodah zarah, including when it was performed by the כהן משיח, "בחטאה בשגגה" – when he sins unintentionally. Rebbe darshens: חטא זה בשגגה יהא – this sin shall be liable when it is unintentional (i.e., without a הוראה), even for a כהן משיח. The Chochomim interpret it: מי שחטאתו בשגגה – only one whose sin is liable whenever it is unintentional brings a korban for unintentional idolatry; this excludes a כהן משיח, who only brings a korban for other aveiros with a הוראה.