We continue our study of Maseches Horayos, chapter 2, mishnah 2. The mishnah addresses the question of when the anointed Kohen Gadol attains atonement on his own, and when he is included in the atonement of the community.
"Horah bifnei atzmo ve'asah bifnei atzmo":
When the anointed Kohen Gadol ruled independently and acted according to his own ruling - "miskaper lo bifnei atzmo" - he attains atonement on his own. This is the standard case, in which he receives his own special atonement through the bull of the anointed kohen.
The novelty of the mishnah is that even if the Sanhedrin also deliberated the matter and issued a ruling on it, yet he was not influenced by their ruling one way or the other, but rather saw himself as standing on his own two feet and decided independently - if he then acted according to his own ruling, his atonement comes through his own ruling, and he is not included with the community.
"Horah im hatzibur ve'asah im hatzibur":
When the Sanhedrin is composed of seventy-one of the greatest Torah scholars, among them the Kohen Gadol, and he deliberates with them and rules together with them that a certain thing is permitted, and afterward acts like any other person in accordance with their ruling - and it turns out to have been a mistake. The question is whether he must bring a separate bull of the anointed kohen for himself, or whether he is included in the community's bull for an erroneous ruling.
The mishnah says: "Horah im hatzibur ve'asah im hatzibur, miskaper lo im hatzibur" - if he ruled with the community and acted with the community, he attains atonement together with the community. His atonement comes through the bull for an erroneous ruling, or through the twelve bulls, and he does not bring a separate bull of the anointed kohen.
The reason - the equating of the laws:
The reason is that the laws of the bull for an erroneous ruling and the laws of the bull of the anointed kohen are identical and were juxtaposed to one another, as the mishnah states: "she'ein beis din chayavin ad sheyoru levatel miktzas ulekayem miktzas, vechein hamashiach" - a beis din is not liable unless they rule to nullify part and uphold part, and the same applies to the anointed kohen. And as we learned in the previous chapter in the name of Rabbi Meir:
A beis din is not liable for the offering of an erroneous ruling unless they ruled in a manner that nullified part of the mitzvah and upheld part of it, and did not nullify all of it.
And so too regarding idolatry - nullifying part and upholding part. (The discussion of how the law of idolatry works and the dispute among the Tannaim about it will come later in the chapter.)
It emerges that there is a juxtaposition connecting the mistaken ruling of the Kohen Gadol with the mistaken ruling of the Sanhedrin, and for that reason the same rules apply to him, and consequently he is included in their atonement: the bull for an erroneous ruling atones even for the anointed kohen himself.
What was the initial assumption?
At first glance one might ask: why should he not be included in the atonement of the community? He is part of the nation, he sinned along with them, and it stands to reason that he should be atoned for along with them. But there is a precedent that works in exactly the opposite direction: on Yom Kippur a special offering is brought to atone for eating sacred food in a state of tumah, and in fact two goats are brought to atone for those who caused the sacred food to come into contact with tumah - yet the Kohen Gadol himself is not included in these offerings. Instead, he brings a separate bull of his own to atone for that very same sin.
We see from here that there are times when sin offerings are brought that do not atone for the Kohen Gadol, who stands apart from the rest of the Jewish people, and there would have been room to think that the same applies here, that the bull for a mistaken ruling does not include him.
To this the Mishnah teaches that nevertheless, these laws are compared to one another and bound up with one another: since he is part of the community and acted together with the community, and the community gains atonement through the bull for a mistaken ruling - he too gains atonement along with them, and he is not required to bring a separate bull of an anointed Kohen.