We now begin the second chapter of Maseches Horiyos, and we will preface it with a short introduction. The next two chapters deal with the par kohen mashiach - the special bull brought as atonement for a Kohen Gadol under very specific circumstances; and with a separate topic, the sa'ir nasi - the special offering brought by the king, which we will also discuss further on.
The background of the par kohen mashiach:
Under ordinary circumstances a Kohen Gadol does not bring a chatas. An ordinary person who unintentionally transgresses a mitzvah whose deliberate violation carries kares brings a fixed chatas offering, whereas the Kohen Gadol, who did the very same kind of act, brings nothing at all. The reason is derived from the verse: "And if one soul sins unintentionally from among the people of the land" - one who sins through inattention and without intent brings a chatas, while the words "from among the people of the land" come to exclude the Kohen Gadol. It emerges that as a rule, the Kohen Gadol neither may nor can bring a chatas.
There is, however, one particular scenario in which he does bring an offering, and that is what is called the par kohen mashiach, which is the subject of most of the remainder of the masechta.
The conditions for liability in par kohen mashiach:
A kohen anointed with the anointing oil - a kohen who was elevated to the status of Kohen Gadol by means of the anointing oil, which originated with Moshe Rabbeinu, and it is this that makes him a "mashiach," that is, a Kohen Gadol anointed with the oil. From the end of the era of the first Beis HaMikdash, and certainly during the era of the second Beis HaMikdash, that oil was hidden away and no longer available, and the way to appoint a Kohen Gadol was through ribui begadim - the very act of donning the eight garments worn by the Kohen Gadol. A merubeh begadim is not relevant to our discussion here; we are speaking specifically of a kohen mashiach who was anointed with the oil.
A kohen fit to rule on halachah - a Kohen Gadol who is not merely anointed with the oil, but is himself a talmid chacham of great standing, fit to answer questions and decide halachah on his own.
An unintentional ruling for himself, and an act based on it - that kohen ruled for himself in a matter that carries an obligation of a chatas, ruled mistakenly and unintentionally, acted according to his own personal ruling, and afterward realized that he had erred and now seeks atonement. In this scenario he may bring the special offering.
Three differences between the par kohen mashiach and an ordinary chatas:
An error in the law: The liability does not come for a mistaken act alone, but specifically for a ruling that he issued in error and then acted upon.
The type of animal: A bull, that is, an ox, and not a female goat or lamb, which are the usual animals for a chatas.
The manner of the offering: It is offered like the par he'elem davar - on the inner altar and not on the outer altar, and its flesh is not eaten by the kohanim but is burned outside the precincts of the Mikdash.
It emerges that the par kohen mashiach is extremely similar to the par he'elem davar that we dealt with in the previous chapter, except that instead of being brought in the name of the Sanhedrin or in the name of the community that acted according to its ruling, it is brought on behalf of the Kohen Gadol - provided that he was fit to rule and that he was anointed as Kohen Gadol.
The wording of the Mishnah:
"Horah kohen mashiach le'atzmo shogeg ve'asah shogeg - meivi par" - a Kohen Gadol who is a kohen mashiach, who ruled for himself in a certain matter mistakenly but unintentionally, and acted according to his ruling and thereby unintentionally transgressed a mitzvah whose deliberate violation carries kares - he is the one who brings a bull for his atonement.
It is worth clarifying, to avoid confusion: this is not referring to the meshuach milchamah, a kohen anointed to serve as the spiritual leader of the army when it goes out to war, but to an ordinary Kohen Gadol, and he is called a kohen mashiach because he was inducted into his position by means of the anointing oil.
"Shogeg ve'asah meizid": he ruled mistakenly, but unwittingly, while the act itself he performed deliberately. For example, he innocently ruled that a certain forbidden fat is permitted to eat, and that was his error; afterward, however, second thoughts arose in him, and even so he said: I will do it anyway, and he transgressed knowingly. Here too his transgression was not unwitting, and therefore he cannot bring a bull and is not eligible for one.
"Meizid ve'asah shogeg": his original ruling was given deliberately and negligently. That is, he ruled that a certain thing is permitted, while he knew somewhere in his heart that there was a possible problem here, and he ignored it. Later on, let us say two years afterward, he again considered what the ruling in the matter is, remembered that he had already decided this question and permitted it, and forgot that he had known this was not the correct decision. It turns out that he acted according to that ruling unwittingly, but the ruling itself was decided from the outset deliberately and mistakenly. In this case as well - "patur" - he is exempt, and he is not fit to bring the bull.
"Shehora'as kohen mashiach le'atzmo k'hora'as beis din latzibbur" - the ruling of the anointed Kohen for himself is like the ruling of the court for the community, because the rules really are the same rules. A hekesh links the way the bull for a communal error operates with the bull of the anointed Kohen: in both, the ruling must be given unwittingly and mistakenly, and the act performed on its basis must be done unwittingly - there by the people who acted according to the court's ruling, and here by the Kohen himself, who acted according to his own ruling.
It is worth noting that this Mishnah was taught according to the view of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the bull for a communal error is brought specifically by the Sanhedrin to atone for itself, and this is not the accepted halachah; for it is possible that the community are the ones who bring it, and that the tribes bring twelve bulls for a communal error. But that is not the point here at all: the essential thing is that the rules that apply to a communal error parallel the rules that apply to the bull of the anointed Kohen and his mistaken ruling.
In summary: in this introduction we learned that as a rule a Kohen Gadol does not bring a sin offering, as it says "me'am ha'aretz" - from the people of the land - excluding a Kohen Gadol; and that in contrast, in one particular scenario he does bring the bull of the anointed Kohen: a Kohen anointed with the anointing oil, fit to issue rulings, who ruled for himself in error and acted according to his ruling. We noted the three differences between it and an ordinary sin offering - an error in law, a bull instead of a goat or a sheep, and offering on the inner altar with burning outside the Temple; and the laws of the Mishnah: unwitting ruling and unwitting act - he brings a bull, whereas an unwitting ruling with a deliberate act, or a deliberate ruling with an unwitting act - he is exempt, for the ruling of the anointed Kohen for himself is like the ruling of the court for the community.