Question: What is the source that he brings only when he sinned b'Shogeg due to a Hora'ah?

Answer (Beraisa): "For the sin of the people" - the Mashu'ach is like the Tzibur.

Suggestion #1: We should know this without the verse! The Torah teaches that the Chatas of the Tzibur is unlike that of an individual, and also a Mashu'ach's Chatas is unlike an individual's;

Just like the Tzibur is liable only when most of Yisrael sinned b'Shogeg due to a Hora'ah, also a Mashu'ach is liable only when he sinned b'Shogeg due to Hora'ah.

Suggestion #2: Perhaps we should learn from a Nasi (king). The Chatas of a Nasi is unlike that of a commoner. Also a Mashu'ach's Chatas is unlike an individual's;

Just like a Nasi is liable even if his sin was not due to a mistaken ruling, also a Mashu'ach!

Decision: We learn from the Tzibur, for the law of a Mashu'ach Gadol is more similar to the Tzibur's law. Both bring Parim, and both never bring Asham Taluy.

Question: Perhaps we should learn from a Nasi, for also he is like a Mashu'ach in two laws. Each brings a Se'irah if he transgressed idolatry, and each can bring an Asham (Vadai)!

Conclusion: "For the sin of the people" - the Mashu'ach is like the Tzibur.

Question: If most of Yisrael sinned due to a Hora'ah of Beis Din, Beis Din is liable. Likewise, if they sinned due to a Hora'ah of a Mashu'ach, he should be liable!

Rejection: "He will offer for the sin that he sinned" - he brings only for his own sin.

Question: The Beraisa said that a Mashu'ach does not bring an Asham Taluy. What is the source for this?

Answer: "The Kohen will atone for the Shegagah that (an individual) Shagag" - Asham Taluy applies to one whose sin is b'Shogeg (e.g. he did not realize he is eating Chelev. This is like R. Chananel (printed on Daf 9a) and Rashash. Our (and Rashi's) text is difficult, for the verse does not mention 'Chataso');

It does not apply to a Mashu'ach, for he brings (a Chatas) only due to Hora'ah!

Question: The Beraisa exempted him from Asham Taluy before it brought the verse ("for the sin of the people") that teaches that he brings a Chatas only due to Hora'ah! (I.e. even without the verse, we would know that he is exempt.)

Answer: Indeed, we only know this due to the verse. It was imprecise for the Beraisa to say (without the verse) that he is like a Tzibur because also he brings a Par and he is exempt from Asham Taluy. Really, (without the verse) we only have the first similarity.

(Mishnah): If a Mashu'ach relied on his own Hora'ah and sinned, he brings his own Korban;

If he ruled with the Beis Din, and sinned with the Tzibur, he gets atonement with the (Korban of) the Tzibur, because Beis Din is liable only if their Hora'ah partially permits and partially forbids, and the same applies to a Mashu'ach;

Also regarding idolatry, Beis Din is liable only if their Hora'ah partially permits and partially forbids.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source that if he sinned with the Tzibur, he gets atonement with the Tzibur?

Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion: If he ruled with the Beis Din, and sinned with the Tzibur, perhaps he brings his own Par!

Question: This is illogical! The Chatas of a Nasi is unlike that of a commoner, and a Mashu'ach's Chatas is unlike a commoner's;

If a Nasi sins by himself, he brings his own Korban. If he sins with the Tzibur, he gets atonement with the Tzibur's Korban. The same should apply to a Mashu'ach!

Answer: We cannot learn from a Nasi, for he gets atonement with the Tzibur's Korban on Yom Kipur, but a Mashu'ach does not! Therefore, the suggestion that a Mashu'ach should bring his own Korban is reasonable.

Rejection of Suggestion: "For his sin that he sinned" - if he sins by himself, he brings his own Korban. If he sins with the Tzibur, he gets atonement with the Tzibur's Korban.

Question: What is the case?

Suggestion: He is Mufla (Rashi - the greatest Chacham; Tosfos ha'Rosh - proper for Hora'ah), and the Beis Din is not (Rashi - has no member as great as the Mashu'ach).

Rejection: If so, obviously he brings his own Korban! The Hora'ah of Beis Din is invalid. The Tzibur does not bring a Korban, rather every individual who sinned brings a Chatas!

Suggestion: Beis Din is Mufla and he is not.

Rejection: If so, he could not bring his own Korban. His Hora'ah is invalid!

Answer (Rav Papa): Both he and Beis Din are (Rashi - equally) Mufla'im.

(Abaye): The case when he gave a Hora'ah by himself (apparently, this is the proper text; Abaye explains the Mishnah) and sinned by himself is when he ruled about one Mitzvah in one place, and Beis Din ruled about a different Mitzvah in another place.

Objection (Rava): It does not matter where they rule!

(Rava): Rather, even if they ruled in the same place, if they ruled about different Mitzvos, it is considered that he sinned by himself.

Obviously, if he permitted Chelev, and Beis Din permitted idolatry, these are separate rulings, because they are learned from different verses and different Korbanos are brought for them (he brings a Par, and they bring a Par and Sa'ir).

All the more so, if he permitted idolatry, and Beis Din permitted Chelev, these are separate rulings, because the Korbanos are totally different (he brings a Sa'ir, and they bring a Par).

Question #1: If he permitted Chelev covering the Kerev (stomachs), and Beis Din permitted Chelev of the small intestines, what is the law?

Even though the same Korban is brought for either, since they are learned from different verses, they are separate rulings;

Or, since both are called Chelev, it is like one ruling?

Question #2: If you will say that all Chelev has the same name, if he permitted Chelev, and Beis Din permitted blood, what is the law?

Since they are learned from different verses, they are separate rulings;

Or, since the same Korban is brought for either, it is like one ruling?

This question is unsettled.

(Mishnah): Beis Din is liable only if the Hora'ah partially permits and partially forbids...

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer: We learned this in the first Perek. "And a matter was hidden", but the whole Mitzvah was not hidden.

(Mishnah): The same applies to a Mashu'ach.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer: "L'Ashmas ha'Am" - a Mashu'ach is like the Tzibur.

(Mishnah): Also regarding idolatry (Beis Din is liable only if the Hora'ah partially permits and partially forbids)...

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): Idolatry was written separately to teach that a different Korban is brought;

Suggestion: Perhaps there is another difference, that Beis Din is liable even for a Hora'ah to uproot an entire Mitzvah;

Rejection: We learn a Gezerah Shavah "me'Einei-me'Einei" from the Korban Beis Din brings for mistaken Hora'ah about other Mitzvos;

Regarding other Mitzvos, Beis Din is liable only for partially uprooting a matter. The same applies to idolatry.

(Mishnah): Beis Din is liable only for Hora'ah and (the resulting) transgressions b'Shogeg. The same applies to a Mashu'ach;

Also regarding idolatry, Beis Din is liable only for Hora'ah with Shegagah.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "they will err" teaches that Beis Din is liable for regular Shegagah!

Rejection: "They will err and a matter will be hidden", they are liable only for Hora'ah with Shegagah.

(Mishnah): ... And also a Mashu'ach.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer: "L'Ashmas ha'Am" - a Mashu'ach is like the Tzibur.

(Mishnah): Also regarding idolatry they are liable only for Hora'ah with Shegagah.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa): Idolatry was written separately to teach that a different Korban is brought;

Suggestion: Perhaps Beis Din is liable for regular Shegagah!

Rejection: We learn from "me'Einei- me'Einei." Just like Beis Din is liable for other Mitzvos only for Hora'ah with Shegagah, also regarding idolatry.

Inference: The Mishnah does not say that a Mashu'ach is liable for idolatry only for Hora'ah with Shegagah! (This implies that he is liable for Shegagah without Hora'ah.)

Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?

Answer: It is Rebbi.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): A Mashu'ach is liable for idolatry b'Shogeg;

Chachamim exempt, unless it was due to his Hora'ah;

All agree that (when he is liable) he brings a Sa'ir, and that a Mashu'ach never brings an Asham Taluy.

Rejection: The inference is unfounded. Also, the Mishnah does not say that he is liable only if he permits Chayavei Kerisus for which a Chatas is brought (if Shogeg), but surely this is true!

You must say that this was taught regarding other Mitzvos, and it applies also to idolatry;

Also, we taught regarding other Mitzvos that he is liable only for Hora'ah with Shegagah, and this applies also to idolatry!

Question: What is Rebbi's reason?

Answer: "The Kohen will atone for the soul that errs in sinning bi'Shgagah":

"The soul" refers to a Mashu'ach. "That errs" refers to a Nasi. "In sinning bi'Shgagah" refers to unintentional sin (even if not due to Hora'ah).

Chachamim hold that "in sinning bi'Shgagah" refers to one who brings a Chatas for Shogeg, to exclude a Mashu'ach, who is liable only due to Hora'ah.

Question: The Beraisa said, all agree that (when he is liable) he brings a Sa'ir. What is the source of this?

Answer: "If one soul" includes a commoner, Nasi and a Mashu'ach.