(Mishnah): [Beis Din is not liable for Hora'ah about Shevu'as ha'Edus (the oath that one does not know testimony), Shevu'as Bituy (that one will or will not do an action), or Tum'ah of the Mikdash and Kodshim. A Nasi has the same law. R. Yosi ha'Galili says so;

R. Akiva says, the Nasi is liable for all of these except for Shevu'as ha'Edus, because he does not judge and is not judged, and he does not testify and we do not testify about him.

(Gemara - R. Yochanan) Opinion #1: (In a Beraisa, R. Akiva teaches that a Mashi'ach is exempt from all of these.) R. Akiva learns from "v'Im Lo Sagi'a Yado" - one who is proper to come to poverty. This excludes a Mashi'ach, who is not proper to come to poverty;

Opinion #2 (Reish Lakish): [he learns from] "v'Hayah Ki Yesham l'Achas me'Eleh" - one who [cannot be] liable for all of them is liable for some of them. One who is not liable for all of them is not liable for some (i.e. any) of them.

Question (against R. Yochanan - R. Yitzchak): If so, he should not become Tamei through Tzara'as, for he is not proper to to come to poverty! (Since Korban Metzora Oni does not apply to him, he is totally excluded from the Parshah. If he cannot become Tahor, he should not become Tamei!)

Answer: [R. Akiva agrees that he brings Korban Oni, and also] like a very poor person [in other cases of Oleh v'Yored. Dalei Dalos does not apply to Metzora. (We explained like HAR EFRAYIM, based on the RAMBAM, who explained in our Mishnah that R. Akiva exempts only from a bull.)

Question (against Reish Lakish - R. Hoshayah): If so, a woman should not be liable for Bi'as Mikdash [b'Tum'ah], for a woman cannot testify (so Shevu'as ha'Edus does not apply to her! We explained the Gemara like HAGAHOS R. DINAR.)

Opinion #3 (R. Yosi citing R. Yochanan): R. Akiva learns from "Zeh Korban Aharon u'Vanav" - he brings this [Chavitei Kohen Gadol], but he does not bring another Asiris ha'Eifah (Minchas Chotei for a very poor person).

Question (R. Ze'ira, to R. Yosa): Can he not bring [Asiris ha'Eifah] voluntarily?!

Answer (R. Yosa): Yes [he can]. He does not bring [Asiris ha'Eifah] for a Chiyuv (Minchas Chotei), but he brings it voluntarily.

Our Mishnah should say [that R. Akiva says that] a king does not testify, and we do not testify about him. (This is why he is exempt from Shevu'as ha'Edus. After this, it teaches Agav that he does not judge and he is not judged.)

(Mishnah): A commoner brings a Se'irah or Kisvah for any Mitzvah punishable by Kares (b'Mezid) and a Chatas (b'Shogeg);

The Nasi brings a (male) Sa'ir. A Mashi'ach or Beis Din brings a Par.

For idolatry, a commoner, Nasi or Mashi'ach brings a Se'irah. Beis Din brings a Par and a [male] Sa'ir. The Par is an Olah, and the Sa'ir is a Chatas.

A Nasi or commoner brings Asham Taluy. A Mashi'ach or Beis Din is exempt.

A commoner, Nasi or Mashi'ach brings Asham Vadai. Beis Din is exempt.

[R. Shimon says,] for Shevu'as ha'Edus, Shevu'as Bituy, or Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav, Beis Din is exempt, and a commoner, Nasi or Mashi'ach is liable;

Note: A Nasi cannot testify. Shevu'as ha'Edus does not apply to him! OHR SOMAYACH (Shegagos 10:7) answers that he swore falsely before he was appointed Nasi. R. Shimon holds that since his law did not change, he brings the Korban even after he was appointed Nasi.

However, a Kohen Gadol Mashi'ach is not liable for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav. R. Shimon says so.

Note: Even though our text in the Mishnayos says only "Kohen Gadol", it seems that it should say "Mashi'ach", like the text of the Mishnah in the Bavli. The rest of our Perek mentions only a Mashi'ach. If here it says just Kohen Gadol, it must include Merubah Begadim. Below, R. Yochanan's source to exempt applies to any Kohen Gadol, but it is rejected. Chizkiyah's source, which is accepted, applies only to a Mashi'ach. Perhaps they argued about the text of our Mishnah! (PF)

What do [those who are liable] bring? They bring Oleh v'Yored;

R. Eliezer says, a Nasi brings a Sa'ir.

(Gemara): "Nefesh" includes a Nasi [for Asham Taluy].

Suggestion: We should say that it includes a Mashi'ach!

Rejection: "Al Shigegaso Asher Shagag" discusses one who brings for Shigegas Ma'aseh. This excludes a Mashi'ach, who [brings for Hora'ah, but] not for Shigegas Ma'aseh.

Implied question: According to Rebbi, who says that a Mashi'ach [brings for idolatry] for Shigegas Ma'aseh [how can we answer]?

Answer: "[Al Shigegaso..." discusses] one who brings for Shigegas Ma'aseh for all matters. This excludes a Mashi'ach, who does not bring for Shigegas Ma'aseh for all matters (only for idolatry).

"Nefesh" includes a Nasi and Mashi'ach [for Asham Vadai].

Question: Here (Asham Taluy) you include [only] a Nasi. Here (Asham Vadai, why do) you include [even] a Mashi'ach? (Also in Parshas Asham Me'ilos it says bi'Shgagah!)

Answer: "Ka'Chatas ka'Asham" [teaches that one who brings Chatas, he brings Asham]. Just like Chatas atones and [totally] cleanses, also Asham atones and cleanses. This excludes Asham Taluy, which atones and leaves over (if he finds out later that he truly sinned, he must bring a Chatas).

Our Mishnah should say "but all hold that a Kohen Gadol is not liable for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav, and a Nasi [is exempt] for Shevu'as ha'Edus according to R. Shimon."

Explanation #1 (R. Yochanan): "Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yetzei v'Lo Yechalel" - but if he would leave [and become Tamei and enter the Mikdash], he is not Mechalel (Chayav Korban. This teaches that he is exempt for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav.)

Rebuttal (R. Ashi'an citing R. Yonah citing R. Bun bar Kahana): It says "Almanah u'Gerushah v'Chalalah Zonah Es Eleh Lo Yikach" - will you say that if [a Kohen Gadol] married one of them, he was not Mechalel?! (She and the child are Chalalim!)

Question: How can we answer [why he is exempt for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav]?

Answer (and Explanation #2 - Chizkiyah): "V'Nichresah ha'Nefesh ha'Hi Mitoch ha'Kahal" refers to one whose Korban is the same as that of the Kahal. It excludes a Mashi'ach, whose Korban is unlike that of the Kahal.

Question: A Nasi's Korban [is a male; it is] not the same as that of the Kahal (and R. Shimon obligates him for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav)!

Answer #1: A Nasi is the same on Yom Kipur (he gets Kaparah through the Se'irim, like other Yisraelim).

Question: [The Kohen Gadol's] bretheren Kohanim are not the same on Yom Kipur (they get Kaparah through Par Yom Kipur)!

Answer: They are the same the rest of the year (for Chatas Yachid. A Kohen Gadol is never the same as Yisrael.)

Answer #2 (R. Yudan bar Shalom): [The Korban of] a Nasi has the same Matanos of blood, on the outer [Mizbe'ach like that of Yisrael. Blood of a Mashi'ach's Korban is put in the Heichal.]

(R. Yochanan): R. Eliezer said [in our Mishnah that a Nasi brings a Sa'ir] only [for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav] because there is Kares (it is like Chatas Kavu'a, but not for Shevu'as ha'Edus and Shevu'as Bituy, which have no Kares).

Question (R. Hoshayah): If so (since there is Kares, he should bring Asham Taluy for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav, since) it is like [Chatas] Kavu'a!

(R. Yonah): R. Hoshayah holds that [a Nasi] is uprooted from the entire Parshah. Rather, R. Eliezer considers him like a rich commoner (Oleh v'Yored does not apply to him, so he brings his usual Korban.

Objection (R. Mana): If [R. Eliezer] considers him like a rich commoner, even for Shevu'as ha'Edus and Shevu'as Bituy [he should bring a Sa'ir]!

(Beraisa): R. Eliezer and Chachamim did not argue about Shevu'as ha'Edus and Shevu'as Bituy. [They agree] that he does not bring a Sa'ir, rather, a Se'irah;

What do they argue about? Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav - R. Eliezer says that because there is Kares [he brings a Sa'ir].

Question #1: If he is like a rich commoner, why does he not bring a Se'irah, rather, a Sa'ir?

Question #2: A Nasi for idolatry - he does not bring a Sa'ir, rather, a Se'irah! (We do not say that he is uprooted from the Parshah.)

(Mishnah): If a Kohen Mashi'ach sinned, and then he was removed from his position, or if a Nasi sinned and was dethroned, the Kohen brings a Par, and the Nasi brings a Sa'ir;

If a Mashi'ach was demoted and then sinned, and similarly if a Nasi was demoted and then sinned, the Kohen brings a Par, and the Nasi is like a commoner.

(Gemara - R. Lazar): If a Kohen Gadol sinned, we lash him, and we do not remove him from his greatness.

Source #1 (R. Mana): It says "Ki Nezer Shemen Mishchas Elokav Alav Ani Hash-m" - it is as if just like I (Hash-m) am in My greatness, Aharon is in his greatness.

Source #2 (R. Avun): "Kadosh Yihyeh Lach" - it is as if just like I am in My Kedushah, Aharon is in his Kedushah.

(R. Chanina Kesovah citing R. Acha citing Reish Lakish): If a Kohen Mashi'ach ohen Gadol sinned, we lash him [through a Beis Din of three]. If you would say 23, it turns out that his rise [to greatness] is his descent (he would be disgraced in front of many).

(Reish Lakish): If a Nasi sinned, we lash him through a Beis Din of three.

(R. Yochanan): We even depose him. (We explained this like ALEI TAMAR.)

Question: Do we return him [to his greatness afterwards]?

Answer (R. Chagai): It is better not to return him (people would disgrace him. It would be a great shame for him, as if) they kill him! (We explained this like KESEF MISHNEH, Hilchos Sanhedrin 17:8.)

R. Yudan the Nasi heard (that Rish Lakish said that a Nasi is lashed through a Beis Din of three) and was angry. He sent officers (PERUSH under the Yerushalmi printed in the Bavli) to seize Reish Lakish. He fled to a tower. Some say [that he fled] to the village Chitiya.

The next day, R. Yochanan went to the Beis Midrash, and R. Yudan the Nasi went to the Beis Midrash. [R. Yudan] said "why don't you say Divrei Torah to us?"

[R. Yochanan] started to make a clapping noise with one hand. [R. Yudan] asked "do we clap with one hand?!"

[R. Yochanan]: No. (Similarly, without Reish Lakish, I cannot teach. Reish Lakish would ask 24 challenges to every teaching, and R. Yochanan found 24 answers. When Reish Lakish died, R. Yochanan could not be consoled, for no one could replace him, and his Torah did not increase like it used to - Bava Metzi'a 84a. R. Yudan) asked "where is Ben Lakish?" R. Yochanan did not tell.

[R. Yudan] said "I will free him." [R. Yochanan] said "he is in this tower." [R. Yudan] said "tomorrow, I and you will go to greet him." R. Yochanan sent to Reish Lakish "prepare a Devar Torah, for the Nasi will come to greet you." (We explained this like RIDVAZ.)

[Reish Lakish] went out to greet them, and said "you resemble your Creator - when Hash-m went to redeem Yisrael, He did not send a Shali'ach or angel, rather, He Himself";

It says "v'Avarti b'Eretz Mitzrayim", and [further, He came with] His entire entourage. (It does not say 'Asher Halach Elokim', rather, "Asher Halchu Elokim." ALEI TAMAR in Sanhedrin - also R. Yudan came with his entourage. Hash-m Himself redeemed Yisrael, i.e. everything was under His supervision.)

[R. Yudan]: Why did you say the teaching [about a Nasi who sinned? It shames me!]

[Reish Lakish]: Do you think that due to fear of you, I would refrain from teaching [a law of] Torah?! R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said "Al Banai Ki Lo Tovah ha'Shemu'ah... Ma'avirim" - Am Hash-m (Yisrael) depose him.