This Week's Article

Par Kohen Mashiach

Horayot (2:2) | Yisrael Bankier | a day ago

Horayot opens by discussing the unique korban -- par helem davar shel tzibur. Simply put, this refers to the korban that must be brought if the Sanhedrin rules in error regarding a detail in a prohibition that is punishable by karet, leading most of the tzibbur (community) to violate this prohibition. Instead of each person bringing their own korban chatat for violating the prohibition in error, one bull is brought by the Sanhedrin instead.

The second perek begins with a similar korban that is brought by a kohan gadol in a similar circumstance. If the kohen gadol rules for himself in error, and then violates the prohibition based on that ruling, then he must similarly bring a special korban.

The Mishnah (2:2) however teaches that if the kohen rules in error alongside the tzibbur, then the kohen achieves his atonement with the par helem davar shel tzibur and does not need to bring his own korban.

Rashi (7a) explains that the case in the Mishnah is where the kohen gadol ruled regarding the same prohibition in error just like the Sanhedrin did. Rashi adds that the continuation of the Mishnah justifies this point. Why can the kohen's transgression be atoned for with the korban tzibur? It is because the conditions under which the korban must be brought is the same in both circumstances. Rashi therefore explains that that when the Mishnah teaches that the kohen is liable to bring his own korban if he ruled "on his own", it does not mean that the Sanhedrin did not rule at all, but rather that the kohen ruled regarding a different prohibition.

The Aruch HaShulchan (Ha'Atid, Shegagot 229:8) asks why according to Rashi's understanding, do we need that justification from the continuation of the Mishnah. The Beraita in the Gemara learns this from a pasuk, that the kohen brings this korban to atone "for the sin that he committed". The Par Kohen Mashiach is applicable when he sins on his own, but not when he sins along with the tzibur.

The Aruch HaShulchan explains that it was necessary for the case where the prohibition related to avodah zara. In that case the korban that a kohen would bring is different to the tzibur. Nevertheless, since the conditions in which they are brought are the same, it does not change the ruling from the beraita. It is important then to understand that Rashi's position is primarily based on the pasuk and not only the technical similarities between the two korbanot.

The Bartenura however explains that the case in the Mishnah is where the kohen gadol was one of the dayanim on the Sanhedrin that presented the ruling*.* The Bartenura explains that one might have thought, that just like on Yom Kippur the kohen gadol achieves his atonement through his own independent korban, the same would be true in this case also.

The Rambam (Shegagot 15:2) rules that the kohen gadol is obligated to bring is own korban if he acted solely based on his own ruling. If however it was also based on the Beit Din's ruling, he would be exempt.

The Lechem Mishnah however asks that based on the beraita above, whose ruling he considered at the time he sinned should be irrelevant. It should simply be whether he sinned alongside the tzibbur.

The Aruch HaShulchan (Ha'Atid Shegagot 229:11) explains that the Gemara notes for the case in the Mishnah to makes sense -- that there are two rulings -- the kohen and beit din must be of equal standings in wisdom. Were it not the case, then one's ruling would not be a consideration relative to the other. The Aruch HaShulchan continues that the Rambam rules (Sanhedrin 2) that it is a mitzvah for the Sandhedrin to ideally include kohanim and leviim. The Sifri continues that the kohen gadol should also be included in the Sanhedrin if he is knowledgeable enough. Considering the above, the case in our Mishnah must be that the kohen gadol ruled on the Sanhedrin (as the Bartenura explained). Consequently, the Rambam is effectively explaining the reason behind the pasuk. Why is the kohen gadol atoned for with the par helem davar? Because at the time he did not rely on his own ruling along, since it must be that he sat on the Sanhedrin and came to the conclusion together with them.

Download

Calendar