Horayot 7

On yesterday’s daf, the mishnah taught that if an anointed priest made an erroneous ruling for himself, and then acted on the basis of that ruling, he is required to bring a bull as an offering. The Talmud there explains: 

As the sages taught: “If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt upon the people” (Leviticus 4:3). The anointed priest is (liable to the same kind of offering) like the public. 

If a random individual sins, they are required to bring a ewe or female goat as an offering. If the entire community sins, they are obligated to bring a bull as a sacrifice. But the rabbis read Leviticus 4:3 as stating that a high priest is like the entire community, and is required to bring the larger and more expensive offering. On today’s daf, the Talmud tries to figure out the verse from Leviticus is needed at all. 

Could this not (be derived through) logical inference?The public is removed from the category of an individual. And an anointed priest is removed from the category of an individual. Just as the public is liable only for absence of awareness of the matter with unwitting performance of an action, so too an anointed priest will be liable only for absence of awareness of the matter with unwitting performance of an action. 

Since both the community as a whole and the anointed priest are liable to bring a bull if they sinned by accident due to an erroneous ruling, then they have more in common with each other than either do with individuals in this area of law.  The Talmud next tries out a different logical inference to derive this same principle: 

Or perhaps go this way: A prince is removed from the category of an individual. And an anointed priest is removed from the category of an individual. Therefore, just as a prince brings an offering for unwitting performance of an action, even without absence of awareness of the matter, so too an anointed priest brings for unwitting performance of an action, even without absence of awareness of the matter.

This is a bit convoluted, but according to Leviticus 4:23, a prince is explicitly required to bring a male goat in the case of his own accidental sin on account of a mistaken ruling. Neither the prince nor the anointed priest bring a female goat or ewe in the case of sin: the prince brings a male goat and, as we’ve seen, the anointed priest brings a bull. Since neither is like an individual, the Talmud here argues that we can derive the rule about the anointed priest from the rule about the prince. Which analogy is the best? Is the anointed priest more like a political ruler, which for the rabbis would have implied a hereditary leader who liaised with other governments and administered the community finances? Or more like the community as a whole?

The Talmud concludes that Leviticus 4:3 is actually needed to clarify this question. 

The verse states: “If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt upon the people” (Leviticus 4:3). The anointed priest is like the public. 

While the Talmud’s point is specifically about the nature of the sacrifice that the anointed priest brings in a specific situation of error, I think it offers us a larger perspective on the nature of the anointed priest. Priests were themselves a hereditary tribe, and we know from literary evidence from the Second Temple period that many high priests were the sons of high priests. But because they represent the community as a whole, they are more like the community than like a monarch. To do the grueling spiritual work of representing the people at the Temple, one has to actually be like the people. Our spiritual leaders should be deeply tied to and rooted in their communities, both in their actions and in how we think about them through the law. 

Read all of Horayot 7 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 8, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.