3 if the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed a young bull from the herd without blemish to the Lord for a sin offering.
Horayot 6b:14
The mishna teaches: If he issued the ruling unwittingly, and performed the transgression intentionally, or if he issued the ruling intentionally and performed the transgression unwittingly, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, the halakhot unique to the sin offering for an unwitting transgression by the anointed priest, derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita: It is written: “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people” (Lev 4:3), from which it is derived that the liability of the anointed priest is incurred like that of the general public. The Gemara discusses this derivation. As one might have thought that the verse is superfluous: Could this not be derived through logical inference?
Horayot 7a:5
Since either conclusion can be derived logically, another source is necessary. Therefore, the verse states: “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people” (Lev 4:3), indicating that the status of the anointed priest is like that of the general public. Therefore, just as the general public brings an offering only for absence of awareness of the matter by the court with unwitting performance of an action by the people, so too, an anointed priest brings an offering only for absence of awareness of the matter with unwitting performance of an action.
Horayot 7a:6
The Gemara challenges the comparison: Based on the comparison between the anointed priest and the general public, why not say: Just as with regard to the general public, if the court issued a ruling and the general public performed the transgression after its ruling and in accordance with its ruling, the court is liable, so too, with regard to an anointed priest, when he issued a ruling and the general public performed the transgression after his ruling and in accordance with his ruling, he should be liable. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the anointed priest: “Then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed” (Lev 4:3), from which it is derived: He brings an offering for that sin that he committed on the basis of his ruling, but he does not bring an offering for that sin that others committed on the basis of his ruling.
Horayot 7a:8
The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to the halakhot of the guilt-offering: “And the priest shall atone for him for the act that he performed unwittingly” (Lev 5:18), from which it is derived that this halakha applies only to one whose transgression and his unwitting action are equal, i.e., an ordinary person, whose unwitting act is the very transgression that he performed unwittingly. This serves to exclude an anointed priest, whose unwitting action and his transgression are not equal, as his unwitting act is the erroneous ruling and he is liable to bring an offering only if he performed the transgression on the basis of that ruling. As it is written about the anointed priest: “bringing guilt on the people” (Lev 4:3), indicating that the status of the anointed priest is like that of the general public.
Horayot 7a:14
The baraita continues: Since he does not achieve atonement with the general public on the Day of Atonement, one might have thought that he will bring a bull for himself even if he unwittingly performed a transgression with the general public. Therefore, the verse states: “then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed” (Lev 4:3), indicating that he sinned alone, not with the general public. How so? If he sinned by himself he brings his sin offering of a bull by himself; if he sinned with the general public, he achieves atonement with the general public.
Horayot 7b:7
The mishna teaches: And likewise with regard to the ruling of the anointed priest. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people” (Lev 4:3), indicating that the status of an anointed priest is like that of the general public.
Horayot 7b:12
The mishna continues: And likewise the anointed priest. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to the anointed priest: “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people” (Lev 4:3), indicating that the status of an anointed priest is like that of the general public.
Horayot 8a:7
We found a source for the court bringing an offering for a transgression of the general public based on their erroneous ruling. From where do we derive that this is the halakha for an anointed priest? The Gemara answers: It is derived from the verse: “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people” (Lev 4:3), indicating that the status of an anointed priest is like that of the transgression of the general public.
Horayot 10a:2
With regard to the statement in the mishna concerning an anointed priest who sinned after he was removed from his position, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught: It is written with regard to the high priest: “And he shall sacrifice for the sin that he committed” (Lev 4:3); this teaches that he brings his sin offering even after he has moved on from his priesthood.
Horayot 10a:7
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If a king or high priest sinned before they were appointed, and thereafter they were appointed, the status of these people is like that of commoners. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught with regard to the verse: “If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt” (Lev 4:3); this serves to exclude the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his installation as high priest.
Horayot 10a:13
Apropos a king, the Sages taught: In contrast to other cases where the verse states: If he will sin, it states concerning a king: “When a king sins.” One might have thought that this is a decree, i.e., that it is a given that the king will sin. Therefore, the verse states: “If the anointed priest sins” (Lev 4:3). Just as there the meaning is: In the event that the priest sins, so too here, the meaning is: In the event that the king sins.
Horayot 10b:3
Rava, son of Rabba, objects to this: If that is so, and the term asher is interpreted in that manner, then concerning that which is written: “He shall also make restitution for what [asher] he has done amiss from the holy item” (Lev 5:16), and with regard to Jeroboam, son of Nebat, about whom it is written: “Who [asher] sinned and caused others to sin” (1Ki 14:16), so too is the interpretation that this generation is happy? The Gemara answers: Here, in the case of a king who brings an offering, it is different, as the verse altered its formulation; in parallel verses, the term “if” is utilized, e.g., in the verse: “If the anointed priest sins” (Lev 4:3). In the other instances, asher is the standard formulation.
Megillah 9b:10
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “If the anointed priest sins” (Lev 4:3). From the word anointed, I have derived only that this halakha applies to a high priest who was actually anointed with the oil of anointing. From where do I derive that even a high priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments is also included in this halakha? The verse states: “The anointed,” with the definite article, indicating that the halakha applies to every high priest.
Rashi
If the anointed priest should sin to bring guilt on the people—Its midrashic interpretation: He is not obliged to bring a sin offering unless there is a hidden thing together with an unintentional act, just as it is stated, to bring guilt on the people (v. 13): “and something is hidden from the assembly, and they do” (Horayot 7a; Rashi on v. 13; Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d’Chovah, Chapter 2 1). Its literal sense is according to the high priest sins this is the guilt of the people, because they are dependent on him to effect atonement for them and to pray on their behalf, and now he has become degenerate.
Bull—One might think that it may be an old one! Scripture, however, adds בֶּן, a young animal. If, then, it must be a young one, I might think a very young animal. Scripture, however, states: פַּר a term which independently means a mature animal, thus teaching us that it shall not be a very young bull. So how do we reconcile both mature and yet young? It refers to a bull in its third year (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d’Chovah, Chapter 3 1; cf. Rashi on Lev 9:7 and note thereon).
27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.
John Gill
He has no need, like those high priests—They being sinners, and he not.
To offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people—As they did on the Day of Atonement; see (Lev 16:6, 11, 15-16) upon which place the Jews make the same remark the apostle does here;
“he (the high priest, they say) offers sacrifices for the sins of the people, for his own, ‘first, and afterwards for the sins of the people’: ”
which was one reason of the imperfection and insufficiency of their sacrifices; but Christ needed not to offer for his own, nor could he, for he had none of his own; what he had was by imputation; wherefore he only needed to offer, and he only did offer, for the sins of the people; not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also, even of all God’s covenant people; nor did he need to do this daily, as they did; they offered sacrifice daily, the common priests every day, morning and evening, and the high priest on a stated day once a year, on the Day of Atonement.
Since he did this once for all when he offered up himself—And in this also he differed from them; they offered not themselves, but what was inferior to themselves, and what could not take away sin, and, therefore, was repeated; but Christ offered himself, his whole human nature, soul and body, and both as in union with his divine nature; and this being offered to God freely and voluntarily, in the room and stead of his people, was acceptable to God: hereby justice was satisfied; the law fulfilled; sin taken away, and complete salvation obtained; so that there never was since any need of his offering again, nor never will be; which shows the perfection and fulness of his priesthood, and the preference of it to the Levitical one.
28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. HEB 7:27-28
4 He shall bring the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting before the Lord and lay his hand on the head of the bull and kill the bull before the Lord.
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 1PE 3:18