(Mishnah): If a Kohen Mashi'ach (a Kohen Gadol anointed with Shemen ha'Mishchah, i.e. the oil used to anoint the Mishkan) ruled (mistakenly) for himself, and sinned b'Shogeg (based on his ruling), he brings a Par;

If [he ruled] b'Shogeg and [later] did b'Mezid, or b'Mezid [gave a false Heter] and later did b'Shogeg, he is exempt;

This is because the Hora'ah of a Mashi'ach for himself is like the Hora'ah of Beis Din for the Tzibur.

(Gemara): It says "Nefesh" and "Im ha'Kohen ha'Mashi'ach" - this teaches that a Mashi'ach is like an individual. Just like an individual, if he ate based on the Hora'ah of Beis Din, he is exempt, also [a Mashi'ach], if he ate based on the Hora'ah of Beis Din, he is exempt.

Suggestion: If an individual ate without Hora'ah (Shigegas Ma'aseh), he is liable. Perhaps also [a Mashi'ach], if he ate without Hora'ah, he is liable!

Rejection: "L'Ashmas ha'Am" - his guilt is like of the Am. Just like the Am are liable [Par Helam Davar] only if [Beis Din] ruled, also he is liable only if he ruled.

Opinion #1: Some teach that "ha'Am" refers to Beis Din;

Suggestion: Just like the Am, if they ruled and others did, they are liable, also [a Mashi'ach], if he ruled and others did, he is liable!

Rejection: It says "Asher Chata" - he brings for what he sinned. He does not bring for what others sinned.

Opinion #2: Some teach that "ha'Am" refers to the Tzibur;

Suggestion: Just like the Am, if others ruled and they did, they are liable, also [a Mashi'ach], if others ruled and he did, he is liable!

Rejection: It says "Asher Chata" - he brings for what he sinned. He does not bring for what others sinned. (HAR EFRAYIM - also an errant Hora'ah is called 'she'Chata' or 'she'Chata.' Alternatively, perhaps the text should say - he brings for what he sinned through his own Hora'ah. He does not bring for what he sinned through others' Hora'ah - PF.)

(R. Yakov): This (he is liable for his Hora'ah) is if he knows to debate in Halachah. If not, what will we say - do lunatics rule?!

If a Mashi'ach ate through Hora'as Beis Din, he is exempt; through Hora'ah of another Mashi'ach, he is liable;

Explanation: [He is exempt] through Hora'as Beis Din, for others' Hora'ah means nothing next to Beis Din's Hora'ah. [He is liable] through Hora'ah of another Mashi'ach, for this is if he himself ruled like him.

(Mishnah): If a Mashi'ach ruled by himself and sinned by himself, he brings his own Korban;

If he ruled with the Tzibur (Beis Din), and sinned with the Tzibur, he gets atonement with the (Korban of) the Tzibur.

Beis Din is liable only if their Hora'ah partially permits and partially forbids, and the same applies to a Mashi'ach. Also regarding idolatry, they are liable only if they rule to partially annul [the Isur] and partially fulfill.

(Gemara): If Beis Din ruled and he ruled after them and switched (permitted what they forbade, and forbade what they permitted), obviously this is like totally uprooting (between both of their Hora'os, all is permitted).

Question: Rather, if he ruled first and Beis Din ruled after him, and switched, is even this considered totally uprooting (between both of their Hora'os, all is permitted)?

Or, since he ruled first, and his Hora'ah was rejected through their Hora'ah, it is not considered totally uprooting.

Question: If Beis Din ruled and he ruled after them, obviously, if he ate through Beis Din's Hora'ah, he is exempt. If he ate after Beis Din retracted, is he liable?

Answer (R. Yosi): We learn from our Mishnah! If he ruled by himself and did by himself, he brings his own Kaparah. This is because he ruled by himself and did by himself;

However, if he ruled with the Tzibur, he gets Kaparah with the Tzibur [even if he ate after Beis Din retracted!)

Rebuttal (R. Mana): Why do you infer from the Reisha? Look at the Seifa! If he ruled with the Tzibur and did with the Tzibur, he gets Kaparah with the Tzibur;

This is because he ruled with the Tzibur and did with the Tzibur, but if he did by himself, he gets Kaparah by himself! (We explained this like BIRKAS YITZCHAK.)

(Mishnah): Beis Din is liable only for mistaken Hora'ah and Shigegas Ma'aseh (people transgressed b'Shogeg). The same applies to a Mashi'ach;

Also for idolatry, Beis Din is liable only for mistaken Hora'ah with Shigegas Ma'aseh.

(Gemara - R. Ze'ira citing R. Yirmeyah): The [previous] Mishnah (Beis Din is liable only if their Hora'ah partially permits...) is like R. Meir.

Question: Like which teaching of R. Meir is it?

Answer (R. Yosi): It is R. Meir who says that it is an obligation [only] of Beis Din.

Explanation (R. Mana): It is like R. Meir taught there. If Beis Din ruled and the Tzibur did based on them, if one of the Beis Din died, they are exempt. If one of the Tzibur died, they are obligated. (We explained this like HAGAHOS R. DINAR);

R. Meir (to Chachamim): If [Beis Din] exempts others [who relied on Beis Din's Hora'ah], all the more so it should exempt itself!

Chachamim (to R. Meir): It exempts others, for they have whom to rely on. It does not exempt itself, for it does not have whom to rely on.

Question (R. Yirmeyah, to R. Zeira): (The Seifa of our Mishnah says that also for idolatry, Beis Din is liable only for mistaken Hora'ah with Shigegas Ma'aseh. It did not say "and similarly for a Mashi'ach", like the Reisha said.) Is it like Rebbi, who says that a Mashi'ach [is liable for idolatry] for Shigegas Ma'aseh, and unlike Rabanan, who [obligate only] for Helam Davar?

(Beraisa): A Mashi'ach [who sinned] in idolatry - Rebbi says, [he brings a Korban] for Shigegas Ma'aseh. Rabanan say, [he brings only] for Helam Davar.

Answer (R. Zeira): Why do you think so - because it did not teach a Mashi'ach? Also the previous [Mishnah, Beis Din is liable only if they partially permitted... also for idolatry, it is only if they partially permit], it did not say "and similarly for a Mashi'ach", yet a Mashi'ach has the same law. Also here, even though [the Seifa] did not teach a Mashi'ach, a Mashi'ach is included.

Note: Perhaps the previous Mishnah is Rebbi, who obligates a Mashi'ach for Shigegas Ma'aseh, therefore it did not say that he must permit only part! It seems that Rebbi obligates also for Hora'ah, but if he totally permits, this is not a proper Hora'ah. This can affect how many Korbanos he is liable.