A MASHU'ACH DOES NOT BRING AN ASHAM TALUY
(Beraisa): All agree that he does not bring an Asham Taluy.
Question: What is the source of this?
Answer - part 1 (for Rebbi): "The Kohen will atone for Shigegaso (his mistake) Asher Shagag" - this applies to one who brings a Korban only due to Shegagah (without Hora'ah), and not to a Mashu'ach (for Mitzvos other than idolatry, he brings a Korban for Hora'ah with Shegagah).
Question: The verse does not say that his Korban is always due to Shegagah!
Answer: Indeed, it does. It could have said just "for Shigegaso";
It adds "Asher Shagag" to teach that his sin is always due to Shegagah.
Answer - part 2 (for Chachamim): The verse discusses one whose brings a Korban for Shogeg (without Hora'ah), and not to a Mashu'ach (who is never liable for Shogeg without Hora'ah).
THE HORA'AH MUST PERMIT KARES
(Mishnah): Beis Din is liable only for (permitting) Chayavei Kerisus for which a Chatas is brought (if one was Shogeg); the same applies to a Mashu'ach;
They are liable for idolatry only for something punishable by Kares/Chatas (for Mezid/Shogeg).
(Gemara) Question: What is the source of this (regarding Mitzvos other than idolatry)?
Answer #1 (Beraisa - Rebbi): We learn a Gezerah Shavah "Aleha-Aleha" from incest with one's wife's sister, which is punishable by Kares/Chatas.
Question: This is the source for Beis Din. What is the source regarding a Mashu'ach?
Answer: "L'Ashmas ha'Am" equates a Mashu'ach to the Tzibur.
We learn that this applies to a Nasi from a Gezerah Shavah "Mitzvos-Mitzvos."
The same applies to a commoner. "And if a soul" teaches that the law of a commoner is like the previous law (of a Nasi).
(Mishnah): They are liable for idolatry only...
Question: What is the source regarding idolatry?
Answer (Beraisa): Idolatry was written separately to teach that a different Korban is brought;
Suggestion: Perhaps they are liable even for something not punishable by Kares/Chatas?
Rejection: We learn a Gezerah Shavah "me'Einei-me'Einei" from other Mitzvos. Just like by other Mitzvos, they are liable only for Chayavei Kerisus/Chatas, also by idolatry.
Question: This is the source for Beis Din;
What is the source for a commoner, Nasi or a Mashu'ach?
Answer: "And if one soul" includes a commoner, Nasi and a Mashu'ach;
The 'Vov' ("and") teaches that the law of the previous Parshah (of Beis Din) applies.
Question: Rebbi's starting point to learn all these laws was Beis Din, which was learned from a Gezerah Shavah 'Aleha-Aleha';
Chachamim say that "Aleha" teaches about relatives and their co-wives that fall to Yibum. How do they learn all these laws?
Answer (and Answer #2 to Question (c)): They learn like R. Yehoshua ben Levi.
(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Regarding idolatry, it says "there will be one Torah (law) for you, for one who sins bi'Shgagah, and for Mezid" - the entire Torah is equated to idolatry:
Just like the punishment for idolatry is Kares if Mezid and Chatas if Shogeg, also for other Mitzvos, one brings a Chatas for Shogeg only if one would be Chayav Kares for Mezid.
The verses before and after this discuss a "Nefesh", so this teaches about every individual, i.e. a commoner, Nasi or Mashu'ach, both for idolatry and other Mitzvos.
Question: What is the source regarding the Tzibur?
Answer: The Torah discusses the Tzibur right before an individual. We learn the law of the Tzibur from that of an individual.
Question: Rebbi learned from "Aleha-Aleha." How does he expound R. Yehoshua ben Levi's verse?
Answer: He expounds like the following Beraisa;
(Beraisa): The Torah distinguishes between a majority (of a city that served idolatry b'Mezid) and a minority. A majority (Ir ha'Nidachas) is killed through the sword, and their money (and the whole city) is destroyed. A minority is killed through stoning, and their money goes to their heirs;
Suggestion: Perhaps we distinguish between a majority that serves idolatry b'Shogeg and a minority!
Rejection: "There will be one law to you..."
Objection (Rav Chilkiyah of Hegronya): If not for this verse, they would have brought a different Korban. Which would they bring?! (It should be different than all other Korbanos, just like Par He'elem Davar for idolatry is different than all other Korbanos. On the other hand, we should not innovate a new Korban by ourselves. It should be a Korban brought for something else!)
It cannot be a Par. (This is not different, for) the Tzibur brings Parim for other Mitzvos!
It cannot be a Par for an Olah and a Sa'ir for a Chatas. The Tzibur brings this for idolatry!
It cannot be a Sa'ir. A Nasi brings this for other Mitzvos!
It cannot be a Se'irah. An individual brings this for idolatry!
Answer #1: One might have thought that they bring a Par Chatas and a Sa'ir Olah, the opposite of what the Tzibur brings. The verse teaches that this is not so.
Answer #2: One might have thought that they need to bring a different Korban, but they cannot (they do not get atonement).
Question: Both Tana'im agree that the verses discuss idolatry. What is their source?
Answer #1 (Rava): It says "all these Mitzvos." The Mitzvah equal to all the Mitzvos is idolatry.
Answer #2 (D'Vei Rebbi - Beraisa): It says "that Hash-m spoke to Moshe", and "that Hash-m commanded you through Moshe."
The Mitzvah that Yisrael heard Hash-m say, and was explained through Moshe, is idolatry.
(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): Yisrael heard "I (am Hash-m your G-d)" and "you will not have (other gods in front of Me)" from Hash-m.
Answer #3 (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "From the day that Hash-m commanded" - the first Mitzvah Yisrael received was idolatry.
Rejection: Yisrael received 10 Mitzvos at Marah!
Rather, we must give one of the first two answers.
MITZVOS FOR WHICH BEIS DIN IS EXEMPT
(Mishnah): Beis Din is not liable for Hora'ah on a Lav or Aseh in the Mikdash (a Tamei person entering the Mikdash or delaying there, or eating Kodshim);
One does not bring an Asham Taluy for a Lav or Aseh in the Mikdash;
Beis Din is liable for a Lav or Aseh regarding Nidah;
One brings an Asham Taluy for a Lav or Aseh regarding Nidah.
An Aseh regarding Nidah is to separate from a Nidah (only after the Kishuy ceases, e.g. if she became Nidah during relations; Rashi - refrain from relations before a woman's Veses, i.e. her normal period when she becomes Nidah);
A Lav regarding Nidah is not to have relations with a Nidah.
(Gemara) Question: What is the source of the first two laws?
Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi): It says "v'Ashem (he transgressed)" regarding Chatas and Asham Taluy, and it says "v'Ashemu" regarding the Tzibur.
Just like "v'Ashem" regarding an individual discusses a fixed Chatas (for which even a poor person must bring an animal), also regarding a Tzibur (it brings only for sins for which an individual brings a fixed Chatas);
Likewise, Asham Taluy is brought only for such sins.
Question: If so, the same should apply to Oleh v'Yored (a varying Chatas, in which an Oni brings a bird, and a very poor person brings a Minchah (flour-offering))! It says "v'Hayah Ki Yesham l'Achas me'Eleh"!
Answer #1: We learn from "v'Ashem" from "v'Ashemu", for these are very similar (he or they sinned), but we do not learn to "Yesham (he will sin)."
Question #1: We may learn, even though they are dissimilar!
(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): It says "v'Shav ha'Kohen" and "u'Va ha'Kohen." These both mean that he will return. We learn a Gezerah Shavah between them.
Question #2: We should learn from "v'Ashem" regarding Tum'ah of the Mikdash and Kodshim (one brings Oleh v'Yored for this)!
Answer #2 (Rav Papa): We learn only when it says in both places "v'Ashem" and "Mitzvos Hash-m."
Objection (Rav Simi bar Ashi): Why don't we learn between places where it mentions both "v'Ashem" and "bearing sin"?
Answer #3 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): We only learn between places where it says both "v'Ashem" and "Mitzvos Hash-m that may not be done."
THE LAWS OF THE NASI
(Mishnah): Beis Din is not liable for Hora'ah regarding 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;
R. Yosi ha'Galili says, the Nasi has the same law;
R. Akiva says, the Nasi is liable for all of these except for the 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 - Ula) Question: What is R. Yosi ha'Galili's reason?
Answer #1 (Ula): "Ki Yesham l'Achas me'Eleh" - anyone who is liable for (any) one of these is liable for all. Anyone who is exempt for (any) one is exempt for all.
Objection: We should say that he is liable for one, even though he is not liable for all!