Horayos 2:3 - 2:4

.The [court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] except where ignorance of the law – A beit din that ruled for the community on one of all the commandments does not need to bring a bull for a communal error-in-judgment (para ha’elem davar) sacrifice for the community but only for the ignorance of the matter in which it ruled in error and because they did not realize that they were transgressing.

Was accompanied by an unwitting action – The majority of the community erred and acted according to their ruling, as it is written, “they erred and the thing was hidden,” an act in error and the matter was hidden.

So it is with the anointed priest – The high priest that was anointed with the anointing oil is not obligated to bring a sacrifice unless he forgets the law and he acts and rules in error, as it is written (Leviticus 4), “to bring guilt on the people,” which comes to teach that the anointed priest is like the people.

Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry – The beit din issued a mistaken ruling regarding idol worship and they are obligated to bring a bull and a goat.

Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action – Like all the other commandments. We learn about idol worship from the other commandments from a g’zeira shava (“equivalent form”) of “eyes” and “eyes”, as written above.

The court is not obligated unless they ruled concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is karet, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly – There are 36 commandments in the Torah for which the punishment is “karet” and for each one a sin offering is required if the commandment was transgressed unwittingly, except for five that do not require a sin offering if transgressed in error: brit mila and the Passover sacrifice, since they are positive commandments. Even though wilfully transgressing them has a punishment of “karet” no sin offering is required if they are transgressed in error, as it is written about a sin offering (Leviticus 4), “do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done.” And making an oath, because there is no action and the Torah says about a sin offering to transgress in error: if an oath was uttered there was no action. And impurity in the Temple and of its contents create no obligation if transgressed in error, but rather a sliding scale sacrifice (oleh ve’yored), as said in Leviticus. And a beit din does not have to bring a sin offering if these are transgressed in error and neither does a high priest. There are 31 commandments for which the punishment is wilful transgression is “karet” and for erroneous transgression is a sin-offering, for which a beit din and a high priest have to bring a sacrifice.

[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple – A beit din that issued a ruling and erred regarding impurity in the Temple and of its contents is not obligated to bring a communal offering.

For the transgression of a positive commandment – I.e. one who became impure while in the Temple and who is thus commanded to leave by the shortest route. If he left by a longer route, he is punished with “karet.” The beit din that ruled that he should leave by the longer route is not obligated to bring a sacrifice because on an error regarding this law one does not bring a sin-offering, i.e., an individual who erred in this commandment and left by a longer route needs to bring a sliding scale sacrifice and not a sin-offering.

For the transgression of a negative commandment – That he should not enter the Temple while he is impure.

Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui, etc. – For every commandment transgressed in error one is obligated to bring a sin-offering and an asham talui must be brought if he is in doubt whether or not he transgressed. Because transgressing in error the commandment regarding impurity in the Temple does not require a sin-offering, if it there is doubt whether he sinned he does not bring an asham talui.

For the transgression of a positive commandment relating to the menstruant – He was having relations with her when she was clean and in the midst of relations she tells him that she has become impure, the commandment is for him to withdraw. But he may not withdraw immediately because withdrawing is just as pleasurable as intercourse. Rather, he should dig his toenails in the ground and wait without moving until he loses his erection and then he should withdraw. And this is the positive commandment for the menstruant. If the beit din ruled erroneously that he should withdraw immediately, it is obligated to bring a bull for an error-in-judgment sacrifice, since the individual is obligated to bring a sin-offering for his error.