More on the anointed kohen, in comparison with the court – specifically, the bringing of a sin-offering for a violation that would receive “karet” if done intentionally and entails a sin-offering when done unwittingly. Plus, the significance of these details being biblical in origin, and therefore prompt a hunt for the source text, as compared to a halakhic dispute. Also, a new mishnah: When the court would not be required to bring the offering. Note that the “aseh” and “lo ta’aseh” come together – which likely would have benefited from more specific articulation in the episode. The cases of ritual impurity or contamination in the Temple come front and center – and are contrasted with the same kind of erroneous judgement having a different outcome with regard to the offering if it were about a menstruant woman, as compared to the consecretated foods in the Temple. Thus, limitations on the requirement to bring an offering in the event of an erroneous ruling. Also, another new mishnah! With additional limitations, specifically on the kinds of cases for which the court might have issued an erroneous ruling and then not necessarily been obligated to bring an offering in atonement. For example: false testimony. Plus, what is the liability of a king in these kinds of capacities? (Hint: It’s a machloket)