Horayot 1

הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין לַעֲבֹר עַל אַחַת מִכָּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה, וְהָלַךְ הַיָּחִיד וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג עַל פִּיהֶם, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה אַחֲרֵיהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה, פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתָּלָה בְבֵית דִּין. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ, אוֹ תַלְמִיד וְהוּא רָאוּי לְהוֹרָאָה, וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה אַחֲרֵיהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה, הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָלָה בְּבֵית דִּין. זֶה הַכְּלָל, הַתּוֹלֶה בְעַצְמוֹ, חַיָּב. וְהַתּוֹלֶה בְּבֵית דִּין, פָּטוּר:

If beth-din ruled to transgress one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah [If they said: You are permitted to do something, deliberate transgression of which is punishable by kareth], and an individual went and transgressed unwittingly by their ruling, [(as opposed to an instance in which he did not transgress by the ruling of beth-din, as when beth-din ruled that chelev (forbidden fats) is permitted and he mistook chelev for shuman (permitted fats) and ate it, in which instance he is liable, not having eaten it by the ruling of beth-din)] — whether they transgressed and he transgressed with them or they did not transgress [by their ruling], he is exempt [and they are liable, for beth-din bring the offering only for unwittingness in ruling, the act being dependent on the congregation, and the ruling upon beth-din], (he is exempt) because he relied upon beth-din. [Our Mishnah is in accordance with R. Yehudah, who says: An individual who transgressed by the ruling of beth-din is exempt (from a sin-offering). The halachah, however, is in accordance with the Rabbis, who say that an individual who transgressed by the ruling of beth-din is liable. He is not exempt unless the transgressors are the majority of the dwellers of Eretz Yisrael or the majority of the tribes, in which instance beth-din bring a bullock of forgetfulness of the congregation and those who transgressed by their ruling are exempt.] If beth-din ruled (wrongly) and one of them knew that they were mistaken or if he were a Torah scholar eligible to rule and he went and transgressed by their ruling — whether they transgressed and he transgressed with them or they did not transgress and he transgressed, he is liable, because he did not rely upon beth-din (in transgressing). [And even though he sinned deliberately, knowing that beth-din had erred and, notwithstanding this, transgressed by their ruling, and a deliberate transgressor is not subject to an offering, the Gemara states that he is (considered) unwitting, having thought that it was a mitzvah to abide by beth-din's ruling, even though he knew that they had erred.] This is the rule: One who relies upon himself (in transgressing) is liable [to bring an offering (including one who "kicks" against the ruling (of beth-din), one whose way is not to act in accordance with their ruling, and who acted in accordance with their ruling, not because he relied upon their ruling but because it appeared to him that it was permitted, he is liable)]; one who relies upon (the ruling of) beth-din is exempt.

הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין, וְיָדְעוּ שֶׁטָּעוּ, וְחָזְרוּ בָהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ כַפָּרָתָן וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאוּ כַפָּרָתָן, וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶן, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, סָפֵק. אֵיזֶהוּ סָפֵק. יָשַׁב לוֹ בְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, חַיָּב. הָלַךְ לוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, פָּטוּר. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מוֹדֶה אֲנִי בָזֶה שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לִפְטוּר מִן הַחוֹבָה. אָמַר לוֹ בֶן עַזַּאי, מַה שָּׁנָה זֶה מִן הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ, שֶׁהַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ אֶפְשָׁר הָיָה לוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע, וְזֶה לֹא הָיָה אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁמָע:

If beth-din ruled (wrongly) and they discovered that they had erred and retracted — whether they had brought their atonement or had not yet brought their atonement, and one went and transgressed by their (original) ruling — R. Shimon exempts him (from an offering) and R. Eliezer says: It is a safek (a doubt). [Since he should have asked all the time about news of the rulings in beth-din and did not do so, his case is similar to that of one who is in doubt as to whether he sinned or did not sin, in which instance he brings a suspended guilt-offering (asham talui). The halachah is in accordance with R. Eliezer.] Which is the safek? [i.e., In which instance does R. Eliezer say that he is judged as one who is in doubt as to whether or not he sinned and is liable to bring an asham talui?] If he sat in his house, he is liable [i.e., if he sat in his house in the country in which beth-din ruled, in which instance he could have heard that beth-din had retracted.] But if he went abroad, he is exempt [not only if he actually went, but if he was on the way to go, even if he had not actually gone. R. Akiva said: I concede in this instance that he is close to being exempt from liability. Ben Azzai said to him: How is this different from sitting in one's house? [R. Akiva answered:] The one sitting in his house could have heard, but the other could not have heard. [R. Akiva holds that because of his preoccupation with going, he does not ask if beth-din had retracted, and he is exempt from an asham talvi. And Ben Azzai holds that since he had not yet gone, he should have asked. On this hinges the argument in the Gemara. The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.]

הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין לַעֲקֹר אֶת כָּל הַגּוּף, אָמְרוּ, אֵין נִדָּה בַתּוֹרָה, אֵין שַׁבָּת בַּתּוֹרָה, אֵין עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בַתּוֹרָה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. הוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵּם מִקְצָת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. כֵּיצַד. אָמְרוּ, יֵשׁ נִדָּה בַתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם פָּטוּר. יֵשׁ שַׁבָּת בַּתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, פָּטוּר. יֵשׁ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בַתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה פָטוּר, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ד) וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר, דָּבָר וְלֹא כָל הַגּוּף:

If beth-din ruled to uproot the entire body [i.e., all of the principles of the mitzvah] — if they said: There is no (institution of) niddah in the Torah, there is no Shabbath in the Torah, there is no idolatry in the Torah, they are exempt (from an offering), [it being written (Leviticus 4:13): "And there be hidden a thing" — Read it: "And there be hidden from a thing," part of the thing and not the whole thing.] If they ruled to nullify part and to fulfill part, they are liable (for an offering). How so? If they said: There is niddah in the Torah, but one who lives with a woman "who guards a day (of taharah [cleanliness] against a day of tumah [uncleanliness]" is not liable (to kareth). [(The Gemara asks: But guarding a day against a day is written in the Torah, viz. (Leviticus 15:22): "Then she shall count for herself," whence we learn that she counts one (day of taharah) against one (day of tumah), and for anything written in the Torah beth-din do not bring an offering! And the Gemara answers: We are speaking of an instance in which they said that zavah (a woman with a flow) obtains only in the daytime; that is, only when she sees blood in the daytime and not when she sees it at night, it being written (Ibid.) "all the days of her flow")]; (if they said:) there is Shabbath in the Torah, but one who carries from a private domain to a public domain is not liable [i.e., if they said: Bringing in and taking out is forbidden, it being written (Exodus 16:29): "Let no man go out of his place," but throwing and reaching out is permitted.)]; there is idolatry in the Torah, but bowing down is not liable, [i.e., if they said that bowing down where there is prostration of hands and feet is forbidden, it being written (Exodus 34:14): "You shall not bow down to another god," but where there is no prostration it is permitted], they are liable (for an offering), it being written (Leviticus 4:13): "And there be hidden a thing" — a thing and not the whole body (of the mitzvah). [In sum: Beth-din is not liable until they rule (permitted) on a thing that the Sadducees do not concede (as being forbidden; but if they ruled (wrongly) on a thing that the Sadducees concede (as being forbidden), they are exempt from a congregational offering. And, as to the many who transgressed by their ruling, each one is liable to bring an offering for his unwittingness. Why so? For this is an instance of "Go and read it in the house of the master," (i.e., you should have known it.)]

הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין, וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ, וְאָמַר לָהֶן טוֹעִין אַתֶּם, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מֻפְלָא שֶׁל בֵּית דִּין שָׁם, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אַחַד מֵהֶן גֵּר אוֹ מַמְזֵר אוֹ נָתִין אוֹ זָקֵן שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה לוֹ בָנִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן עֵדָה (ויקרא ד) וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (במדבר לה) עֵדָה, מָה עֵדָה הָאֲמוּר לְהַלָּן עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻלָּם רְאוּיִין לְהוֹרָאָה, אַף עֵדָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָאן עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻלָּם רְאוּיִים לְהוֹרָאָה. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין שׁוֹגְגִים וְעָשׂוּ כָל הַקָּהָל שׁוֹגְגִין, מְבִיאִין פָּר. מְזִידִין וְעָשׂוּ שׁוֹגְגִין, מְבִיאִין כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה. שׁוֹגְגִין וְעָשׂוּ מְזִידִין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין:

If beth-din ruled, and one of them knew that they had erred, and he said to them "You are mistaken," or if the mufla of beth-din [the chief justice, the Rosh Yeshiva] were not there, or if one of them were a proselyte, or a mamzer (a bastard), or a Nathin (viz. Joshua 9:27), or an old man who had not seen children [(and who is not fit to judge capital cases, in all likelihood being a stranger to compassion)], they are exempt (from an offering), it being written here "congregation," viz. (Leviticus 4:13): "And if the whole congregation of Israel (the Sanhedrin) err," and, elsewhere, "congregation," viz. (Numbers 35:24): "Then the congregation shall judge." Just as with "congregation" written there, all of them must be fit to rule, [viz. (Ibid. 11:16): "And they (the judges) shall stand there with you (Moses)" ("with you":) — they must be like you), excluding a proselyte, a Nathin, and a mamzer, who are not fit to be appointed to the Sanhedrin], here, too, all of them must be fit to rule. If beth-din ruled unwittingly and all the congregation transgressed unwittingly, they bring a bullock. If deliberately, [i.e., if beth-din knew that it were forbidden] and they (the people) transgressed unwittingly, they (the people) bring a she-lamb and a she-goat. If (beth-din ruled) unwittingly, and they (the people) transgressed wittingly, both are exempt: beth-din, because the people did not transgress because of their ruling, not relying upon beth-din, knowing that they had erred; and the people who transgressed are exempt because they are witting, and all who are witting are not subject to an offering.]

הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין, וְעָשׂוּ כָל הַקָּהָל אוֹ רֻבָּן עַל פִּיהֶם, מְבִיאִין פָּר. וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, מְבִיאִין פַּר וְשָׂעִיר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים מְבִיאִין שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר פָּרִים, וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, מְבִיאִין שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר פָּרִים וּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׂעִירִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר פָּרִים, וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר פָּרִים וּשְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר שְׂעִירִים, פַּר וְשָׂעִיר לְכָל שֵׁבֶט וָשֵׁבֶט, פַּר וְשָׂעִיר לְבֵית דִּין. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין, וְעָשׂוּ שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים אוֹ רֻבָּן עַל פִּיהֶם, מְבִיאִים פָּר, וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְבִיאִין פַּר וְשָׂעִיר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ, מְבִיאִים שִׁבְעָה פָרִים, וּשְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים שֶׁלֹּא חָטְאוּ, מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵיהֶן פַּר, שֶׁאַף אֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא חָטְאוּ, מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵי הַחוֹטְאִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁמֹנָה פָרִים. וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, שְׁמֹנָה פָרִים וּשְׁמֹנָה שְׂעִירִים, פַּר וְשָׂעִיר לְכָל שֵׁבֶט וָשֵׁבֶט, וּפַר וְשָׂעִיר לְבֵית דִּין. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין שֶׁל אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁבָטִים וְעָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט עַל פִּיהֶם, אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט הוּא חַיָּב, וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַשְּׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין חַיָּבִים אֶלָּא עַל הוֹרָיַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ד) וְאִם כָּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ, וְלֹא עֲדַת אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט:

If beth-din ruled and all or most of the congregation transgressed by their ruling, they [beth-din] bring a bullock, [viz. (Leviticus 4:14): "If the sin became known wherein they sinned, then the congregation shall offer a bullock"], and for idolatry they bring a bullock and a he-goat, [viz. (Numbers 15:22): "And if you err and not do all of these mitzvoth" — a mitzvah (i.e., a transgression) which is tantamount to all of these mitzvoth — idolatry. And it is written there (Ibid. 24): "And it shall be, if by the eyes of the congregation (the Sanhedrin) it were done in error, then all the congregation shall offer one young bullock… and one kid of goats as a sin-offering."] These are the words of R. Meir, [R. Meir holding that Leviticus 4:19 refers to unwittingness in respect to the other transgressions, and here (Numbers 15:22), to unwittingness in respect to idolatry. The "congregation" that ruled alone [i.e., the Great Sanhedrin] brings them.] R. Yehudah says: Twelve tribes bring twelve bullocks, [R. Yehudah holding that each tribe is called a "congregation," viz. (II Chronicles 20:5): "And Yehoshafat stood in the congregation of Judah"], and for idolatry they bring twelve bullocks and twelve he-goats. R. Shimon says: Thirteen bullocks, and for idolatry, thirteen he-goats, a bullock and a he-goat for each tribe, and a bullock and a he-goat for beth-din, [R. Shimon holding that a beth-din that erred in its ruling is not atoned for by the bullocks and he-goats of the tribes, but must bring a bullock and a he-goat for themselves.] If beth-din ruled (wrongly) and seven tribes transgressed by their ruling [(seven being the majority of the tribes)] or the majority [of Israel, even if they come from the minority of the tribes, even if one tribe transgressed and they be the majority of Israel], they [all of the other tribes, who did not transgress along with these,] bring a bullock; and, for idolatry, a bullock and a he-goat. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: Seven tribes who sinned bring seven bullocks and the other tribes, who did not sin bring a bullock (each) because of them. For these who did not sin bring because of those who did. R. Shimon says: "Eight bullocks, and, for idolatry, eight bullocks and eight he-goats, a bullock and a he-goat for each tribe and a bullock and a he-goat for beth-din, [R. Shimon holding that those who did not sin do not bring because of those who did. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.] If the beth-din of one of the tribes ruled (wrongly) and that tribe [itself, the majority of Israel,] transgressed by their ruling, that tribe is liable and all of the other tribes are exempt. The sages say: There is no liability except by the ruling of the Great Sanhedrin alone, it being written (Leviticus 4:13): "And if the whole congregation of Israel err" — and not the congregation of that tribe. [The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]