הוריות א׳Horayot 1

Mishnah

משנה: הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין לַעֲבוֹר 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 שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהוֹרָיָיה וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶם בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶם בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה אַחֲרֵיהֶם בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָיב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָלָה בְבֵית דִּין. זֶה הַכְּלָל הַתּוֹלֶה בְעַצְמוֹ חַיָיב וְהַתּוֹלֶה בְבֵית דִּין פָּטוּר:

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled to violate one of the commandments spelled out in the Torah and a single person went and acted inadvertently following their pronouncement, whether they acted and he acted simultaneously with them, or they acted and he followed their example, or they did not act but he did, he is not liable since he depended on the Court. If the Court ruled but one of them knew that they erred, or a student worthy of ordination went and acted following their pronouncement, whether they acted and he acted simultaneously with them, or they acted and he followed their example, or they did not act but he did, he is liable since he did not depend on the Court. This is the principle: The person depending on himself is liable, but one depending on the Court is not liable.

Halakhah

הלכה: הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין כול׳. נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא. אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא. בַּעֲשׂוֹתָהּ תֶּחֱטָא. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ מִיעוּטִין. הַתּוֹלֶה בְעַצְמוֹ חַיָיב וְהַתּוֹלֶה בְבֵית דִּין פָּטוּר. בְּכָל אַתָר אַתָּ מַר. מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט לְרַבּוֹת. וָכָא אַתָּ מַר. מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט לְמָעֵט. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא. דִּכְתִיב מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled.” etc. A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable. Everywhere it is said that a restriction after a restriction is an addition, but here it is said, a restriction after a restriction is to reduce? Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is different here since there is written a restriction after a restriction after a restriction.

רִבִּי חַגַּיי שָׁאַל לַחֲבֵרַיָיה. מְנַיִין לָאוֹכֵל בִּרְשׁוּת שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. מַה בֵּין סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חוּלִין וְנִמְצֵאת תְּרוּמָה שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. מַה בֵּין הַמַּחֲזִיק בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁהוּא כֹהֵן וְנִמְצָא יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. מִן הוֹרָיוֹת בֵּית דִּין. אָמַר לוֹן. אוֹף אֲנָא צְרִיכָא לִי. מַה בֵּין סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חוֹל וְנִמְצֵאת שַׁבָּת שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. מַה בֵּין סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא פֶסַח וְנִמְצָא שְׁלָמִים שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. מִן הַשּׁוֹחֵט בִּרְשׁוּת. אָמַר לוֹן. אוֹף אֲנָא צְרִיכָה לִי. מַה בֵּין סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר וְנִמְצָא אָסוּר שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. מַה בֵּין סָבוּר שֶׁהוּא חֵלֶב וְנִמְצָא שׁוּמָּן שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר. לֹא אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ כְּלוּם. אָמַר לוֹן. נֵימָא לְכוֹן מִינָּן. אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו חַטָּאתוֹ וְהֵבִיא. עָאַל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. קַשִׁי לַן הָדָא מִילְּתָא. אָמַר לוֹן. וְלָמָּה לָא אַגִּיבְתּוֹנֵיהּ מִן הָדָא אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו חַטָּאתוֹ וְהֵבִיא. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ. חַגַּיי קְשִׁיתָהּ חַגַּיי קִיַימְתָּהּ.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues: From where that he who eats with permission be not liable? What is the difference between him who thought that it was profane but it turned out to be heave, who is liable, and him who thought that he was a Cohen but it turned out that he was an Israel, who is not liable? They said to him, by the instruction of the court. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was weekday but it turned out that it was Sabbath, who is liable, and him who thought that it was a Passover sacrifice but it turned out to be a well-being offering, who is not liable. They said to him, because he slaughtered with permission. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was permitted but it turned out to be forbidden, who is liable, and him who thought that it was forbidden fat and it turned out to be permitted fat, who is not liable. They did not answer at all. He told them, let me tell you from myself: Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring. Rebbi Yossi came to visit them; they told him, that problem is hard for us. He asked them, why did you not answer him, or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring? They told him, Ḥaggai asked the question, Ḥaggai gave the answer.

עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּלָא מַפְנֶה אָהֵן קִרְיָיה בִּמְחוּיָיבֵי חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת וַודָּאִין שֶׁעָבַר עֲלֵיהֶן יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דְּמַפְנֶה אָהֵן קִרְיָיה בִּמְחוּיָיבֵי חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת וַודָּאִין שֶׁעָבַר עֲלֵיהֶן יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. דְּתַנֵּי. מְנַיִין לִמְחוּיָיבֵי חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת וַודָּאִין שֶׁעָבַר עֲלֵיהֶן יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים שֶׁהֵן חַיָיבִין לְהָבִיא לְאַחַר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וְחַיְיבֵי אֲשָׁמוֹת תְּלוּיִין פְּטוּרִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו חַטָּאתוֹ וְהֵבִיא. אַף לְאַחַר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. מִן הָדָא. נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא. אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא. בַּעֲשׂוֹתָהּ. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ מִיעוּטִין. הַתּוֹלֶה בְעַצְמוֹ חַיָיב. הַתּוֹלֶה בְבֵית דִּין פָּטוּר.

In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, who does not refer this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, it is understandable. But what is the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, who refers this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, as we have stated: From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable? The verse says, or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring, even after the Day of Atonement. From the following: A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, {but one dependent} on the Court is not liable.

אֵין חַיָיבִין אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה גָלוּי לָהֶן וְנִכְסֶה מֵהֶן. וּמַה טַעַם. וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר. דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה גָלוּי לָהֶן וְנִכְסֶה מֵהֶן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דּוּ אָמַר. וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ. מִכְּלָל שֶׁהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ. וְהוּא יָדַע. הֲרֵי שְׁתֵּי יָדִיעוֹת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה דּוּ אָמַר. וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים. מִכְּלָל שֶׁבָּאת לוֹ יְדִיעָה בַּתְּחִילָּה וִידִיעָה בְסּוֹף וְהֶעֱלֵם בֵּינְתַיִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר. דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה גָלוּי לָהֶם וְנִכְסֶה מֵהֶן.

They only are liable for something that was clear to them and then covered from them. What is the reason? something was hidden, something that was clear to them and then hidden from them. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael who said, it became hidden from him, therefore he had known, and he knew, these are two knowledges. In the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba who said, it became hidden, it became hidden, two times, therefore he had knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end and oblivion in between, something that was clear to them and then hidden from them.

אֵין חַיָיבִין עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵים מִקְצָת. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. וְהֵן שֶׁהוֹרוּ מוּתָּר. אֲבָל אִם הוֹרוּ פָטוּר לֹא בְדָא. אֵין חַיָיבִין עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא הוֹרָיָיה מִלִּישְׁכַּת הָגָּזִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְהַךְ תַנָּיָיא מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְי. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא בַּר תַּנְחוּם. נִכְנְסוּ מֵאָה. עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ כוּלָּן. תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהוּ כוּלָּן מוֹרִין מִצַּד אֶחָד. וָכָא מַה.

They are not liable unless they void part and confirm part. Samuel said, only if they ruled that it was permitted; but not if they ruled that it was not prosecutable. They are not liable unless instruction was given from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of this Tanna: From that place which the Eternal will choose. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they ruled unanimously. There, Rebbi Zeˋira said, only if they all rule for the same reason. And here, what?

הָלַךְ הַיָּחִיד וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג עַל פִּיהֶן. וְכִי יֵשׁ זְדוֹן שְׁגָגָה לְיָחִיד אֶצֶל הוֹרָיַית בֵּית דִּין. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מַתְנִיתָא כְּגוֹן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵיהֶן. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּיוֹדֵעַ כָּל הַתּוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר אֵין זֶה שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי. וְאִם בְּיוֹדֵעַ אוֹתוֹ הַדָּבָר וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ כָּל הַתּוֹרָה שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי הוּא אֶצֶל אוֹתוֹ הַדָּבָר. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַיָימִין בְּיוֹדֵעַ כָּל הַתּוֹרָה וּבְיוֹדֵעַ אוֹתוֹ הַדָּבָר. אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא כְטוֹעֶה לוֹמַר. תּוֹרָה אָמְרָה אַחֲרֵיהֶם אַחֲרֵיהֶם. וְאִם בְּטוֹעֶה לוֹמַר הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה אַחֲרֵיהֶם אַחֲרֵיהֶם. אֵין זֶה שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. יָכוֹל אִם יֹאמְרוּ לָךְ עַל יְמִין שֶׁהִיא שְׂמֹאל וְעַל שְׂמֹאל שֶׁהִיא יְמִין תִּשְׁמַע לָהֶם. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לָלֶכֶת יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל. שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לָךְ עַל יָמִין שֶׁהוּא יָמִין וְעַל שְׂמֹאל שֶׁהִיא שְׂמֹאל. מַאי כְדוֹן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא. לְפִי שֶׁבְּכָל מָקוֹם שׁוֹגֵג פָטוּר וּמֵזִיד חַיָיב. וָכָא אֲפִילוּ מֵזִיד פָּטוּר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתָּלָה בְּבֵית דִּין.

“And a single person went and acted inadvertently following their pronouncement.” Is there an intentional inadvertent action concerning an instruction by the Court? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he knows the entire Torah but does not know this detail, he is not Simeon ben Azzai. If he knows this particular subject but not the entire Torah, he is Simeon ben Azzai for this particular subject. But we must hold that he knows the entire Torah and knows the particular subject, but he errs to believe that the Torah said, after them, after them. If he errs to believe that the Torah said, after them, after them, he is not Simeon ben Azzai. As we have stated, I could think that if they tell you about right that it is left, and about left that it is right, you should listen to them? The verse says, “to go to the right or to the left;” that they should tell you about the right that it is right, and about the left that it is left. What about it? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because everywhere for an inadvertent sin one is not liable but for an intentional one is liable, and here even intentionally he is not liable.

חֲבֵרַיָיא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. יָחִיד מַשְׁלִים לְרוֹב הַצִּיבּוּר הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲבָל כָּל יָחִיד וְיָחִיד שֶׁעָשָׂה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲפִילוּ כָּל יָחִיד וְיָחִיד שֶׁעָשָׂה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ מֵבִיא כִשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל לֹא נִמְצָא כָּל יָחִיד וְיָחִיד מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בִשְׁנֵי חַטָּאוֹת. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. הַיָּחִיד תָלוּי. אָכְלוּ רוֹב. בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין. אָכְלוּ מִיעוּט. הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא. כָּל הַהוֹרָיָיה שֶׁבֵּית דִּין פָּר אֵין הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא כִשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה.

The colleagues in the name of Samuel. The Mishnah deals with an individual who complements the multitude. But any individual who acted on his own is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even any single individual who acted on his own brings a female sheep or goat. It is difficult. In Samuel’s opinion, would any single individual be atoned by two sacrifices? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Samuel: The individual is suspended. If a majority ate, the court brings. If a minority ate, each individual brings. For any ruling for which the court [bring] a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep or goat. For any ruling for which the court bring a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep; for any ruling for which the court does not bring a bull, the individual brings a female sheep or goat. Samuel explains the Mishnah by majority and minority. If a majority ate, since the court does not bring a bull, an individual brings a female sheep or goat.

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא בְּהוֹרָיַית בֵּית דִּין. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין לַעֲקוֹר אֶת כָּל הַגּוּף. הוֹאִיל וּבֵית דִּין מְבִיאִין פָּר אֵין הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא כִשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה. הוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵים מִקְצָת. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין פָּר הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא כִשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה.

Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah by instruction from the Court. If the Court ruled to eliminate the entire body, since the Court has to bring a bull a private person does not have to bring a female sheep or goat. If they ruled to confirm part and to eliminate part, since the Court does not bring a bull a private person has to bring a female sheep or goat.

שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מַתְנִיתָא. אַדַּיִין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מִיעוּט הַקָּהָל שֶׁעָשׂוּ חַיָיבִין שֶׂאֵין בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין עֲלֵיהֶן פָּר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עַם הָאָרֶץ. אֲפִילוּ כוּלּוֹ. אֲפִילוּ רוּבּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא. אַדַּיִין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מִיעוּט הַקָּהָל שֶׁעָשׂוּ בְלֹא הוֹרָיָיה חַיָיבִין. שֶׁכֵּן בְּהוֹרָיָיה אֵין בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין פָּר. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֲבָל הֵן מְבִיאִין כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. לֹא הֵן מְבִיאִין כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל דּוּ יְלִיף לָהּ חַיָיב מֵחַיָיב נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּ יְלִיף לָהּ חִיּוּב מִפְּטוֹר. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה פְלִיגָא עַל שְׁמוּאֵל. אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא וְהֵבִיא. יָצָא הַמְשׁוּמָּר. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל שְׁמוּאֵל. נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא. אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא. בַּעֲשׂוֹתָהּ. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ מִיעוּטִין. הַתּוֹלֶה בְעַצְמוֹ חַיָיב. הַתּוֹלֶה בְבֵית דִּין פָּטוּר. הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל שְׁמוּאֵל וְלֵית לָהּ קִיּוּם.

Samuel spoke about the Mishnah: “I still am saying, if a minority acted they are liable because the Court will not bring a bull for them. The verse says, [from] the people of the Land. Even [all of them] (part of them), even most of them.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah: I still am saying, if a minority acted without ruling they are liable because with instruction the Court will not bring a bull. Samuel said, but they bring a female sheep or goat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they do not bring a female sheep or goat. According to Samuel, who infers liability from liability, it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers liability from exemption? The statement of a baraita disagrees with Samuel. Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; this excludes the apostate. A baraita disagrees with Samuel, “ A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.” This disagrees with Samuel and cannot be confirmed.

Mishnah

משנה: הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְיָדְעוּ שֶׁטָּעוּ וְחָזְרוּ בָהֶן בֵּין שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ כַפָּרָתָן וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאוּ כַפָּרָתָן וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶן רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר וְרִבִּי לִעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר סָפֵק. אֵיזֶהוּ סָפֵק יָשַׁב לוֹ בְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ חַיָיב. הָלַךְ לוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה מוֹדֶה אֲנִי בָזֶה שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לִפְטוֹר מִן הַחוֹבָה. אָמַר לוֹ בֶן עַזַּאי מַה שָׁנָה זֶה מִן הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ שֶׁהַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ אֶיפְשַׁר הָיָה לוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע וְזֶה לֹא הָיָה אֶיפְשַׁר לוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע:

MISHNAH: If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred and reversed themselves; whether they brought their atonement or they did not bring their atonement, another person went and acted on their instructions, Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable, but Rebbi Eliezer says, it is in doubt. What is the doubt? If he remained at home, he is liable; if he went overseas he is not liable. Rebbi Aqiba said, I agree in this case that he is closer to not being liable than being liable. Ben Azzai asked him, what is the difference between him and the one staying at home? For one who stays at home might be informed but the other one could not be informed.

Halakhah

הלכה: הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְיָדְעוּ שֶׁטָּעוּ כול׳. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מַתְנִיתָא כְּגוֹן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵיהֶן. מָה נָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁסִּילְּקָן תְּבַטְּלוּ הוֹרָיָיתָן. אִם בְּשֶׁסִּילְּקוּ אוֹתוֹ תְּבַטֵּל הוֹרָיָיתוֹ. אֶלָּא כִי נָן קַיָימִין בְּשֶׁזֶּה עוֹמֵד בִּתְשׁוּבָתוֹ וָזֶה עוֹמֵד בִּתְשׁוּבָתוֹ. הוֹרָיָיתָן אֶצְלוֹ אֵינָהּ הוֹרָאָה. שֶׁלֹּא סִילְּקוּ אוֹתוֹ. אֶצֶל אֲחֵרִים הוֹרָיָיה. שֶׁלֹּא סִילְּקָן. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי מָנָא בַּר תַּנְחוּם. דְּרִבִּי מָנָא בַּר תַּנְחוּם אָמַר. נִכְנְסוּ מֵאָה. עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ כוּלָּן. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִכְנַס. אִם בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִכְנַס. מְעַכֵּב. פָּתַר לָהּ כְּרִבִּי. דְּרִבִּי אָמַר. אֵין לְךָ מְעַכֵּב אֶלָּא מוּפְלֶא שֶׁלְּבֵית דִּין (בלוד). וְהָא רִבִּי מָנָא בַּר תַּנְחוּם אָמַר. נִכְנְסוּ מֵאָה. עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ כוּלָּן. אַף בַּחֲזִירָה כֵן אוֹ רוֹב. כת פְּשִׁיטָא לָךְ רוֹב. מָה רוֹב. רוֹב הַהוֹרָיָיה רוֹב הַמִּשְׁתַּיֵיר. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. נִכְנְסוּ מֵאָה וּמֵתוּ מֵהֶן עֲשָׂרָה. אִין תֹּאמַר. רוֹב הַהוֹרָיָיה. חֲמִשִּׁים וְאֶחָד. וְאִין תֹּאמַר. רוֹב הַמִּשְׁתַּיֵיר. אַרְבָּעִים וְשִׁשָּׁה.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ. נִתְחָרֵשׁ אוֹ נִשְׁטֶה אוֹ נִשְׁתַּמֵּד אוֹ שֶׁהוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין מוּתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל חֵלֶב. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. נִדְחֵית חַטָּאתוֹ. רִבִּי שְִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לֹא נִדְחֵית חַטָּאתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. רִבִּי אָחָא מַחְלֵף שְׁמוּעָתָא דְלָא אֲתִי מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פְלִיגָא עַל מִילְּתֵיהּ. דָּמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כוס זוֹרְקִין עָלָיו מִדַּם חַטָּאתוֹ וּמִדַּם אֲשָׁמוֹ. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין אָמְרִין. רִבִּי חִיָיה אִמִּי מַחְלֵף. וחַד אָמַר כָּאֵן תַנָּיָיה.

If somebody had selected his purification sacrifice when he became a deaf-mute, or insane, or an apostate, or the Court rules that fat may be eaten, Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sacrifice of purification is pushed aside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sacrifice of purification is not pushed aside. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Aḥa switches traditions, to avoid that a word of Rebbi Joḥanan contradict his own word. For Rebbi Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One sprinkles the blood of a purification sacrifice or a reparation sacrifice for a person [terminally ill]. The Rebbi of Caesarea said, Rebbi Ḥiyya and [Rebbi] Immi, [one] switches and one says like [this] Tanna.

מָאן דְּמַחְלֵף לֵית לֵיהּ בְּאִילֵּין קִישׁוּאַיָיה. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. לֹא נִדְחֵית חַטָּאתוֹ. מִי מְקַבְּלָהּ הֵימֶינּוּ. יַמְתִּין עַד שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ בָהֶן בֵּית דִּין. אֶלָּא כְשֶׁהָיָה כֹהֵן עָבַד וְהִקְרִיב וְכִיפֵּר. הָיָה שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי. מִי מְקַבְּלָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ. יַמְתִּין עַד שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ בָהֶן בֵּית דִּין. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. לֹא נִדְחֵית חַטָּאתוֹ.

He who switches has none of these difficulties. For him who says, his sacrifice of purification is not pushed aside, who would accept it from him? He has to wait until the Court retracts, or if he was a Cohen who served, sacrificed, and atoned. If he was Simeon ben Azzai, who would accept it from him? He has to wait until the Court retracts, for him who says, his sacrifice of purification is not pushed aside.

תּוֹלְדוֹת הוֹרָיָיה כְהוֹרָיָיה. הוֹרָיָיה בְהוֹרָיָיה מָה הֵן שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. אָכְלוּ צִיבּוּר חֲלָבִים וְהִפְרִישׁוּ קָרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן. אִין תֵּימַר. תּוֹלְדוֹת הוֹרָיָיה כְהוֹרָיָיה. בֵּית דִּין חַיָיבִין. אִין תֵּימַר. אֵין תּוֹלְדוֹת הוֹרָיָיה כְהוֹרָיָיה. בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. כתי פְּשִׁיטָא לָךְ. תּוֹלְדוֹת הוֹרָיָיה כְהוֹרָיָיה. הוֹרָיָיה בְהוֹרָיָיה מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין. חֵלֶב כּוּלְיָיא שֶׁלְּיָמִין מוּתָּר וְשֶׁלִּשְׂמֹאל ולו מִכְסֶה אָסוּר. חָזְרוּ וְהֶחֱלִיפוּ. אָכְלוּ רוֹב בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וָרוֹב בַּשְּׁנִיָיה. אִין תֵּימַר. מִצְטָרְפִין. חַיָיבִין אַחַת. וְאִין תֵּימַר. אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. חַיָיבִין שְׁתַיִם. שְׁתֵּי הוֹרָיוֹת בָּעֲבוֹדָה אַחַת מָה הֵן שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. אָכְלוּ רוֹב וְשָׁחֲטוּ רוֹב. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר חַיָיבִין אַחַת. וְעַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חַיָיבִין שְׁתַּיִם. אָכְלוּ מִיעוּט בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּמִיעוּט בַּשְּׁנִיָיה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר חַיָיבִין. וְעַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פְּטוּרִין.

Are consequences of a ruling like the ruling? Do ruling within ruling combine? How is that? If the public ate forbidden fat and designated their sacrifices. If you say that consequences of a ruling are like the ruling, the Court is liable. If you say that consequences of a ruling are not like the ruling, the Court is not liable. The following should be obvious to you: the consequences of a ruling are like the ruling. Do ruling within ruling combine with each other? How is that? If the Court ruled that the fat in the right side kidney was permitted but that of the left side and its cover was forbidden; then they reversed themselves and said the opposite. Most ate the first time, and most the second time. If you say that they combine, they are liable for one. But if you say that they do not combine, they are liable for two. Do two instructions about one kind of work combine? How is that? If a majority ate and a majority slaughtered. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion they are once liable; in Rebbi Simeon’s opinion they are twice liable. If a minority ate the first time and a minority the second time. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion they are liable; in Rebbi Simeon’s opinion they are not liable.

אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְשָׁהוּת בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שָׁהוּת עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁפַּע. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין בְּשׁוּק הָעֶלְיוֹן וְיָחִיד בְּשׁוּק הַתַּחְתּוֹן. בֵּית דִּין בַּבַּיִת וְיָחִיד בָּעֲלִיּיָה. פָּטוּר עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע מַמָּשׁ.

Rebbi Zeˋira said, the time span is between them. Rebbi Meïr said, one gives him time until he may hear. Rebbi Simeon said, until he must have heard, and we have stated so: If the Court instructed in the upper market and a single person was in the lower market, or the Court on the ground floor and a single person on the upper floor, he is not liable until he actually heard.

עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אַדַּיִין הוּא סָפֵק. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה. בָּעוֹמֵד בֵּין שְׁנֵי תְחוּמִין. בֵּין שְׁנֵי תְחוּמֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לִתְחוּמֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

In Rebbi Aqiba’s opinion it remains a doubt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, if he stands between two domains, between two domains of the Land of Israel and domains of the Land of Israel.

רִבִּי אִמִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. לַהוֹרָיָיה הִילְּכוּ אַחַר יְשִׁיבַת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. לַטוּמְאָה הִילְּכוּ אַחַר רוֹב נִכְנָסִין לָעֲזָרָה. מַה. כָּל כַּת וָכַת מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹ אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִין אֶלָּא כַּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בִלְבַד. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. עַד שֶׁהֵן מִבַּחוּץ הֵן מְשַׁעֲרִין עַצְמָן. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. לִרְאִיָיה הִילְּכוּ מִלְּבוֹא חֲמַת עַד נַחַל מִצְרַיִם. רִבִּי תַנְחוּמָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוּנָא. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי וַיַּעַשׂ שְׁלֹמֹה בָעֵת הַהִיא אֶת הֶחָג וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמּוֹ וגו׳.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. For instructions they considered the settlement of the Land of Israel. For impurity they considered the majority of those coming to the Temple precinct. How? Do they estimate every group or only the first group? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, when they are still outside they estimate themselves. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For appearance they consider from Levo- Ḥamat to the brook of Egypt. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: The reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is, at that time Solomon celebrated the holiday, and all of Israel, etc.