This week’s learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. “My dear uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday’s daf, go to the previous daf.
There are multiple opinions regarding who is responsible for bringing the communal sin offering. Is it the Sanhedrin that offers it? Do individual tribes that sinned each bring their own offering? Could it be both? If only some tribes transgressed, are the others still obligated to bring a bull offering? And is a communal offering required only when the Sanhedrin haGadol issues a mistaken ruling?
What are the Torah sources and rabbinic interpretations that support these different views?
This week’s learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. “My dear uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah.”
Horayot 5
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר פָּרִים, וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר פָּרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שְׂעִירִים, פַּר וְשָׂעִיר לְכׇל שֵׁבֶט וְשֵׁבֶט, פַּר וְשָׂעִיר לְבֵית דִּין.
Rabbi Shimon says: They bring thirteen bulls; and for idol worship they bring thirteen bulls and thirteen goats, a bull and a goat for each and every tribe and a bull and a goat for the court.
הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין וְעָשׂוּ שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים אוֹ רוּבָּן עַל פִּיהֶן – מְבִיאִין פַּר, וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – מְבִיאִין פַּר וְשָׂעִיר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ – מְבִיאִין שִׁבְעָה פָּרִים, וּשְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים שֶׁלֹּא חָטְאוּ – מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵיהֶן פַּר, שֶׁאַף אֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא חָטְאוּ מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵי חוֹטְאִין. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁמוֹנָה פָּרִים, וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – שְׁמוֹנָה פָּרִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה שְׂעִירִים, פַּר וְשָׂעִיר לְכׇל שֵׁבֶט וְשֵׁבֶט, פַּר וְשָׂעִיר לְבֵית דִּין.
The mishna continues: If the judges of the court issued a ruling, and at least seven tribes, or a majority of each of those tribes, performed a transgression on the basis of their ruling, the judges bring a bull; and for idol worship they bring a bull and a goat. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The seven tribes that sinned bring seven bulls, i.e., each tribe brings one bull, and each of the rest of the tribes, i.e., those that did not sin, brings one bull on the basis of the sin of the other tribes, as even those who did not sin bring an offering on the basis of the actions of the sinners. Rabbi Shimon says: When seven tribes sin eight bulls are brought as offerings, one bull for each and every tribe and one bull for the court. And for idol worship, eight bulls and eight goats are brought, one bull and one goat for each and every tribe and one bull and one goat for the court.
הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁבָטִים, וְעָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט עַל פִּיהֶן – אוֹתוֹ שֵׁבֶט הוּא חַיָּיב, וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַשְּׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל הוֹרָיוֹת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם כׇּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ״, וְלֹא עֲדַת אוֹתוֹ שֵׁבֶט.
If the court of one of the tribes issued a ruling and the majority of that tribe performed a transgression on the basis of its ruling, that tribe is liable to bring an offering and the rest of all the tribes are exempt; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: One is liable to bring an offering for an unwitting communal sin only for rulings of the High Court alone, as it is stated: “And if the entire assembly of Israel shall act unwittingly” (Leviticus 4:13), from which it is derived that there is liability only for a ruling of the assembly, i.e., the court, of the entire people, but not for a ruling of the assembly of that particular tribe.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָדְעוּ שֶׁהוֹרוּ, וְטָעוּ מָה הוֹרוּ, יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנוֹדְעָה הַחַטָּאת״, וְלֹא שֶׁיִּוָּדְעוּ הַחוֹטְאִין.
GEMARA: The Gemara elaborates on the dispute cited in the mishna. The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where the judges knew that they issued an erroneous ruling, and erred in remembering which erroneous ruling they issued, one might have thought that they would be liable to bring an offering for this. The verse states: “And the sin that they sinned became known, the congregation shall sacrifice” (Leviticus 4:14), indicating that liability is only in a case where the sin became known to the court that issued the erroneous ruling, and not in a case where it became known only to the sinners. In this case, the sinners are certain that they sinned, but the court does not know the sin with regard to which it issued the ruling.
״אֲשֶׁר חָטְאוּ״, חָטְאוּ שְׁנֵי שְׁבָטִים – מְבִיאִין שְׁנֵי פָרִים, חָטְאוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה – מְבִיאִין שְׁלֹשָׁה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר אֶלָּא חָטְאוּ שְׁנֵי יְחִידִים – מְבִיאִין שְׁנֵי פָרִים, חָטְאוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה – מְבִיאִין שְׁלֹשָׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַקָּהָל״, הַקָּהָל חַיָּיב, וְכׇל קָהָל וְקָהָל חַיָּיב, כֵּיצַד? חָטְאוּ שְׁנֵי שְׁבָטִים – מְבִיאִין שְׁנֵי פָרִים, חָטְאוּ שִׁבְעָה – מְבִיאִין שִׁבְעָה, וּשְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים שֶׁלֹּא חָטְאוּ – מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵיהֶן פַּר פַּר, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא חָטְאוּ מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵי הַחוֹטְאִין, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״קָהָל״ לְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל קָהָל וְקָהָל. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
From the phrase “that they sinned” it is derived: If two tribes sinned they bring two bulls, one from each tribe; if three tribes sinned they bring three bulls, one from each tribe. Or perhaps that phrase says only that if two individuals sinned they bring two bulls, one from each individual; if three individuals sinned they bring three bulls, one from each individual. Therefore, the verse states: “The congregation,” from which it is derived: The congregation is liable, and each and every congregation is liable. How so? If two tribes sinned they bring two bulls. If seven tribes sinned they bring seven bulls. And each of the rest of the tribes that did not sin brings one bull on the basis of the sin of the other tribes, as even those tribes that did not sin bring an offering on the basis of the actions of the sinners. For that reason “congregation” is stated in the verse, to render each and every congregation liable. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ – מְבִיאִין שִׁבְעָה פָּרִים, וּבֵית דִּין מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵיהֶן פַּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְמַטָּה ״קָהָל״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְמַעְלָה ״קָהָל״. מָה ״קָהָל״ הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה – בֵּית דִּין עִם הַקָּהָל, אַף ״קָהָל״ הָאָמוּר לְמַטָּה – בֵּית דִּין עִם הַקָּהָל.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: Seven tribes that sinned bring seven bulls, and the court brings one bull on the basis of their actions, as the term “congregation” is stated below: “The congregation shall sacrifice” (Leviticus 4:14), and the term “congregation” is stated above: “And the matter is hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Leviticus 4:13). Just as with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated above the reference is to the court, i.e., “the eyes of the congregation,” together with “the congregation,” so too, with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated below, with regard to liability to bring an offering the reference is to the court together with the congregation.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ – בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵיהֶם פַּר, וְהֵן פְּטוּרִין, נֶאֱמַר ״קָהָל״ לְמַטָּה וְנֶאֱמַר ״קָהָל״ לְמַעְלָה, מָה ״קָהָל״ הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה – בֵּית דִּין וְלֹא צִבּוּר, אַף ״קָהָל״ הָאָמוּר לְמַטָּה – בֵּית דִּין וְלֹא צִבּוּר.
Rabbi Meir says: In the case of seven tribes that sinned, the court brings a bull on the basis of their sin and the members of the tribe are exempt, as the term “congregation” is stated below: “The congregation shall sacrifice” (Leviticus 4:14), and the term “congregation” is stated above: “And the matter is hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Leviticus 4:13). Just as with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated above the reference is to the court and not to the public, so too, with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated below the reference is to the court and not to the public.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ: חָטְאוּ שִׁשָּׁה שְׁבָטִים וְהֵם רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל קָהָל, אוֹ שִׁבְעָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל קָהָל – מְבִיאִין פַּר.
The baraita concludes: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, or if seven tribes, which constitute a majority of the tribes, sinned, even though in terms of population they do not constitute a majority of the congregation, the court brings a bull.
אָמַר מָר: ״וְנוֹדְעָה הַחַטָּאת״ – וְלֹא שֶׁיִּוָּדְעוּ הַחוֹטְאִין. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְאִיתֵּימָא רָבָא: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דִּתְנַן,
The Gemara proceeds to analyze the baraita. The Master said: “And the sin that they sinned became known,” indicating that liability is only in a case where the sin became known to the court that issued the erroneous ruling and not in a case where it became known only to the sinners. Who is the tanna whose opinion is expressed here? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say it was Rava who said, that this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a baraita that there is a dispute with regard to one who had two pieces before him, one of them prohibited because it is forbidden fat and one of them prohibited because it is left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar], and he ate one, but does not know whether he ate the forbidden fat or the notar.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִם חֵלֶב אָכַל – חַיָּיב, נוֹתָר אָכַל – חַיָּיב.
Rabbi Eliezer says: Whichever way you look at it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If it was forbidden fat that he ate he is liable, and if it was notar that he ate he is liable. Therefore, he must bring an offering. Likewise, in the case in the baraita, since the court issued an erroneous ruling and it is known that the erroneous ruling was with regard to a matter for which it is liable to bring an offering, according to Rabbi Eliezer it should make no difference that they do not know the precise nature of their error, and they should be liable to bring an offering. Nevertheless, the ruling in the baraita is that they are exempt, counter to what one would expect to be the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר חָטְאוּ עָלֶיהָ״. הָתָם נָמֵי הָכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר חָטָא בָּהּ״! הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: פְּרָט לַמִּתְעַסֵּק.
Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one can explain the ruling of the baraita. Here, in the baraita, it is different, as it is written: “And the sin that they sinned became known” (Leviticus 4:14). The verse underscores that the judges must be aware of the specific sin for which they are liable to bring an offering. The Gemara asks: There too, with regard to an individual sin-offering, isn’t it written: “Or if his sin that he sinned became known to him” (Leviticus 4:23), leading to the same conclusion? The Gemara answers: In the case of the individual sin-offering, that expression is necessary for the tanna to exclude one who acts unawares. One is liable to bring a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression only if he performs the action with intent.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? קָסָבַר: אַרְבָּעָה קְהָלֵי כְּתִיבִי – ״קָהָל״, ״הַקָּהָל״, ״קָהָל״, ״הַקָּהָל״.
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that even one tribe that sinned is liable to bring an offering? The Gemara answers that he holds: There are four mentions of the term congregation written: Congregation, the congregation, congregation, the congregation. The term “the congregation” appears in both verses. Since the Torah could have written the term: Congregation, in both instances, Rabbi Yehuda derives two matters from each of the two terms, one from the term “congregation” itself, and another from the fact that it is written with the definitive article “the.”
חַד לְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל קָהָל וְקָהָל, וְחַד לְהוֹרָאָה תְּלוּיָה בְּבֵית דִּין וּמַעֲשֶׂה תָּלוּי בַּקָּהָל. וְחַד לִגְרִירָה. וְחַד לְשֵׁבֶט שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין.
One serves to render each and every congregation liable, as a tribe is also called a congregation; and one serves to establish that the ruling is dependent on the court and the action is dependent on the congregation; and one serves to teach the concept of drawing, i.e., a tribe that did not sin is drawn after a tribe that sinned and is liable to bring an offering; and one serves to teach that a tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court is liable to bring a bull as an unwitting communal sin-offering.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תְּלָתָא קְהָלֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״הַקָּהָל״, ״קָהָל״, ״הַקָּהָל״. ״מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל״ אוֹרְחֵיהּ דִּקְרָא הוּא, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: מֵעֵינֵי דִּפְלָנְיָא.
And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that seven tribes that sinned bring seven bulls and the court brings one bull? He holds that there are three mentions of the term congregation written. The first two are: The congregation, congregation, which he interprets in the manner that Rabbi Yehuda interpreted. He counts the third and last mention of the term: The congregation, as in the verse: “From the eyes of the congregation.” This is written in the typical manner of the verse, as people say: From the eyes of so-and-so, and the definitive article “the” does not serve to teach another halakha.
חַד לְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל קָהָל וְקָהָל, וּתְרֵי אַחֲרִינֵי: נֶאֱמַר לְמַטָּה ״קָהָל״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְמַעְלָה ״קָהָל״, מָה לְהַלָּן בֵּית דִּין עִם הַקָּהָל – אַף כָּאן בֵּית דִּין עִם הַקָּהָל.
Of those three, one serves to render each and every congregation liable, as a tribe is also called congregation, and the other two come so that a verbal analogy can be derived: The term “congregation” is stated below, and the term “congregation” is stated above. Just as with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated there, above, the reference is to the court, i.e., “the eyes of the congregation,” together with the congregation, so too, with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated here concerning liability to bring an offering, the reference is to the court together with the congregation.
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, ״קָהָל״ ״הַקָּהָל״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ, הִלְכָּךְ תְּרֵי קְהָלֵי כְּתִיבִי. מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: לְנֶאֱמַר לְמַטָּה ״קָהָל״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְמַעְלָה ״קָהָל״, מָה לְהַלָּן בֵּית דִּין וְלֹא צִבּוּר – אַף כָּאן בֵּית דִּין וְלֹא צִבּוּר.
And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the court brings a bull on the basis of its sin and the members of the tribe are exempt? He does not derive a halakha from the difference between the terms “congregation” and “the congregation.” He does not consider the addition of the definite article to be significant. Therefore, he holds that there are two mentions of the term congregation written. They are necessary for him to derive: The term “congregation” is stated below, and the term “congregation” is stated above. Just as with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated there, above, the reference is to the court and not to the public, so too with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated here, below, the reference is to the court and not to the public.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר מַאי טַעְמָא? כְּתִיב: ״וְהָיָה אִם מֵעֵינֵי הָעֵדָה״ – אַלְמָא מִיעוּטָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵעֵינֵי״. וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לְכׇל הָעָם בִּשְׁגָגָה״, לְמֵימְרָא דְּרוּבָּא – אִין, מִיעוּטָא – לָא.
And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds that if six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, or if seven tribes sinned even though in terms of population they do not constitute a majority of the congregation, the court brings a bull? It is written: “Then it shall be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Numbers 15:24). Apparently, the reference is even to a minority of the people, as “from the eyes” is written, indicating: Not all of them, but some of them. And it is written: “As for all the people it was performed unwittingly” (Numbers 15:26), to say that based on the principle: The halakhic status of a majority is like that of the entirety, if the majority of the congregation sinned, then yes, the court is liable to bring an offering. If the minority sinned, then no, the court is not liable.
הָא כֵּיצַד? עָשׂוּ שִׁשָּׁה וְהֵן רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל קָהָל, אוֹ שִׁבְעָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל קָהָל – חַיָּיבִין.
How so? How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? The Gemara explains: If six tribes sinned and they constitute a majority of the congregation, or if seven tribes sinned, even though in terms of population they do not constitute a majority of the congregation, the court is liable to bring a bull. Although in both cases they are not a majority in every sense, the court is liable, as a reference to the minority is also indicated in the verse.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּהוֹרָאָה תְּלוּיָה בְּבֵית דִּין וּמַעֲשֶׂה תָּלוּי בַּקָּהָל, מְנָא לְהוּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיָה אִם מֵעֵינֵי הָעֵדָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה לִשְׁגָגָה״. רָבָא אָמַר: ״מִלְּכׇל הָעָם בִּשְׁגָגָה״.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir, from where do they derive the fact that the ruling is dependent on the court and the action is dependent on the congregation? Abaye said that they derive it from a verse, as the verse states in the passive form: “Then it shall be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Number 15:24), indicating that the action of the congregation was generated by the ruling of the court. Rava said: It is derived from that which is stated: “For all the people it was performed unwittingly” (Numbers 15:26). The term “all the people” indicates that the unwitting action is common to all, the court through its ruling and the people through their action.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְהָיָה אִם מֵעֵינֵי הָעֵדָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה לִשְׁגָגָה״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אֲפִילּוּ מִיעוּטָא, לְהָכִי כְּתִיב ״לְכׇל הָעָם בִּשְׁגָגָה״. וְאִי כְּתַב ״לְכׇל הָעָם בִּשְׁגָגָה״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: עַד דְּעָבְדִי בֵּית דִּין בַּהֲדֵי רוּבָּא, לְהָכִי כְּתִיב ״וְהָיָה אִם מֵעֵינֵי הָעֵדָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה לִשְׁגָגָה״.
The Gemara notes: And both of the verses are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written only: “Then it shall be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Number 15:24), I would say: There is liability to bring an offering even if only a minority of the congregation sinned. Therefore, it is written: “For all the people it was performed unwittingly.” And had the Merciful One written only: “For all the people it was performed unwittingly,” I would say: There is no liability unless the court performs the transgression together with the majority of the congregation, as the verse appears to refer to a single unwitting action. Therefore, it is written: “Then it shall be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation,” indicating that the unwitting act was performed on the basis of the ruling of the court, and the action of the court is not significant in this regard.
וְהָא כִּי כְּתִיבִי הָנֵי קְרָאֵי בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא דִּכְתִיבִי. יָלְפִינַן ״מֵעֵינֵי״ ״מֵעֵינָי״.
The Gemara challenges: But when these verses are written, they are written with regard to an erroneous ruling involving idol worship, not concerning erroneous rulings involving other transgressions. The Gemara explains: We derive it by means of a verbal analogy between “from the eyes of the congregation” written with regard to other transgressions, and “from the eyes of the congregation” written concerning idol worship.
הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל אֶחָד וְכוּ׳. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל, מִי מַיְיתוּ שְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים אוֹ לָא? מִי אָמְרִינַן: שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים הוּא דְּמַיְיתוּ שְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא רוּבָּא, אֲבָל חַד שֵׁבֶט, דְּלֵיכָּא רוּבָּא – לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא!
§ The mishna teaches: If the court of one of the tribes issued a ruling, and the majority of that tribe performed a transgression on the basis of its ruling, that tribe is liable to bring an offering and the rest of all the tribes are exempt; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Yehuda, in the case of one tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, are the other tribes liable to bring an offering or not? The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that it is specifically in a case where seven tribes sinned that other tribes each bring an offering together with them because there is a majority of the tribes that sinned, but in a case where only one tribe sinned, where there is no majority of the tribes that sinned, they do not? Or perhaps it is no different, and the other tribes are drawn after even one tribe.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מָה הֵן מְבִיאִין? פַּר אֶחָד, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי פָרִים. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא שֶׁחָטְאוּ שִׁבְעָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תְּמָנְיָא בָּעֵי! אֶלָּא דְּחָטָא שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד. בְּמַאי? אִי בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּינוֹ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear resolution of this dilemma from a baraita, which teaches: What do they bring? They bring one bull; Rabbi Shimon says: Two bulls. The Gemara elaborates: What are we dealing with in this baraita? If we say the reference is to a case where seven tribes sinned, Rabbi Shimon requires eight bulls, one for each tribe that sinned and one for the court. Rather, the reference must be to a case where one tribe sinned. The Gemara clarifies: In what circumstances did the tribe sin? If the tribe sinned on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court, Rabbi Shimon does not accept the halakha that an erroneous ruling of the tribal court renders them liable to bring an offering. Rather, is it not so that they sinned on the basis of a ruling of the High Court?
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא מַנִּי? אִי נֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא רוּבָּא בָּעֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁחָטָא שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד.
The Gemara asks: And who is the first tanna, who says that they must bring one bull? If we say it is Rabbi Meir, that is difficult: Doesn’t he require that the majority perform a transgression in order for a bull to be brought? A transgression performed by one tribe does not suffice. Rather, is the first tanna not Rabbi Yehuda, and the reference is to a case where one tribe sinned and he deems it liable to bring one bull, and the remaining tribes are not liable to bring an offering.
אָמְרִי, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָטְאוּ שִׁשָּׁה שְׁבָטִים וְהֵן רוּבָּן שֶׁל קָהָל, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ: חָטְאוּ שִׁשָּׁה וְהֵן רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל קָהָל, אוֹ שִׁבְעָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל קָהָל – מְבִיאִין פַּר.
The Gemara rejects this proof and says there is an alternative explanation of the baraita. What are we dealing with here? With a case where six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, and the first tanna in the baraita is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, or if seven tribes, which constitute a majority of the tribes, sinned, even though in terms of population they do not constitute a majority of the congregation, the court brings a bull.
תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שֵׁבֶט שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּינוֹ – אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט חַיָּיב, וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַשְּׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִין. וּבְהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל – אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים חַיָּיבִים. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita, which teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of a ruling of its tribal court, that tribe is liable and all the rest of the tribes are exempt. But if it was on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, even the rest of the tribes are liable. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the other tribes are liable in a case where one tribe performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: וְעָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט עַל פִּיהֶם – אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט חַיָּיב וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַשְּׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִין. לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנָא וּשְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִים? הָא תְּנָא אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט חַיָּיב, וְכֵיוָן דִּתְנָא אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט חַיָּיב, מִמֵּילָא יָדַעְנָא שְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִין! אֶלָּא הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לָן, בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּינוֹ הוּא דִּשְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִים, אֲבָל בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל – אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים חַיָּיבִין. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise in support of that conclusion, as the tanna teaches: If the court of one of the tribes issued an erroneous ruling and the majority of that tribe performed a transgression on the basis of its ruling, that tribe is liable to bring an offering and all the rest of the tribes are exempt. He explains: Why do I need the tanna to teach: And the rest of the tribes are exempt? Didn’t he already teach: That tribe is liable? And since he teaches: That tribe is liable, we know automatically that the rest of the tribes are exempt. Rather, this tanna is teaching us that it is specifically in a case where the tribe performed an unwitting transgression on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court that the rest of the tribes are exempt; but in a case where the tribe performed an unwitting transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, even the rest of the tribes are liable. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the mishna that this is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִי מַיְיתֵי אוֹ לָא?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where one tribe performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, according to Rabbi Shimon are they liable to bring an offering or not?
תָּא שְׁמַע: מָה הֵן מְבִיאִין? פַּר אֶחָד, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי פָרִים. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא שֶׁחָטְאוּ שִׁבְעָה – שְׁנֵי פָרִים? שְׁמֹנָה פָּרִים בָּעֵי! אֶלָּא דְּחָטָא שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד, וּבְמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּינוֹ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the baraita cited earlier: What do they bring? They bring one bull; Rabbi Shimon says: Two bulls. The Gemara elaborates: What are we dealing with in this baraita? If we say that the reference is to a case where seven tribes sinned, that is difficult. In that case, are two bulls brought? Eight bulls are required according to Rabbi Shimon. Rather, the reference is to a case where one tribe sinned. The Gemara clarifies: And in what circumstances did the tribe sin? If we say that the tribe sinned on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court, Rabbi Shimon does not accept the halakha that an erroneous ruling of the tribal court renders them liable to bring an offering. Rather, the circumstances are that they sinned on the basis of a ruling of the High Court. Apparently, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that in this case one tribe brings an offering.
וְתִסְבְּרָא: תַּנָּא קַמָּא מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר – הָא רוּבָּא בָּעֵי, אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – שְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים נָמֵי מַיְיתוּ! אֶלָּא הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, וְכִדְתַנְיָא.
The Gemara rejects this proof: And how can you understand that this is the reference? Who, then, is the first tanna who says that they must bring one bull? If it is Rabbi Meir, that is difficult. Doesn’t he require that the majority and not just one tribe perform a transgression in order for there to be liability? If it is Rabbi Yehuda, that is also difficult, as in his opinion the rest of the tribes are also liable to bring an offering. Rather, who is the first tanna of this baraita? The first tanna is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and the reference is to a case where six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, and this baraita is as it is taught in the baraita cited earlier. In that case, Rabbi Shimon holds that two bulls are brought, one by the congregation and one by the court. No proof may be cited from here with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of one tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of a ruling of the High Court.
תָּא שְׁמַע, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל הוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל. מַאן חֲכָמִים? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, רוּבָּא בָּעֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from the mishna, which teaches: And the Rabbis say: One tribe is never liable, other than for violating a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court. The Gemara clarifies: Who are the Rabbis cited in the mishna? If we say that the Rabbis are Rabbi Meir, he requires that a majority perform a transgression in order to be liable. Rather, is it not that the Rabbis are Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that Rabbi Shimon holds that one tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court is liable to bring a bull.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד דְּאִקְּרִי קָהָל מְנָא לְהוּ? אָמְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲמֹד יְהוֹשָׁפָט בִּקְהַל יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִַים (נָכַח חֲצַר בֵּית ה׳) [בְּבֵית ה׳ לִפְנֵי הֶחָצֵר] הַחֲדָשָׁה״. מַאי ״חֲדָשָׁה״? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, שֶׁחִידְּשׁוּ דְּבָרִים וְאָמְרוּ: טְבוּל יוֹם, אַל יִכָּנֵס בְּמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה.
§ The Gemara elaborates on a matter raised earlier. And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who hold one tribe that performs a transgression liable, from where do they derive that one tribe is characterized as a congregation? The Sages say that it is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem before the new courtyard in the house of the Lord” (II Chronicles 20:5). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “new” in this verse? Rabbi Yoḥanan says that on that occasion they introduced new matters and said: One who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed may not enter even the Levite camp. From the fact that the verse employs the term “congregation” in reference to Judah and Jerusalem, it can be inferred that one tribe is characterized as a congregation.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, דַּהֲוָה נָמֵי בִּנְיָמִין! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי הִנְנִי מַפְרְךָ וְהִרְבִּיתִךָ וּנְתַתִּיךָ לִקְהַל עַמִּים וְגוֹ׳״ מַאן אִתְיְלִיד לֵיהּ הָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא? בִּנְיָמִין, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: מִתְיְלִיד לָךְ הַשְׁתָּא קָהָל אַחֲרִינָא.
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to this: From where do you draw this conclusion? Perhaps Jerusalem is different, as Jerusalem was also in the tribal land of Benjamin. Accordingly, it was shared by two tribes. Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that proof that a tribe is characterized as a congregation is derived from another verse, as it is written that Jacob recounted what God said to him when he returned from Paddan: “And said to me: Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a congregation of peoples” (Genesis 48:4). Who was born to him from that time on? Only Benjamin. Conclude from it that this is what the Merciful One is saying to Jacob: Another congregation shall be now born to you. Apparently, one tribe is characterized as a congregation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שַׁבָּא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא, דִּלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא: לְכִי מִתְיְלִיד לָךְ בִּנְיָמִין, הוּא דְּהָווּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים דְּמִתְקַרְיַית קָהָל! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶלָּא שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים אִיקְּרוּ קָהָל, אַחַד עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים לֹא אִיקְּרוּ קָהָל?
Rav Shabba said to Rav Kahana: Perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying to Jacob: It is when Benjamin is born to you that you will have twelve tribes, who are together characterized as a congregation. Rav Kahana said to him: But is that to say that twelve tribes are characterized as a congregation, and eleven tribes are not characterized as a congregation? It has already been established that even two tribes are characterized as a congregation. Rather, it is apparent from this verse that even one tribe is characterized as a congregation.
תַּנְיָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״? אִם לְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֵם שְׁנַיִם, וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת הָאֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶת הָאֶחָד עֹלָה לַה׳״! [אֶלָּא] יָכוֹל [תְּהֵא] נֶאֱכֶלֶת חַטָּאת לַלְוִיִּם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי״ – שֵׁנִי לָעוֹלָה, מָה עוֹלָה לָא נֶאֱכֶלֶת,
§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And a second young bull shall you take as a sin-offering” (Numbers 8:8), in the context of the purification of the Levites in the aftermath of the sin of the Golden Calf? If this is written to teach that they are two, i.e., that there is an additional bull sacrificed, isn’t it already stated: “And sacrifice the one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering, unto the Lord” (Numbers 8:12)? Rather, one might have thought that the sin-offering that is sacrificed for the Levites shall be eaten like other sin-offerings. To counter this, the verse states: “And a second bull,” to underscore that it is second to the burnt-offering and similar to it: Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten,
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: A Decree that the Majority Cannot Fulfill
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
Minnesota, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Horayot 5
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר פָּרִים, וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר פָּרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שְׂעִירִים, פַּר וְשָׂעִיר לְכׇל שֵׁבֶט וְשֵׁבֶט, פַּר וְשָׂעִיר לְבֵית דִּין.
Rabbi Shimon says: They bring thirteen bulls; and for idol worship they bring thirteen bulls and thirteen goats, a bull and a goat for each and every tribe and a bull and a goat for the court.
הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין וְעָשׂוּ שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים אוֹ רוּבָּן עַל פִּיהֶן – מְבִיאִין פַּר, וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – מְבִיאִין פַּר וְשָׂעִיר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ – מְבִיאִין שִׁבְעָה פָּרִים, וּשְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים שֶׁלֹּא חָטְאוּ – מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵיהֶן פַּר, שֶׁאַף אֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא חָטְאוּ מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵי חוֹטְאִין. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁמוֹנָה פָּרִים, וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – שְׁמוֹנָה פָּרִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה שְׂעִירִים, פַּר וְשָׂעִיר לְכׇל שֵׁבֶט וְשֵׁבֶט, פַּר וְשָׂעִיר לְבֵית דִּין.
The mishna continues: If the judges of the court issued a ruling, and at least seven tribes, or a majority of each of those tribes, performed a transgression on the basis of their ruling, the judges bring a bull; and for idol worship they bring a bull and a goat. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The seven tribes that sinned bring seven bulls, i.e., each tribe brings one bull, and each of the rest of the tribes, i.e., those that did not sin, brings one bull on the basis of the sin of the other tribes, as even those who did not sin bring an offering on the basis of the actions of the sinners. Rabbi Shimon says: When seven tribes sin eight bulls are brought as offerings, one bull for each and every tribe and one bull for the court. And for idol worship, eight bulls and eight goats are brought, one bull and one goat for each and every tribe and one bull and one goat for the court.
הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁבָטִים, וְעָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט עַל פִּיהֶן – אוֹתוֹ שֵׁבֶט הוּא חַיָּיב, וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַשְּׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל הוֹרָיוֹת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם כׇּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ״, וְלֹא עֲדַת אוֹתוֹ שֵׁבֶט.
If the court of one of the tribes issued a ruling and the majority of that tribe performed a transgression on the basis of its ruling, that tribe is liable to bring an offering and the rest of all the tribes are exempt; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: One is liable to bring an offering for an unwitting communal sin only for rulings of the High Court alone, as it is stated: “And if the entire assembly of Israel shall act unwittingly” (Leviticus 4:13), from which it is derived that there is liability only for a ruling of the assembly, i.e., the court, of the entire people, but not for a ruling of the assembly of that particular tribe.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָדְעוּ שֶׁהוֹרוּ, וְטָעוּ מָה הוֹרוּ, יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנוֹדְעָה הַחַטָּאת״, וְלֹא שֶׁיִּוָּדְעוּ הַחוֹטְאִין.
GEMARA: The Gemara elaborates on the dispute cited in the mishna. The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where the judges knew that they issued an erroneous ruling, and erred in remembering which erroneous ruling they issued, one might have thought that they would be liable to bring an offering for this. The verse states: “And the sin that they sinned became known, the congregation shall sacrifice” (Leviticus 4:14), indicating that liability is only in a case where the sin became known to the court that issued the erroneous ruling, and not in a case where it became known only to the sinners. In this case, the sinners are certain that they sinned, but the court does not know the sin with regard to which it issued the ruling.
״אֲשֶׁר חָטְאוּ״, חָטְאוּ שְׁנֵי שְׁבָטִים – מְבִיאִין שְׁנֵי פָרִים, חָטְאוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה – מְבִיאִין שְׁלֹשָׁה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר אֶלָּא חָטְאוּ שְׁנֵי יְחִידִים – מְבִיאִין שְׁנֵי פָרִים, חָטְאוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה – מְבִיאִין שְׁלֹשָׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַקָּהָל״, הַקָּהָל חַיָּיב, וְכׇל קָהָל וְקָהָל חַיָּיב, כֵּיצַד? חָטְאוּ שְׁנֵי שְׁבָטִים – מְבִיאִין שְׁנֵי פָרִים, חָטְאוּ שִׁבְעָה – מְבִיאִין שִׁבְעָה, וּשְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים שֶׁלֹּא חָטְאוּ – מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵיהֶן פַּר פַּר, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא חָטְאוּ מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵי הַחוֹטְאִין, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״קָהָל״ לְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל קָהָל וְקָהָל. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
From the phrase “that they sinned” it is derived: If two tribes sinned they bring two bulls, one from each tribe; if three tribes sinned they bring three bulls, one from each tribe. Or perhaps that phrase says only that if two individuals sinned they bring two bulls, one from each individual; if three individuals sinned they bring three bulls, one from each individual. Therefore, the verse states: “The congregation,” from which it is derived: The congregation is liable, and each and every congregation is liable. How so? If two tribes sinned they bring two bulls. If seven tribes sinned they bring seven bulls. And each of the rest of the tribes that did not sin brings one bull on the basis of the sin of the other tribes, as even those tribes that did not sin bring an offering on the basis of the actions of the sinners. For that reason “congregation” is stated in the verse, to render each and every congregation liable. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ – מְבִיאִין שִׁבְעָה פָּרִים, וּבֵית דִּין מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵיהֶן פַּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְמַטָּה ״קָהָל״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְמַעְלָה ״קָהָל״. מָה ״קָהָל״ הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה – בֵּית דִּין עִם הַקָּהָל, אַף ״קָהָל״ הָאָמוּר לְמַטָּה – בֵּית דִּין עִם הַקָּהָל.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: Seven tribes that sinned bring seven bulls, and the court brings one bull on the basis of their actions, as the term “congregation” is stated below: “The congregation shall sacrifice” (Leviticus 4:14), and the term “congregation” is stated above: “And the matter is hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Leviticus 4:13). Just as with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated above the reference is to the court, i.e., “the eyes of the congregation,” together with “the congregation,” so too, with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated below, with regard to liability to bring an offering the reference is to the court together with the congregation.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ – בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵיהֶם פַּר, וְהֵן פְּטוּרִין, נֶאֱמַר ״קָהָל״ לְמַטָּה וְנֶאֱמַר ״קָהָל״ לְמַעְלָה, מָה ״קָהָל״ הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה – בֵּית דִּין וְלֹא צִבּוּר, אַף ״קָהָל״ הָאָמוּר לְמַטָּה – בֵּית דִּין וְלֹא צִבּוּר.
Rabbi Meir says: In the case of seven tribes that sinned, the court brings a bull on the basis of their sin and the members of the tribe are exempt, as the term “congregation” is stated below: “The congregation shall sacrifice” (Leviticus 4:14), and the term “congregation” is stated above: “And the matter is hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Leviticus 4:13). Just as with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated above the reference is to the court and not to the public, so too, with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated below the reference is to the court and not to the public.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ: חָטְאוּ שִׁשָּׁה שְׁבָטִים וְהֵם רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל קָהָל, אוֹ שִׁבְעָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל קָהָל – מְבִיאִין פַּר.
The baraita concludes: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, or if seven tribes, which constitute a majority of the tribes, sinned, even though in terms of population they do not constitute a majority of the congregation, the court brings a bull.
אָמַר מָר: ״וְנוֹדְעָה הַחַטָּאת״ – וְלֹא שֶׁיִּוָּדְעוּ הַחוֹטְאִין. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, וְאִיתֵּימָא רָבָא: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דִּתְנַן,
The Gemara proceeds to analyze the baraita. The Master said: “And the sin that they sinned became known,” indicating that liability is only in a case where the sin became known to the court that issued the erroneous ruling and not in a case where it became known only to the sinners. Who is the tanna whose opinion is expressed here? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say it was Rava who said, that this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a baraita that there is a dispute with regard to one who had two pieces before him, one of them prohibited because it is forbidden fat and one of them prohibited because it is left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar], and he ate one, but does not know whether he ate the forbidden fat or the notar.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִם חֵלֶב אָכַל – חַיָּיב, נוֹתָר אָכַל – חַיָּיב.
Rabbi Eliezer says: Whichever way you look at it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If it was forbidden fat that he ate he is liable, and if it was notar that he ate he is liable. Therefore, he must bring an offering. Likewise, in the case in the baraita, since the court issued an erroneous ruling and it is known that the erroneous ruling was with regard to a matter for which it is liable to bring an offering, according to Rabbi Eliezer it should make no difference that they do not know the precise nature of their error, and they should be liable to bring an offering. Nevertheless, the ruling in the baraita is that they are exempt, counter to what one would expect to be the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר חָטְאוּ עָלֶיהָ״. הָתָם נָמֵי הָכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר חָטָא בָּהּ״! הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: פְּרָט לַמִּתְעַסֵּק.
Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one can explain the ruling of the baraita. Here, in the baraita, it is different, as it is written: “And the sin that they sinned became known” (Leviticus 4:14). The verse underscores that the judges must be aware of the specific sin for which they are liable to bring an offering. The Gemara asks: There too, with regard to an individual sin-offering, isn’t it written: “Or if his sin that he sinned became known to him” (Leviticus 4:23), leading to the same conclusion? The Gemara answers: In the case of the individual sin-offering, that expression is necessary for the tanna to exclude one who acts unawares. One is liable to bring a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression only if he performs the action with intent.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? קָסָבַר: אַרְבָּעָה קְהָלֵי כְּתִיבִי – ״קָהָל״, ״הַקָּהָל״, ״קָהָל״, ״הַקָּהָל״.
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that even one tribe that sinned is liable to bring an offering? The Gemara answers that he holds: There are four mentions of the term congregation written: Congregation, the congregation, congregation, the congregation. The term “the congregation” appears in both verses. Since the Torah could have written the term: Congregation, in both instances, Rabbi Yehuda derives two matters from each of the two terms, one from the term “congregation” itself, and another from the fact that it is written with the definitive article “the.”
חַד לְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל קָהָל וְקָהָל, וְחַד לְהוֹרָאָה תְּלוּיָה בְּבֵית דִּין וּמַעֲשֶׂה תָּלוּי בַּקָּהָל. וְחַד לִגְרִירָה. וְחַד לְשֵׁבֶט שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין.
One serves to render each and every congregation liable, as a tribe is also called a congregation; and one serves to establish that the ruling is dependent on the court and the action is dependent on the congregation; and one serves to teach the concept of drawing, i.e., a tribe that did not sin is drawn after a tribe that sinned and is liable to bring an offering; and one serves to teach that a tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court is liable to bring a bull as an unwitting communal sin-offering.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תְּלָתָא קְהָלֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״הַקָּהָל״, ״קָהָל״, ״הַקָּהָל״. ״מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל״ אוֹרְחֵיהּ דִּקְרָא הוּא, כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: מֵעֵינֵי דִּפְלָנְיָא.
And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that seven tribes that sinned bring seven bulls and the court brings one bull? He holds that there are three mentions of the term congregation written. The first two are: The congregation, congregation, which he interprets in the manner that Rabbi Yehuda interpreted. He counts the third and last mention of the term: The congregation, as in the verse: “From the eyes of the congregation.” This is written in the typical manner of the verse, as people say: From the eyes of so-and-so, and the definitive article “the” does not serve to teach another halakha.
חַד לְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל קָהָל וְקָהָל, וּתְרֵי אַחֲרִינֵי: נֶאֱמַר לְמַטָּה ״קָהָל״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְמַעְלָה ״קָהָל״, מָה לְהַלָּן בֵּית דִּין עִם הַקָּהָל – אַף כָּאן בֵּית דִּין עִם הַקָּהָל.
Of those three, one serves to render each and every congregation liable, as a tribe is also called congregation, and the other two come so that a verbal analogy can be derived: The term “congregation” is stated below, and the term “congregation” is stated above. Just as with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated there, above, the reference is to the court, i.e., “the eyes of the congregation,” together with the congregation, so too, with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated here concerning liability to bring an offering, the reference is to the court together with the congregation.
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, ״קָהָל״ ״הַקָּהָל״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ, הִלְכָּךְ תְּרֵי קְהָלֵי כְּתִיבִי. מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: לְנֶאֱמַר לְמַטָּה ״קָהָל״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְמַעְלָה ״קָהָל״, מָה לְהַלָּן בֵּית דִּין וְלֹא צִבּוּר – אַף כָּאן בֵּית דִּין וְלֹא צִבּוּר.
And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the court brings a bull on the basis of its sin and the members of the tribe are exempt? He does not derive a halakha from the difference between the terms “congregation” and “the congregation.” He does not consider the addition of the definite article to be significant. Therefore, he holds that there are two mentions of the term congregation written. They are necessary for him to derive: The term “congregation” is stated below, and the term “congregation” is stated above. Just as with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated there, above, the reference is to the court and not to the public, so too with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated here, below, the reference is to the court and not to the public.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר מַאי טַעְמָא? כְּתִיב: ״וְהָיָה אִם מֵעֵינֵי הָעֵדָה״ – אַלְמָא מִיעוּטָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵעֵינֵי״. וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לְכׇל הָעָם בִּשְׁגָגָה״, לְמֵימְרָא דְּרוּבָּא – אִין, מִיעוּטָא – לָא.
And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds that if six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, or if seven tribes sinned even though in terms of population they do not constitute a majority of the congregation, the court brings a bull? It is written: “Then it shall be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Numbers 15:24). Apparently, the reference is even to a minority of the people, as “from the eyes” is written, indicating: Not all of them, but some of them. And it is written: “As for all the people it was performed unwittingly” (Numbers 15:26), to say that based on the principle: The halakhic status of a majority is like that of the entirety, if the majority of the congregation sinned, then yes, the court is liable to bring an offering. If the minority sinned, then no, the court is not liable.
הָא כֵּיצַד? עָשׂוּ שִׁשָּׁה וְהֵן רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל קָהָל, אוֹ שִׁבְעָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל קָהָל – חַיָּיבִין.
How so? How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? The Gemara explains: If six tribes sinned and they constitute a majority of the congregation, or if seven tribes sinned, even though in terms of population they do not constitute a majority of the congregation, the court is liable to bring a bull. Although in both cases they are not a majority in every sense, the court is liable, as a reference to the minority is also indicated in the verse.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּהוֹרָאָה תְּלוּיָה בְּבֵית דִּין וּמַעֲשֶׂה תָּלוּי בַּקָּהָל, מְנָא לְהוּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהָיָה אִם מֵעֵינֵי הָעֵדָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה לִשְׁגָגָה״. רָבָא אָמַר: ״מִלְּכׇל הָעָם בִּשְׁגָגָה״.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir, from where do they derive the fact that the ruling is dependent on the court and the action is dependent on the congregation? Abaye said that they derive it from a verse, as the verse states in the passive form: “Then it shall be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Number 15:24), indicating that the action of the congregation was generated by the ruling of the court. Rava said: It is derived from that which is stated: “For all the people it was performed unwittingly” (Numbers 15:26). The term “all the people” indicates that the unwitting action is common to all, the court through its ruling and the people through their action.
וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְהָיָה אִם מֵעֵינֵי הָעֵדָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה לִשְׁגָגָה״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אֲפִילּוּ מִיעוּטָא, לְהָכִי כְּתִיב ״לְכׇל הָעָם בִּשְׁגָגָה״. וְאִי כְּתַב ״לְכׇל הָעָם בִּשְׁגָגָה״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: עַד דְּעָבְדִי בֵּית דִּין בַּהֲדֵי רוּבָּא, לְהָכִי כְּתִיב ״וְהָיָה אִם מֵעֵינֵי הָעֵדָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה לִשְׁגָגָה״.
The Gemara notes: And both of the verses are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written only: “Then it shall be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Number 15:24), I would say: There is liability to bring an offering even if only a minority of the congregation sinned. Therefore, it is written: “For all the people it was performed unwittingly.” And had the Merciful One written only: “For all the people it was performed unwittingly,” I would say: There is no liability unless the court performs the transgression together with the majority of the congregation, as the verse appears to refer to a single unwitting action. Therefore, it is written: “Then it shall be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation,” indicating that the unwitting act was performed on the basis of the ruling of the court, and the action of the court is not significant in this regard.
וְהָא כִּי כְּתִיבִי הָנֵי קְרָאֵי בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא דִּכְתִיבִי. יָלְפִינַן ״מֵעֵינֵי״ ״מֵעֵינָי״.
The Gemara challenges: But when these verses are written, they are written with regard to an erroneous ruling involving idol worship, not concerning erroneous rulings involving other transgressions. The Gemara explains: We derive it by means of a verbal analogy between “from the eyes of the congregation” written with regard to other transgressions, and “from the eyes of the congregation” written concerning idol worship.
הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל אֶחָד וְכוּ׳. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל, מִי מַיְיתוּ שְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים אוֹ לָא? מִי אָמְרִינַן: שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים הוּא דְּמַיְיתוּ שְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא רוּבָּא, אֲבָל חַד שֵׁבֶט, דְּלֵיכָּא רוּבָּא – לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא!
§ The mishna teaches: If the court of one of the tribes issued a ruling, and the majority of that tribe performed a transgression on the basis of its ruling, that tribe is liable to bring an offering and the rest of all the tribes are exempt; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Yehuda, in the case of one tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, are the other tribes liable to bring an offering or not? The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that it is specifically in a case where seven tribes sinned that other tribes each bring an offering together with them because there is a majority of the tribes that sinned, but in a case where only one tribe sinned, where there is no majority of the tribes that sinned, they do not? Or perhaps it is no different, and the other tribes are drawn after even one tribe.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מָה הֵן מְבִיאִין? פַּר אֶחָד, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי פָרִים. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא שֶׁחָטְאוּ שִׁבְעָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תְּמָנְיָא בָּעֵי! אֶלָּא דְּחָטָא שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד. בְּמַאי? אִי בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּינוֹ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear resolution of this dilemma from a baraita, which teaches: What do they bring? They bring one bull; Rabbi Shimon says: Two bulls. The Gemara elaborates: What are we dealing with in this baraita? If we say the reference is to a case where seven tribes sinned, Rabbi Shimon requires eight bulls, one for each tribe that sinned and one for the court. Rather, the reference must be to a case where one tribe sinned. The Gemara clarifies: In what circumstances did the tribe sin? If the tribe sinned on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court, Rabbi Shimon does not accept the halakha that an erroneous ruling of the tribal court renders them liable to bring an offering. Rather, is it not so that they sinned on the basis of a ruling of the High Court?
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא מַנִּי? אִי נֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא רוּבָּא בָּעֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁחָטָא שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד.
The Gemara asks: And who is the first tanna, who says that they must bring one bull? If we say it is Rabbi Meir, that is difficult: Doesn’t he require that the majority perform a transgression in order for a bull to be brought? A transgression performed by one tribe does not suffice. Rather, is the first tanna not Rabbi Yehuda, and the reference is to a case where one tribe sinned and he deems it liable to bring one bull, and the remaining tribes are not liable to bring an offering.
אָמְרִי, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָטְאוּ שִׁשָּׁה שְׁבָטִים וְהֵן רוּבָּן שֶׁל קָהָל, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ: חָטְאוּ שִׁשָּׁה וְהֵן רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל קָהָל, אוֹ שִׁבְעָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל קָהָל – מְבִיאִין פַּר.
The Gemara rejects this proof and says there is an alternative explanation of the baraita. What are we dealing with here? With a case where six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, and the first tanna in the baraita is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, or if seven tribes, which constitute a majority of the tribes, sinned, even though in terms of population they do not constitute a majority of the congregation, the court brings a bull.
תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שֵׁבֶט שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּינוֹ – אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט חַיָּיב, וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַשְּׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִין. וּבְהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל – אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים חַיָּיבִים. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita, which teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of a ruling of its tribal court, that tribe is liable and all the rest of the tribes are exempt. But if it was on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, even the rest of the tribes are liable. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the other tribes are liable in a case where one tribe performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: וְעָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט עַל פִּיהֶם – אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט חַיָּיב וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַשְּׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִין. לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנָא וּשְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִים? הָא תְּנָא אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט חַיָּיב, וְכֵיוָן דִּתְנָא אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט חַיָּיב, מִמֵּילָא יָדַעְנָא שְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִין! אֶלָּא הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לָן, בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּינוֹ הוּא דִּשְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִים, אֲבָל בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל – אֲפִילּוּ שְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים חַיָּיבִין. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise in support of that conclusion, as the tanna teaches: If the court of one of the tribes issued an erroneous ruling and the majority of that tribe performed a transgression on the basis of its ruling, that tribe is liable to bring an offering and all the rest of the tribes are exempt. He explains: Why do I need the tanna to teach: And the rest of the tribes are exempt? Didn’t he already teach: That tribe is liable? And since he teaches: That tribe is liable, we know automatically that the rest of the tribes are exempt. Rather, this tanna is teaching us that it is specifically in a case where the tribe performed an unwitting transgression on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court that the rest of the tribes are exempt; but in a case where the tribe performed an unwitting transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, even the rest of the tribes are liable. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the mishna that this is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִי מַיְיתֵי אוֹ לָא?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where one tribe performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, according to Rabbi Shimon are they liable to bring an offering or not?
תָּא שְׁמַע: מָה הֵן מְבִיאִין? פַּר אֶחָד, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵי פָרִים. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא שֶׁחָטְאוּ שִׁבְעָה – שְׁנֵי פָרִים? שְׁמֹנָה פָּרִים בָּעֵי! אֶלָּא דְּחָטָא שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד, וּבְמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּינוֹ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the baraita cited earlier: What do they bring? They bring one bull; Rabbi Shimon says: Two bulls. The Gemara elaborates: What are we dealing with in this baraita? If we say that the reference is to a case where seven tribes sinned, that is difficult. In that case, are two bulls brought? Eight bulls are required according to Rabbi Shimon. Rather, the reference is to a case where one tribe sinned. The Gemara clarifies: And in what circumstances did the tribe sin? If we say that the tribe sinned on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court, Rabbi Shimon does not accept the halakha that an erroneous ruling of the tribal court renders them liable to bring an offering. Rather, the circumstances are that they sinned on the basis of a ruling of the High Court. Apparently, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that in this case one tribe brings an offering.
וְתִסְבְּרָא: תַּנָּא קַמָּא מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר – הָא רוּבָּא בָּעֵי, אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – שְׁאָר שְׁבָטִים נָמֵי מַיְיתוּ! אֶלָּא הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, וְכִדְתַנְיָא.
The Gemara rejects this proof: And how can you understand that this is the reference? Who, then, is the first tanna who says that they must bring one bull? If it is Rabbi Meir, that is difficult. Doesn’t he require that the majority and not just one tribe perform a transgression in order for there to be liability? If it is Rabbi Yehuda, that is also difficult, as in his opinion the rest of the tribes are also liable to bring an offering. Rather, who is the first tanna of this baraita? The first tanna is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and the reference is to a case where six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, and this baraita is as it is taught in the baraita cited earlier. In that case, Rabbi Shimon holds that two bulls are brought, one by the congregation and one by the court. No proof may be cited from here with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of one tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of a ruling of the High Court.
תָּא שְׁמַע, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל הוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל. מַאן חֲכָמִים? אִילֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, רוּבָּא בָּעֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from the mishna, which teaches: And the Rabbis say: One tribe is never liable, other than for violating a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court. The Gemara clarifies: Who are the Rabbis cited in the mishna? If we say that the Rabbis are Rabbi Meir, he requires that a majority perform a transgression in order to be liable. Rather, is it not that the Rabbis are Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that Rabbi Shimon holds that one tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court is liable to bring a bull.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד דְּאִקְּרִי קָהָל מְנָא לְהוּ? אָמְרִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲמֹד יְהוֹשָׁפָט בִּקְהַל יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִַים (נָכַח חֲצַר בֵּית ה׳) [בְּבֵית ה׳ לִפְנֵי הֶחָצֵר] הַחֲדָשָׁה״. מַאי ״חֲדָשָׁה״? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, שֶׁחִידְּשׁוּ דְּבָרִים וְאָמְרוּ: טְבוּל יוֹם, אַל יִכָּנֵס בְּמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה.
§ The Gemara elaborates on a matter raised earlier. And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who hold one tribe that performs a transgression liable, from where do they derive that one tribe is characterized as a congregation? The Sages say that it is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem before the new courtyard in the house of the Lord” (II Chronicles 20:5). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “new” in this verse? Rabbi Yoḥanan says that on that occasion they introduced new matters and said: One who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed may not enter even the Levite camp. From the fact that the verse employs the term “congregation” in reference to Judah and Jerusalem, it can be inferred that one tribe is characterized as a congregation.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, דַּהֲוָה נָמֵי בִּנְיָמִין! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי הִנְנִי מַפְרְךָ וְהִרְבִּיתִךָ וּנְתַתִּיךָ לִקְהַל עַמִּים וְגוֹ׳״ מַאן אִתְיְלִיד לֵיהּ הָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא? בִּנְיָמִין, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: מִתְיְלִיד לָךְ הַשְׁתָּא קָהָל אַחֲרִינָא.
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to this: From where do you draw this conclusion? Perhaps Jerusalem is different, as Jerusalem was also in the tribal land of Benjamin. Accordingly, it was shared by two tribes. Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that proof that a tribe is characterized as a congregation is derived from another verse, as it is written that Jacob recounted what God said to him when he returned from Paddan: “And said to me: Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a congregation of peoples” (Genesis 48:4). Who was born to him from that time on? Only Benjamin. Conclude from it that this is what the Merciful One is saying to Jacob: Another congregation shall be now born to you. Apparently, one tribe is characterized as a congregation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שַׁבָּא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא, דִּלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא: לְכִי מִתְיְלִיד לָךְ בִּנְיָמִין, הוּא דְּהָווּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים דְּמִתְקַרְיַית קָהָל! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶלָּא שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים אִיקְּרוּ קָהָל, אַחַד עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים לֹא אִיקְּרוּ קָהָל?
Rav Shabba said to Rav Kahana: Perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying to Jacob: It is when Benjamin is born to you that you will have twelve tribes, who are together characterized as a congregation. Rav Kahana said to him: But is that to say that twelve tribes are characterized as a congregation, and eleven tribes are not characterized as a congregation? It has already been established that even two tribes are characterized as a congregation. Rather, it is apparent from this verse that even one tribe is characterized as a congregation.
תַּנְיָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״? אִם לְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֵם שְׁנַיִם, וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת הָאֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶת הָאֶחָד עֹלָה לַה׳״! [אֶלָּא] יָכוֹל [תְּהֵא] נֶאֱכֶלֶת חַטָּאת לַלְוִיִּם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי״ – שֵׁנִי לָעוֹלָה, מָה עוֹלָה לָא נֶאֱכֶלֶת,
§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And a second young bull shall you take as a sin-offering” (Numbers 8:8), in the context of the purification of the Levites in the aftermath of the sin of the Golden Calf? If this is written to teach that they are two, i.e., that there is an additional bull sacrificed, isn’t it already stated: “And sacrifice the one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering, unto the Lord” (Numbers 8:12)? Rather, one might have thought that the sin-offering that is sacrificed for the Levites shall be eaten like other sin-offerings. To counter this, the verse states: “And a second bull,” to underscore that it is second to the burnt-offering and similar to it: Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten,
