Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 8, 2018 | ื›ืดื’ ื‘ื ื™ืกืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Horayot 8

Study Guide Horayot 8. ย The derivations are brought for the following laws – the types of sins one brings the sin offerings discussed are for sins that if one were to trangress them on purpose, they would be punished by karet; the verses in Bamidbar that discuss sin offerings relate to the sin of idol worship exclusively; the bull sin offering of the community is only for sins that if one did it individually they would need to bring a regular sin offering but not a sliding scale sin offering.

ื•ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืคืจ [ืขืœื™ื•] ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืขืœ ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืฉื’ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ ืฉื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืื• ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ื™ืฆื ื–ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ [ื›ืœ] ื—ื˜ืื• ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ืืœื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ

The baraita teaches: And they agree that he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to the provisional guilt-offering: โ€œAnd the priest shall atone for him for his unwitting act that he performed unwittinglyโ€ (Leviticus 5:18). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the interpretation of this verse, in accordance with their opinions. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: This is referring to one whose sin-offering for all transgressions is for an unwitting act. This serves to exclude that anointed priest, as all of his sin-offerings are not for an unwitting act alone; rather, he brings a sin-offering only if that unwitting act is performed on the basis of absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling.

ืžื™ื“ื™ ื›ืœ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ืŸ ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœ ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืืฉืจ ืฉื’ื’ ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืื• ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ื™ืฆื ืžืฉื™ื— ืฉืื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืื• ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ืืœื ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืืจ ืžืฆื•ืช ืืœื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืขื ืฉื’ื’ืช ืžืขืฉื”

The Gemara asks: Is it written in the verse: For all his unwitting acts that he performed unwittingly? Only the phrase โ€œfor his unwitting act that he performed unwittinglyโ€ is written. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is as though the word: All, is written. As if it were so that the verse is not referring to all unwitting acts, let the Torah write only: โ€œFor his unwitting act.โ€ Why do I need the additional phrase: โ€œThat he performed unwittinglyโ€? This teaches us that there is no liability to bring a provisional guilt-offering unless liability to bring all his sin-offerings is for unwitting acts. This serves to exclude an anointed priest, all of whose liability to bring a sin-offering for an unwitting act alone is only in cases of idol worship, but in cases involving the rest of the mitzvot there is liability only for absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling, together with unwitting performance of an action on the basis of that ruling.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื™ ืฉื—ื˜ืื• ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ื™ืฆื ืžืฉื™ื— ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืื• ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ืœื ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืืจ ืžืฆื•ืช ืืœื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืขื ืฉื’ื’ืช ืžืขืฉื”

And the Rabbis interpret the verse in accordance with their opinion that an anointed priest, even in cases of idol worship, brings a sin-offering only for absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling, together with unwitting performance of an action on the basis of that ruling. They hold: This teaches us that there is liability to bring a provisional guilt-offering only for one whose liability to bring his sin-offerings is for an unwitting act. This serves to exclude an anointed priest, whose liability to bring a sin-offering is not for an unwitting act alone, neither in cases of idol worship, nor in cases involving the rest of the mitzvot, but rather for absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling, together with unwitting performance of an action on the basis of that ruling.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ืจื• ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ืžืฉื™ื— ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ืจื• ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

MISHNA: The court is not liable to bring an offering for absence of awareness of the matter unless they issue a ruling with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering. And likewise the anointed priest is liable only for such a ruling. Neither is the court liable to bring a sin-offering for idol worship unless the judges issue a ruling with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ืœืŸ

GEMARA: With regard to the statement in the mishna that the court is liable only for a ruling with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha?

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

The Gemara answers: It is derived as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The word โ€œthatโ€ is stated here in the verse: โ€œAnd the sin that they sinnedโ€ (Leviticus 4:14), with regard to the offering brought by the court for the transgression of the public based on their erroneous ruling, and the word โ€œthatโ€ is stated there in the verse: โ€œAnd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, that is in her lifetimeโ€ (Leviticus 18:18), with regard to the prohibition against marrying two sisters. It is derived: Just as there it is a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, so too here, the reference is to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžืฉื™ื— ืžื ืœืŸ ืœืืฉืžืช ื”ืขื ื”ืจื™ ืžืฉื™ื— ื›ืฆื‘ื•ืจ

We found a source for the court bringing an offering for a transgression of the general public based on their erroneous ruling. From where do we derive that this is the halakha for an anointed priest? The Gemara answers: It is derived from the verse: โ€œIf the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt upon the peopleโ€ (Leviticus 4:3), indicating that the status of an anointed priest is like that of the transgression of the general public.

ื ืฉื™ื ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืžืฆื•ืช ืžืฆื•ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืขืฉื” ืื—ืช ืžื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืณ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืขืฉื• ืื—ืช ืžื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ืช ืžื” ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฃ ื ืฉื™ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that this is the halakha with regard to the king? The Gemara answers: The tanna derives a verbal analogy between the term โ€œcommandmentsโ€ written with regard to a king and the term โ€œcommandmentsโ€ written with regard to the general public. It is written with regard to a king: โ€œAnd he performed one of all the commandments of the Lord his God that are not to be performedโ€ (Leviticus 4:22), and it is written with regard to the general public: โ€œAnd performed one of all the commandments of the Lord that are not to be performedโ€ (Leviticus 4:13). Just as with regard to the general public there is liability only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, so too, in the case of a king there is liability only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ื ืคืฉ ื•ื™ืœืžื“ ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžืขืœื™ื•ืŸ

The Gemara asks further: From where is it derived that an individual is liable to bring a sin-offering only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet? The Gemara answers: The verse with regard to an individual states: โ€œAnd if one soul from among the common people shall sin unwittinglyโ€ (Leviticus 4:27). The verse begins with the conjunction โ€œand,โ€ represented by the letter vav. This indicates that one shall derive the halakha with regard to the lower verse, i.e., the verse written later in the passage, from that which is written in the upper verses, i.e., those written earlier. Just as in those verses earlier in the passage, addressing the public, priest, and king, there is liability only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, so too, in the case of the individual addressed in this verse, there is liability only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet.

ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ืจื• ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืคื™ ืฉื™ืฆืื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืขืฆืžื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

ยง The mishna teaches: Neither is the court liable to bring a sin-offering for idol worship unless the judges issue a ruling with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: In the case of idol worship, from where do we derive this halakha? It is derived as the Sages taught: Due to the fact that idol worship left the category of unwitting transgressions to be discussed by itself (see Numbers, chapter 15), one might have thought that the court and the priest would be liable even if it is not for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืžืขื™ื ื™ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืžืขื™ื ื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

The baraita continues: Therefore, the term โ€œfrom the eyes ofโ€ is stated here, with regard to idol worship (Numbers 15:24), and โ€œfrom the eyes ofโ€ is stated there, with regard to an unwitting communal sin-offering for all other mitzvot (Leviticus 4:13). Just as there the court is liable only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, so too here, the court is liable only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื ืฉื™ื ืžืฉื™ื— ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ื ืคืฉ ืื—ืช ืื—ื“ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืžืฉื™ื— ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื ืคืฉ ืื—ืช ื”ืŸ ื•ื™ืœืžื“ ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ

The baraita concludes: We found a source for the court bringing an offering for a transgression of the general public based on their erroneous ruling; but from where do we derive that this is the halakha for an individual, a king, and an anointed priest who engage in idol worship? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: โ€œAnd if one soul sins unwittingly, then he shall offer a female goat of the first year as a sin-offeringโ€ (Numbers 15:27). And with regard to an individual, a king, and an anointed priest, they all are included in the category of โ€œone soul.โ€ And one shall derive the halakha with regard to that which is written in the lower verse, i.e., the verses concerning an individual, a king, and an anointed priest, from that which is written in the upper verse, i.e., the verse concerning the transgression of the general public.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืžืคื™ืง ืœื” ืœืขืœื™ื” ืœื’ื–ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื›ื“ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืžืคืงื™ ืœื” ืœืขืœื™ื” ืœืขืจื™ื•ืช ื•ืฆืจื•ืช ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ืžื ื ืœื”ื•

The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who derives the halakha by using the term โ€œthatโ€ for a verbal analogy to teach that the court is liable only for a ruling with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, in accordance with that which we stated. But according to the Rabbis, who derive the halakha by using the term โ€œthatโ€ to teach the halakhot of those with whom relations are forbidden and rival wives with regard to a yevama (see Yevamot 3b), from where do they derive the halakha of a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering in the case of the transgression of the general public?

ื ืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืžื“ืžืชื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืœื‘ืจื™ื” ืชื•ืจื” ืื—ืช ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœื›ื ืœืขืฉื” ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ื•ื”ื ืคืฉ ืืฉืจ ืชืขืฉื” ื‘ื™ื“ ืจืžื” ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื”ื•ืงืฉื” ื›ืœ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืžื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืขืœ ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืขืœ ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

The Gemara answers: They derive it from that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught to his son based on the verse: โ€œThere shall be one Torah for you for the one who acts unwittingly. And the soul that performs with an upraised hand, he blasphemes the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off [venikhreta] from among his peopleโ€ (Numbers 15:29โ€“30). The Sages understood the phrase โ€œwith an upraised handโ€ to be referring to idol worship (see Sanhedrin 99a). The entire Torah is juxtaposed to idol worship: Just as idol worship is a prohibition for which one is liable for its intentional violation to receive karet and for its unwitting violation to bring a sin-offering, so too here, for the entire Torah one is liable for its intentional violation to receive karet and for its unwitting violation to bring a sin-offering.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืฉื™ื— ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืืจ ืžืฆื•ืช ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžื ืœืŸ ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืžืชื—ืชื•ืŸ

The Gemara challenges: We found a source for this halakha with regard to an individual, a king, and an anointed priest, both with regard to idol worship and with regard to the rest of the mitzvot, as all those are included in the category of โ€œone soulโ€ and are juxtaposed to idol worship. But from where do we derive that the general public is liable to bring a sin-offering only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet? The Gemara answers: One derives the halakha with regard to that which is written in the upper verse, i.e., the verse concerning the general public, from that which is written in the lower verse, i.e., the verse concerning an individual.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืžืคื™ืง ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืคื™ ืฉืžืฆื™ื ื• ืฉื—ืœืง ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ื ืœื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ื ื‘ืกื™ื™ืฃ ื•ืžืžื•ื ืŸ ืื‘ื“ ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ื ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื•ืžืžื•ื ืŸ ืคืœื˜ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื ื—ืœื•ืง ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื”ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืื—ืช ื™ื”ื™ื” ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who derives this matter from the term โ€œthat,โ€ what does he do with this verse, from which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught a halakha to his son? The Gemara answers: He derives a halakha, using the verse to teach that which is taught in a baraita: Due to the fact that we found that the verse distinguished with regard to idol worship between the many, who constitute the majority of a city, and individuals, as the many are executed through beheading with a sword and their property is lost, as the court destroys it, while individuals are executed through stoning and their property is spared, one might have thought that in the case of unwitting idol worship we would distinguish between the offerings that they are liable to bring. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œThere shall be one Torah for you for the one who acts unwittingly. And the soul that performs with an upraised hand, he blasphemes the Lordโ€ (Numbers 15:29โ€“30).

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื—ืœืงื™ื” ืžื”ื’ืจื•ื ื™ื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœื ื—ืœืง ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื”ื ื—ืœืง ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื ื—ืœื•ืง ืžืื™ ื ื™ื™ืชื™

Rav แธคilkiya of Hagronya objects to it: The reason that both individuals and the general public are liable to bring the same offering for unwitting idol worship is that the verse did not distinguish between them. But had the verse distinguished between them, I would say: Let us distinguish between individuals and the general public, and the general public would bring a different offering for their unwitting idol worship. What different offering shall they bring?

ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืคืจ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ืฉืืจ ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื• ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืคืจ ืœืขื•ืœื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื• ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืฉืขื™ืจ ื ืฉื™ื ื‘ืฉืืจ ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื ืžื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืงืจื‘ื ื•

If one would say: Let them bring a bull, that is difficult, as it is for unwitting violation of the rest of the mitzvot that the general public brings a bull. If one would say: Let them bring a bull for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering, that is difficult, as it is for unwitting idol worship that the general public brings those offerings in the case of an absence of awareness leading to an erroneous ruling by the court. If one would say: Let them bring a goat, that is difficult, as it is for unwitting violation of the rest of the mitzvot that a king brings a goat. If one will say: Let them bring a female goat, that is difficult, as that is the offering for an individual, too.

ืืœืžื” ืœื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืคืจ ืœืขื•ืœื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ื”ื ื™ ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื™ืคื›ื ืคืจ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื” ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืฆืจื™ืš ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara rejects this: Why do you say that the verse that equates the offerings of the individuals and the public is not necessary? Were it not for the verse, it might enter your mind to say: The general public brings a bull for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering, but this majority of a city that unwittingly engaged in idol worship shall bring the opposite: A bull for a sin-offering and a goat for a burnt-offering. Alternatively, perhaps the majority of a city that unwittingly engaged in idol worship must bring an offering, but it has no remedy, because there is no unique offering that it can bring. Therefore, the verse teaches us that there is no distinction between many people and individuals in this case.

ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžื™ื”ืช ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื ื™ ืงืจืื™ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื›ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื›ื™ ืชืฉื’ื• ื•ืœื ืชืขืฉื• ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืืœื” ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืžืฆื•ื” ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉืงื•ืœื” ื›ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื”

ยง In any event, everyone agrees that where these verses are written, it is with regard to idol worship that they are written. The Gemara asks: As the verse does not mention idol worship explicitly, from where is this inferred? Rava said, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said, and some say that the statement is unattributed, that the verse states: โ€œAnd when you act unwittingly, and do not perform all these commandments [kol hamitzvot] that the Lord spoke to Mosesโ€ (Numbers 15:22). Which is the mitzva that is the equivalent of all the mitzvot? You must say: It is the prohibition against idol worship.

ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืชื ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืฉืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืณ ืืœ ืžืฉื” ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืฉืจ ืฆื•ื” ื”ืณ ืืœื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื“ ืžืฉื” ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืžืฆื•ื” ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ื“ื™ื‘ื•ืจื• ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ื•ืฆื•ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืฉื” ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ืชื ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื ื›ื™ ื•ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœืš ืžืคื™ ื”ื’ื‘ื•ืจื” ืฉืžืขื ื•ื

The school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught that the verse states: โ€œThat the Lord spoke to Mosesโ€ (Numbers 15:22), and it is written: โ€œThat the Lord has commanded you by the hand of Mosesโ€ (Numbers 15:23). Which is the mitzva that was introduced in the speech of the Holy One, Blessed be He, heard by the Jewish people, and which He commanded in the Torah by means of Moses? You must say: This is idol worship, as Rabbi Yishmael taught concerning the first two commandments: โ€œI am the Lord your Godโ€ (Exodus 20:2), and: โ€œYou shall have no other gods before Meโ€ (Exodus 20:3): We, the Jewish people, heard them from the mouth of the Almighty.

ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืชื ื

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught

ืœืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื ืืฉืจ ืฆื•ื” ื”ืณ ื•ื”ืœืื” ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืชื™ื›ื ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืžืฆื•ื” ืฉื”ื™ื ื ืืžืจื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขืฉืจ ืžืฆื•ืช ื ืฆื˜ื•ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืžืจื” (ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื™ื” ืื ืฉืžื•ืข ืชืฉืžืข ืœืงื•ืœ ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ืš) ืืœื ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ื›ื“ืฉื ื™ื ืŸ ืžืขื™ืงืจื

that it is derived from the verse: โ€œAll that the Lord has commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day that the Lord commanded and onward throughout your generationsโ€ (Numbers 15:23). Which is the mitzva that was stated at the beginning of all the mitzvot? You must say: This is idol worship, as it is the first mitzva in the Ten Commandments. The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t the Master say: The Jewish people were commanded ten mitzvot in Marah soon after leaving Egypt, prior to the revelation at Sinai, as it is written: โ€œIf you shall hearken to the voice of the Lord your Godโ€ฆand listen to His mitzvotโ€ (Exodus 15:26)? Evidently, there were mitzvot that preceded the prohibition against idol worship. Rather, it is clear as we initially answered.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ืขืฉื” ื•ืขืœ ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืฉื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืขืœ ืขืฉื” ื•ืขืœ ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืฉื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ

MISHNA: The court is not liable to bring a bull as an unwitting communal sin-offering for issuing a ruling with regard to a positive mitzva or a prohibition related to the defiling of the Temple by one being there while ritually impure, or the defiling of its sacrificial foods by one partaking of them while ritually impure. There is a positive mitzva to remove impure people from the Temple, and there is a prohibition against entering the Temple while in a state of ritual impurity. And one does not bring a provisional guilt-offering for a positive mitzva or a prohibition related to the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

ืื‘ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ืขืฉื” ื•ืขืœ ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืฉื‘ื ื“ื” ื•ืžื‘ื™ืื™ื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืขืœ ืขืฉื” ื•ืขืœ ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืฉื‘ื ื“ื” ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืžืฆื•ืช ืขืฉื” ืฉื‘ื ื“ื” ืคืจื•ืฉ ืžืŸ ื”ื ื“ื” ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืืœ ืชื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื ื“ื”

But the court is liable to bring a bull for a positive mitzva or for a prohibition that is related to a menstruating woman, and one brings a provisional guilt-offering for a positive mitzva or for a prohibition that is related to a menstruating woman. What is the positive mitzva that is related to a menstruating woman? Distance yourself from the menstruating woman. If a man engages in intercourse with a woman and she begins menstruating, he is required to separate from her. And what is the prohibition? Do not engage in intercourse with a woman whom you know is a menstruating woman.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืœื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื•ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? That is, from where is it derived that the general public is not liable to bring any offering at all for a sin like the defiling of the Temple, which carries no liability for an individual to bring a fixed sin-offering for violating it unwittingly, and from where is it derived that an individual too is not liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering for the defiling of the Temple?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื“ื™ืžื™ ื ืืžืจ ื•ืืฉื ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื‘ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื•ื ืืžืจ ื•ืืฉืžื• ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžื” ื•ืืฉื ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ืงื‘ื•ืขื” ืืฃ ื•ืืฉืžื• ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ืงื‘ื•ืขื”

Rav Yitzแธฅak bar Avdimi says: The term โ€œand he is guiltyโ€ is stated with regard to a sin-offering (Leviticus 4:27) and with regard to a provisional guilt-offering (Leviticus 5:17), and the similar term: โ€œAnd they are guiltyโ€ (Leviticus 4:13), is stated with regard to the general public. Just as the term โ€œand he is guiltyโ€ that is stated with regard to an individual is concerning a transgression for which one is liable to bring a fixed sin-offering, as it is written there, so too, the term โ€œand they are guiltyโ€ that is stated with regard to the general public is concerning a transgression for which one is liable to bring a fixed sin-offering. For the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, not a fixed offering.

ื•ืžื” ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ืงื‘ื•ืขื” ืืฃ ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื ืืœื ืขืœ ืกืคืง ื—ื˜ืืช ืงื‘ื•ืขื” ืืžืจื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขื•ืœื” ื•ื™ื•ืจื“ ื ืžื™ ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื™ืืฉื ืœืื—ืช ืžืืœื” ื“ื ื™ืŸ (ืืฉื ืžืŸ ืืฉืžื•) [ืืฉืžื• ืžืŸ ืืฉื] ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืืฉื ืžืŸ ื™ืืฉื

And just as with regard to a transgression performed by the general public the liability is to bring a fixed sin-offering, so too, a provisional guilt-offering comes only for uncertainty with regard to a transgression that renders one obligated to bring a fixed sin-offering. This is the source for the fact that there is no liability to bring a sin-offering if the general public defiles the Temple or its sacrificial foods, and individuals are not liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering for those transgressions. The Sages say: If so, and the derivation is based on that term, this is difficult, as isnโ€™t it also written with regard to a sliding-scale offering: โ€œAnd it shall be when he shall be guilty of one of these mattersโ€ (Leviticus 5:5)? The Gemara responds: One derives the meaning of โ€œthey are guiltyโ€ from the meaning of โ€œhe is guilty,โ€ but one does not derive the meaning of โ€œhe is guiltyโ€ from the meaning of โ€œhe shall be guilty,โ€ even though both are stated in the singular.

ื•ืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ืฉื‘ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืฉื™ื‘ื” ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื‘ื™ืื” ื•ืขื•ื“ ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžืŸ ื•ืืฉื ืžื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื ื˜ืžื ื•ืืฉื

The Gemara asks: And what difference is there between the different verb conjugations? But didnโ€™t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses? The verse states: โ€œAnd the priest shall return [veshav]โ€ (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priestโ€™s visit seven days later states: โ€œAnd the priest shall come [uva] and lookโ€ (Leviticus 14:44). This returning and this coming have the same meaning and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the halakha that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week. If a verbal analogy can be derived between two different terms, it can certainly be derived from two conjugations of the same term. And furthermore, let us derive the halakha from the term โ€œand he is guilty,โ€ written with regard to the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, as it is written: โ€œAnd he is ritually impure and he is guiltyโ€ (Leviticus 5:2), which is a verbal analogy between identical terms.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื•ืืฉื ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืณ ืžืŸ ื•ืืฉื ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ ืœืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ื•ืืฉื ื•ื ืฉื™ืืช ืขื•ืŸ ืžืŸ ื•ืืฉื ื•ื ืฉื™ืืช ืขื•ืŸ

Rav Pappa says: One derives the meaning of: โ€œAnd he is guilty,โ€ and: โ€œThe commandments of the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 5:17), which are written with regard to a provisional guilt-offering, from the meaning of: โ€œAnd they are guilty,โ€ and: โ€œThe commandments of the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 4:13), which are written with regard to the unwitting communal sin-offering. The phrase: The commandments of the Lord, is not written with regard to the sliding-scale offering. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: Let us derive the meaning of: โ€œAnd he is guilty and bearing of iniquityโ€ (see Leviticus 5:1, 4), from the meaning of: โ€œAnd he is guilty and bearing of iniquityโ€ (Leviticus 5:17).

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื•ืืฉื ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืณ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืชืขืฉื™ื ื” ืžื•ืืฉื ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืณ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืชืขืฉื™ื ื” ื•ืืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉืžื™ืขืช ืงื•ืœ ื•ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ื™ ืฉืคืชื™ื ื•ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื• ืฉืœื ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื•ืืฉื ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืณ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืชืขืฉื™ื ื”

Rather, Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak says: One derives the meaning of โ€œand he is guiltyโ€ and โ€œthe commandments of the Lord that shall not be doneโ€ written with regard to a provisional guilt-offering, from the meaning of: โ€œAnd he is guilty,โ€ and: โ€œThe commandments of the Lord that shall not be doneโ€ (Leviticus 4:27), written with regard to a fixed sin-offering. And the cases of hear-ing of a voice, i.e., an oath of testimony, and a statement of the lips, i.e., an oath on an utterance, and the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, for which one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, shall not prove otherwise, as it is not stated concerning them: And he is guilty, and: The commandments of the Lord that shall not be done.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ืฉืžื™ืขืช ืงื•ืœ ื•ืขืœ ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ื™ ืฉืคืชื™ื ื•ืขืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื• ื•ื”ื ืฉื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื ืฉื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืฉืžื™ืขืช ื”ืงื•ืœ ืฉื”ืžืœืš ืœื ื“ืŸ ื•ืœื ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• [ืœื ืžืขื™ื“ ื•ืœื ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื•]

MISHNA: The court is not liable for issuing a ruling with regard to hearing of a voice, i.e., a false oath of testimony taken by a witness who refuses to testify on behalf of a litigant who demands that he testify, or for an utterance of the lips, i.e., a false oath stated about some matter, or for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. And the status of the king is like that of the court, and he is exempt from bringing an offering in those cases; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: The king is liable in all of those cases except for the case of hearing of a voice, and even in that case, his exemption is not intrinsic to the mitzva. Rather, it is for technical reasons, as the king neither judges others nor do others judge him; he does not testify nor do others testify against him. Therefore, a demand that he testify is not applicable.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื™ืืฉื ืœืื—ืช ืžืืœื” ื›ืœ ืฉืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืช ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื•ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืช ืื™ืŸ ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ

GEMARA: Ulla said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? It is as the verse states with regard to a sliding-scale offering: โ€œAnd it shall be when he shall be guilty of one of these mattersโ€ (Leviticus 5:5), indicating that anyone who becomes liable in every one of the instances for which one brings a sliding-scale offering becomes liable in all of those instances; and anyone who does not become liable in every one of the instances to bring a sliding-scale offering does not become liable in any of those instances. Since the king is exempt from taking an oath of testimony, he is exempt in the other cases as well.

ื•ืื™ืžื ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: Why say this? And say an alternative interpretation of the verse: Anyone who becomes liable in any one of these instances brings a sliding-scale offering, and this is the halakha even though he does not become liable in all of them.

ืืœื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืžื”ื›ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ

Rather, the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is from here, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yirmeya would say: It is stated:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Horayot 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Horayot 8

ื•ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืคืจ [ืขืœื™ื•] ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ืขืœ ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืฉื’ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ืกื‘ืจ ืžื™ ืฉื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืื• ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ื™ืฆื ื–ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ [ื›ืœ] ื—ื˜ืื• ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ืืœื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ

The baraita teaches: And they agree that he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to the provisional guilt-offering: โ€œAnd the priest shall atone for him for his unwitting act that he performed unwittinglyโ€ (Leviticus 5:18). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the interpretation of this verse, in accordance with their opinions. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: This is referring to one whose sin-offering for all transgressions is for an unwitting act. This serves to exclude that anointed priest, as all of his sin-offerings are not for an unwitting act alone; rather, he brings a sin-offering only if that unwitting act is performed on the basis of absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling.

ืžื™ื“ื™ ื›ืœ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ืŸ ื“ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœ ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืืฉืจ ืฉื’ื’ ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืื• ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ื™ืฆื ืžืฉื™ื— ืฉืื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืื• ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ืืœื ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืืจ ืžืฆื•ืช ืืœื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืขื ืฉื’ื’ืช ืžืขืฉื”

The Gemara asks: Is it written in the verse: For all his unwitting acts that he performed unwittingly? Only the phrase โ€œfor his unwitting act that he performed unwittinglyโ€ is written. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is as though the word: All, is written. As if it were so that the verse is not referring to all unwitting acts, let the Torah write only: โ€œFor his unwitting act.โ€ Why do I need the additional phrase: โ€œThat he performed unwittinglyโ€? This teaches us that there is no liability to bring a provisional guilt-offering unless liability to bring all his sin-offerings is for unwitting acts. This serves to exclude an anointed priest, all of whose liability to bring a sin-offering for an unwitting act alone is only in cases of idol worship, but in cases involving the rest of the mitzvot there is liability only for absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling, together with unwitting performance of an action on the basis of that ruling.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื™ ืฉื—ื˜ืื• ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ื™ืฆื ืžืฉื™ื— ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืื• ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ืœื ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืœื ื‘ืฉืืจ ืžืฆื•ืช ืืœื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืขื ืฉื’ื’ืช ืžืขืฉื”

And the Rabbis interpret the verse in accordance with their opinion that an anointed priest, even in cases of idol worship, brings a sin-offering only for absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling, together with unwitting performance of an action on the basis of that ruling. They hold: This teaches us that there is liability to bring a provisional guilt-offering only for one whose liability to bring his sin-offerings is for an unwitting act. This serves to exclude an anointed priest, whose liability to bring a sin-offering is not for an unwitting act alone, neither in cases of idol worship, nor in cases involving the rest of the mitzvot, but rather for absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling, together with unwitting performance of an action on the basis of that ruling.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ืจื• ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ืžืฉื™ื— ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ืจื• ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

MISHNA: The court is not liable to bring an offering for absence of awareness of the matter unless they issue a ruling with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering. And likewise the anointed priest is liable only for such a ruling. Neither is the court liable to bring a sin-offering for idol worship unless the judges issue a ruling with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ืœืŸ

GEMARA: With regard to the statement in the mishna that the court is liable only for a ruling with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, the Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha?

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

The Gemara answers: It is derived as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The word โ€œthatโ€ is stated here in the verse: โ€œAnd the sin that they sinnedโ€ (Leviticus 4:14), with regard to the offering brought by the court for the transgression of the public based on their erroneous ruling, and the word โ€œthatโ€ is stated there in the verse: โ€œAnd you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, that is in her lifetimeโ€ (Leviticus 18:18), with regard to the prohibition against marrying two sisters. It is derived: Just as there it is a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, so too here, the reference is to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžืฉื™ื— ืžื ืœืŸ ืœืืฉืžืช ื”ืขื ื”ืจื™ ืžืฉื™ื— ื›ืฆื‘ื•ืจ

We found a source for the court bringing an offering for a transgression of the general public based on their erroneous ruling. From where do we derive that this is the halakha for an anointed priest? The Gemara answers: It is derived from the verse: โ€œIf the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt upon the peopleโ€ (Leviticus 4:3), indicating that the status of an anointed priest is like that of the transgression of the general public.

ื ืฉื™ื ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืžืฆื•ืช ืžืฆื•ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืขืฉื” ืื—ืช ืžื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืณ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืขืฉื• ืื—ืช ืžื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ืช ืžื” ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฃ ื ืฉื™ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that this is the halakha with regard to the king? The Gemara answers: The tanna derives a verbal analogy between the term โ€œcommandmentsโ€ written with regard to a king and the term โ€œcommandmentsโ€ written with regard to the general public. It is written with regard to a king: โ€œAnd he performed one of all the commandments of the Lord his God that are not to be performedโ€ (Leviticus 4:22), and it is written with regard to the general public: โ€œAnd performed one of all the commandments of the Lord that are not to be performedโ€ (Leviticus 4:13). Just as with regard to the general public there is liability only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, so too, in the case of a king there is liability only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ื ืคืฉ ื•ื™ืœืžื“ ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžืขืœื™ื•ืŸ

The Gemara asks further: From where is it derived that an individual is liable to bring a sin-offering only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet? The Gemara answers: The verse with regard to an individual states: โ€œAnd if one soul from among the common people shall sin unwittinglyโ€ (Leviticus 4:27). The verse begins with the conjunction โ€œand,โ€ represented by the letter vav. This indicates that one shall derive the halakha with regard to the lower verse, i.e., the verse written later in the passage, from that which is written in the upper verses, i.e., those written earlier. Just as in those verses earlier in the passage, addressing the public, priest, and king, there is liability only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, so too, in the case of the individual addressed in this verse, there is liability only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet.

ื•ืœื ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ืจื• ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืคื™ ืฉื™ืฆืื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืขืฆืžื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

ยง The mishna teaches: Neither is the court liable to bring a sin-offering for idol worship unless the judges issue a ruling with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: In the case of idol worship, from where do we derive this halakha? It is derived as the Sages taught: Due to the fact that idol worship left the category of unwitting transgressions to be discussed by itself (see Numbers, chapter 15), one might have thought that the court and the priest would be liable even if it is not for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืžืขื™ื ื™ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืžืขื™ื ื™ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

The baraita continues: Therefore, the term โ€œfrom the eyes ofโ€ is stated here, with regard to idol worship (Numbers 15:24), and โ€œfrom the eyes ofโ€ is stated there, with regard to an unwitting communal sin-offering for all other mitzvot (Leviticus 4:13). Just as there the court is liable only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, so too here, the court is liable only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื ืฉื™ื ืžืฉื™ื— ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ื ืคืฉ ืื—ืช ืื—ื“ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืžืฉื™ื— ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื ืคืฉ ืื—ืช ื”ืŸ ื•ื™ืœืžื“ ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ

The baraita concludes: We found a source for the court bringing an offering for a transgression of the general public based on their erroneous ruling; but from where do we derive that this is the halakha for an individual, a king, and an anointed priest who engage in idol worship? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: โ€œAnd if one soul sins unwittingly, then he shall offer a female goat of the first year as a sin-offeringโ€ (Numbers 15:27). And with regard to an individual, a king, and an anointed priest, they all are included in the category of โ€œone soul.โ€ And one shall derive the halakha with regard to that which is written in the lower verse, i.e., the verses concerning an individual, a king, and an anointed priest, from that which is written in the upper verse, i.e., the verse concerning the transgression of the general public.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืžืคื™ืง ืœื” ืœืขืœื™ื” ืœื’ื–ืจื” ืฉื•ื” ื›ื“ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืžืคืงื™ ืœื” ืœืขืœื™ื” ืœืขืจื™ื•ืช ื•ืฆืจื•ืช ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ืžื ื ืœื”ื•

The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who derives the halakha by using the term โ€œthatโ€ for a verbal analogy to teach that the court is liable only for a ruling with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, in accordance with that which we stated. But according to the Rabbis, who derive the halakha by using the term โ€œthatโ€ to teach the halakhot of those with whom relations are forbidden and rival wives with regard to a yevama (see Yevamot 3b), from where do they derive the halakha of a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering in the case of the transgression of the general public?

ื ืคืงื ืœื”ื• ืžื“ืžืชื ื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืœื‘ืจื™ื” ืชื•ืจื” ืื—ืช ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœื›ื ืœืขืฉื” ื‘ืฉื’ื’ื” ื•ื”ื ืคืฉ ืืฉืจ ืชืขืฉื” ื‘ื™ื“ ืจืžื” ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื”ื•ืงืฉื” ื›ืœ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืžื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืขืœ ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื›ืจืช ื•ืขืœ ืฉื’ื’ืชื• ื—ื˜ืืช

The Gemara answers: They derive it from that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught to his son based on the verse: โ€œThere shall be one Torah for you for the one who acts unwittingly. And the soul that performs with an upraised hand, he blasphemes the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off [venikhreta] from among his peopleโ€ (Numbers 15:29โ€“30). The Sages understood the phrase โ€œwith an upraised handโ€ to be referring to idol worship (see Sanhedrin 99a). The entire Torah is juxtaposed to idol worship: Just as idol worship is a prohibition for which one is liable for its intentional violation to receive karet and for its unwitting violation to bring a sin-offering, so too here, for the entire Torah one is liable for its intentional violation to receive karet and for its unwitting violation to bring a sin-offering.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืฉื™ื— ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืืจ ืžืฆื•ืช ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžื ืœืŸ ื™ืœื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืžืชื—ืชื•ืŸ

The Gemara challenges: We found a source for this halakha with regard to an individual, a king, and an anointed priest, both with regard to idol worship and with regard to the rest of the mitzvot, as all those are included in the category of โ€œone soulโ€ and are juxtaposed to idol worship. But from where do we derive that the general public is liable to bring a sin-offering only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet? The Gemara answers: One derives the halakha with regard to that which is written in the upper verse, i.e., the verse concerning the general public, from that which is written in the lower verse, i.e., the verse concerning an individual.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืžืคื™ืง ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืคื™ ืฉืžืฆื™ื ื• ืฉื—ืœืง ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ื ืœื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ื ื‘ืกื™ื™ืฃ ื•ืžืžื•ื ืŸ ืื‘ื“ ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ื ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื•ืžืžื•ื ืŸ ืคืœื˜ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื ื—ืœื•ืง ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื”ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืื—ืช ื™ื”ื™ื” ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who derives this matter from the term โ€œthat,โ€ what does he do with this verse, from which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught a halakha to his son? The Gemara answers: He derives a halakha, using the verse to teach that which is taught in a baraita: Due to the fact that we found that the verse distinguished with regard to idol worship between the many, who constitute the majority of a city, and individuals, as the many are executed through beheading with a sword and their property is lost, as the court destroys it, while individuals are executed through stoning and their property is spared, one might have thought that in the case of unwitting idol worship we would distinguish between the offerings that they are liable to bring. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œThere shall be one Torah for you for the one who acts unwittingly. And the soul that performs with an upraised hand, he blasphemes the Lordโ€ (Numbers 15:29โ€“30).

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื—ืœืงื™ื” ืžื”ื’ืจื•ื ื™ื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืœื ื—ืœืง ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื”ื ื—ืœืง ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื ื—ืœื•ืง ืžืื™ ื ื™ื™ืชื™

Rav แธคilkiya of Hagronya objects to it: The reason that both individuals and the general public are liable to bring the same offering for unwitting idol worship is that the verse did not distinguish between them. But had the verse distinguished between them, I would say: Let us distinguish between individuals and the general public, and the general public would bring a different offering for their unwitting idol worship. What different offering shall they bring?

ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืคืจ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ืฉืืจ ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื• ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืคืจ ืœืขื•ืœื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื• ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืฉืขื™ืจ ื ืฉื™ื ื‘ืฉืืจ ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื ืžื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืงืจื‘ื ื•

If one would say: Let them bring a bull, that is difficult, as it is for unwitting violation of the rest of the mitzvot that the general public brings a bull. If one would say: Let them bring a bull for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering, that is difficult, as it is for unwitting idol worship that the general public brings those offerings in the case of an absence of awareness leading to an erroneous ruling by the court. If one would say: Let them bring a goat, that is difficult, as it is for unwitting violation of the rest of the mitzvot that a king brings a goat. If one will say: Let them bring a female goat, that is difficult, as that is the offering for an individual, too.

ืืœืžื” ืœื ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืคืจ ืœืขื•ืœื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ื”ื ื™ ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื™ืคื›ื ืคืจ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืฉืขื™ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื” ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืฆืจื™ืš ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara rejects this: Why do you say that the verse that equates the offerings of the individuals and the public is not necessary? Were it not for the verse, it might enter your mind to say: The general public brings a bull for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering, but this majority of a city that unwittingly engaged in idol worship shall bring the opposite: A bull for a sin-offering and a goat for a burnt-offering. Alternatively, perhaps the majority of a city that unwittingly engaged in idol worship must bring an offering, but it has no remedy, because there is no unique offering that it can bring. Therefore, the verse teaches us that there is no distinction between many people and individuals in this case.

ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžื™ื”ืช ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื ื™ ืงืจืื™ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื›ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื›ื™ ืชืฉื’ื• ื•ืœื ืชืขืฉื• ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืืœื” ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืžืฆื•ื” ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉืงื•ืœื” ื›ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื”

ยง In any event, everyone agrees that where these verses are written, it is with regard to idol worship that they are written. The Gemara asks: As the verse does not mention idol worship explicitly, from where is this inferred? Rava said, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said, and some say that the statement is unattributed, that the verse states: โ€œAnd when you act unwittingly, and do not perform all these commandments [kol hamitzvot] that the Lord spoke to Mosesโ€ (Numbers 15:22). Which is the mitzva that is the equivalent of all the mitzvot? You must say: It is the prohibition against idol worship.

ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืชื ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืฉืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืณ ืืœ ืžืฉื” ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืฉืจ ืฆื•ื” ื”ืณ ืืœื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื“ ืžืฉื” ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืžืฆื•ื” ืฉื”ื™ื ื‘ื“ื™ื‘ื•ืจื• ืฉืœ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ื•ืฆื•ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืฉื” ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ืชื ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื ื›ื™ ื•ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœืš ืžืคื™ ื”ื’ื‘ื•ืจื” ืฉืžืขื ื•ื

The school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught that the verse states: โ€œThat the Lord spoke to Mosesโ€ (Numbers 15:22), and it is written: โ€œThat the Lord has commanded you by the hand of Mosesโ€ (Numbers 15:23). Which is the mitzva that was introduced in the speech of the Holy One, Blessed be He, heard by the Jewish people, and which He commanded in the Torah by means of Moses? You must say: This is idol worship, as Rabbi Yishmael taught concerning the first two commandments: โ€œI am the Lord your Godโ€ (Exodus 20:2), and: โ€œYou shall have no other gods before Meโ€ (Exodus 20:3): We, the Jewish people, heard them from the mouth of the Almighty.

ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืชื ื

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught

ืœืžืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื ืืฉืจ ืฆื•ื” ื”ืณ ื•ื”ืœืื” ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืชื™ื›ื ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืžืฆื•ื” ืฉื”ื™ื ื ืืžืจื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ื• ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืขืฉืจ ืžืฆื•ืช ื ืฆื˜ื•ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืžืจื” (ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื™ื” ืื ืฉืžื•ืข ืชืฉืžืข ืœืงื•ืœ ื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ืš) ืืœื ืžื—ื•ื•ืจืชื ื›ื“ืฉื ื™ื ืŸ ืžืขื™ืงืจื

that it is derived from the verse: โ€œAll that the Lord has commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day that the Lord commanded and onward throughout your generationsโ€ (Numbers 15:23). Which is the mitzva that was stated at the beginning of all the mitzvot? You must say: This is idol worship, as it is the first mitzva in the Ten Commandments. The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t the Master say: The Jewish people were commanded ten mitzvot in Marah soon after leaving Egypt, prior to the revelation at Sinai, as it is written: โ€œIf you shall hearken to the voice of the Lord your Godโ€ฆand listen to His mitzvotโ€ (Exodus 15:26)? Evidently, there were mitzvot that preceded the prohibition against idol worship. Rather, it is clear as we initially answered.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ืขืฉื” ื•ืขืœ ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืฉื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืขืœ ืขืฉื” ื•ืขืœ ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืฉื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ

MISHNA: The court is not liable to bring a bull as an unwitting communal sin-offering for issuing a ruling with regard to a positive mitzva or a prohibition related to the defiling of the Temple by one being there while ritually impure, or the defiling of its sacrificial foods by one partaking of them while ritually impure. There is a positive mitzva to remove impure people from the Temple, and there is a prohibition against entering the Temple while in a state of ritual impurity. And one does not bring a provisional guilt-offering for a positive mitzva or a prohibition related to the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

ืื‘ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ืขืฉื” ื•ืขืœ ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืฉื‘ื ื“ื” ื•ืžื‘ื™ืื™ื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืขืœ ืขืฉื” ื•ืขืœ ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืฉื‘ื ื“ื” ืื™ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืžืฆื•ืช ืขืฉื” ืฉื‘ื ื“ื” ืคืจื•ืฉ ืžืŸ ื”ื ื“ื” ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืืœ ืชื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื ื“ื”

But the court is liable to bring a bull for a positive mitzva or for a prohibition that is related to a menstruating woman, and one brings a provisional guilt-offering for a positive mitzva or for a prohibition that is related to a menstruating woman. What is the positive mitzva that is related to a menstruating woman? Distance yourself from the menstruating woman. If a man engages in intercourse with a woman and she begins menstruating, he is required to separate from her. And what is the prohibition? Do not engage in intercourse with a woman whom you know is a menstruating woman.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืœื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื•ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? That is, from where is it derived that the general public is not liable to bring any offering at all for a sin like the defiling of the Temple, which carries no liability for an individual to bring a fixed sin-offering for violating it unwittingly, and from where is it derived that an individual too is not liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering for the defiling of the Temple?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื“ื™ืžื™ ื ืืžืจ ื•ืืฉื ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื‘ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื•ื ืืžืจ ื•ืืฉืžื• ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžื” ื•ืืฉื ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ืงื‘ื•ืขื” ืืฃ ื•ืืฉืžื• ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ืงื‘ื•ืขื”

Rav Yitzแธฅak bar Avdimi says: The term โ€œand he is guiltyโ€ is stated with regard to a sin-offering (Leviticus 4:27) and with regard to a provisional guilt-offering (Leviticus 5:17), and the similar term: โ€œAnd they are guiltyโ€ (Leviticus 4:13), is stated with regard to the general public. Just as the term โ€œand he is guiltyโ€ that is stated with regard to an individual is concerning a transgression for which one is liable to bring a fixed sin-offering, as it is written there, so too, the term โ€œand they are guiltyโ€ that is stated with regard to the general public is concerning a transgression for which one is liable to bring a fixed sin-offering. For the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, not a fixed offering.

ื•ืžื” ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ืงื‘ื•ืขื” ืืฃ ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื ืืœื ืขืœ ืกืคืง ื—ื˜ืืช ืงื‘ื•ืขื” ืืžืจื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขื•ืœื” ื•ื™ื•ืจื“ ื ืžื™ ื”ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื™ืืฉื ืœืื—ืช ืžืืœื” ื“ื ื™ืŸ (ืืฉื ืžืŸ ืืฉืžื•) [ืืฉืžื• ืžืŸ ืืฉื] ื•ืื™ืŸ ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืืฉื ืžืŸ ื™ืืฉื

And just as with regard to a transgression performed by the general public the liability is to bring a fixed sin-offering, so too, a provisional guilt-offering comes only for uncertainty with regard to a transgression that renders one obligated to bring a fixed sin-offering. This is the source for the fact that there is no liability to bring a sin-offering if the general public defiles the Temple or its sacrificial foods, and individuals are not liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering for those transgressions. The Sages say: If so, and the derivation is based on that term, this is difficult, as isnโ€™t it also written with regard to a sliding-scale offering: โ€œAnd it shall be when he shall be guilty of one of these mattersโ€ (Leviticus 5:5)? The Gemara responds: One derives the meaning of โ€œthey are guiltyโ€ from the meaning of โ€œhe is guilty,โ€ but one does not derive the meaning of โ€œhe is guiltyโ€ from the meaning of โ€œhe shall be guilty,โ€ even though both are stated in the singular.

ื•ืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื•ืฉื‘ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืฉื™ื‘ื” ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื‘ื™ืื” ื•ืขื•ื“ ื ื™ืœืฃ ืžืŸ ื•ืืฉื ืžื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื ื˜ืžื ื•ืืฉื

The Gemara asks: And what difference is there between the different verb conjugations? But didnโ€™t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses? The verse states: โ€œAnd the priest shall return [veshav]โ€ (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priestโ€™s visit seven days later states: โ€œAnd the priest shall come [uva] and lookโ€ (Leviticus 14:44). This returning and this coming have the same meaning and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the halakha that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week. If a verbal analogy can be derived between two different terms, it can certainly be derived from two conjugations of the same term. And furthermore, let us derive the halakha from the term โ€œand he is guilty,โ€ written with regard to the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, as it is written: โ€œAnd he is ritually impure and he is guiltyโ€ (Leviticus 5:2), which is a verbal analogy between identical terms.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื•ืืฉื ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืณ ืžืŸ ื•ืืฉื ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ ืœืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ื ื™ืœืฃ ื•ืืฉื ื•ื ืฉื™ืืช ืขื•ืŸ ืžืŸ ื•ืืฉื ื•ื ืฉื™ืืช ืขื•ืŸ

Rav Pappa says: One derives the meaning of: โ€œAnd he is guilty,โ€ and: โ€œThe commandments of the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 5:17), which are written with regard to a provisional guilt-offering, from the meaning of: โ€œAnd they are guilty,โ€ and: โ€œThe commandments of the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 4:13), which are written with regard to the unwitting communal sin-offering. The phrase: The commandments of the Lord, is not written with regard to the sliding-scale offering. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to Rav Pappa: Let us derive the meaning of: โ€œAnd he is guilty and bearing of iniquityโ€ (see Leviticus 5:1, 4), from the meaning of: โ€œAnd he is guilty and bearing of iniquityโ€ (Leviticus 5:17).

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื“ื ื™ืŸ ื•ืืฉื ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืณ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืชืขืฉื™ื ื” ืžื•ืืฉื ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืณ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืชืขืฉื™ื ื” ื•ืืœ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉืžื™ืขืช ืงื•ืœ ื•ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ื™ ืฉืคืชื™ื ื•ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื• ืฉืœื ื ืืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื•ืืฉื ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ื”ืณ ืืฉืจ ืœื ืชืขืฉื™ื ื”

Rather, Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak says: One derives the meaning of โ€œand he is guiltyโ€ and โ€œthe commandments of the Lord that shall not be doneโ€ written with regard to a provisional guilt-offering, from the meaning of: โ€œAnd he is guilty,โ€ and: โ€œThe commandments of the Lord that shall not be doneโ€ (Leviticus 4:27), written with regard to a fixed sin-offering. And the cases of hear-ing of a voice, i.e., an oath of testimony, and a statement of the lips, i.e., an oath on an utterance, and the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, for which one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, shall not prove otherwise, as it is not stated concerning them: And he is guilty, and: The commandments of the Lord that shall not be done.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœ ืฉืžื™ืขืช ืงื•ืœ ื•ืขืœ ื‘ื™ื˜ื•ื™ ืฉืคืชื™ื ื•ืขืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืงื“ืฉื™ื• ื•ื”ื ืฉื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื ืฉื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืฉืžื™ืขืช ื”ืงื•ืœ ืฉื”ืžืœืš ืœื ื“ืŸ ื•ืœื ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• [ืœื ืžืขื™ื“ ื•ืœื ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื•]

MISHNA: The court is not liable for issuing a ruling with regard to hearing of a voice, i.e., a false oath of testimony taken by a witness who refuses to testify on behalf of a litigant who demands that he testify, or for an utterance of the lips, i.e., a false oath stated about some matter, or for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. And the status of the king is like that of the court, and he is exempt from bringing an offering in those cases; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: The king is liable in all of those cases except for the case of hearing of a voice, and even in that case, his exemption is not intrinsic to the mitzva. Rather, it is for technical reasons, as the king neither judges others nor do others judge him; he does not testify nor do others testify against him. Therefore, a demand that he testify is not applicable.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื™ืืฉื ืœืื—ืช ืžืืœื” ื›ืœ ืฉืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืช ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื•ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืช ืื™ืŸ ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ

GEMARA: Ulla said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? It is as the verse states with regard to a sliding-scale offering: โ€œAnd it shall be when he shall be guilty of one of these mattersโ€ (Leviticus 5:5), indicating that anyone who becomes liable in every one of the instances for which one brings a sliding-scale offering becomes liable in all of those instances; and anyone who does not become liable in every one of the instances to bring a sliding-scale offering does not become liable in any of those instances. Since the king is exempt from taking an oath of testimony, he is exempt in the other cases as well.

ื•ืื™ืžื ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: Why say this? And say an alternative interpretation of the verse: Anyone who becomes liable in any one of these instances brings a sliding-scale offering, and this is the halakha even though he does not become liable in all of them.

ืืœื ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืžื”ื›ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ

Rather, the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is from here, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yirmeya would say: It is stated:

Scroll To Top