Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 1.1

משנה: הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין לַעֲבוֹר עַל אַחַת מִכָּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה וְהָלַךְ הַיָּחִיד וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג עַל פִּיהֶם בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶן בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה אַחֲרֵיהֶן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתָּלָה בְבֵית דִּין. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ אוֹ תַלְמִיד שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהוֹרָיָיה וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶם בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶם בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה אַחֲרֵיהֶם בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָיב מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָלָה בְבֵית דִּין. זֶה הַכְּלָל הַתּוֹלֶה בְעַצְמוֹ חַיָיב וְהַתּוֹלֶה בְבֵית דִּין פָּטוּר:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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