ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Horayos 3
HORAYOS 3-4 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love
for the Torah and for those who study it.
(a) In a Mishnah later, Rebbi Yehudah will rule that if seven tribes sin
be'Shigegas Hora'ah, they bring seven bulls - because he holds that each
tribe is called a Kahal.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah - Beis-Din is not obligated to bring another
(c) This forces us to consider the possibility - that the author of the
first of the two Beraisos currently under discussion is not Rebbi Yehudah
after all (as we assumed until now).
(d) Maybe that is why Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel establishes that Beraisa
like - Rebbi Meir (and the second Beraisa like the Chachamim).
(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Horu ve'Asu, Rebbi Meir Poter'. The Rabbanan
rule - 'Horu ve'Asu Chayav'.
(b) 've'Asu' cannot pertain to ...
1. ... Beis-Din, because we learn from "ha'Kahal ve'Asu" - that it is the
Beis-Din who issue the ruling, but the people who sin.
(c) We therefore think that when the Tana says "Ve'asu", he must be
referring to a Yachid, and the basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Yachid
she'Asah ve'Hora'as Beis-Din Patur' (Rebbi Meir) or 'Chayav' (the Rabbanan).
2. ... Rov Kahal - because then why would Rebbi Meir rule 'Patur'.
(d) Rav Papa refutes this proof however. In his opinion, even the Rabbanan
agree that 'Yachid she'Asah be'Hora'as Beis-Din Patur', and the Mishnah is
speaking about 'Rov Kahal' - which is only a 'Rov' because Beis-Din sinned
too, and Rebbi Meir only holds Patur because he maintains Beis-Din cannot be
included among the sinners, even to turn a minority into a majority.
(a) Alternatively, we establish the case by Rov Kahal, and the Rabbanan who
say 'Chayav' are Rebbi Shimon, who hold that by Shigegas Hora'as, the Kahal
is obligated to bring a Par as well as Beis-Din. Rebbi Meir therefore
holds - that it is only the Beis-Din who brings a Chatas, and not the Kahal.
(b) Another alternative is when a tribe followed the ruling of its Beis-Din,
and the Chachamim is alias Rebbi Yehudah - who says that such a case has the
Din of Shigegas Hora'ah ...
(c) ... whereas according to Rebbi Meir - it is only the rulings of the
Beis-Din ha'Gadol that are subject to the Din of Shigegas Hora'ah.
(a) Finally, we suggest that the Rabbanan hold like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar
Amar Rebbi Meir - who rules that six tribes comprising the majority of K'lal
Yisrael that sinned - are subject to the Din of Shigegas Hora'ah ...
(b) And the same applies - to seven tribes which comprise the minority.
(c) Rebbi Meir will hold - that 'Rov Kahal' requires at least seven tribes
that also comprise the majority of K'lal Yisrael.
(d) Based on the Pasuk "Va'ya'as Sh'lomoh ba'Eis ha'Hi es ha'Chag ve'Chol
Yisrael Imo *Kehal Gadol mi'Lavo Chamas ad Nachal Mitzrayim* ... ", Rav Asi
comments - that Rov Kahal includes only those who live within the borders of
Eretz Yisrael (but not those who live north of Chamas, or south of the
(a) In the Mishnah in the third Perek the Tana Kama holds that a Kohen
Mashu'ach or a Nasi who sin prior to his appointment, brings a 'Kisbah O
Se'irah, even if he only became aware of the sin afterwards. According to
Rebbi Shimon - he brings a Par.
(b) This is due to the fact - that the Rabbanan go after the time of the
sin, whereas Rebbi Shimon goes after the time that he becomes aware that he
(c) And the same Machlokes applies in our case - inasmuch as in a case where
the Rov Kahal sinned, and by the time they realized that they had, some of
them had died, leaving them in the minority, they will bring a Par according
to the Rabbanan, and a Kisbah O Se'irah, according to Rebbi Shimon.
(a) We ask whether Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan will also argue in the
reverse case (where a minority of the Kahal sinned, only later they became a
majority - which is possible where some of those who did not sin died).
According to Rebbi Shimon, they would be obligated to bring a Par, whereas
according to the Rabbanan, they would be Patur.
(b) The basis of the She'eilah (the reason why we might think that they
remain Patur even according to Rebbi Shimon) is - because, as opposed to the
previous case, at the time when the Miy'ut Kahal sinned, they were not
Chayav at all (even according to Rebbi Shimon [see also Tosfos DH Mu'atin').
(c) We conclude - that Rebbi Shimon only speaks in a case where both the sin
and the knowledge of the sin took place be'Chiyuv, but where the sin took
place without any Chiyuv, they are Patur.
(d) And, to prove it, we conclude 'de'im-Kein, Laysi ke'de'Hashta' - meaning
that if Rebbi Shimon did not require both the sin and the knowledge
be'Chiyuv, why does he concede that, in a case where the Kohen Gadol only
became aware of his sin after his appointment, he is Patur?
(a) We ask what the Din will be in a case where Beis-Din ruled twice that
Cheilev was permitted, and each time a Miy'ut Kahal followed their ruling.
They might not be Chayav - because there were two different 'Yedi'os'.
(b) Assuming that the two Miy'utim do combine (seeing as they committed the
same sin), they might not however do so, in a similar case, only where
Beis-Din first permitted the Cheilev on the stomach, and then the Cheilev on
the intestines - because the respective Isurim stem from two different
(c) On the assumption that they combine there as well, we ask whether a
Miy'ut Kahal who followed Beis-Din's ruling permitting Cheilev, and another
Miy'ut Kahal who followed their ruling permitting blood, will combine, too.
We think that they ...
1. ... might not (in spite of the fact that they are both Chayav Kareis) -
because the Isurim are inherently different, inasmuch as the Cheilev of a
Chayah is permitted, whereas the blood of a Chayah is not.
(d) And assuming that even they combine, we suggest that a Miy'ut Kahal who
followed their ruling permitting blood, and a Miy'ut Kahal who followed
their ruling permitting Avodas-Kochavim will also combine (even though they
require different Korbanos [Kisbah O Se'irah and Se'irah only respectively],
as well as being different Isurin) - because they are both Chayav Kareis.
2. ... might nevertheless combine - because if the same Kahal were to eat
either Cheilev or Dam be'Shigegas Ma'aseh, they would bring the same Chatas.
(e) The outcome of these She'eilos and of the next one is - Teiku.
(a) We then ask, assuming that 'Cheilev ve'Cheilev' combine, whether they
will combine even if the two rulings were issued by two consecutive
Batei-Din. This She'eilah is not applicable - according to those who hold
that it is the Beis-Din who bring the Par (and not the Kahal).
(b) They might not combine however - because, even though the Kahal is one
and the same, the Yedi'ah of Beis-Din (an intrinsic requirement towards the
Chiyuv) is not.
(a) Rebbi Yonasan learned from the Pasuk "ve'Im *Kol Adas Yisrael* Yishgu" -
that even if a hundred Dayanim were sitting in Beis-Din (see Chok Nasan),
they all had to agree (to the erroneous ruling) before they would be Chayav.
(b) Based on the principle 'Rubo ke'Kulo', Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua
proves it from the Lashon of the Pasuk "Kol Adas Yisrael" - which implies
that the decision is unanimous (and that the majority will not suffice, as
it does in other cases).
(c) Our Mishnah obligates member of Beis-Din or a Talmid who knows that
Beis-Din erred, to bring a Korban, because he did not rely on Beis-Din's
ruling - implying that anybody else (who does rely on Beis-Din) is Patur, a
Kashya on Rebbi Yonasan, according to whom this is not considered Shigegas
Hora'ah (since one of the Dayan disagreed with the ruling [and anybody who
subsequently sinned ought to be Chayav]).
(d) To answer the Kashya, we establish the Mishnah - when the Dayan who
disagreed with then in his heart, nevertheless nodded his head in agreement
with their ruling.
(a) In a case where one member of Beis-Din informed the others that they had
erred, the next Mishnah will absolve Beis-Din from a Korban (because that is
not a proper ruling.
(b) This implies that if he had remained silent, they would be have been
Chayav (even though one of the Dayanim does not agree with their ruling).
Rebbi Yonasan will refute the proof from there that not all members of
Beis-Din need to rule, to be considered 'Shigegas Hora'ah' - by once again
establishing the Mishnah, when the Dayan nodded his head in agreement with
(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok stated the
principle - that 'Beis-Din does not issue a decree on the community unless
the majority can live with it'.
(b) Rav Ada bar Aba learns this from the Pasuk "bi'Me'eirah Atem Ne'arim,
ve'Osi Atem Kov'im ha'Goy Kulo" which means that Beis-Din issued would issue
a decree with a curse against the transgressor, and the people robbed Hashem
(by benefiting from the curses), but that this was only because the whole of
(i.e. the majority of) the community accepted those decrees.
(c) Rav Mesharshaya finally proves Rebbi Yonasan wrong from here - seeing as
the Torah uses the expression ''ha'Goy Kulo", yet we interpret it to mean
(d) So we interpret "Kol Adas Yisrael" in the Pasuk in Vayikra to mean -
that all seventy-one members of the Sanhedrin must be in attendance (without
necessarily agreeing with the majority ruling) before it can be considered a
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that if ten people sit to judge, they are
all responsible for the outcome (and punishable should they err). This in
itself is obvious, but what he is coming to teach us is - that even if among
them is a Talmid sitting in front of his Rebbe (who is not allowed to remain
silent should he perceive that his Rebbe is making a mistake).
(b) Rav Huna would take ten Talmidei-Chachamim with him when he went to
Beis-Din to adjudicate - so that each one should receive only 'sawdust from
the beam' (i.e. they should share the blame).
(c) Rav Ashi did a similar thing. When people brought Safek T'reifos before
him to inspect - he would call ten of the town's butchers.
(a) If Beis-Din erred and retracted, but meanwhile, a Yachid acted on their
ruling, Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah exempts him from a Korban. How can
someone who sinned after the Tzibur realized their mistake and are already
preparing to atone for it, be included in their Korban (the Par He'elam
(b) ... even though they had not yet brought it.
(c) Rebbi Elazar rules 'Safek' - by which he means that since it is a Safek
whether he is Chayav Chatas or Patur, he brings an Asham Taluy.
(d) Rebbi Elazar will agree that he is Patur from a Korban however - in the
event that he was overseas when the error became known.
(a) Rebbi Akiva explained to ben Azai the difference between a Yachid who
was sitting at home and one who went overseas - in that the former should
have heard about the error, whereas the latter could not have been expected
(b) Our Mishnah - exempts Beis-Din who erred in saying that there is no Isur
of Nidah, Shabbos or Avodas-Kochavim min ha'Torah from bringing a Korban.
(c) The example they give of 'Levatel Miktzas' regarding ...
1. ... Nidah is - when they rule that someone who had relations with a
'Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom' (a woman who saw blood once or twice during the
days of Zivus) is exempt from bringing a Chatas.
(d) The Tana learns from the Pasuk "Ve'ne'elam Davar" - that Beis-Din are
Chayav only if they err in a detail of a major Isur, but not if they permit
the entire Isur (as we just explained).
2. ... Shabbos is - when they rule that someone who carries from one Reshus
to another is exempt from a Chatas.
3. ... Avodas-Kochavim is - when they rule that someone who prostrates
himself before an Avodah-Zarah is exempt from bringing a Chatas.
(a) According to the first Lashon of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, Rebbi Shimon
exempts the Yachid from a Korban because he acted with the sanction of
Beis-Din. In the second Lashon, he ascribes it to the fact - that any ruling
that Beis-Din issue publicly, transforms the one who follows it from a
Meizid to a Shogeg.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, the Par of the Tzibur was
purchased with money from the Terumas ha'Lishkah (part of the funds donated
annually by the people). Rebbi Shimon says - that the money had to be
collected from every member of the Kahal.
(c) The problem this creates with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (in Rebbi Shimon)
is - that seeing as the Yachid in question had to pay towards the purchase
of the Par He'elam Davar, how can Rebbi Shimon still consider him Taluy
be'Da'as Atzmo when he subsequently sinned?
(d) We answer this Kashya in three ways. 1. that they claimed from him S'tam
(without explaining what the money was for); 2. that he was out of town when
the Gaba'im claimed from all the residents - 3. that Rav Yehudah Amar Rav
follows the opinion of another Beraisa, which switches the two opinions, and
Rebbi Yehudah is the one who holds that the money to pay for the Par was
paid for by the Kahal. According to Rebbi Shimon, it came out of Terumas
(a) Our Mishnah cited the opinions of Rebbi Shimon, who exempts the Yachid
(who acted on the Beis-Din's ruling after they had retracted) from a Korban,
and Rebbi Elazar, who holds 'Safek'. The Beraisa cites two additional
opinions, one of them, Rebbi Meir, who says - Chayav.
(b) They cite Sumchus who says 'Taluy'. To distinguish between Sumchus and
Rebbi Elazar. Rebbi Yochanan explains this to mean - that his Chiyuv hangs
in abeyance, but he does not bring a Korban (Asham Taluy).