משנה: הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין שֶׁל אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁבָטִים וְעָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט עַל פִּיהֶם אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט הוּא חַייָב וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַשְּׁבָטִים פְּטוּרִין דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִין אֵין חַייָבִין אֶלָּא עַל הוֹרָיַת בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל בִּלְבָד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְאִם כָּל־עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר מֵֽעֵינֵי הָעֵדָה. וְלֹא עֲדַת אוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט׃ MISHNAH: If the Court of one of the tribes158The tribal High Court. ruled and that tribe acted on their pronouncement, that tribe is liable but any other tribes are not liable, the words of Rebbi Jehudah159Since he holds that the expression קָהָל refers to each of the tribes.. But the Sages say, they are only liable for a ruling by the High Court, as it is said, if the entire congregation of Israel be in error, and something was hidden from the eyes of the congregation160Leviticus.4.13">Lev. 4:13. The verse is misquoted; the masoretic text reads הַקָּהָל “the public” instead of הָעֵדָה “the congregation”, supporting R. Jehudah. In most Mishnah sources, only the first clause of the verse is copied., not the congregation of that tribe.
הלכה: הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין שֶׁלְּאֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁבָטִים כול׳. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. חוֹבַת בֵּית דִּין הִיא. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. חוֹבַת צִיבּוּרָא. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. חוֹבַת בֵּית דִּין וְחוֹבַת צִיבּוּרָא הִיא. מַה טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן מֵעֵינֵי וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן מֵעֵינֵי. מַה מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בֵּית דִּין אַף כָּאן בֵּית דִּין. מַה טַעֲם דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן מֵעֵינֵי וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן מֵעֵינֵי. מַה מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן צִיבּוּר אַף כָּאן צִיבּוּר. מַה טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן מֵעֵינֵי וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן מֵעֵינֵי. מַה מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בֵּית דִּין אַף מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בֵּית דִּין. וּמַה מֵעֵינֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן צִיבּוּר אַף כָּאן צִיבּוּר. מָאן דָּמַר. חוֹבַת בֵּית דִּין הִיא. בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר. חוֹבַת צִיבּוּר הִיא. מִי מֵבִיא. דְּתַנֵּי. מַטִּילִין הָיוּ עֲלֵיהֶן וּבָאִין. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מִתְּרוּמַּת הַלִּשְׁכָּה הָיוּ בָאִין. מָאן דָּמַר. חוֹבַת בֵּית דִּין הִיא. בֵּית דִּין סוֹמְכִין. מָאן דָּמַר. חוֹבַת צִיבּוּר הִיא. מִי סוֹמֵךְ. דְּתַנֵּי. שְׁלֹשָׁה מִכָּל־שֵׁבֶט וָשֵׁבֶט וְרֹאשׁ בֵּית דִּין עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן סוֹמְכִין יְדֵיהֶן עַל רֹאשׁ הַפָּר. יְדֵיהֶם. יְדֵי כָל־יָחִיד וְיָחִיד. יְדֵיהֶם עַל רֹאשׁ הַפָּר. פַּר טָעוּן סְמִיכָה אֵין שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. פַּר טָעוּן סְמִיכָה בְזְקֵינִים אֵין שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה בִזְקֵינִים. שֶׁרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. כָּל־חַטַּאת צִיבּוּר שֶׁדָּמָהּ נִכְנַס לִפְנִים טְעוּנָה סְמִיכָה. מְתִיבִין לְרִבִּי יוּדָה. וְהָֽכְתִיב וַיַּגִּשׁוּ אֶת־שְׂעִירֵ֣י הַֽחַטָּ֔את. רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָֽיְתָה. HALAKHAH: "If the Court of one of the tribes ruled," etc. 164The Halakhah does not refer to Mishnah 8 but to Mishnaiot 6-7, to explain why R. Meïr requires only one bull, R. Jehudah 12, and R. Simeon 13.Rebbi Meïr says, it is the Court's obligation. Rebbi Jehudah says, it is the public's obligation. Rebbi Simeon said, it is an obligation of the Court and an obligation of the public. What is Rebbi Meïr's reason? It is said here from the eyes165Lev. 4:13., and it is said there from the eyes166Num. 15:24.. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, here it also refers to the Court167 This argument is difficult to explain. In Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parasah 4(2), the expression עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל used in Lev. 4:13 is explained as referring to the High Court, the selected group from Israel, based on v. 15 which makes it clear that the bull has to be presented by the Elders, the members of the High Court. Then R. Meïr's argument is to infer from Lev. 4:13 to Num. 15:24: Since the bull is the responsibility of the Court, the goat for idolatry also must be the responsibility of the Court. . What is Rebbi Jehudah's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public168His argument is straightforward. Since the entire paragraph Num. 15:22-26 speaks only about עֵדָה, without any mention of the Elders, it is addressed to the public. Then the use of parallel terms is taken to transfer the setting to Lev. 4: 13.. What is Rebbi Simeon's reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, also from the eyes here refers to the Court. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public169He accepts arguing both from Lev. 4: 13 to Num. 15:24 and vice versa.. For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to bring170They have to pay for the bull from their own money and present it in the Temple. . For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who brings171Who has to pay and who has to officiate?? As we have stated172One imposes a tax and collects from everybody. In all other sources, Babli 3b, Menahot 52a; Tosephta Seqalim 2:6, the argument is between R. Jehudah and R. Simeon. This is the reasonable reading since for R. Meïr the Court pays from their own means., "one imposes and collects, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, they are brought from the Temple tax". For him who says, it is the Court's obligation, the Court has to lay their hands on. For him who says, it is the public's obligation, who lays their hands on173Since obviously not every single Israelite can be called to lay his hands on the bull.? As we have stated, three from every tribe, 174This follows R. Simeon in Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Pereq 6(2); R. Jehudah requires five. led by the president of the Court, lay their hands on the head of the bull. "Their hands, the hands of each single one. Their hands on the head of the bull; the bull needs laying on of hands but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon said, the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders; for Rebbi Simeon says, every public purification offering whose blood is brought inside175The only sacrifices whose blood is brought inside the sanctuary to be sprinkled on the incense altar are the purification offerings of the High Priest and the Community as well as the offerings of the Day of Atonement. The body of any such sacrifice must be burned outside the holy precinct (Lev. 6:23,16:27). needs laying on of hands. 176Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Pereq 6(3); Tosephta Menahot 10:9; Babli Menahot 92a." One objected to Rebbi Jehudah, is it not written, they presented the goats of the purification offering177 2Chr. 29:23. As usual, the argument is from the part of the verse which was not quoted: they presented the goats of the purification offering before the king and the public; they laid their hands on them. The goats were offered by Josiah to atone for the idolatry of his father Ahas.? Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling178A temporary deviation from Torah norms acceptable by prophetic instruction as long as it does not violate prohibitions. The absence of a bull and the presence of multiple goats both deviate from Torah prescriptions..
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. צִיבּוּר שֶׁמֵּת אֶחָד מָהוּ שֶׁיָּבִיא תַחְתָּיו. הָתִיבוֹן. וְהָֽכְתִיב הַ֠בָּאִים מֵֽהַשְּׁבִ֨י וגו׳. אֶיפְשַׁר חַטָּאת עוֹלָה. אֶלָּא מַה עוֹלָה לֹא נֶאֶכְלָה אַף חַטָּאת לֹא נֶאֶכְלָה. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. עַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֵבִיאוּם. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הוֹרָייַת שָׁעָה הָֽייְתָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה לָמַד כֵּן. אֶלָּא פַּר טָעוּן סְמִיכָה בְזְקֵנִים. אֵין שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה בִזְקֵינִים. אֶלָּא בְמִי. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה סָבַר מֵימַר. בְּאַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְהָתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. וְסָמַךְ וְסָֽמְכוּ. לְרַבּוֹת שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בִסְמִיכָה וְלֹא בִזְקֵנִים. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לָמַד כֵּן. אֶלָּא חַי טָעוּן סְמִיכָה בְאַהֲרֹן אֵין שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה בְאַהֲרֹן. וּכְתִיב כֵּן וְסָמַ֨ךְ אַֽהֲרֹ֜ן אֶת־שְׁתֵּ֣י יָדָ֗יו עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר֘ הַחַי֒. חַי טָעוּן סְמִיכָה בְאַהֲרֹן. אֵין שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה בְאַהֲרֹן. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. פָּתַר לָהּ בְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If one of the public died, can it be brought in his stead179This is a question for RR. Jehudah and Simeon. If a person dedicated an animal as a purification offering but died before it was sacrificed, the animal cannot be sacrificed without its owner nor can it be redeemed or used for any profane or holy purpose whatsoever. If the bull really is the obligation of the public and paid by the public’s money, it should become unusable if anybody who gave money for the sacrifice (Note 172) died before the ceremony was held. Practically, this would make the ceremony impossible.? They answered, is it not written, those who came from captivity180Ezra.8.35">Ezra 8:35: Those who came from captivity, from the diaspora, sacrificed elevation offerings to the God of Israel, twelve bulls for all of Israel, 96 goats, 77 sheep, purification goats twelve, all of it an elevation offering for the Eternal. An elevation offering is completely burned; the meat of a purification offering is eaten by the priests. To call a purification offering an elevation offering is a contradiction in terms.? Is a purification offering an elevation offering? But just as an elevation offering is not eaten, this purification offering was not eaten181Horayot.6a">Babli 6a. Since they brought 12 goats, R. Jehudah has Ezra’s authority for his position. This interpretation justifies the reading of Numbers.15.24">Num. 15:24 by the Mishnah. That verse requires the congregation to bring a bull as elevation offering and a goat as purification offering. If a purification offering which may not be eaten can be called an elevation offering, it is possible to identify this bull with the one prescribed in Lev.4:13. V. 24 requires the congregation (i. e., its Elders) to proffer the sacrifices but v. 25 requires the Cohen to conduct the entire ceremony. Both the opinions that the Elders do the laying on of their hands as also that the Cohen has to do it have biblical support.. Rebbi Jehudah says, they brought it for idolatry; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling178A temporary deviation from Torah norms acceptable by prophetic instruction as long as it does not violate prohibitions. The absence of a bull and the presence of multiple goats both deviate from Torah prescriptions.. Rebbi Jeremiah (learned) [did not say]163The text in the Babli shows that one has to read למר i. e. לֹא אָמַר. so but the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders while the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders. By whom? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, by Aaron and his sons. Rebbi Yose told him, Rebbi Ḥiyya also stated, he shall put his hands on, they shall put their hands on182Leviticus.16.21">Lev. 16:21 prescribes that Aaron has to lay his hand on the live goat. Since the entire service of the Day of Atonement is by the unaided High Priest, the mention of the name seems to be superfluous; it could as well have said “he has to lay his hands on.” It is concluded (next Note) that this is the only case in which the High Priest is required to lay his hands on. In parallel, one may read Leviticus.4.15">Lev. 4:15 where the Elders of the congregation are required to lay their hands on the bull, that they are not required to lay their hands on the goat., to include the goats of idolatry for laying on hands but not by the Elders. Rebbi Yose (learned) [did not say]163The text in the Babli shows that one has to read למר i. e. לֹא אָמַר. so but the living [goat] needs laying on of hands by Aaron, but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by Aaron. It is written so, “Aaron shall lean with both his hands on the living goat’s head; the living [goat] needs laying on of hands by Aaron, but he goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by Aaron.183Sifra Ahare Mot Parašah 4(4).” What does Rebbi Jeremiah do with this? He explains it, for a common priest184Since neither the High Priest nor the Elders are empowered but Numbers.15.25">Num. 15:25 requires the participation of a common priest, all biblical requirements are satisfied by having the common priest do the entire ceremony..
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב הַמְנוּנָא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. תַּנֵּי תַמָּן. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְעָשׂוּ קָהָל. מֵת אֶחָד מִבֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. מֵת אֶחָד מִן הַצִּיבּוּר חַייָבִין. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אִם לַאֲחֵרִים הוּא פוֹטֵר לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן עַל עַצְמוֹ. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. יִפְטוֹר לַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן בַּמֶּה לִתְלוֹת וְאַל יִפְטוֹר לְעַצְמוֹ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בַּמֶּה לִתְלוֹת. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following Rebbi Meïr185The following baraita can be understood only following R. Meïr who declares the bull to be the exclusive responsibility of the Court.. There, it was stated: If the Court ruled and the public acted186Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Paršetah 4(10). The Court is not liable as long as the public did not act on their instructions.. If a member of the Court died, they are not liable. If a member of the public died, they are liable187If a member of the Court died, the bull becomes a purification sacrifice whose part-owner had died; it cannot be brought nor sacrificed. While the sacrifice is brought for the benefit of the public, the public has no monetary interest in the bull following Rebbi Meïr. For him, all the public does is trigger the obligation.. Rebbi Meïr told them, if he188If a member of the Court acted on his own faulty ruling, the bull cannot relieve him of the obligation for a private purification sacrifice since the bull only is intended to shield those who acted on instructions of the Court. He himself does not depend on the Court and still is liable (Horayot 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.1.1.1">Mishnah 1; Horayot 1:8:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.1.8.5">Note 191). relieves others of their liability, not so much more for himself? They told him, he can relieve others from their liability since they have where to hang on; he cannot relieve himself of liability since he has nothing to hang on.
רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדַּאי. תַּנֵּיי תַמָּן. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְעָשׂוּ הֵן וְיָדְֽעוּ מָה הוֹרוּ. טָעוּ מָה הוֹרוּ שָׁגוּ מָה הוֹרוּ יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַייָבִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְנֽוֹדְעָה֙ הַֽחַטָּ֔את לֹא שֶׁיִּווָֽדְעוּ הַחוֹטְאִין. מַה נַפְשָׁךְ. חֵלֶב כְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אַתְיָא הִיא בְּשֶׁהוֹרוּ וְלֹא יָֽדְעוּ מָה הוֹרוּ אִם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אִם שְׁאָר כָּל־הַמִּצְוֹת. אִם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְפָר אִם שְׁאָר כָּל־הַמִּצְוֹת בְּשָׂעִיר. סָפֵק פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שִׁינּוּי קָרְבָּן הוּא וְהוּא פָטוֹר. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisdai. There, it was stated189Horayot.5a">Babli 5a, Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Paršetah4(12).: “If the Court ruled, and they themselves acted, and they realized what they ruled about. If they erred in what they ruled, would they be liable? The verse says, if the sin became known190Lev. 4:14. V. 13 makes it clear that the actions of the people trigger the obligation of the bull, not the actions of the court when it is not followed by the people., not that the sinners became known.” Anyway you take it191This refers to another situation which is described at the end. The court ruled, they were followed by the people, they realized their error but know they cannot decide which paragraph of the law they misinterpreted. In the Horayot.5a">Babli 5a, Shevuot.18b">Ševuot18b, Keritot.19a">Keritut 19a, R. Eliezer is quoted to hold that if one is not sure of the exact category of the sin committed it does not matter as long as all of them require a sacrifice. R. Joshua holds that a purification sacrifice is possible only if the legal definition of the transgression is known, as in all cases the verse requires that the sin be known (Leviticus.4.14">Lev. 4:14 for the court, v. 23 for the prince, v. 28 for a private person; cf. Horayot 1:1:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.1.1.5">Note 22.) From the text here it seems that the Yerushalmi tradition switches the names., if about fat [192Text of B, missing in the ms. The text must be supposed also for the ms. since otherwise the reference to R. Joshua is unmotivated. they ruled they are liable, if about Sabbath they ruled they are liable. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, this follows Rebbi Eliezer193Who in the Yerushalmi version prohibits the Court from offering the bull if they cannot define exactly which commandment had been breached.; it does not follow Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Yose said, but] it follows Rebbi Joshua if they ruled and they did not know whether about idolatry or about any other commandment194The argument in Note 191 is valid only if the different infractions all carry the same penalty. But if there is a question about which sacrifice to offer, no sacrifice is possible. Purification (and reparation) offerings cannot be brought as voluntary offerings since in contrast to these all voluntary offerings need gifts of flour and wine. Therefore one could not bring both kinds of sacrifice stipulating that the inappropriate one should be considered as voluntary.. If about idolatry by a bull, if about any other commandment a goat195Clearly, one has to switch the positions of “bull” and “goat”.. Since it is in doubt whether a bull or [a bull and196Text of B, more correct since the bull for unspecified sins is a purification offering and that for idolatry an elevation offering.] a goat, it is a difference in sacrifice and he197The Court. is not liable.