Highlights of Horayot

MISHNA: If a court erroneously issued a ruling permitting the Jewish people to violate one of all the mitzvot that are stated in the Torah, and an individual proceeded and performed that transgression unwittingly on the basis of the court’s ruling, then whether the judges performed the transgression and he performed it with them, or whether the judges performed the transgression and he performed it after them, or whether the judges did not perform the transgression and he performed it alone, in all these cases the individual is exempt from bringing an offering. This is due to the fact that he associated his action with the ruling of the court.

Rabbi Abba said: We learn proof for Rav Dimi’s opinion in a mishna as well. The mishna teaches (Yevamot 87b): If the court instructed a woman to marry on the basis of inaccurate testimony, but she proceeded and disgraced herself and engaged in promiscuous intercourse, she is liable to bring an offering, as they permitted her only to marry, and her conduct lacked the approval of the court. This indicates that it is not sufficient for the court to issue a general ruling to the woman; rather, the court issues a ruling that includes instruction to perform a specific action.

§ The mishna teaches: And one of the judges knew that they erred, or if he was a student and he is qualified to issue halakhic rulings. The Gemara asks: Why do I need two cases? As a student qualified to issue halakhic rulings is the equivalent of one of the judges, why did the tanna mention both? Rava said: It was necessary to state both, as it may enter your mind to say that this statement that he is liable applies specifically to one who is learned and analytical, but that one who is learned but not analytical, no, he should not be liable to bring an offering. Therefore, the tanna cites both the case of a judge and the case of a student qualified to issue halakhic rulings, to teach that even one who is learned but not analytical is liable in this case.

§ Rabbi Yonatan says: Even in the case of one hundred judges who convened to issue a ruling and erred, they are not liable to bring an offering unless they all issue that ruling, as it is stated with regard to liability to bring the offering: “And if the entire assembly of Israel shall act unwittingly” (Leviticus 4:13). From the term “entire” it is derived that the judges are not liable until they all act unwittingly, and the ruling must disseminate and be adopted throughout the entire assembly of Israel, i.e., the Sanhedrin. Rav Huna, son of Rav Hoshaya, said: So too it is reasonable to conclude this, as throughout the entire Torah we maintain the principle: The legal status of the majority of an entity is considered like all of that entity, and here: “The entire assembly,” is written. Since it is so, a majority does not suffice. Even if they are one hundred judges, they are liable only if the erroneous ruling was unanimous.

Rav Mesharshiyya raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yonatan from a baraita: Our Sages relied on the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and on the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, who would say: One does not issue a decree upon the congregation unless the majority of the congregation is able to withstand it.

With regard to a court session Rabbi Yehoshua says: When there are ten judges who sit in judgment, the chain [kolar] placed around the neck of the person taken to his punishment is suspended around the neck of all of them, i.e., they are all responsible for the decision. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that even a student before his teacher may not be silent in deference to his teacher, as he bears responsibility for an erroneous ruling.

The mishna explains for which type of unwitting transgression based on the ruling of the court there is liability to bring an offering. In a case where the judges of the court issued an erroneous ruling to abolish the entire essence of a mitzva, not only a detail thereof, e.g., they said: There is no prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman written in the Torah, or there is no prohibition against performing prohibited labor on Shabbat written in the Torah, or there is no prohibition against engaging in idol worship written in the Torah, these judges are exempt, as this is an error based on ignorance, not an erroneous ruling. If the judges issued a ruling to nullify part of a mitzva and to sustain part of that mitzva, these judges are liable.

Another example is if they said: There is a prohibition against performing prohibited labor on Shabbat written in the Torah, but one who carries out objects from the private domain to the public domain is exempt.

Another example is if they said: There is a prohibition against engaging in idol worship written in the Torah, but one who bows to the idol but does not sacrifice an offering is exempt. In all of these cases, these judges are liable, as it is stated: “And the matter is hidden” (Leviticus 4:13), from which it is derived that there is liability only if a matter, a single detail, is hidden, but not if the entire essence of a mitzva is hidden.

§ Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: A court is not liable to bring an offering unless it issues an erroneous ruling concerning a matter with which the Sadducees do not agree. The Sadducees do not accept the Oral Torah, and they interpret the Written Torah literally. The court is liable only for a matter that is not explicitly written in the Torah or that does not clearly stem from that which is written in the Torah. But with regard to an erroneous ruling concerning a matter with which the Sadducees agree, the judges are exempt. What is the reasoning for this exemption? It is a topic that you could go learn in a children’s school. Since the matter the judges ruled upon is so obvious, their ruling simply exhibits ignorance, and is not deemed a ruling.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If a king or High Priest sinned before they were appointed, and thereafter they were appointed, the status of these people is like that of commoners. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught with regard to the verse: “If the anointed priest shall sin to bring guilt” (Leviticus 4:3); this serves to exclude the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his installation as High Priest.

Rabban Gamliel said to him: So much wisdom is at your disposal, and you board a ship to earn your livelihood? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Before you wonder about me, wonder about two students that you have on dry land, Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda, who are so wise that they know how to calculate how many drops of water there are in the sea, and yet they have neither bread to eat nor a garment to wear. Rabban Gamliel made up his mind to seat them at the head of the academy.

Rabban Gamliel said to him: So much wisdom is at your disposal, and you board a ship to earn your livelihood? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Before you wonder about me, wonder about two students that you have on dry land, Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda, who are so wise that they know how to calculate how many drops of water there are in the sea, and yet they have neither bread to eat nor a garment to wear. Rabban Gamliel made up his mind to seat them at the head of the academy.

When Rabban Gamliel ascended to dry land, he sent a messenger to them to tell them to come so that he could appoint them and they did not come. He again sent a messenger to them and they came. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Do you imagine that I am granting you authority, and since you did not want to accept the honor you did not come when I sent for you?

I am granting you servitude, as it is stated: “And they spoke to him saying: If you will be a servant to this people today” (I Kings 12:7). This explains the phrase “in an independent house.”

§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For the ways of the Lord are right, and the righteous will walk in them and transgressors will stumble in them” (Hosea 14:10)? It is comparable to an incident involving two people who roasted their Paschal offerings. One ate it for the sake of the mitzva, and the other one ate it with gusto, for the sake of excessive eating. With regard to that person who ate it for the sake of the mitzva, it is written: “The righteous will walk in them.” With regard to that person who ate it for the sake of excessive eating, it is written: “And transgressors will stumble in them.”

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah study and the performance of mitzvot, even if he does so not for its own sake, as through the performance of mitzvot not for its own sake, one gains understanding and comes to perform them for its own sake. Proof for this can be adduced from the incident involving Balak, as in reward for the forty-two offerings that Balak the wicked sacrificed to God, despite the fact that he did this in order to curse the Jewish people (see Numbers, chapter 23), he merited and Ruth emerged from him, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Ruth was the daughter of the son of Eglon, the son of the son of Balak, king of Moab.

The baraita continues. Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving the priest Yosef ben Eilim of Tzippori: When disqualification befell a High Priest and he left his position, the priests appointed another, Yosef ben Eilim, in his stead. And after the cause of the disqualification passed, his brethren the priests did not allow Yosef ben Eilim to serve, neither as a High Priest nor as an ordinary priest. The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to enmity, jealousy, and bitterness that would be engendered if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple. Nor as an ordinary priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of an ordinary priest.

MISHNA: Any mitzva that is more frequent than another mitzva precedes that other mitzva if the opportunity to fulfill one of them coincides with an opportunity to fulfill the other. And anyone who is more sanctified than another precedes that other person. If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation, which are brought for absence of awareness of the matter, are pending, the bull of the anointed priest precedes the bull of the congregation in all its actions, i.e., its sacrificial rites.

The Sages taught in a baraita: If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation are pending, the bull of the anointed priest precedes the bull of the congregation in all its actions. Since the anointed priest atones for the entire Jewish people, and the congregation gains atonement, it is logical that the one who atones will precede the one who gains atonement. And so the verse states: “And he shall atone for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel” (Leviticus 16:17).

A Torah scholar precedes the king of Israel, because in the case of a Sage who dies, we have no one like him, but in the case of a king of Israel who dies, all of Israel are fit for royalty.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: When the Nasi of the Sanhedrin enters, all the people stand and they do not sit until he says to them: Sit. When the deputy Nasi of the Sanhedrin enters, the people form for him one row from here, on this side of the path that he takes, and one row from there, on the other side of it, in a display of deference, until he sits in his place, and then they may be seated. When the Ḥakham, who is ranked third among the members of the Sanhedrin, enters, one person stands when he is within four cubits of the Ḥakham, and another sits, i.e., when one is no longer within four cubits of the Ḥakham he may sit. And all those whom the Ḥakham passes do this, until he sits in his place. When the multitudes require their services, i.e., they serve a public role, sons of the Sages and Torah scholars may step over the heads of the people seated on the ground in order to reach their places in the Sanhedrin. If one of the Sages left for the purpose of relieving himself, when he is finished he may enter and sit in his place in the Sanhedrin, and he need not be concerned that he is imposing upon those assembled.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This mishna, i.e., the preceding baraita, was taught during the days of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was the Nasi, Rabbi Meir was the Ḥakham, and Rabbi Natan was the deputy Nasi. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was there, everyone would arise before him. When Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan would enter, everyone would arise before them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Shouldn’t there be a conspicuous distinction between me and them in terms of the manner in which deference is shown? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted the provisions delineated in this baraita that distinguish between the Nasi and his subordinates with regard to the deference shown them.

That day, when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted these provisions, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were not there. The following day when they came to the study hall, they saw that the people did not stand before them as the matter was typically done. They said: What is this? The people said to them: This is what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted.

Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Natan: I am the Ḥakham and you are the deputy Nasi. Let us devise a matter and do to him as he did to us. What shall we do to him? Let us say to him: Reveal to us tractate Okatzim, which he does not know. And once it is clear to all that he did not learn, he will not have anything to say. Then we will say to him: “Who can express the mighty acts of the Lord, shall make all His praises heard?” (Psalms 106:2), indicating: For whom is it becoming to express the mighty acts of the Lord? It is becoming for one who is capable of making all His praises heard, and not for one who does not know one of the tractates. We will remove him from his position as Nasi, and I will be deputy Nasi and you will be Nasi.

Rabbi Ya’akov ben Korshei heard them talking, and said: Perhaps, Heaven forfend, this matter will come to a situation of humiliation for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. He did not wish to speak criticism or gossip about Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan, so he went and sat behind the upper story where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel lived. He explained tractate Okatzin; he studied it aloud and repeated it, and studied it aloud and repeated it.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to himself: What is this that is transpiring before us? Perhaps, Heaven forfend, there is something transpiring in the study hall. He suspected that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were planning something. He concentrated and studied tractate Okatzin. The following day Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan said to him: Let the Master come and teach a lesson in tractate Okatzin. He began and stated the lesson he had prepared. After he completed teaching the tractate, he said to them: If I had not studied the tractate, you would have humiliated me.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel commanded those present and they expelled Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan from the study hall as punishment. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan would write difficulties on a scrap of paper [pitka] and would throw them there into the study hall. Those difficulties that were resolved were resolved; as for those that were not resolved, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan wrote resolutions on a scrap of paper and threw them into the study hall. Rabbi Yosei said to the Sages: How is it that the Torah, embodied in the preeminent Torah scholars, is outside and we are inside?

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to them: Let us admit them into the study hall. But we will penalize them in that we will not cite halakha in their names. They cited statements of Rabbi Meir in the name of Aḥerim, meaning: Others, and they cited statements of Rabbi Natan in the name of yesh omerim, meaning: Some say. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were shown a message in their dreams: Go, appease Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Natan went. Rabbi Meir did not go. He said in his heart: Matters of dreams are insignificant. When Rabbi Natan went, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to him: Although the ornate belt, i.e., the importance, of your father was effective in enabling you to become deputy Nasi, as Rabbi Natan’s father was the Babylonian Exilarch, will it render you Nasi as well?

The Gemara relates: Abaye, Rava, Rabbi Zeira, and Rabba bar Mattana were sitting and studying in a group and were in need of a head for their group. They said: Let anyone who will say a matter that is not refuted be the head. Everyone’s statements were refuted, and the statement of Abaye was not refuted. Rabba saw that Abaye raised his head, i.e., he noticed that his statement was not refuted. Rabba said to him: Naḥmani, calling Abaye by his name rather than by his nickname, begin and say your lecture.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Between Rabbi Zeira and Rabba bar Rav Mattana, which of them is preferable? Rabbi Zeira is incisive and raises pertinent difficulties, and Rabba bar Rav Mattana is moderate and not so incisive, but ultimately he draws the appropriate conclusions. What is the conclusion? Which is preferable? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.