Torah Community Connections

Week 139 - Shabbat - 27 July 2002

HORAYOT: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 3

They are liable, only when there are both a hidden matter and an unwitting action; so also the anointed. Nor are they liable in a matter of idolatry, unless there are both a hidden matter and an unwitting action. The Bet Din are not liable, unless they render a decision, which, if acted upon wilfully, involves karet, and, if unwittingly, a sin-offering; so also the anointed. Nor in a case of idolatry, unless they render a decision respecting that which, if acted upon wilfully involves karet, and, if unwittingly - a sin-offering.

Kehati

Our mishnah adds more instances of similarity between the anointed priest and the Bet Din.

They are only liable - in making a decision leading to the breach of one of the commandments, the Bet Din is only liable to bring the communal offering of a bullock - only when there are both a hidden matter and an unwitting action - that a law eluded them and they improperly gave an erroneous decision, upon which the congregation acted unwittingly relying on their ruling. For it says (Lev. 4:1) "And if the whole congregation of Israel err and a thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they do one of the commandments of the Lord which must not be done"; so also the anointed - the high priest anointed with the anointing oil is not liable to offer a bullock, unless the law escaped him and he mistakenly interpreted it permissively for himself and unwittingly acted on his decision, as we learned in the first mishnah of this chapter.

Nor are they liable in a matter of idolatry - If the Bet Din, or the anointed priest for himself, rendered a decision permitting a forbidden act of idolatry, they are not liable for a sacrifice, as we learned in the previous mishnah, unless there are both a hidden matter and an unwitting action, - that both the decision and the action are unwitting, as in the case of all other commandments, for we learn idolatry from other commandments by analogy (gezerah shavah), the identical term of 'from the eyes' being used in both cases, as explained in our commentary to the preceding mishnah.

The Bet Din are not liable for a communal offering, unless they render a decision respecting which if acted upon wilfully involves karet, and if unwittingly, a sin-offering, i.e. for something which an individual deliberately transgressing would be subject to karet, but inadvertently to bring a sin-offering. At the beginning of Tractate Keritot the mishnah enumerates thirty-six transgressions for which, if committed wilfully, one is subject to karet, and for which, if unwittingly, one is liable for a sin-offering. Apart from five of them for which unwitting transgression one is not liable for a sin-offering. These are: Circumcision and the Pascal lamb, both being positive commandments, while a sin-offering is brought only if a prohibitive commandment is infringed, for it says (Lev. 4:27) "If he does one of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done"; one who blasphemed, unwittingly, because there was no tangible deed involved, and ritual impurity connected with the Temple or its hallowed things (one ritually unclean who entered the Temple precincts or ate sanctified food), all these are not liable for a sin-offering, but bring a graded sacrifice (i.e. one according to the trespasser's ability). Accordingly, the number of commandments liability for which a communal offering is brought is thirty-one. So also the anointed - for the anointed priest too, is not liable for a bullock offering, unless he rendered a decision on a matter involving karet, if transgressed deliberately, and a sin-offering if inadvertently. Nor in a case of idolatry - is either the Bet Din or the anointed priest to bring an offering, if they erred in their decision, unless they render a decision respecting that which if acted upon wilfully involves karet, and if unwittingly - a sin-offering. For example, if they mistakenly permitted bowing to an idol, but if they permitted embracing it which act does not involve a sin offering, they would be exempt from a sacrifice. The Gemara infers this from the Torah, (see Hor. 8:1).

HORAYOT: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 4

They are not liable for the positive commandment or prohibition, concerning the Temple, nor do they bring a suspensive guilt-offering for the positive commandment or prohibition concerning the Temple, but they are liable for the positive commandment or prohibition concerning the menstruant, and they bring a suspensive guilt-offering for the positive commandment or prohibition concerning the menstruant. What is the positive commandment concerning the menstruant? Separate from the menstruant. And the prohibition? Do not go in unto a menstruant.

Kehati

This mishnah enumerates transgressions which the Bet Bin mistakenly allowed but for which they do not bring a communal offering. (Regarding the anointed priest consult the commentaries, for his case is subject to a difference of opinion between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon, as quoted in the Gemara). This mishnah deals, incidentally, also with the subject of the suspensive guilt offering.

They are not liable - The Bet Din is not liable for the communal offering of a bullock for the positive commandment or prohibition concerning the Temple - If they rendered a decision and erred with respect to the positive commandment or prohibition concerning the Temple. The positive commandment - for it is written (Num. 5:2) "And they shall send out of the camp every leper and whoever has an issue and whoever is unclean by the dead." Hence a person who became ritually unclean in the Temple has to make his exit by the shortest possible route; if the Bet Din mistakenly ruled that he may leave by a longer route, they are not liable to bring a communal offering for this mistaken ruling. The prohibition: it is forbidden for a ritually unclean person to enter the Temple, because it says (ibid., 3) "And they shall not defile their camp" (see Makkot 14b); similarly, a woman who gave birth is enjoined (Lev. 12:4) "And she shall not enter the Sanctuary"(Shev. 17b and Rashi).

If the Bet Din mistakenly permitted this prohibition, they are not subject to a communal offering. The reason is that an individual who inadvertently transgressed one of the above is not liable for the usual sin-offering, but for a graded offering (see Shev. 2:3). Nor do they bring a suspensive guilt-offering for the positive commandment or prohibition concerning the Temple - whoever unwittingly transgressed a doubtful sin; for example, he had before him a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of permissible fat, and, having eaten one of them he was not sure which one he had eaten, has to bring a suspensive guilt-offering. The mishnah teaches that an individual does not bring a suspensive guilt-offering for either the positive or negative commandment concerning the Temple, as explained above, for one does not bring a suspensive offering for a doubtfully committed sin, unless that sin. if definitely committed, would be subject to a regular sin-offering; while one, who inadvertently transgresses the positive or negative precept concerning the Temple is not subject to a regular sin-offering but to the graded offering. ·

But they are liable - for a communal offering - for the positive commandment or negative prohibition concerning the menstruant as explained below in our mishnah, for these involve karet, if committed wilfully, and a sin-offering, if inadvertently; and they - the individual transgressors – must bring a suspensive guilt offering for the positive commandment or prohibition concerning the menstruant, for if a person is in doubt whether he committed either the positive or negative commandment concerning the menstruant, he has to bring a suspensive guilt-offering, since, were it a certain transgression committed inadvertently, he would be due for a regular sin-offering.

What is the positive commandment concerning the menstruant? - for which the Bet Din has to bring a communal offering and an individual - a regular sin-offering, as we learned above? Separate from the menstruant. - This is elucidated in Shevuot 2:4: if he lay with a clean woman (his wife, who was clean, not menstrual) and she said to him "I have become unclean," and he withdrew at once from her he is liable for karet for having lain with a menstruant wilfully, or a sin-offering, if inadvertently: because his withdrawal is as enjoyable as his entry (but he has to pause until relaxed, and only then withdraw); this is the positive commandment concerning the menstruant, for it is written (Lev. 15:24): "And her impurity be upon him,” which they interpreted as "even during her impurity she shall be near him." Now, if the Bet Din erred and ruled that he may withdraw immediately, they would be liable for a communal offering; and whoever was in doubt whether he was guilty of such a transgression, has to bring a suspensive guilt offering. And the prohibition - What prohibition is there concerning the menstruant? Do not go in unto a menstruant - for it is written (Lev. 18:19) "And you shall not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity"; and if the Bet Din erred and ruled differently in connection with this prohibition, they have to bring a communal offering of a bull; and upon doubtful transgression, the individual must bring a suspensive guilt-offering. Our mishnah cites as an example the positive and negative commandments concerned with the menstruant, for her case is similar to the positive and negative commandments concerned with the Temple, which we learned in the first part of the mishnah; for the positive commandment concerned with the Temple is that one who become ritually unclean while in the Temple, must make the shortest exit, as we explained above; however, the same applies to all transgressions whose wilful performance involves karet, and if inadvertent - a regular sin-offering, for if both the decision and the action were unwitting, they would be liable for a communal offering of a bull, as above, mishnah 3.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives