Torah Community Connections

Week 139 - Thursday - 25 July 2002

HORAYOT: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 4

If the Bet Din gave a decision, and one of them knew that they erred and said to them: You have erred, or if the president of the court was not present, or if one of them was a proselyte or a bastard or a Natin or a childless aged person, - they are free, for they are referred to as an edah, and later on the Torah refers to an edah, as in the latter case all its members must be fit to render decisions, so also edah mentioned in the present case means that they must all be fit to render decisions. If the Bet Din gave a wrong decision unwittingly and all the congregation acted unwittingly, they must offer up a bullock; if wantonly but they acted unwittingly, they must bring a sheep or a goat. If unwittingly, but they acted wantonly, they are exempt.

Kehati

In the previous mishnah we learned that a court is liable for a communal offering if they erred by annulling a part of a commandment while sustaining the rest. This mishnah enumerates additional conditions which have to be fulfilled before the Bet Din is obliged to bring a communal offering. These are: 1. that their decision is unanimous, and that there is no division of opinion, even on the part of one of them; 2. that the entire Bet Din participated in the decision; 3. that the head of the Yeshivah was present; 4. that every member was qualified; 5. that they erred in their decision and that the majority of the people acted innocently relying solely on their ruling.

If the Bet Din gave a decision permitting the forbidden, as explained in the previous mishnah, and one of them knew that they erred in their decision, and said to them - to his colleagues You have erred in this decision, and yet they did not retract, because they did not recognize their mistake, and by a majority vote confirmed their decision to transgress one of the commandments of the Torah, or if the president of the court was not present, the greatest member, the head of the Yeshivah, was not present during the deliberations, although the court had the full complement of seventy one members (Rambam), or if one of them was a proselyte or a bastard or a Natin - these being ineligible to sit on a Bet Din. A Natin (literally, one 'given') is a descendant of the Gibonites in the days of Joshua, who under false pretences were able to become proselytes and were given the status of hewers of wood and drawers of water (Joshua 9:27), or a childless aged person who may have a cruel streak in his character and is therefore unsuitable to sit in a court dealing with capital cases; they are free, if they gave a decision and the majority of the people acted on it, but the latter have to bring sin offerings like any other inadvertent transgressor, the court on whom they relied bring incomplete and therefore invalid.

The passage of the Torah dealing with a court's unintentional misguidance says (Lev. 4:13) "And if the entire congregation (edah) err" - their decision must be unanimous; hence if one of them told them that they erred, their decision is not considered as a decision in this case. The obligatory presence of the president of the Court is explained in the Gemara: why did the Rabbis lay down the rule that if the Bet Din promulgated on a subject on which the Saducees concur they are exempt? Because they should have studied, but did not. Similarly, if their president was absent they should have themselves studied the subject, but did not. That the inclusion of a proselyte etc. disqualifies the court we learn from the terminology used, for they are referred to as an 'edah' (ibid.) and later on the Torah refers to an ‘edah' - "And the edah shall adjudicate" (Num. 35:24). As in the latter case, dealing with capital punishment,

All its members must be fit to render decisions, for it says (Num. 11: 17) "And they shall bear the burden of the people with you" - 'with you' being understood as 'like you', of your (Moses') stature, to the exclusion of a proselyte, bastard or Natin, who are disqualified from membership of the Sanhedrin, so also edah mentioned in the present case, dealing with inadvertent false ruling the Bet Din is not obliged to bring the communal offering, because they must all be fit to render decisions. Hence, if even one of their number turned out to be a proselyte, a bastard, a Natin or a childless aged person, they are exempt from the offering.

If the Bet Din gave a wrong decision unwittingly - having mistakenly arrived at a wrong decision, and all the congregation acted unwittingly - relying on the Bet Din ruling, not knowing that they erred, they must offer a bullock - the communal offering on account of a 'hidden matter of law', as it says (Lev. 4:14) "And the congregation shall offer up a young bullock as a sin-offering," but those who acted on their ruling are absolved; if wantonly, - i.e. that the Bet Din deliberately permitted the forbidden, knowing it was forbidden, yet declaring it permissible, but they acted unwittingly - the people acted innocently, relying on the Bet Din, they must offer a sheep or a goat - every one of the congregation is regarded as an individual transgressor liable to bring a sin-offering, but the Bet Din is precluded from bringing a communal offering for they were deliberate transgressors and hence not liable to bring an offering; if unwittingly - the Bet Din unwittingly erred in permitting a forbidden matter, but they acted wantonly - the people acted deliberately knowing that the Bet Din erred, they are all exempt, both the Bet Din and those who transgressed are free from an offering; the Bet Din because the people knew the Bet Din had erred and therefore did not act on their ruling, and the people cannot bring a sin-offering, because their action was deliberate, and a deliberate transgressor is precluded from bringing a sin-offering.

HORAYOT: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 5

If the Bet Din ruled and the whole congregation or a majority of it acted on their pronouncement, they must bring a bull, and in the case of idolatry they must bring a bull and a he-goat. So Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says: the twelve tribes have to bring twelve bullocks, and in the case of idolatry they must bring twelve bullocks and twelve he-goats. Rabbi Shimon says: thirteen bullocks and in the case of idolatry thirteen bullocks and thirteen he-goats, a bullock and he-goat for each tribe and a bullock and he-goat for the Bet Din.

If the Bet Din ruled and seven tribes or their majority acted on their word, they must bring a bullock and in the case of idolatry, a bullock and a he-goat, so Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says, if seven tribes transgressed, they must offer seven bullocks, and the remaining tribes which had not transgressed must offer a bullock on behalf of those which had, for they also who did not sin bring for these who did. Rabbi Shimon said - eight bullocks, and in the case of idolatry eight bullocks and eight he-goats, a bullock and he-goat for each tribe, and a bullock and he-goat for the Bet Din. If the Bet Din of one of the tribes gave a decision, and that tribe acted accordingly, that tribe is liable, but the remaining tribes are exempt, so Rabbi Yehudah. But the Sages say they are not liable unless it was a decision of the High Court alone, for it says (Lev. 4:13) "And if the whole of the congregation err," and not the congregation of that tribe alone.

Kehati

We learned in the previous mishnah that "If the Bet Din inadvertently gave a wrong decision and the congregation acted on their error, they have to bring a bullock", as is written (Lev. 4:14) "And the congregation (ha-Kahal) shall bring a young bullock as a sin-offering." The question is: Who is the congregation which have to bring the offering? Our mishnah deals with the differing views of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon.

If the Bet Din ruled - unwittingly permitting the forbidden, and the whole congregation or a majority of it - of the congregation, acted on their pronouncement, relying on the Bet Din ruling, they must bring a bull - the Bet Din has to bring the communal bull offering, and in the case of idolatry - if the Bet Din ruled permitting a forbidden facet of idol worship, and the whole congregation or a majority of it acted on their pronouncement, they must bring a bull and a he-goat - the Bet Din must bring a bull for a burnt offering and a he-goat for a sin offering, for so it is written (Num. 15:22-24) "And if you err and do not observe all these commandments;" this passage refers to idolatry, which is of equal weight to all the commandments; in this connection it says (ibid.) "And if from the eyes of the edah it be done in error, then the whole congregation (edah) shall offer one young bullock as a burnt offering.. and one he-goat as a sin-offering." So Rabbi Meir, whose view it is that when the Torah requires the congregation (kahal or edah) to bring the communal offering of a bullock in ordinary inadvertent transgressions, or of a bullock and he-goat in case of idolatry, the reference is to the High Court.

Rabbi Yehudah says: the twelve tribes have to bring twelve bullocks, and in the case of idolatry they must bring twelve bullocks and twelve he-goats, for it is the view of Rabbi Yehudah that 'the congregation' - kahal or edah - means the public, not the Bet Din. It is therefore the people - the twelve tribes - who have to bring the offering. Moreover, every tribe is called kahal, as we find (Gen. 48:4) "And I will make thee a multitude (kahal) of nations" and also (Chr. 2, 20:5) "And Jehoshafat stood up in the congregation (kahal) of Judah," Hence Rabbi Yehudah derives that if the majority of the congregation sinned, a bullock is offered for every tribe, or a bullock and he-goat in case of idolatry. Rabbi Shimon says: thirteen bullocks, and in the case of idolatry - thirteen bullocks and thirteen he-goats. Rabbi Shimon agrees with Rabbi Yehudah that every tribe has to bring a sacrifice, but he maintains that the Bet Din have to bring an offering of their own, for they cannot atone with the offering of the public of a bullock for each tribe, and in the case of idolatry a bullock and he-goat for each tribe and a bullock and he-goat for the Bet Din, as explained above. The halakhah is according to Rabbi Yehudah that the people, not the Bet Din, bring the offering.

If the Bet Din ruled and seven tribes - who are a majority of all the tribes, although a minority of the whole people, or their majority - the majority of every tribe (Rashi); some interpret: a majority of Israel, even if a minority of the number of tribes, acted on their word - relying on the Bet Din ruling, they must bring a bullock - the Bet Din must bring the communal offering of a bullock, and in the case of idolatry they bring a bullock and a he-goat - if they permitted some form of idolatry, the Bet Din must bring a burnt offering of a bullock and a sin-offering of a he-goat - so Rabbi Meir, - because the majority of the community acted on a ruling of the High Court, only the latter have to bring an offering. Rabbi Yehudah says: If seven tribes transgressed, they must offer seven bullocks, and the remaining tribes which had not transgressed must offer a bullock on behalf of those which had for they also who did not sin bring for these who did. Every tribe, even though it did not sin, must bring a bullock for itself on behalf of those who sinned (Gemara, Rambam). It is the view of Rabbi Yehudah that if a majority of the tribes sinned, although a minority of all Israel, or if the majority of Israel sinned, although a minority of the tribes, even if it was one tribe yet comprising a majority of the people, they have to offer twelve bullocks, one for each tribe (Rambam). Rabbi Shimon says: Eight bullocks, and in the case of idolatry eight he-goats - a bullock and he-goat for each tribe, and a bullock and a he-goat for the Bet Din. Rabbi Shimon differs from Rabbi Yehudah, absolving the tribes which did not sin, from bringing any sacrifice at all. The law remains according to Rabbi Yehudah.

If the Bet Din of one of the tribes gave a decision - permitting the forbidden, and that tribe acted accordingly, according to the ruling of its Bet Din, that tribe is liable, although it does not constitute a majority of the people, since for its own Bet Din it is a majority (Hameiri), but the remaining tribes are exempt, for we have here neither a majority of the people nor of the tribes (ibid), so Rabbi Yehudah. The Gemara deduces from here that Rabbi Yehudah's view applies only if the tribe acted on the ruling of its own court, but if it acted on a ruling of the High Court, all the tribes would be liable for an offering. The reason is explained by Hameiri: It is so, since even one tribe is called a kahal - a congregation - although not constituting a majority of all the people. But Rambam, in his commentary on our mishnah writes: .'According to Rabbi Yehudah, if one tribe constituting a majority of the people acted on the ruling of the High Court, the remaining tribes must bring an offering on its account; therefore it says here 'but the remaining tribes are exempt' for that tribe acted on its own " But the sages say they are not liable for a communal offering unless it was a decision of the High Court alone comprising seventy-one members, for it says (Lev. 4:13) "And if the whole congregation of Israel err" - and not the congregation of that tribe alone; - according to the Sages there is no liability for a communal offering unless the ruling was given by the High Court, and the majority of all Israel or a majority of the tribes acted on it. The halakhah is according to the Sages.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives