## Horayot Daf 2a

###### Horayot 2a:1
[Horayot 2a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:1)

מַתְנִי׳ **הוֹרוּ** בֵּית דִּין לַעֲבוֹר עַל אַחַת מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה, וְהָלַךְ הַיָּחִיד וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג עַל פִּיהֶם, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה אַחֲרֵיהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה – פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתָּלָה בְּבֵית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Horayot 2a:2
[Horayot 2a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:2)

הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ, אוֹ תַּלְמִיד וְהוּא רָאוּי לְהוֹרָאָה, וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶן – בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה אַחֲרֵיהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה – הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָּלָה בְּבֵית דִּין. זֶה הַכְּלָל: הַתּוֹלֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ חַיָּיב, וְהַתּוֹלֶה בְּבֵית דִּין – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the **court issued a ruling and one of** the judges **knew that they erred,** despite the fact that the majority ruled against his opinion, **or** if he was **a student and he** was **qualified to issue** halakhic **rulings, and** that judge or student **proceeded and performed** that transgression **on the basis of its** 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 judge or the student **is liable** to bring an offering. This is **due to** the fact **that he did not associate** his action **with** the ruling of the **court. This is the principle: One who associates** his action **with himself** is **liable, and one who associates** his action **with** the ruling of the **court** is **exempt.**


###### Horayot 2a:3
[Horayot 2a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לְעוֹלָם אֵין בֵּית דִּין חַיָּיבִין עַד שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לָהֶם ״מוּתָּרִין אַתֶּם״. רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אָמַר: עַד שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לָהֶם ״מוּתָּרִין אַתֶּם לַעֲשׂוֹת״. מַאי טַעְמָא? לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה הוֹרָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Shmuel says:** The judges of the **court are never liable** to bring an offering for an erroneous ruling **until they say to** those seeking a ruling: **It is permitted for you. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a says:** The judges are not liable **unless they say to** those seeking a ruling: **It is permitted for you to perform** this action. **What is the reason** that Rav Dimi says that there is liability only if the judges say: To perform this action? It is **due to** the fact **that the ruling is not completed** if they say only: It is permitted, as perhaps the judges were expressing a theoretical opinion and not issuing a ruling.


###### Horayot 2a:4
[Horayot 2a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:4)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: חָזַר לְעִירוֹ שָׁנָה וְלִימֵּד כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁלִּימֵּד – פָּטוּר, הוֹרָה לַעֲשׂוֹת – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: We learn** proof for Rav Dimi’s opinion in a mishna **as well.** The mishna teaches with regard to a rebellious elder (*Sanhedrin* 86b): If the Sanhedrin ruled contrary to the ruling of the elder and the elder then **returned to his city,** and nevertheless **he taught in the manner that he was teaching** previously, he is **exempt** from punishment. But if he **instructed** others **to act** on the basis of his ruling that stands contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, he is **liable** to be executed.


###### Horayot 2a:5
[Horayot 2a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הוֹרוּ לָהּ בֵּית דִּין לְהִנָּשֵׂא, וְהָלְכָה וְקִלְקְלָה – חַיֶּיבֶת בְּקׇרְבָּן, שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּירוּ לָהּ אֶלָּא לְהִנָּשֵׂא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Horayot 2a:6
[Horayot 2a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:6)

אָמַר רָבִינָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין לַעֲבוֹר עַל אַחַת מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה״, תּוּ לָא מִידִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: We learn** proof for Rav Dimi’s opinion in the mishna here, **as well:** If **a court** unwittingly **issued a ruling** permitting the Jewish people **to violate one of all the mitzvot that are stated in the Torah,** etc.; and **nothing more** need be said, as it is clear from the phrase: Issued a ruling to violate, that the ruling must include instruction to perform a specific action.


###### Horayot 2a:7
[Horayot 2a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:7)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין בֵּית דִּין חַיָּיבִין עַד שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ לָהֶם ״מוּתָּרִים אַתֶּם לַעֲשׂוֹת״. רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ ״מוּתָּרִים אַתֶּם״ – נִגְמְרָה הוֹרָאָה. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, וְהָא לָא תְּנַן הָכִי: חָזַר לְעִירוֹ, וְשָׁנָה אוֹ לִימֵּד כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁלִּימֵּד – פָּטוּר, הוֹרָה לַעֲשׂוֹת – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** there is a version of this amoraic dispute with the opposite opinions. **Shmuel says:** The judges of the **court are not liable** to bring an offering for an erroneous ruling **until they say to** those seeking a ruling: **It is permitted for you to perform** this action. **Rav Dimi from Neharde’a says: Even** if the judges say to those seeking a ruling: **It is permitted for you,** the **ruling is completed** and they are liable. **Abaye said: But isn’t** it so that **we did not learn** in accordance with the opinion of Rav Dimi in a mishna with regard to a rebellious elder: If the Sanhedrin ruled contrary to the ruling of the elder and the elder then **returned to his city, and** nevertheless **he taught in the manner that he was teaching** previously, he is **exempt** from punishment. But if he **instructed** others **to act** on the basis of his ruling that stands contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, he is **liable** to be executed.


###### Horayot 2a:8
[Horayot 2a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא, וְהָא לָא תְּנַן הָכִי: הוֹרוּ לָהּ בֵּית דִּין לְהִנָּשֵׂא, וְהָלְכָה וְקִלְקְלָה – חַיֶּיבֶת בְּקׇרְבָּן, שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּירוּ לָהּ אֶלָּא לְהִנָּשֵׂא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said: But isn’t** it so that **we did not learn** in accordance with the opinion of Rav Dimi in a mishna: 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.


###### Horayot 2a:9
[Horayot 2a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:9)

אָמַר רָבִינָא, וְהָא לָא תְּנַן הָכִי: הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין לַעֲבוֹר עַל אַחַת מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה, תּוּ לָא מִידִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: But isn’t** it so that **we did not learn** in accordance with the opinion of Rav Dimi in the mishna: If **a court** unwittingly **issued a ruling** permitting the Jewish people **to violate one of all the mitzvot that are stated in the Torah,** etc.; and **nothing more** need be said.


###### Horayot 2a:10
[Horayot 2a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:10)

וְהָלַךְ הַיָּחִיד וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג עַל פִּיהֶם. וְנִיתְנֵי: ״וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶם״, ״שׁוֹגֵג״ לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רָבָא: ״שׁוֹגֵג״ – לְאֵתוֹיֵי הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁחֵלֶב מוּתָּר, וְנִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ חֵלֶב בְּשׁוּמָּן, וַאֲכָלוֹ – פָּטוּר. ״עַל פִּיהֶם״ – עַל פִּיהֶם מַמָּשׁ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And the individual proceeded and performed** that transgression **unwittingly on the basis of** the court’s ruling. The Gemara asks: **And let us teach** only: **And performed** that transgression **on the basis of** the court’s ruling; **why do I** need to add: **Unwittingly?** Obviously, it was unwitting, as he thought his action was permitted. **Rava said:** The term **unwittingly** serves **to include** a case where **the court issued a ruling that** it is **permitted** to eat forbidden **fat, and** the forbidden **fat became confused for him with** permitted **fat, and he ate it** under the impression that he was eating permitted fat. In this case he is **exempt.** Then, when the mishna says: **On the basis of** the court’s ruling, it means that he ate forbidden fat **actually on the basis of** the court’s ruling.


###### Horayot 2a:11
[Horayot 2a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:11)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: ״שׁוֹגֵג״ – עַל פִּיהֶם הוּא דְּפָטוּר, אֲבָל נִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ חֵלֶב בְּשׁוּמָּן וַאֲכָלוֹ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And some say** that **Rava said** a different interpretation of the mishna: **It is** specifically in a case where the individual proceeded and performed that transgression **unwittingly on the basis of** the court’s ruling **that** he is **exempt. But** if the forbidden **fat became confused for him with** permitted **fat and he ate it** under the impression that he was eating permitted fat, he is **liable** to bring an offering, because his unwitting transgression of eating forbidden fat was not associated solely with the ruling of the court.


###### Horayot 2a:12
[Horayot 2a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:12)

מִילְּתָא דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרָמִי בַּר חָמָא, דִּבְעַי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁחֵלֶב מוּתָּר, וְנִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ בְּשׁוּמָּן וַאֲכָלוֹ, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **The matter that** is **obvious to Rava,** that one who confuses between forbidden fat and permitted fat is either exempt, according to the first version, or liable, according to the second version, **was raised as a dilemma for Rami bar Ḥama, as Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma:** If **a court ruled that** forbidden **fat is permitted, and** the forbidden fat **became confused for him with** permitted **fat and he ate** the forbidden fat, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Horayot 2a:13
[Horayot 2a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:13)

אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: הָלַךְ יָחִיד וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג עַל פִּיהֶם כּוּ׳. שׁוֹגֵג עַל פִּיהֶם לְמָה לִי? לָאו לְאֵתוֹיֵי הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁחֵלֶב מוּתָּר, וְנִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ חֵלֶב בְּשׁוּמָּן וַאֲכָלוֹ – פָּטוּר. דִּלְמָא שׁוֹגֵג עַל פִּיהֶם הוּא דְּפָטוּר, אֲבָל נִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ חֵלֶב בְּשׁוּמָּן וַאֲכָלוֹ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Come** and **hear** proof from the mishna: The **individual proceeded and performed** that transgression **unwittingly on the basis of** the court’s ruling, **etc. Why do I** need the redundancy: **Unwittingly on the basis of** the court’s ruling? Is the redundancy **not** stated **to include** a case where the **court issued a ruling that** it is **permitted** to eat forbidden **fat, and** the forbidden **fat became confused for him with** permitted **fat, and he ate it** under the impression that he was eating permitted fat, and the mishna is teaching that he is **exempt?** The Gemara rejects this: **Perhaps** the intent of the mishna is: **It is** in a case where one performed that transgression **unwittingly on the basis of its** ruling **that** he is **exempt; but** if the forbidden **fat became confused for him with** permitted **fat, and he ate** it under the impression that he was eating permitted fat, he is **liable.**


###### Horayot 2a:14
[Horayot 2a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:14)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: הָלַךְ יָחִיד וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג עַל פִּיהֶם. מַאי לָאו, שׁוֹגֵג עַל פִּיהֶם הוּא דְּפָטוּר, אֲבָל נִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ חֵלֶב בְּשׁוּמָּן וַאֲכָלוֹ – חַיָּיב. דִּלְמָא: אוֹ שׁוֹגֵג, אוֹ עַל פִּיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** that **Rava said: Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna: The **individual proceeded and performed** that transgression **unwittingly on the basis of** the court’s ruling. **What, is it not** in a case where one performed that transgression **unwittingly on the basis of its** ruling **that** he is **exempt; but** if the forbidden **fat became confused for him with** permitted **fat, and he ate** the forbidden fat, he is **liable?** The Gemara rejects this: **Perhaps** the mishna is saying that he is liable if he **either** confused forbidden fat with permitted fat and ate the forbidden fat **unwittingly, or** ate the forbidden fat **on the basis of** the court’s ruling.


###### Horayot 2a:15
[Horayot 2a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:15)

בִּפְלוּגְתָּא: הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁחֵלֶב מוּתָּר, וְנִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ חֵלֶב בְּשׁוּמָּן וַאֲכָלוֹ – רַב אָמַר: פָּטוּר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב. מֵיתִיבִי: ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ בַּעֲשֹׂתָהּ״, פְּרָט לִמְשׁוּמָּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: This matter was already taught **in the dispute** between *amora’im* of earlier generations: If **a court ruled that** forbidden **fat is permitted, and** the forbidden **fat became confused for him with** permitted **fat and he ate** the forbidden fat, **Rav says:** He is **exempt,** as the court ruled that it is permitted, **and Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** He is **liable,** as he did not base his conduct on its ruling. The Gemara **raises an objection** to the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan from a *baraita* that teaches: The verse states: “And if one soul **from among the common people** shall sin unwittingly **in performing** one of the mitzvot of the Lord that are not to be done, and he is guilty” (Leviticus 4:27). This serves **to exclude an apostate.** When an apostate sins unwittingly, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering even if he repents, as even his unwitting action is considered intentional.


###### Horayot 2a:16
[Horayot 2a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:16)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵעָשֶׂינָה בִּשְׁגָגָה וְאָשֵׁם אוֹ הוֹדַע״ – הַשָּׁב מִידִיעָתוֹ, מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ. לֹא שָׁב מִידִיעָתוֹ – אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: It is unnecessary** to derive this *halakha* from that phrase, **as it says** in the same verse: “Shall sin **unwittingly** in performing one of the mitzvot of the Lord **that are not to be done, and he is guilty; or** if his sin, which he has sinned, **be known** to him” (Leviticus 4:27–28). From the words “be known to him” it is inferred that only **one who repents due to his awareness,** i.e., he would not have sinned if he had known the act was prohibited, **brings a sacrifice for his unwitting** transgression in order to achieve atonement. But one who does **not repent due to his awareness** that he sinned, e.g., an apostate, who would have sinned even had he been aware that the act is prohibited, **does not bring an offering for his unwitting** action.


###### Horayot 2a:17
[Horayot 2a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:17)

וְאִם אִיתָא, הָא לֹא שָׁב מִידִיעָתוֹ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And if it is so** that one who would not repent due to his awareness is exempt, **isn’t** this person who confused forbidden fat with permitted fat considered one who will **not repent due to his awareness?** Even if he discovers that he ate forbidden fat he will not regret his action, as he relies on the ruling of the court that forbidden fat is permitted. This contradicts the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that one is liable in that case.


###### Horayot 2a:18
[Horayot 2a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:18)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כֵּיוָן דְּכִי מִתְיְדַע לְהוּ לְבֵי דִינָא, הָדְרִי בְּהוּ, וְהוּא נָמֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ – שָׁב מִידִיעָתוֹ קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ, וְחַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan holds: Since once it becomes known to the court** that it erred, the judges will **retract their** erroneous ruling, **and** this individual will **also repent** when he discovers that he ate forbidden fat which the court erroneously permitted, **we characterize him** as **one who repents due to his awareness, and he is liable** to bring an offering.


###### Horayot 2a:19
[Horayot 2a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:19)

אָמַר רָבָא: מוֹדֶה רַב שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַשְׁלִים לְרוֹב צִבּוּר, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״בִּשְׁגָגָה״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ כּוּלָּן בִּשְׁגָגָה אֶחָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** Even though Rav says the individual is exempt, and his sin is dependent on the court, **Rav concedes that** in a case where one confused forbidden fats with permitted fats, **he does not complete a majority of the congregation.** The court is liable to bring an offering only when the majority of the congregation performs a transgression based on its ruling. This individual who thought the fat was permitted is not included in the majority of the congregation. **What is the reason?** It is as **the verse states:** “For all the people it was performed **unwittingly”** (Numbers 15:26), from which it is derived: There is no liability **unless they are all unwitting** in **one** and the same manner; and the action of this individual is unwitting in a different manner than the rest of the transgressors.


###### Horayot 2a:20
[Horayot 2a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/2a:20)

בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶן כּוּ׳. לְמָה לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנָא כׇּל הָנֵי? בִּשְׁלָמָא רֵישָׁא – לֹא זוֹ אַף זוֹ קָתָנֵי. אֶלָּא סֵיפָא דִּלְחִיּוּבָא, אִיפְּכָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **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. The Gemara asks: **Why did** the *tanna* in the mishna need to **teach all** of **these** cases? **Granted,** in **the first clause** of the mishna, the *tanna* **teaches** the mishna employing the style: **Not** only **this** but **also that,** i.e., not only is he exempt if the judges performed the transgression with him, but he is exempt even if he performed the act after the judges, and even if he alone performed the transgression. **But** in **the latter clause** of the mishna, **where** the *tanna* is teaching **liability,** the *tanna* **should have** taught **the opposite.** He should have started with the case where he is most likely to be liable, the case where the judges performed no transgression and he sinned alone.