## Horayot Daf 2b

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

זוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר זוֹ קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In the latter clause, the *tanna* **teaches** the mishna employing the style: **This, and it is unnecessary to say that,** i.e., the cases are arranged with each case more obvious than the one that preceded it.


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

וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ אוֹ תַּלְמִיד וְרָאוּי לְהוֹרָאָה. תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רָבָא: אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי גְּמִיר וּסְבִיר, אֲבָל גְּמִיר וְלָא סְבִיר – לָא.

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


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לְהוֹרָאָה גְּמִיר וּסְבִיר מַשְׁמַע! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, אֲנָא הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא: אִי מֵהַהִיא – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי גְּמִיר וּסְבִיר, אֲבָל גְּמִיר וְלָא סְבִיר – לָא, תְּנָא רָאוּי לְהוֹרָאָה, מִמִּשְׁנָה יְתֵירָה: אֲפִילּוּ גְּמִיר וְלָא סְבִיר, סְבִיר וְלָא גְּמִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye** challenged this and **said to** Rava that the term: A student qualified **to issue** halakhic **rulings, indicates** that he is both **learned and analytical.** Rava **said to** Abaye: **This** is what **I am saying: If** the *tanna* had taught the *halakha* **from that** first *halakha* with regard to one of the judges, **I would say** that **this statement** applies only to one who is both **learned and analytical, but** if he was **learned and not analytical, no,** he would not be liable. Therefore, the *tanna* **taught** the additional case of a student **qualified to issue** halakhic **rulings,** and **from** the **extraneous** case in the **mishna** one can infer that the *halakha* applies **even** to one who is **learned but not analytical** or one who is **analytical but not** yet **learned.** Since he associates his action with himself, he is liable.


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

רָאוּי לְהוֹרָאָה וְכוּ׳. כְּגוֹן מַאן? אָמַר רָבָא: כְּגוֹן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי וְשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן זוֹמָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא מֵזִיד הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Qualified to issue** halakhic **rulings.** The Gemara asks: **Like whom?** Who is an example of one qualified to issue halakhic rulings? **Rava said:** It is one **like Shimon ben Azzai or Shimon ben Zoma,** who, although they were among the most outstanding Torah scholars of their generation, were not ordained. **Abaye said to** Rava: In **a case like this, he is an intentional** sinner, as a scholar of that caliber would certainly not err. If he ruled that a prohibited action is permitted, it is assumed that he acted with intent, and he is exempt from bringing an offering.


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

וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּתַנְיָא: ״בַּעֲשֹׂתָהּ אַחַת״, יָחִיד הָעוֹשֶׂה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ – חַיָּיב, בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין – פָּטוּר. כֵּיצַד? הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁחֵלֶב מוּתָּר, וְנוֹדַע לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ, אוֹ תַּלְמִיד יוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵיהֶן וְרָאוּי לְהוֹרָאָה כְּגוֹן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי, יָכוֹל יְהֵא פָּטוּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּעֲשֹׂתָהּ אַחַת״, יָחִיד הָעוֹשֶׂה עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ – חַיָּיב, בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין – פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava said to Abaye: **But according to your reasoning, that which is taught** in a *baraita* that cites the verse: **“In performing one”** (Leviticus 4:27), from which it is derived that **an individual who performs** a transgression **on his own is liable,** while one who performs a transgression based **on the ruling of** the **court is exempt; how** so? When does this apply? If the **court ruled that** forbidden **fat is permitted, and it became known to one of** the judges **that they erred, or** if he was **a student** who was **sitting before them and he is qualified to issue** halakhic **rulings, e.g., Shimon ben Azzai, might** one have thought that **he would be exempt?** To counter this, **the verse states: “In performing one,”** from which it is derived that **an individual who performs** a transgression **on his own is liable,** while one who performs a transgression **on** the basis of **the ruling of** the **court is exempt.**


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

אֶלָּא הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כְּגוֹן דְּיָדַע דְּאָסוּר, וְקָא טָעֵי בְּמִצְוָה לִשְׁמוֹעַ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. לְדִידִי נָמֵי, דְּטָעוּ בְּמִצְוָה לִשְׁמוֹעַ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: **Rather,** the *baraita* is difficult; **how can you find these** circumstances where a judge or a prominent Torah scholar would be considered an unwitting sinner? The Gemara answers: It is in a case **where** the judge or the scholar **knew that** the action with regard to which the court issued a ruling that it is permitted is in fact **prohibited, but he erred with regard to the mitzva of heeding the statements of the Sages.** He believed that there is a mitzva to heed the directives of the Sages even when he is certain that they are mistaken. If so, **according to my** understanding **too,** the reference is to one like Shimon ben Azzai or Shimon ben Zoma; it is also a case **where they erred with regard to the mitzva of heeding the statements of the Sages.** Due to that error, they are liable to bring an offering.


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

זֶה הַכְּלָל הַתּוֹלֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ – חַיָּיב. לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מְבַעֵט בְּהוֹרָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **This is the principle: One who associates** his action **with himself is liable.** The Gemara asks: **What** case that was not already mentioned in the mishna does this principle serve **to include?** The Gemara answers: It serves **to include** one who **disdains** halakhic **rulings** in general, treating them with contempt and relying only on his own understanding.


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

תּוֹלֶה בְּבֵית דִּין – לְאֵיתוֹיֵי הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין וְיָדְעוּ שֶׁטָּעוּ וְחָזְרוּ בָּהֶן. הָא בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ! תָּנֵי וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches the second part of that principle: And **one who associates** his action **with** the ruling of the **court** is exempt. The Gemara explains: This principle serves **to include** an additional case that was not yet mentioned in the mishna, namely, where the **court issued a ruling and** the judges **discovered that they erred and reversed their** decision. If one was unaware that the court reversed their decision, and acted based on their initial ruling, he is deemed one who associates his action with the ruling of the court and is exempt. The Gemara challenges: The *tanna* **teaches this** *halakha* **explicitly** in the next mishna (3b), and consequently there is no need for an allusion in this mishna. The Gemara explains: The *tanna* **teaches it** ambiguously, **and then teaches it explicitly.**


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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יָחִיד שֶׁעָשָׂה בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין – חַיָּיב. מַאי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא בִשְׁגָגָה בַּעֲשֹׂתָהּ״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה מִעוּטִין: הָעוֹשֶׂה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ – חַיָּיב, בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: This** *halakha* in the mishna, which states that an individual who performs a transgression on the basis of a ruling issued by the court is exempt from liability to bring an offering, is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. But the Rabbis say: An individual who performs** a transgression **on** the basis of **the ruling of** the **court** is **liable.** The Gemara asks: **What** is the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda** to which Shmuel refers? It is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And **if one soul** from among the common people **shall sin unwittingly in performing** one of the mitzvot of the Lord” (Leviticus 4:27). **These are three exclusionary** terms: “One,” “unwittingly,” and “in performing,” and one of these exclusions serves to teach that **one who performs** a transgression **on his own** is **liable,** while one who performs a transgression **on** the basis of **the ruling of** the **court** is **exempt.**


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

מַאי רַבָּנַן? דְּתַנְיָא, עֲדַיִין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר: מִיעוּט קָהָל שֶׁחָטְאוּ – חַיָּיבִין, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵיהֶן פַּר. רוֹב קָהָל שֶׁחָטְאוּ – יְהוּ פְּטוּרִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵיהֶם פַּר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ – אֲפִילּוּ רוּבָּהּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוּלָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the opinion of **the Rabbis?** It is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Still I say:** Each member of **a minority of the congregation that sinned** based on the ruling of a court is **liable** to bring an offering for his unwitting transgression, **as** the **court does not bring a bull** for an unwitting communal sin **on the basis of** the minority’s transgression. One might have thought that each member of **a majority of** the **congregation that sinned** based on the ruling of a court **would be exempt** from liability to bring an offering for his unwitting transgression, **as** the **court brings a bull** for an unwitting communal sin **on the basis of** the majority’s transgression. To counter this, **the verse states** with regard to a sin-offering brought for an unwitting transgression: **“From among the common people,”** from which it is derived that **even** members of **the majority of** the congregation, **and even** members of **the entire** congregation, are not exempt because of the ruling of the court.


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

בְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה [בֵּית דִּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּהוֹרָאָה], בֵּית דִּין מַאי עֲבִידְתַּיְיהוּ? שֶׁלֹּא בְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין, בֵּית דִּין מִי מַיְיתוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּהוֹרָאָה? אֶלָּא בְּהוֹרָאָה. וְהָא כִּי כְּתִיב ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ – בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא דִּכְתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In what** circumstances did the majority of the congregation sin? **If we say** that the reference is to a transgression **with unwitting** performance of **an action** unrelated to a ruling of the court, why does the *tanna* say: As the court brings a bull for an unwitting communal sin on the basis of the majority’s transgression? Given that this is a case where **a court** did **not** issue **a ruling, what action did** the **court** perform? Since it was **not on** the basis of **the ruling of** the **court, does** the **court bring** a bull for an unwitting communal sin that was performed **not on** the basis of its **ruling? Rather,** the reference in the *baraita* must be to a case where the majority of the congregation performed a transgression **on** the basis of the **ruling** of the court. If so, the question arises: **But when it is written** with regard to a sin-offering brought for an unwitting transgression: **“From among the common people,”** it is **with regard to** a transgression **with unwitting** performance **of an action that it is written.**


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

אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: מִיעוּט קָהָל שֶׁחָטְאוּ בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּיבִין, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין עַל יְדֵיהֶן פַּר בְּהוֹרָאָה. הָא הֵן חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** that **this** is what the *tanna* **is saying:** The *baraita* is incomplete and must be taught in this manner: Each member of **a minority of the congregation that sinned with unwitting** performance **of an action** is **liable** to bring an offering for his unwitting transgression, **as** the **court does not bring a bull** for an unwitting communal sin **on the basis of** the minority’s transgression **in** a case where the court issued an erroneous **ruling. But** a minority of the congregation that sinned unwittingly on the basis of the ruling of the court is also **liable.**


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

יָכוֹל רוֹב צִבּוּר שֶׁעָשׂוּ בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה יְהוּ פְּטוּרִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין עֲלֵיהֶם פַּר [בְּהוֹרָאָה]? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״, אֲפִילּוּ רוּבּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that **a majority of the congregation that** sinned **with unwitting** performance **of an action would be exempt, as** the **court brings a bull** for an unwitting communal sin **on the basis of** the majority’s transgression **in** a case where the court issued an erroneous **ruling.** Therefore, **the verse states: “From among the common people,”** from which it is derived that **even** members of **the majority of** the congregation are liable. If the unwitting transgression was performed not on the basis of the ruling of the court, there is no difference between a minority and a majority of the people. This is proof that according to the Rabbis both an individual and a minority of the congregation who performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the court are liable.


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא לֹא הֵן וְלֹא בֵּית דִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: From where** do you draw this conclusion? **Perhaps** in the case where a minority of the congregation performs a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the court, **neither do those** individuals bring an offering, because they associated their action with the court, **nor does** the **court** bring an offering, because it was only a minority of the congregation that performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the court.


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

אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּקָמְהַדַּר עַל רוּבָּא לְחִיּוּבָא? לָאו מִכְּלָל דְּמִיעוּט בְּהוֹרָאָה קַיְימָא לֵיהּ דְּמִיחַיְּיבוּ בְּהוֹרָאָה?! וּנְהַדַּר בְּרֵישָׁא עַל מִיעוּטָא דְּמִיחַיַּיב בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה, וּלְבַסּוֹף נִיהַדַּר עַל רוּבָּא לְחִיּוּבָא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **If so, why** does the *tanna* **specifically seek** a source with regard to **the majority for liability?** Why did the *tanna* seek to introduce the *halakha* that even if a majority of the congregation sinned they would be liable to bring an offering? Can one **not, by inference,** conclude with regard to **a minority** that acts **on** the basis of the **ruling** of the court, that **he holds that they are liable** even though they acted **on** the basis of the **ruling** of the court? According to Rav Pappa’s opinion, **let** the *tanna* **first seek** to cite proof **about a minority that** each of its members is **liable** to bring a sin-offering **for unwitting** performance **of an action, and ultimately seek** to cite proof **about a majority to** establish **liability** for each of its members to bring a sin-offering **for unwitting** performance **of an action,** as it has not yet been established with regard to a minority that each of its members is liable to bring a sin-offering for unwitting performance of an action.


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

אֶלָּא לָאו מִדְּלָא מְהַדַּר עַל מִיעוּט דְּמִיחַיְּיבִין בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה, וּבְסוֹף מְהַדַּר עַל רוּבָּא לְחִיּוּבָא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִיעוּט בְּהוֹרָאָה חַיָּיבִין – הֵן כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה, וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּהוֹרָאָה – בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** can one **not** make an inference **from** the fact **that** the *tanna* **did not** first **seek** to cite proof **about a minority that** each of its members is **liable** to bring a sin-offering **for unwitting** performance **of an action and then** seek to cite proof **about a majority to** establish **liability** for each of its members to bring a sin-offering **for unwitting** performance of **an action?** Accordingly, one can **conclude from it** that it was clear to the *tanna* that in a case of **a minority** that acts **on** the basis of the **ruling** of the court, each member of the minority is **liable** to bring **a female lamb or a female goat** as a sin-offering, **and for unwitting** performance **of an action not on** the basis of the **ruling** of the court, each member of the minority is similarly **liable.**


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

מִכְּדֵי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ סְתָמֵי תְּנַן, מִמַּאי דְּקַמַּיְיתָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וּבָתְרָיְיתָא רַבָּנַן? אֵימָא אִיפְּכָא! מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּדָרֵישׁ מִיעוּטֵי כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Now, we learned both of** the *baraitot* **unattributed. From where** may it be ascertained **that** the *tanna* of **the first** *baraita* is **Rabbi Yehuda and** the *tanna* of **the latter** *baraita* is **the Rabbis? Say the opposite.** The Gemara answers: **Whom did you hear that interprets exclusionary** terms **in this way? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda says:**