## Horayot Daf 3b

###### Horayot 3b:1
[Horayot 3b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:1)

אוֹ דִּלְמָא [יְדִיעָה] דְּהָהוּא בֵּית דִּין דְּהוֹרוּ בָּעִינַן! תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps,** for liability **we require** the **awareness of the same court that issued the ruling,** and that court no longer exists. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מֵאָה שֶׁיָּשְׁבוּ לְהוֹרוֹת – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ כּוּלָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם כׇּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ״, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁגּוּ כּוּלָּן [עַד שֶׁתִּפְשׁוֹט הוֹרָאָה בְּכׇל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל] אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דִּבְכָל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ קַיְימָא לַן רוּבּוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ, וְהָכָא כְּתִיב ״כׇּל הָעֵדָה״ – הוֹאִיל וְכָךְ, אֲפִילּוּ הֵן מֵאָה.

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


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

[תְּנַן:] הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ, אוֹ תַּלְמִיד וְרָאוּי לְהוֹרָאָה, וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶם, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶן, וּבֵין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה אַחֲרֵיהֶן, וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה – הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָּלָה בְּבֵית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: If the **court issued** that **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** was **qualified to issue** halakhic **rulings, and** that judge or student **proceeded and performed** that transgression **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 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.**


###### Horayot 3b:4
[Horayot 3b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:4)

הַאי הוּא דְּחַיָּיב, הָא אַחֵר פָּטוּר, וְאַמַּאי? הָא לֹא נִגְמְרָה הוֹרָאָה! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִרְכִּין הַהוּא אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּרֹאשׁוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that one may infer: **It is this** judge or student **who** is **liable, but another** who acts on the basis of the ruling of the court is **exempt. But why** would he be exempt? **The ruling is not completed** if it is not unanimous. The Gemara answers: **What are we dealing with here?** We are dealing with a case **where the one** dissenting judge **among them bowed his head** and indicated his agreement with the remaining judges.


###### Horayot 3b:5
[Horayot 3b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ וְאָמַר לָהֶן ״טוֹעִין אַתֶּם״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִים. טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר לָהֶן ״טוֹעִין אַתֶּם״ – דִּפְטוּרִים, הָא שָׁתֵיק מִישְׁתָּק – חַיָּיבִין, וְגָמַר לַהּ הוֹרָאָה, וְאַמַּאי? וְהָא לֹא הוֹרוּ כּוּלָּן! אָמְרִי: הָכִי נָמֵי כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִרְכִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof from a mishna (4b): If the **court issued a ruling, and one of** the judges **knew that they erred and he said to them: You are mistaken, they are exempt.** One may infer: **The reason that** they are **exempt** is **that** the judge **said to them: You are mistaken. But** if **he was silent,** they are **liable, and the ruling is complete. And why,** according to Rabbi Yonatan, would they be liable? **But isn’t** it so that **not all of them issued** the same **ruling?** The Sages **say** in response: **So too** here, it is a case **where** the dissenting judge **bowed his head.**


###### Horayot 3b:6
[Horayot 3b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:6)

מֵתִיב רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: סָמְכוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְעַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק, שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: אֵין גּוֹזְרִין גְּזֵירָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רוֹב הַצִּבּוּר יְכוֹלִין לַעֲמוֹד בָּהּ,

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


###### Horayot 3b:7
[Horayot 3b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:7)

וְאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַבָּא: מַאי קְרָא? ״בַּמְּאֵרָה אַתֶּם נֵאָרִים וְאֹתִי אַתֶּם קֹבְעִים הַגּוֹי כֻּלּוֹ״. וְהָא הָכָא דִּכְתִיב ״הַגּוֹי כֻּלּוֹ״, וְרוּבָּא כְּכוֹלָּא דָּמֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי (יוֹחָנָן) [יוֹנָתָן]. תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Adda bar Abba said: What is the verse** from which this principle is derived? It is derived from the verse: **“With the curse you are cursed, yet you rob Me, the entire nation”** (Malachi 3:9). The verse is referring to the oath taken by the entire people to observe the *halakhot* of tithes, and they violated those *halakhot*. **But here it is written: “The entire nation,” and** yet, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, relied on this verse to derive that the legal status of **the majority of** an entity is **like** that of **the entire** entity, and therefore if a majority of the congregation can withstand the decree the court may issue it. The Gemara concludes: **The refutation of** the opinion of **Rabbi Yonatan** is indeed **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Horayot 3b:8
[Horayot 3b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:8)

וְאֶלָּא, מַאי ״כׇּל עֲדַת״ דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי אִיכָּא כּוּלָּם – הָוְיָא הוֹרָאָה, וְאִי לָא – לָא הָוְיָא הוֹרָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Rather,** now that Rabbi Yonatan’s opinion has been refuted, **what** is derived from the phrase **“the entire assembly” that the Merciful One states? This** is what it **is saying: If there are all** the judges present and they issue that ruling based on the majority, **it is a ruling, and if not, it is not a ruling.**


###### Horayot 3b:9
[Horayot 3b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: עֲשָׂרָה שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין בַּדִּין – קוֹלָר תָּלוּי בְּצַוַּאר כּוּלָּן. פְּשִׁיטָא! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ תַּלְמִיד בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Horayot 3b:10
[Horayot 3b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:10)

רַב הוּנָא כִּי הֲוָה נָפֵיק לְבֵי דִינָא, מַיְיתִי עֲשָׂרָה תַּנָּאֵי דְבֵי רַב לְקַמֵּיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנִימְטְיַין שִׁיבָּא מִכְּשׁוּרָא. רַב אָשֵׁי כִּי הֲווֹ מַיְיתִי טְרֵפְתָּא לְקַמֵּיהּ, מַיְיתֵי עֲשָׂרָה טַבָּחֵי מִמָּתָא מַחְסֵיָא וּמוֹתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ, אָמַר: כִּי הֵיכָא דְּנִימְטְיַין שִׁיבָּא מִכְּשׁוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Huna, when he would go out to the court** to sit in judgment, would **bring ten *tanna’im*,** i.e., people **who** recited *mishnayot* and *baraitot* in the **study hall,** to sit **before him** and serve as partners in judgment with him. He said: I do this **so that we will** each **receive a splinter from the beam,** i.e., each of us will bear only a small part of the responsibility. The Gemara relates on a similar note: **Rav Ashi, when they would bring** a slaughtered animal **before him** to determine whether or not it was **a *tereifa*, would bring ten slaughterers from Mata Meḥasya and sit** them **before him** while rendering his decision. **He said:** I do this **so that we will** each **receive a splinter from the beam.**


###### Horayot 3b:11
[Horayot 3b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין וְיָדְעוּ שֶׁטָּעוּ וְחָזְרוּ בָּהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָתָן וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָתָן, וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶן – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: סָפֵק. אֵיזֶהוּ סָפֵק? יָשַׁב לוֹ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – חַיָּיב, הָלַךְ לוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case where the judges of the **court issued** an erroneous **ruling and they discovered that they erred and reversed their** decision, **whether they brought their atonement** offering for their erroneous ruling **or whether they did not bring their atonement** offering, **and** an individual who was unaware of the new ruling **proceeded and performed** a transgression **on the basis of their** first ruling, **Rabbi Shimon deems** him **exempt** from bringing an offering, **and Rabbi Elazar says:** There is **uncertainty** with regard to his status and he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering. **Which is** the case of **uncertainty** for which one is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering? If one **sat inside his house** and performed the transgression he is **liable** to bring a provisional guilt-offering, as he could have learned of the change in the court’s ruling. If he **went to a country overseas** and is relying on the initial ruling, he is **exempt.**


###### Horayot 3b:12
[Horayot 3b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מוֹדֶה אֲנִי בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לִפְטוּר מִן הַחוֹבָה. אָמַר לוֹ בֶּן עַזַּאי: מַאי שְׁנָא זֶה מִן הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ? שֶׁהַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ אֶפְשָׁר הָיָה לוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע, וְזֶה לֹא הָיָה לוֹ אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva said: I concede in that** case of one who went overseas **that he is closer to exemption than** he is to **liability. Ben Azzai said to him:** In **what** way **is this** person who went overseas **different from one who sits in his house?** Rabbi Akiva said to him: The difference is **that** with regard to **one who sits in his house it would have been possible for him to hear** of the court’s reversal, **but** with regard to **that** person who went overseas, **it would not have been possible for him to hear** of the court’s reversal.


###### Horayot 3b:13
[Horayot 3b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:13)

הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין לַעֲקוֹר אֶת כָּל הַגּוּף, אָמְרוּ: אֵין נִדָּה בַּתּוֹרָה, אֵין שַׁבָּת בַּתּוֹרָה, אֵין עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בַּתּוֹרָה – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין. הוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵּים מִקְצָת – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין.

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


###### Horayot 3b:14
[Horayot 3b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:14)

כֵּיצַד? אָמְרוּ: יֵשׁ נִדָּה בַּתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם – פָּטוּר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How** so? An example of this is if the judges **said: There is** a prohibition against engaging in intercourse with **a menstruating woman** written **in the Torah, but one who engages in intercourse with** a woman **who observes** a clean **day for a day** she experiences a discharge is **exempt.** When the woman sees a discharge of blood for one or two days during the eleven days between the end of one menstrual period and the expected start of another, the blood is assumed to not be menstrual blood. If after the second day, the next day passes without any discharge of blood, she may immerse immediately and she is ritually pure. The judges ruled erroneously that it is permitted to engage in intercourse with her on the day that she is observing a clean day, even without the day having passed and her having immersed.


###### Horayot 3b:15
[Horayot 3b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:15)

יֵשׁ שַׁבָּת בַּתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – פָּטוּר,

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


###### Horayot 3b:16
[Horayot 3b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:16)

יֵשׁ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בַּתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה – פָּטוּר, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנֶעֱלַם דָּבָר״ – דָּבָר, וְלֹא כָּל הַגּוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Horayot 3b:17
[Horayot 3b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:17)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? הוֹאִיל וּבִרְשׁוּת בֵּית דִּין הוּא עוֹשֶׂה. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כׇּל הוֹרָאָה שֶׁיָּצְאָה בְּרוֹב צִבּוּר – יָחִיד הָעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ פָּטוּר, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנָה הוֹרָאָה אֶלָּא לְהַבְחִין בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג לְמֵזִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon deems exempt one who performed a transgression on the basis of the initial ruling of the court even though the court reversed its ruling. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: What is the reason** for the statement **of Rabbi Shimon?** The reason is **since** it is **with the permission of the court** that **he performs** the transgression, he is exempt. **Some say** there is a different version of the statement cited by Rav Yehuda: **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: Rabbi Shimon would say:** Concerning **any ruling that disseminated to the majority of** the **congregation,** even if the court later reversed that decision, **an individual who performs** a transgression based on the first ruling is **exempt, because a ruling is given only to distinguish between unwitting and intentional** acts. One who performs an action on the basis of that ruling is unwitting, as he associated his action with the court, and he is unaware that the court reversed its decision.


###### Horayot 3b:18
[Horayot 3b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:18)

מֵיתִיבִי: פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר וּשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – בַּתְּחִלָּה גּוֹבִין עֲלֵיהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה הֵן בָּאִין. אַמַּאי, כֵּיוָן דְּגָבֵי לְהוּ, הָוֵי לֵיהּ ״הוֹדַע״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: For **a bull** brought for **an unwitting communal sin, and** for **goats** brought for the unwitting violation of the prohibition **of idol worship,** the Temple treasury **collects** money from the congregation to pay **for** the offerings **from the outset,** i.e., a collection undertaken specifically for that offering; this is **the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda says:** The money for purchasing these offerings **comes from** the funds of **the collection of the** Temple treasury **chamber,** just like the money for purchasing all other communal offerings. According to Rabbi Shimon, **why** is this person exempt? **Since they collect** money specifically for each of these communal sin-offerings, the transgression **is for him** one that **became known,** as he presumably heard about the collection, and he should be liable because he is aware of the reversal in the court’s ruling.


###### Horayot 3b:19
[Horayot 3b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:19)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּבוּ סְתָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that the reference in the mishna is to a case **where they collected** the money **without specification.** Therefore, he was unaware of the reversal of the court’s ruling.


###### Horayot 3b:20
[Horayot 3b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:20)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כְּגוֹן דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ בְּמָתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that the reference in the mishna is to a case **where** the person **was not in the city.** Therefore, he was unaware of the collection of the funds and unaware of the reversal of the ruling of the court.


###### Horayot 3b:21
[Horayot 3b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:21)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַב כְּאִידַּךְ תַּנָּא סָבַר, דְּתַנְיָא אִיפְּכָא: בַּתְּחִילָּה גּוֹבִין לָהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה הֵן בָּאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that **Rav holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the other *tanna*** who cited the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* with the attribution of the opinions **reversed:** The Temple treasury **collects** money from the congregation to pay **for** the offerings **from the outset;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says:** The money for purchasing these offerings **comes from** the funds of **the collection of the** Temple treasury **chamber.** According to Rabbi Shimon’s opinion in this *baraita*, it is possible that the transgressor remained unaware that the court reversed its decision.


###### Horayot 3b:22
[Horayot 3b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:22)

תָּנֵי: רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: סָפֵק, מִשּׁוּם סוֹמְכוֹס אָמְרוּ: תָּלוּי. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָשָׁם תָּלוּי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Apropos this topic, **it is taught** in a *baraita*: If an individual performed a transgression on the basis of the original ruling of the court after the court reversed its ruling, **Rabbi Meir deems** him **liable** to bring a sin-offering **and Rabbi Shimon deems** him **exempt. Rabbi Elazar says:** There is **uncertainty** with regard to his status. **In the name of Sumakhos,** the Sages **said:** His status is **suspended** and remains uncertain. **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** It is with regard to **a provisional guilt-offering** that **there is** a practical difference **between** the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and the opinion of Sumakhos. According to Rabbi Elazar, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering, whereas according to Sumakhos the question of his liability is suspended, and he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering.


###### Horayot 3b:23
[Horayot 3b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/3b:23)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מָשָׁל דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לָמָּה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְאָדָם שֶׁאָכַל סָפֵק חֵלֶב סָפֵק שׁוּמָּן, וְנוֹדַע לוֹ, שֶׁמֵּבִיא אָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira says:** There is **an analogy** to illustrate the opinion **of Rabbi Elazar. To what is this matter comparable?** It is comparable **to a person who ate** a piece of fat with regard to which there is **uncertainty** whether it is forbidden **fat** and **uncertainty** whether it is permitted **fat,** and he thought that he was eating permitted fat. **And** he later **became aware** that there is uncertainty whether he unwittingly ate fat for which one is liable to receive *karet* if he ate it intentionally, **as** in this case he is liable to **bring** a provisional **guilt-offering.** In the case in the *baraita* too, when he later discovered that the court reversed its ruling, it is like one who is uncertain whether he associated his action with the court or associated his action with himself.