## Horayot Daf 4b

###### Horayot 4b:1
[Horayot 4b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:1)

בָּעֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵין חֲרִישָׁה בְּשַׁבָּת, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּקָא מוֹדוּ בְּכוּלְּהוּ מִלְּתָא, כְּבִיטּוּל מִקְצָת וְקִיּוּם מִקְצָת דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקָא עָקְרִיִין לֵיהּ לַחֲרִישָׁהּ כׇּל עִיקָּר, כַּעֲקִירַת גּוּף דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the ruling of a court to nullify a mitzva, **Rav Yosef raises a dilemma:** If the court issued a ruling that **there is no** prohibition against **plowing on Shabbat, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara elaborates: **Do we say** that **since** the judges **agree to** the application of **the entire matter** of prohibitions on Shabbat and their ruling is exclusively with regard to plowing, its status is **tantamount to nullification of a portion** of the mitzva **and fulfillment of a portion** of the mitzva? **Or perhaps, since** the judges **are abolishing** the principal category of labor of **plowing in its entirety,** it is **tantamount to abolishing** the **essence** of the mitzva of Shabbat.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: יֵשׁ נִדָּה בַּתּוֹרָה אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם פָּטוּר. וְאַמַּאי? הָא עָקְרִיִין לְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם כׇּל עִיקָּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** resolution of the dilemma from the mishna, which gives as an example of a ruling for which the court is liable to bring an offering: **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** that she experiences a discharge is **exempt. And why** should they be liable in that case? **Didn’t** the judges **abolish** the *halakha* of a woman **who observes** a clean **day for a day** that she experiences a discharge, **in its entirety?** Apparently, nullification of one category of *halakha* in a mitzva is not tantamount to abolition of the essence of an entire mitzva.


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

אָמַר לְךָ רַב יוֹסֵף: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם דְּקָאָמְרִין כִּדְשַׁנִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Rav Yosef** could **say to you:** The ruling concerning a woman **who observes** a clean **day** for a day that she experiences a discharge is **as we stated, as we explained** earlier. The reference is not to abolition of the entire *halakha* of the woman who observes a day for a day, but rather to a case where the judges ruled that the initial stage of intercourse is permitted.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: יֵשׁ שַׁבָּת בַּתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פָּטוּר. וְאַמַּאי? הָא עָקְרִיִין לְהוֹצָאָה כׇּל עִיקָּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** resolution of the dilemma from the mishna, which gives as an example of a ruling for which the court is liable to bring an offering: **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. And why** should they be liable in that case? **Didn’t** the judges **abolish** the *halakha* of the principal category of labor of **carrying out in its entirety?**


###### Horayot 4b:5
[Horayot 4b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:5)

הָתָם נָמֵי כִּדְשַׁנִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **That too** is **as we explained** earlier, that the court rules to nullify only a portion of the labor, e.g., throwing or passing an item from domain to domain.


###### Horayot 4b:6
[Horayot 4b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: יֵשׁ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בַּתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה פָּטוּר. אַמַּאי? וְהָא עָקְרִיִין לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה כׇּל עִיקָּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** resolution of the dilemma from the mishna, which gives as an example of a ruling for which the court is liable to bring an offering: **There is** a prohibition against engaging in **idol worship** written **in the Torah, but one who bows** to the idol but did not sacrifice an offering is **exempt. And why** should the court be liable in that case? **But didn’t** the judges **abolish** the *halakha* of **bowing in its entirety?**


###### Horayot 4b:7
[Horayot 4b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:7)

אָמְרִי: הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה נָמֵי כִּדְשַׁנִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say: Bowing, too,** is **as we explained** earlier, that the court rules to nullify only an aspect of bowing, not to abolish the prohibition against bowing in its entirety.


###### Horayot 4b:8
[Horayot 4b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:8)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֵין שַׁבָּת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, מַהוּ? בְּמַאי טָעוּ? בְּהָדֵין קְרָא: ״בֶּחָרִישׁ וּבַקָּצִיר תִּשְׁבֹּת״, בִּזְמַן דְּאִיכָּא חֲרִישָׁה – אִיכָּא שַׁבָּת, וּבִזְמַן דְּלֵיכָּא חֲרִישָׁה – לֵיכָּא שַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Apropos rulings to nullify a mitzva or part of a mitzva, **Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma:** If a court issued a ruling that **there is no** prohibition against performing prohibited labor on **Shabbat during the Sabbatical** Year, **what is** the *halakha*? Before seeking to resolve that dilemma, the Gemara asks: **With regard to what** matter **did they err** that resulted in that ruling? They erred **with regard to this verse** written with regard to Shabbat: **“In plowing and in harvest you shall rest”** (Exodus 34:21), which the judges interpreted to mean: **During a time when there is plowing,** i.e., in all years of the Sabbatical cycle other than the Sabbatical Year, **there is** a prohibition against performing labor on **Shabbat. But during a time when there is no plowing,** i.e., during the Sabbatical Year, **there is no** prohibition against performing labor on **Shabbat.**


###### Horayot 4b:9
[Horayot 4b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:9)

מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דִּמְקַיְּימִין לַהּ בִּשְׁאָר שְׁנֵי שָׁבוּעַ, כְּבִיטּוּל מִקְצָת וְקִיּוּם מִקְצָת דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּקָא עָקְרִיִין לֵיהּ בִּשְׁבִיעִית, כַּעֲקִירַת הַגּוּף דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates on Rabbi Zeira’s dilemma. **Do we say: Since one fulfills** the mitzva of Shabbat **during the rest of the years of the Sabbatical** cycle, nullifying Shabbat during the Sabbatical Year is **tantamount to nullification of a portion** of the mitzva **and fulfillment of a portion** of the mitzva? **Or perhaps, since** the court **is abolishing** Shabbat **during the Sabbatical** Year, it is **tantamount to abolishing the** entire **essence** of the mitzva?


###### Horayot 4b:10
[Horayot 4b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:10)

אָמַר רָבִינָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: נָבִיא שֶׁנִּתְנַבֵּא לַעֲקוֹר דָּבָר מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה – חַיָּיב. לְבִיטּוּל מִקְצָת וּלְקִיּוּם מִקְצָת, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: פָּטוּר. וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר: הַיּוֹם עוֹבְדָהּ, וּלְמָחָר בַּטְּלָה – חַיָּיב, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אֵין שַׁבָּת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית כְּבִיטּוּל מִקְצָת וְקִיּוּם מִקְצָת דָּמֵי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Come** and **hear** resolution of the dilemma from a *baraita*: In the case of **a prophet who prophesies to abolish a matter of the matters of the Torah,** he is deemed a false prophet and is **liable** to be executed through strangulation. If he prophesies **for the nullification of part and the fulfillment of part** of a matter in the Torah, **Rabbi Shimon says** he is **exempt** from execution. **And with regard to idol worship, even** if he **says: Worship it today and revoke its status tomorrow,** everyone agrees that he is **liable,** as with regard to idol worship, even a ruling to nullify part of the mitzva involves a severe prohibition. **Learn from it** that in a case where a court issued a ruling that **there is no** prohibition against performing prohibited labor on **Shabbat during the Sabbatical** Year, it is **tantamount to nullification of a portion** of the mitzva **and fulfillment of a portion** of the mitzva. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, **learn from it.**


###### Horayot 4b:11
[Horayot 4b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ, וְאָמַר לָהֶן: ״טוֹעִין אַתֶּם״, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מוּפְלָא שֶׁל בֵּית דִּין שָׁם, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן גֵּר אוֹ מַמְזֵר אוֹ נָתִין, אוֹ זָקֵן שֶׁלֹּא רָאוּי לְבָנִים – הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If the **court issued a ruling, and one of** the judges **knew that they erred and he said to them: You are mistaken; or if the most distinguished [*mufla*]** member **of the court was not there** for that session of the Sanhedrin, **or if one of** the judges **was** disqualified from serving as a judge, e.g., because he was **a convert, or a child born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [*mamzer*], or a Gibeonite, or an old man no** longer **able to** father **children, this** court **is exempt,** because they have not rendered a full-fledged ruling.


###### Horayot 4b:12
[Horayot 4b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:12)

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן ״עֵדָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עֵדָה״, מֶה ״עֵדָה״ הָאֲמוּרָה לְהַלָּן – כּוּלָּן רְאוּיִן לְהוֹרָאָה, אַף ״עֵדָה״ הָאֲמוּרָה כָּאן – עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כּוּלָּן רְאוּיִן לְהוֹרָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is derived by means of a verbal analogy, **as “assembly” is stated here** with regard to a court that issues an erroneous ruling: “And if the entire assembly of Israel shall act unwittingly” (Leviticus 4:13), **and “assembly” is stated there** with regard to the *halakha* of one who commits murder unwittingly: “And the assembly shall judge between the one who struck and the blood redeemer” (Numbers 35:24). **Just as** in the **“assembly” stated there,** with regard to the unwitting murderer, **all** the judges must be **fit to issue rulings, so too,** in the **“assembly” stated here,** with regard to the court that issued an erroneous ruling; the court will not be liable **unless all** the judges **will be fit to issue rulings.**


###### Horayot 4b:13
[Horayot 4b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:13)

**גְּמָ׳** אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מוּפְלָא שֶׁל בֵּית דִּין שָׁם – מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ הוֹרוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁהַצַּדּוּקִין מוֹדִין בּוֹ פְּטוּרִין? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶם לִלְמוֹד וְלֹא לָמְדוּ, לֹא הָיָה מוּפְלָא שֶׁל בֵּית דִּין שָׁם נָמֵי פְּטוּרִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶם לִלְמוֹד וְלֹא לָמְדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches: **Or if the most distinguished member of the court was not there,** the court is exempt. **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? **Rav Sheshet said, and likewise the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what** reason **did** the Sages **say:** If the court **issued a ruling with regard to a matter with which the Sadducees agree,** the judges are **exempt?** It is **due to** the fact **that it was** incumbent **upon them to learn** that *halakha* that is written explicitly in the Torah, **and they did not learn** it. Similarly, in a case where **the most distinguished member of the court was not there,** the judges are **also exempt, as it was** incumbent **upon them to learn and they did not learn.**


###### Horayot 4b:14
[Horayot 4b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:14)

נֶאֱמַר שָׁם ״עֵדָה״ וְנֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עֵדָה״, עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ כּוּלָּן רְאוּיִן לְהוֹרָאָה. וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִתְיַצְּבוּ שָׁם עִמָּךְ״ – ״עִמָּךְ״ בְּדוֹמִין לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **“Assembly” is stated there and “assembly” is stated here…**the court will not be liable **unless all** the judges **will be fit to issue rulings.** The Gemara asks: **And there, from where do we** derive that all the judges must be fit to issue rulings? The Gemara answers that this is **as Rav Ḥisda says** that **the verse states** in connection with the transfer of the Divine Spirit from Moses to the Elders: **“That they may stand there with you”** (Numbers 11:16). The term **“with you”** is explained to mean: **With similarity to you,** in the sense that they must be fit to issue rulings.


###### Horayot 4b:15
[Horayot 4b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:15)

וְאֵימָא: ״עִמָּךְ״ לִשְׁכִינָה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָשְׂאוּ אִתָּךְ״ – ״אִתָּךְ״ בְּדוֹמִין לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And say that** the term **“with you,”** means that they shall be like Moses in that they will all be fit **for the Divine Presence** to rest upon them. **Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says** that it is derived as **the verse states** in the context of the advice that Yitro gave to Moses: “And they shall judge the people at all times…and ease your burden from upon you **and bear it with you”** (Exodus 18:22). **“With you”** is interpreted to mean: **Similar to you.**


###### Horayot 4b:16
[Horayot 4b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שׁוֹגְגִין, וְעָשׂוּ כָּל הַקָּהָל שׁוֹגְגִין – מְבִיאִין פַּר. מְזִידִין, וְעָשׂוּ שׁוֹגְגִין – מְבִיאִין כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה. שׁוֹגְגִין, וְעָשׂוּ מְזִידִין – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If the judges of the **court issued** an erroneous **ruling unwittingly and the entire congregation performed** a transgression **unwittingly** on the basis of their ruling, the court **brings a bull,** as it is stated in the Torah with regard to an unwitting communal sin-offering. If the court issued the erroneous ruling **intentionally,** as they knew that their ruling was incorrect, **and** the congregation **performed** a transgression **unwittingly** on the basis of the ruling of the court, each member of the congregation **brings a female lamb or a female goat** as an individual sin-offering. If the court issued the erroneous ruling **unwittingly and** the congregation **performed** a transgression **intentionally,** i.e., with the knowledge that the ruling of the court was erroneous, **these** people **are exempt** from bringing an offering.


###### Horayot 4b:17
[Horayot 4b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:17)

**גְּמָ׳** שׁוֹגְגִין וְעָשׂוּ מְזִידִין – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין. הָא שׁוֹגֵג דּוּמְיָא דְּמֵזִיד – חַיָּיב, וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שֶׁהוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁחֵלֶב מוּתָּר, וְנִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ בְּשׁוּמָּן וַאֲכָלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches: If the court issued the erroneous ruling **unwittingly and** the congregation **performed** a transgression **intentionally, these** people **are exempt.** The Gemara infers: **But** if the person performed a transgression **unwittingly** in a manner **similar to** that of **an intentional** transgression, the court is **liable. And what are the circumstances** of that performance? It is a case **where the court issued a ruling that** forbidden **fat** is **permitted, and** the forbidden **fat became confused for** a person **with** permitted **fat and he ate** the forbidden fat.


###### Horayot 4b:18
[Horayot 4b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:18)

לֵימָא, תִּפְשׁוֹט הָא דְּבָעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא! אָמַר לָךְ, מִשּׁוּם דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא: מְזִידִין וְעָשׂוּ שׁוֹגְגִין, תְּנָא סֵיפָא: שׁוֹגְגִין וְעָשׂוּ מְזִידִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: If so, **let us say: Resolve** from here **that which Rami bar Ḥama raises as a dilemma** (2a) with regard to this case, a dilemma that remained unresolved. The Gemara rejects this: Rami bar Ḥama could **say to you** that the dilemma cannot be resolved based on this inference, as **due to** the fact **that** the *tanna* **taught the first clause** of the mishna: If the court issued the erroneous ruling **intentionally, and** the congregation **performed** a transgression **unwittingly, he taught the latter clause** employing a similar style: If the court issued the erroneous ruling **unwittingly and** the congregation **performed** a transgression **intentionally.**


###### Horayot 4b:19
[Horayot 4b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/4b:19)

**מַתְנִי׳** הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין וְעָשׂוּ כׇּל הַקָּהָל אוֹ רוּבָּן עַל פִּיהֶן – מְבִיאִין פַּר. וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – מְבִיאִין פַּר וְשָׂעִיר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים – מְבִיאִין שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר פָּרִים. וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – מְבִיאִין שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר פָּרִים וּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׂעִירִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If the judges of **the court issued** an erroneous **ruling and the entire congregation or a majority thereof performed** a transgression **on the basis of their** ruling, the judges **bring a bull** as an unwitting communal sin-offering. **And** if the erroneous ruling **involved idol worship,** the judges **bring a bull and a goat,** as it is written in the Torah (see Numbers 15:24); this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:** It is not the court that brings the offering, it is the people. **Twelve tribes,** each of which performed a transgression, **bring twelve bulls,** i.e., each tribe brings one, **and for idol worship they bring twelve bulls and twelve goats,** as each tribe is a congregation.