## Horayot Daf 6b

###### Horayot 6b:1
[Horayot 6b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/6b:1)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה נַיְיתוֹ פַּר בְּהוֹרָאָה! וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָכִי נָמֵי – טָפִי לְהוּ שְׁבָטִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If that is so,** that the priests are characterized as a congregation, **let them bring a bull** as an unwitting communal offering if they perform a transgression **on** the basis of the **ruling** of the court. **And if you would say indeed it is so,** that is difficult, as the number of **tribes has increased** to thirteen.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: שִׁבְטוֹ שֶׁל לֵוִי לָא אִיקְּרוּ קָהָל, דִּכְתִיב: ״הִנְנִי מַפְרְךָ וְהִרְבִּיתִךָ וּנְתַתִּיךָ לִקְהַל עַמִּים וְגוֹ׳״. כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֲחוּזָּה – אִיקְּרִי קָהָל, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֲחוּזָּה – לָא אִיקְּרִי קָהָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ya’akov, said: The tribe of Levi is not characterized as a congregation, as it is written: “Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a congregation of peoples;** and I will give this land to your descendants after you for an everlasting possession” (Genesis 48:4). It is derived from here that **any** tribe **that has** an ancestral **possession** bequeathed to it **is characterized as a congregation, and any** tribe **that does not have** an ancestral **possession** bequeathed to it **is not characterized as a congregation.** The tribe of Levi has no ancestral land, and the priests who are from the tribe of Levi have no ancestral land.


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

אִם כֵּן, חָסְרִי לְהוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״אֶפְרַיִם וּמְנַשֶּׁה כִּרְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן יִהְיוּ לִי״. אָמַר רָבָא, וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״עַל שֵׁם אֲחֵיהֶם יִקָּרְאוּ בְּנַחֲלָתָם״, לְנַחֲלָה הוּקְשׁוּ וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so, the twelve tribes are lacking** in number, as without the tribe of Levi there are only eleven. **Abaye said** that it is stated: **“Ephraim and Manasseh shall be like Reuben and Simeon to me”** (Genesis 48:5), and they are counted as two tribes. **Rava said: But isn’t it written: “After the name of their brethren shall they be called in their inheritance”** (Genesis 48:6), indicating that it is **with regard to inheritance** that **they are likened** to tribes, **but not with regard to another matter?**


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

וְלָא? וְהָא חֲלוּקִין בַּדְּגָלִים! כְּנַחֲלָתָן כָּךְ חֲנִיָּיתָן, כְּדֵי לְחַלֵּק כָּבוֹד לַדְּגָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And** are they **not** considered independent tribes concerning other matters as well? **But aren’t they separate with regard to the banners** under which the Jewish people traveled in the wilderness? There were three tribes represented by each banner, and the three tribes under the banner of Manasseh were Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin. The Gemara answers: **In accordance with** the division of the tribes according to **their inheritances, so was** the division of the tribes in **their encampment** around the Tabernacle. This was **in order to honor the banners,** so that there would be three tribes affiliated with each banner.


###### Horayot 6b:5
[Horayot 6b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/6b:5)

וְהָא חֲלוּקִים בַּנְּשִׂיאִים! הָהוּא, לַחֲלוֹק כָּבוֹד לַנְּשִׂיאִים. דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁלֹמֹה עָשָׂה שִׁבְעָה יְמֵי חֲנוּכָּה, וּמָה רָאָה מֹשֶׁה לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר יְמֵי חֲנוּכָּה? כְּדֵי לַחֲלוֹק כָּבוֹד לַנְּשִׂיאִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But aren’t they separate with regard to** the matter of **princes** of the tribes, as the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh had separate princes? The Gemara answers: **That** was **in order to honor the princes,** and there is no proof that they are two different tribes with regard to other matters. This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Solomon set seven days of dedication** of the Holy Temple, **and what did Moses see** that led him **to set twelve days of dedication** for the Tabernacle? He did so **in order to honor the** tribal **princes,** so that the prince of each tribe would bring his offering on his own day. Due to the honor each prince deserved, Ephraim and Manasseh are considered two tribes.


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

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** conclusion **was** reached **about** Rabbi Shimon’s opinion? Does he hold that a sin-offering brought by several partners is different from a communal sin-offering, as Rav Yosef explained, or does he hold that there is no difference between them, as Abaye explained?


###### Horayot 6b:7
[Horayot 6b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/6b:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת: וְלַד חַטָּאת, וּתְמוּרַת חַטָּאת, וְחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ, וְחַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ, וְחַטָּאת שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ. וְאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר וְלַד חַטָּאת בְּצִבּוּר, שֶׁאֵין צִבּוּר מַפְרִישִׁין נְקֵבָה. וְאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר תְּמוּרַת חַטָּאת בְּצִבּוּר, שֶׁאֵין תְּמוּרָה בְּצִבּוּר. וְאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר חַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ בְּצִבּוּר, שֶׁאֵין צִבּוּר מֵתִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** proof, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon says:** There are **five sin-offerings** that are left to **die,** as they may not be sacrificed: **The offspring of a sin-offering** born after its mother was consecrated as a sin-offering; **the substitute of a sin-offering,** which assumes sacred status but may not be sacrificed; **a sin-offering whose owners have died; a sin-offering whose owners’** sin was **atoned** for with another offering; **and a sin-offering whose** first **year has passed,** as a sin-offering may be brought only within the animal’s first year. **And you cannot state** a case of **the offspring of a communal sin-offering, as** the **congregation does not designate a female** as a sin-offering, **And you cannot state** a case of **a substitute of a communal sin-offering, as there is no substitute for a communal** offering. **And you cannot state** a case of **a sin-offering whose owners have died in** the case of **a communal** sin-offering, **as** the **public does not die.**


###### Horayot 6b:8
[Horayot 6b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/6b:8)

שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ וְשֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ – לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ, יָכוֹל יָמוּתוּ? אָמַרְתָּ: יִלְמוֹד סָתוּם מִן הַמְפוֹרָשׁ, מַה מָּצִינוּ בִּוְלַד חַטָּאת וּתְמוּרַת חַטָּאת וְשֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ – בְּיָחִיד דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים וְלֹא בְּצִבּוּר, אַף שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ וְשֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ – בְּיָחִיד דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים וְלֹא בְּצִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to a sin-offering **whose owners’** sin was **atoned** for **and** a sin-offering **whose** first **year has passed, we did not hear** whether the *halakha* applies to communal sin-offerings as well. One **might** have thought they too **shall** be left to **die. You say: One shall derive** the **vague from the explicit. What did we find with regard to the offspring of a sin-offering, the substitute of a sin-offering, and** a sin-offering **whose owners died?** We found that these matters **are stated** only **with regard to an individual** sin-offering, **but not with regard to a communal** sin-offering. **So too,** these matters of **a sin-offering whose owners’** sin was **atoned** for **and** a sin-offering **whose** first **year has passed are stated** only **with regard to an individual** sin-offering, **but not with regard to a communal** sin-offering. Likewise, one may derive that an individual’s sin-offering must be left to die, while a sin-offering owned by partners is not left to die.


###### Horayot 6b:9
[Horayot 6b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/6b:9)

וְכִי דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּחַד מָקוֹם גְּמִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does one derive** the *halakha* of the **possible from** the **impossible?** Some of these cases are by their very nature not relevant to communal sin-offerings. One cannot derive the *halakha* from them with regard to cases that could be relevant to communal sin-offerings. The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Shimon learns** all these *halakhot* of sin-offerings that are left to die as a tradition **in one place,** i.e., as a single *halakha*. In cases where not all the categories of sin-offerings left to die apply, no category of sin-offerings that are left to die applies.


###### Horayot 6b:10
[Horayot 6b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/6b:10)

**הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין**


###### Horayot 6b:11
[Horayot 6b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/6b:11)

מַתְנִי׳ **הוֹרָה** כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ לְעַצְמוֹ שׁוֹגֵג וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג – מֵבִיא פַּר. שׁוֹגֵג וְעָשָׂה מֵזִיד, מֵזִיד וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג – פָּטוּר, שֶׁהוֹרָאַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ לְעַצְמוֹ כְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין לַצִּבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case where **an anointed priest,** i.e., the High Priest, **issued** an erroneous **ruling for himself** permitting performance of an action prohibited by Torah law, if he issued the ruling **unwittingly and** then **unwittingly performed** the transgression in accordance with his ruling, he is liable to **bring a bull** as a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression by the anointed priest. If he issued the ruling **unwittingly, and performed** the transgression **intentionally,** or if he issued the ruling **intentionally and performed** the transgression **unwittingly,** he is **exempt** from liability to bring any offering, **as** there is a principle: The legal status of **the ruling of an anointed priest for himself is like** that of **the ruling of the court for the** general **public.** Therefore, the High Priest is liable to bring the bull as a sin-offering for his unwitting transgression in a case when the court would be liable to bring the bull as a communal sin-offering for an unwitting transgression performed by the general public.


###### Horayot 6b:12
[Horayot 6b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/6b:12)

**גְּמָ׳** שׁוֹגֵג וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג – מֵבִיא פַּר. פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches: If he issued the ruling **unwittingly and** then **unwittingly performed** the transgression in accordance with his ruling, he is liable to **bring a bull.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t this **obvious?** This is certainly a case of an unwitting transgression, for which the Torah deems him liable to bring an offering.


###### Horayot 6b:13
[Horayot 6b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/6b:13)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוֹרָה, וְשָׁכַח מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם הוֹרָה, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁטָּעָה אָמַר: הֲרֵינִי עוֹשֶׂה עַל דַּעַת הוֹרָאָתוֹ, דְּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מִתְיְדַע לֵיהּ, [שֶׁמָּא] הָדַר בֵּיהּ – כְּמֵזִיד דָּמֵי וְלָא לִחַיַּיב, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: What are we dealing with here?** We are dealing with a case **where he issued** an erroneous **ruling and forgot the reason that** was the basis upon which **he issued the ruling, and at the moment that he erred** and performed the transgression, **he said: I am hereby performing** this action **with** my **ruling in mind. As, lest you say: Since if the reason** that was the basis upon which he issued the ruling **became known to him** at that moment, **perhaps he would have retracted his** ruling, therefore if he nevertheless performed his transgression, his status is **like** that of **an intentional** transgressor, **and let him not be liable** to bring an offering; to counter this, the *tanna* **teaches us** that this too is a case of an unwitting transgression.


###### Horayot 6b:14
[Horayot 6b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/6b:14)

מֵזִיד וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם״, הֲרֵי מָשִׁיחַ כְּצִבּוּר. שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If he issued the ruling unwittingly, and performed the transgression intentionally, or if he issued the ruling **intentionally and performed** the transgression **unwittingly,** he is exempt. The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters,** the *halakhot* unique to the sin-offering for an unwitting transgression by the anointed priest, derived? They are derived from a verse, **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: It is written: “If the anointed priest shall sin **so as to bring guilt upon the people”** (Leviticus 4:3), from which it is derived that the liability of the **anointed** priest **is** incurred **like** that of the general **public.** The Gemara discusses this derivation. **As** one **might** have thought that the verse is superfluous: **Could this not** be derived through **logical inference?**