## Horayot Daf 8a

###### Horayot 8a:1
[Horayot 8a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:1)

וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכִפֶּר [עָלָיו] הַכֹּהֵן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר שָׁגָג״. רַבִּי סָבַר: מִי שֶׁכׇּל חֶטְאוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין [כׇּל] חֶטְאוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה, אֶלָּא בְּהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches: **And they agree that he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering.** The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? It is derived from a verse, **as it is written** with regard to the provisional guilt-offering: **“And the priest shall atone for him for his unwitting act that he performed unwittingly”** (Leviticus 5:18). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the interpretation of this verse, in accordance with their opinions. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds:** This is referring to **one whose sin-offering** for **all** transgressions is **for an unwitting** act. This serves to **exclude that** anointed priest, **as all of his sin-offerings are not for an unwitting** act alone; **rather,** he brings a sin-offering only if that unwitting act is performed on the basis **of absence** of awareness **of** the **matter,** leading to an erroneous ruling.


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

מִידֵּי ״כׇּל״ כְּתִיב? אִין דְּאִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב ״עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ״. לְמָה לִי ״אֲשֶׁר שָׁגָג״ הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּעַד דְּאִיכָּא כׇּל חֶטְאוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה. יָצָא מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵין כׇּל חֶטְאוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה אֶלָּא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְלֹא בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת אֶלָּא בְּהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is it written** in the verse: For **all** his unwitting acts that he performed unwittingly? Only the phrase “for his unwitting act that he performed unwittingly” is written. The Gemara answers: **Yes,** it is as though the word: All, is written. **As if** it were **so** that the verse is not referring to all unwitting acts, **let** the Torah **write** only: **“For his unwitting act.” Why do I** need the additional phrase: **“That he performed unwittingly”? This teaches us that** there is no liability to bring a provisional guilt-offering **unless** liability to bring **all his sin-offerings is for unwitting** acts. This serves to **exclude an anointed** priest, **all of whose** liability to bring **a sin-offering for an unwitting** act alone **is only in** cases of **idol worship, but in** cases involving **the rest of** the **mitzvot** there is liability **only for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter,** leading to an erroneous ruling, together **with unwitting** performance **of an action** on the basis of that ruling.


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

וְרַבָּנַן: מִי שֶׁחֶטְאוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה, יָצָא מָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין חֶטְאוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה לֹא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְלֹא בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת, אֶלָּא בְּהֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis** interpret the verse in accordance with their opinion that an anointed priest, even in cases of idol worship, brings a sin-offering only for absence of awareness of the matter, leading to an erroneous ruling, together with unwitting performance of an action on the basis of that ruling. They hold: This teaches us that there is liability to bring a provisional guilt-offering only for **one whose** liability to bring his **sin-offerings is for an unwitting** act. This serves to **exclude an anointed** priest, **whose** liability to bring **a sin-offering is not for an unwitting** act alone, **neither in** cases of **idol worship, nor in** cases involving **the rest of** the **mitzvot,** but **rather for absence** of awareness **of** the **matter,** leading to an erroneous ruling, together **with unwitting** performance **of an action** on the basis of that ruling.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵין בֵּית דִּין חַיָּיבִין עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת, וְכֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ, וְלֹא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **The court is not liable** to bring an offering for absence of awareness of the matter **unless they issue a ruling with regard to a matter** for **whose intentional** violation one is liable to receive ***karet* and** for **whose unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering. And likewise the anointed priest** is liable only for such a ruling. **Neither** is the court liable to bring a sin-offering **for idol worship unless** the judges **issue a ruling with regard to a matter** for **whose intentional** violation one is liable to receive ***karet*, and** for **whose unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering.**


###### Horayot 8a:5
[Horayot 8a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** מִנָּלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the statement in the mishna that the court is liable only for a ruling with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive *karet* and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, the Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*?


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

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״עָלֶיהָ״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״עָלֶיהָ״. מָה לְהַלָּן – דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת, אַף כָּאן – דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is derived **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** The word **“that” is stated here** in the verse: “And the sin that they sinned” (Leviticus 4:14), with regard to the offering brought by the court for the transgression of the public based on their erroneous ruling, **and** the word **“that” is stated there** in the verse: “And you shall not take a woman to her sister, to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, that is in her lifetime” (Leviticus 18:18), with regard to the prohibition against marrying two sisters. It is derived: **Just as there** it is **a matter** for **whose intentional** violation one is liable to receive ***karet* and** for **whose unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering, so too here,** the reference is to **a matter** for **whose intentional** violation one is liable to receive ***karet* and** for **whose unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering.**


###### Horayot 8a:7
[Horayot 8a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:7)

אַשְׁכְּחַן צִבּוּר, מָשִׁיחַ מְנָלַן? ״לְאַשְׁמַת הַעָם״, הֲרֵי מָשִׁיחַ כְּצִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We found** a source for the court bringing an offering for a transgression of the general **public** based on their erroneous ruling. **From where do we** derive that this is the *halakha* for **an anointed** priest? The Gemara answers: It is derived from the verse: “If the anointed priest shall sin **so as to bring guilt upon the people”** (Leviticus 4:3), indicating that the status of **an anointed** priest **is like** that of the transgression of the general **public.**


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

נָשִׂיא? יָלֵיף ״מִצְוֹת״ ״מִצְוֹת״, כְּתִיב גַּבֵּי נָשִׂיא: ״וְעָשָׂה אַחַת מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת ה׳״, וּכְתִיב בְּצִבּוּר: ״וְעָשׂוּ אַחַת מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת״ – מָה צִבּוּר – דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת, אַף נָשִׂיא – דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that this is the *halakha* with regard to the **king?** The Gemara answers: The *tanna* **derives** a verbal analogy between the term **“commandments”** written with regard to a king and the term **“commandments”** written with regard to the general public. **It is written with regard to a king: “And he performed one of all the commandments of the Lord** his God that are not to be performed” (Leviticus 4:22), **and it is written with regard to** the general **public: “And performed one of all the commandments** of the Lord that are not to be performed” (Leviticus 4:13). **Just as** with regard to the general **public** there is liability only for **a matter** for **whose intentional** violation one is liable to receive ***karet* and** for **whose unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering, so too,** in the case of **a king** there is liability only for **a matter** for **whose intentional** violation one is liable to receive ***karet* and** for **whose unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering.**


###### Horayot 8a:9
[Horayot 8a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:9)

יָחִיד? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ״, וְיִלְמַד תַּחְתּוֹן מֵעֶלְיוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: From where is it derived that **an individual** is liable to bring a sin-offering only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive *karet*? The Gemara answers: **The verse** with regard to an individual **states: “And if one soul** from among the common people shall sin unwittingly” (Leviticus 4:27). The verse begins with the conjunction “and,” represented by the letter *vav*. This indicates that **one shall derive** the *halakha* with regard to the **lower** verse, i.e., the verse written later in the passage, **from** that which is written in the **upper** verses, i.e., those written earlier. Just as in those verses earlier in the passage, addressing the public, priest, and king, there is liability only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive *karet*, so too, in the case of the individual addressed in this verse, there is liability only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive *karet*.


###### Horayot 8a:10
[Horayot 8a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:10)

וְלֹא בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ. בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: לְפִי שֶׁיָּצְאָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָדוּן בְּעַצְמָהּ, יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין אֲפִילּוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Neither** is the court liable to bring a sin-offering **for idol worship unless** the judges **issue a ruling** with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive *karet*, and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering. The Gemara asks: **In** the case of **idol worship, from where do we** derive this *halakha*? It is derived **as the Sages taught: Due to** the fact **that idol worship left** the category of unwitting transgressions **to be discussed by itself** (see Numbers, chapter 15), one **might** have thought **that** the court and the priest **would be liable even** if it is **not** for **a matter** for **whose intentional** violation one is liable to receive ***karet* and** for **whose unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering.**


###### Horayot 8a:11
[Horayot 8a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:11)

נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״מֵעֵינֵי״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״מֵעֵינֵי״. מָה לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת, אַף כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: Therefore, the term **“from the eyes of” is stated here,** with regard to idol worship (Numbers 15:24), **and “from the eyes of” is stated there,** with regard to an unwitting communal sin-offering for all other mitzvot (Leviticus 4:13). **Just as there** the court is liable only for **a matter** for **whose intentional** violation one is liable to receive ***karet* and** for **whose unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering, so too here,** the court is liable only for **a matter** for **whose intentional** violation one is liable to receive ***karet* and** for **whose unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering.**


###### Horayot 8a:12
[Horayot 8a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:12)

אַשְׁכְּחַן צִבּוּר. יָחִיד, נָשִׂיא, מָשִׁיחַ מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת״, אֶחָד יָחִיד וְאֶחָד נָשִׂיא וְאֶחָד מָשִׁיחַ כּוּלָּן בִּכְלַל ״נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת״ הֵן, וְיִלְמַד תַּחְתּוֹן מִן הָעֶלְיוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: **We found** a source for the court bringing an offering for a transgression of the general **public** based on their erroneous ruling; but **from where do we** derive that this is the *halakha* for **an individual, a king,** and **an anointed** priest who engage in idol worship? It is derived from a verse, as **the verse states: “And if one soul** sins unwittingly, then he shall offer a female goat of the first year as a sin-offering” (Numbers 15:27). And with regard to **an individual, a king, and an anointed** priest, **they all are included in the category of “one soul.” And one shall derive** the *halakha* with regard to that which is written in the **lower** verse, i.e., the verses concerning an individual, a king, and an anointed priest, **from** that which is written in the **upper** verse, i.e., the verse concerning the transgression of the general public.


###### Horayot 8a:13
[Horayot 8a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:13)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּמַפֵּיק לַהּ לְ״עָלֶיהָ״ לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, כְּדַאֲמַרַן. אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן דְּמַפְּקִי לַהּ לְ״עָלֶיהָ״ לַעֲרָיוֹת וְצָרוֹת, דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת – מְנָא לְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **This works out well according to the one who derives** the *halakha* by using the term **“that” for a verbal analogy** to teach that the court is liable only for a ruling with regard to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive *karet*, **in accordance with** that **which we stated. But according to the Rabbis, who derive** the *halakha* by using the term **“that” to** teach the *halakhot* of **those with whom relations are forbidden and rival wives** with regard to a *yevama* (see *Yevamot* 3b), **from where do they** derive the *halakha* of **a matter** for **whose intentional** violation one is liable to receive ***karet* and** for **whose unwitting** violation one is liable to bring **a sin-offering** in the case of the transgression of the general public?


###### Horayot 8a:14
[Horayot 8a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:14)

נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִדְּמַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לִבְרֵיהּ: ״תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם לָעֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁגָגָה וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּיָד רָמָה וְגוֹ׳״ – הוּקְּשָׁה כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. מָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת, אַף כָּאן שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **They derive it from** that **which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught to his son** based on the verse: **“There shall be one Torah for you for the one who acts unwittingly. And the soul that performs with an upraised hand,** he blasphemes the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off [*venikhreta*] from among his people” (Numbers 15:29–30). The Sages understood the phrase “with an upraised hand” to be referring to idol worship (see *Sanhedrin* 99a). **The entire Torah is juxtaposed to idol worship: Just as idol worship** is a prohibition for **which one is liable for its intentional** violation to receive ***karet* and for its unwitting** violation to bring **a sin-offering, so too here,** for the entire Torah **one is liable for its intentional** violation to receive ***karet* and for its unwitting** violation to bring **a sin-offering.**


###### Horayot 8a:15
[Horayot 8a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:15)

אַשְׁכְּחַן יָחִיד, נָשִׂיא, וּמָשִׁיחַ, בֵּין בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בֵּין בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת. צִבּוּר מְנָלַן? יָלֵיף עֶלְיוֹן מִתַּחְתּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **We found** a source for this *halakha* with regard to **an individual, a king, and an anointed priest, both with regard to idol worship and with regard to the rest of the mitzvot,** as all those are included in the category of “one soul” and are juxtaposed to idol worship. But **from where do we** derive that the general **public** is liable to bring a sin-offering only for a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive *karet*? The Gemara answers: **One derives** the *halakha* with regard to that which is written in the **upper** verse, i.e., the verse concerning the general public, **from** that which is written in the **lower** verse, i.e., the verse concerning an individual.


###### Horayot 8a:16
[Horayot 8a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:16)

וְרַבִּי, הָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ, לְכִדְתַנְיָא: לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין רַבִּים לִיחִידִים – רַבִּים בְּסַיִיף וּמָמוֹנָן אָבֵד, יְחִידִים בִּסְקִילָה וּמָמוֹנָן פָּלֵט, יָכוֹל נַחְלוֹק בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, who derives this matter from the term “that,” **what does he do with this** verse, from **which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi** taught a *halakha* to his son? The Gemara answers: **He derives** a *halakha*, using the verse **to** teach **that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **Due to** the fact **that we found that the verse distinguished** with regard to idol worship **between** the **many,** who constitute the majority of a city, **and individuals,** as the **many** are executed **through** beheading with **a sword and their property is lost,** as the court destroys it, while **individuals** are executed **through stoning and their property is spared,** one **might** have thought **that** in the case of unwitting idol worship **we would distinguish between** the **offerings** that **they** are liable to bring. Therefore, **the verse states: “There shall be one Torah for you** for the one who acts unwittingly. And the soul that performs with an upraised hand, he blasphemes the Lord” (Numbers 15:29–30).


###### Horayot 8a:17
[Horayot 8a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:17)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב חִלְקִיָּה מֵהַגְרוֹנְיָא: טַעְמָא דְּלֹא חָלַק הַכָּתוּב. הָא חָלַק, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא נַחְלוֹק. מַאי נַיְיתֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥilkiya of Hagronya objects to it: The reason** that both individuals and the general public are liable to bring the same offering for unwitting idol worship is **that the verse did not distinguish** between them. **But had the verse distinguished** between them, **I would say: Let us distinguish** between individuals and the general public, and the general public would bring a different offering for their unwitting idol worship. **What** different offering **shall they bring?**


###### Horayot 8a:18
[Horayot 8a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:18)

נַיְיתֵי פַּר, צִבּוּר בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת הוּא דְּמַיְיתוּ! נַיְיתֵי פַּר לְעוֹלָה וְשָׂעִיר לְחַטָּאת, צִבּוּר בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא דְּמַיְיתוּ! נַיְיתֵי שְׂעִיר, נָשִׂיא בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת הוּא דְּמַיְיתֵי! נַיְיתֵי שְׂעִירָה, יָחִיד נָמֵי הַיְינוּ קׇרְבָּנוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one would say: **Let them bring a bull,** that is difficult, as **it is for** unwitting violation of **the rest of the mitzvot that** the general **public brings** a bull. If one would say: **Let them bring a bull for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering,** that is difficult, as **it is for** unwitting **idol worship that** the general **public brings** those offerings in the case of an absence of awareness leading to an erroneous ruling by the court. If one would say: **Let them bring a goat,** that is difficult, as **it is for** unwitting violation of **the rest of the mitzvot that a king brings** a goat. If one will say: **Let them bring a female goat,** that is difficult, as **that is the offering for an individual, too.**


###### Horayot 8a:19
[Horayot 8a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:19)

אַלְּמָה לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: צִבּוּר מַיְיתֵי פַּר לְעוֹלָה וְשָׂעִיר לְחַטָּאת, הָנֵי נַיְיתֵי אִיפְּכָא – פַּר לְחַטָּאת וְשָׂעִיר לְעוֹלָה. אִי נָמֵי: צָרִיךְ וְאֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Why** do you say that the verse that equates the offerings of the individuals and the public is **not necessary?** Were it not for the verse, it might **enter your mind to say:** The general **public brings a bull for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering, but this** majority of a city that unwittingly engaged in idol worship **shall bring the opposite: A bull for a sin-offering and a goat for a burnt-offering. Alternatively,** perhaps the majority of a city that unwittingly engaged in idol worship **must** bring an offering, **but it has no remedy,** because there is no unique offering that it can bring. Therefore, the verse **teaches us** that there is no distinction between many people and individuals in this case.


###### Horayot 8a:20
[Horayot 8a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:20)

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהַת כִּי כְּתִיבִי הָנֵי קְרָאֵי – בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא דִּכְתִיבִי, מַאי מַשְׁמַע? אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִי תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּדִי. אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִי תִשְׁגּוּ וְלֹא תַעֲשׂוּ אֵת כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת הָאֵלֶּה״, אֵיזוֹ הִיא מִצְוָה שֶׁהִיא שְׁקוּלָה כְּכׇל הַמִּצְוֹת? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **In any event, everyone agrees** that **where these verses are written, it is with regard to idol worship that they are written.** The Gemara asks: As the verse does not mention idol worship explicitly, **from where** is this **inferred? Rava said, and some say** it was **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi** who said, **and some say** that the statement is **unattributed,** that **the verse states: “And when you act unwittingly, and do not perform all these commandments [*kol hamitzvot*]** that the Lord spoke to Moses” (Numbers 15:22). **Which is** the **mitzva that is the equivalent of all the mitzvot? You must say: It is** the prohibition against **idol worship.**


###### Horayot 8a:21
[Horayot 8a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:21)

דְּבֵי רַבִּי תָּנָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה״, וּכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֲלֵיכֶם בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה״, אֵיזוֹ הִיא מִצְוָה שֶׁהִיא בְּדִיבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְצִוָּה עַל יְדֵי מֹשֶׁה? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. דְּתָנָא רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״אָנֹכִי״ וְ״לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ״ מִפִּי הַגְּבוּרָה שְׁמַעְנוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The school of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **taught** that **the verse states: “That the Lord spoke to Moses”** (Numbers 15:22), **and it is written: “That the Lord has commanded you by the hand of Moses”** (Numbers 15:23). **Which is** the **mitzva that** was introduced **in the speech** of **the Holy One, Blessed be He,** heard by the Jewish people, **and** which **He commanded** in the Torah **by means of Moses? You must say: This is idol worship, as Rabbi Yishmael taught** concerning the first two commandments: **“I** am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2), **and: “You shall have no** other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3): **We,** the Jewish people, **heard them from the mouth of the Almighty.**


###### Horayot 8a:22
[Horayot 8a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/8a:22)

דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught**