Horayot 5a (ה.) — the Talmud in English

The verse teaches that only

“the assembly” is obligated

to bring a bull for its unwitting transgression, but not individuals, whose law is to bring a female sheep or female goat

! And

it is further implied by “the assembly”

that every assembly is obligated:

all the tribes, even those that did not sin, must bring a bull for the unwitting transgression because of the sinful assembly, although the assembly bringing the offering itself did not sin, as will be explained.

For example: If two tribes sinned,

they bring

the two tribes

two bulls.

But if

seven

tribes sinned, constituting a majority by number of the tribes,

the seven sinful tribes bring

seven

seven

bulls

, and

also

the other tribes that did not sin

themselves

bring on their account

—because of them—

one bull

for each tribe.

For even those that did not sin bring because of the sinners; therefore it says

in this verse

“assembly,” to obligate every assembly

to bring a bull separately,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says: When seven tribes sinned, the seven tribes bring seven bulls, and

also

the court brings on their account a bull, as it is stated below

later in the passage

“assembly,”

[“and the assembly shall offer”],

and it is stated above

before this verse,

“assembly,”

[“and the matter was hidden from the eyes of the assembly.” And we derive:

Just as the assembly mentioned above

is

the court together with the assembly,

from all of whom the matter was hidden,

so too, the assembly mentioned below,

with regard to those offering the sacrifice, is

the court together with the assembly.

This tells you that both the assembly and the court bring a bull.

Rabbi Meir says: When seven tribes sinned,

only

the court brings on their account a bull, and

they,

the assembly,

the assembly,

are exempt.

He too expounded “assembly” from “assembly,” like Rabbi Shimon, but he gave the exposition a different meaning, as follows:

“Assembly” is stated below, and “assembly” is stated above; just as the assembly mentioned above

—“and the matter was hidden from the eyes of the assembly”—is

the court and not the public,

for it does not say, “the matter was hidden from the assembly,” but “from the eyes of the assembly,” implying from the court of the assembly,

so too, the assembly mentioned below,

—“and the assembly shall offer”—is

the court,

teaching that the court offers

and not the public.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in his name,

in the name of Rabbi Meir: If

six tribes sinned and they constitute the majority of the assembly

of

or

if

seven

tribes

bring a bull, even though they do not constitute the majority of the assembly.

For even though they are only a minority of the assembly, they bring a bull because they are a majority of the tribes.

The Gemara now explains the sources for the laws stated in the beraita:

The Master said: “And the sin becomes known”

—but not that the sinners become known.

Who is the tanna

who said that in this situation, when the court does not know in what matter it issued an erroneous ruling, it is exempt from the offering for an unwitting ruling?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say Rava:

This tanna is

not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer. For it was taught:

In tractate Keritot [19b]: If there were forbidden fat and notar before a person, and the law concerning both was the same—that one who ate either of them unwittingly brings a sin-offering—and he ate one of them but does not know which one he ate, Rabbi Eliezer obligates him to bring a sin-offering, while Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him.

And it was taught:

Rabbi Eliezer said: In either case

he should be obligated to bring a sin-offering, for

whether he ate forbidden fat, he is liable,

and whether

he ate notar, he is liable

to bring a sin-offering!

The same law applies here: When the court does not know in which ruling it erred, according to Rabbi Eliezer it should be obligated in either case, since whether it erred with regard to forbidden fat or whether it erred with regard to blood, it brings a bull. It follows that this beraita, which exempts them, necessarily does not follow Rabbi Eliezer, because he would obligate them in either case.

Rav Ashi said: You may even say

that this beraita is

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer;

there is no difficulty, because a distinction must be made:

Here it is different, as it is written:

“And the sin becomes known

for which they sinned,

and they shall offer,” implying that they are not liable until it becomes known to them which sin the public committed because of their ruling. But with regard to a sin-offering, this law was not stated; therefore Rabbi Eliezer said that one brings a sin-offering in either case.

But the Gemara asks:

There,

with regard to a sin-offering,

is it not also written

“or his sin becomes known to him,”

“for the sin that he committed”?

From these words of the verse it is derived that even an individual who sinned is not liable until he knows for what he sinned.

And we answer:

That

“for the sin that he committed,” stated with regard to a sin-offering, is not superfluous, for

it is needed

to derive from its implication that liability for a sin-offering applies only to one who intended to perform the sinful act,

excluding one who was occupied with another activity,

who thought he was engaged in a permitted action but discovered that, unwittingly, he had performed a different prohibited action. For example, he intended to lift a detached plant on Shabbat but cut a plant attached to the ground. From the implication of the word “for it” they derived that he is exempt from an offering, because he did not intend to do what he did.

The Gemara now explains the rationales of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Meir, who disagree in the Mishna concerning upon whom the obligation to bring a bull falls.

What is the rationale of Rabbi Yehuda?

He holds that four instances of “assembly” are written: “assembly,”

“the assembly,” “the assembly of the assembly.”

That is, “and it was hidden from the eyes of the assembly” is stated, and “and the assembly shall offer” is also stated. Since in both places it would have been possible to write “assembly” without the additional letter heh, but “the assembly” is written, this is as though “assembly” were written twice. Since “the assembly” appears twice, it is as though “assembly” were written four times, to teach you:

One, to obligate every assembly,

so that each tribe brings a bull.

And one, to

teach that

the ruling depends upon the court, while the act depends upon the assembly.

The obligation to bring a bull applies only if the assembly sinned, and not merely if the court did.

And one, for being drawn along,

teaching that even the other tribes that did not sin bring a bull, as they are drawn into the obligation because of the sinners.

And one

to teach that

a tribe that

acted unwittingly and

acted on the ruling of its court,

is obligated to bring a bull, even though the Great Court did not issue such a ruling.

And as for Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that the court also brings a bull, his rationale is that only

three instances of “assembly” are written.

He expounds:

“the assembly, assembly, the assembly,”

and does not expound the letter heh in

“from the eyes of the assembly,”

since

it is the normal usage of the verse,

for when the verse wishes to say “from the eyes of an assembly,” it customarily adds the definite article heh and says “from the eyes of the assembly,”

as people say, “from the eyes of so-and-so.”

And this is how he expounds the three instances of “assembly”:

One, to obligate every assembly,

and in this he agrees with Rabbi Yehuda, who said that each tribe brings a bull.

And the other two

are for a gzera shava, as explained in the beraita:

“Assembly” is stated below, and “assembly” is stated above; just as there, the court together with the assembly, so here the court

brings a bull

together with the assembly.

And as for Rabbi Meir,

who holds that not every assembly brings a bull, his rationale is that

“assembly”

from “the assembly” he does not expound,

as he does not expound any superfluous heh.

Therefore,

in his view only

two instances of “assembly” are written

for exposition, and

it is needed

for the gzera shava expounded in the beraita:

“Assembly” is stated below, and “assembly” is stated above; just as there, the court and not the public, so here

only

the court

brings a bull

and not the public.

And as for Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

who holds that if six tribes sinned and constitute the majority of the assembly, or seven tribes, even though they do not constitute the majority of the assembly, they bring a bull,

what is his rationale?

He found a contradiction between this and what

is written

with regard to a court that erroneously ruled that idolatry is permitted:

“And it shall be, if it was from the eyes of the congregation.” This indicates a minority

of the assembly that sinned brings a bull,

as it is written, “from the eyes,”

implying “from the eyes” and not all the eyes.

But

on the other hand,

it is written, “For all the people acted unwittingly,” meaning that if the majority sinned, yes,

only then do they bring an offering, but

a minority

that sinned

does not

bring an offering.

How, then

are these apparently contradictory verses to be explained and reconciled?

Necessarily, it must be said that these verses concern two different situations. The verse “for all the people,” whose meaning is that the obligation applies only when the majority of the people sinned, refers to a case in which only six tribes transgressed, but they constituted the majority of the entire public. Whereas “from the eyes,” whose meaning is that an offering is brought even when the matter was hidden from only a minority of the assembly, refers to a case in which seven tribes transgressed but constituted a minority of the public. In this situation they bring a bull even though only a minority sinned.

From here Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar concluded that if

six acted and they constitute the majority of the assembly, or seven, even though they do not constitute the majority of the assembly, they are liable 13 .

And the Gemara now discusses:

The Gemara now discusses: