Horayot 5b — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir,

who expounded two instances of “assembly” for a gzera shava, and according to them one instance of “assembly” did not remain to teach that the ruling depends upon the court—this law that

the ruling depends upon the court and the act depends upon the congregation, from where do they derive it?

Abaye said:

They derived it from what

the verse says

concerning a public that erred in the matter of idolatry

, “And it shall be, if it was hidden from the eyes of the assembly, it was done as an error.”

And this is how they expounded it: if the act of the error of the court’s ruling was done by others—that is, through the court’s erroneous ruling, the congregation performed the act of the transgression.

Rava said:

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir learned this principle from the verse

“for all the people, in error,”

and they expounded that all of them must be connected to the sin: the court through the ruling, and the congregation through the act.

And it is necessary

to have these two verses for this exposition.

For if the Merciful One had written

only

“And it shall be, if it was hidden from the eyes of the assembly, it was done as an error,” one might have thought even

if

a minority

sinned, they bring a bull, since it is written “from the eyes,” whose meaning is a minority;

therefore it is written, “for all the people, in error,”

to say that they are not liable until a majority sins.

And if it had written

only

“for all the people, in error,” one might have thought

that they would not be liable for a bull

until the court performed

the act of the sin in error

together with the majority

on the basis of their ruling.

Therefore it is written, “And it shall be, if it was hidden from the eyes of the assembly, it was done as an error,”

and it did not say “and they performed,” to teach that it is sufficient that the transgression was “done” by others on the basis of the court’s ruling, and it is not necessary that the court itself also sin and act according to its ruling in order to obligate them to bring an offering.

And we object:

But when these verses were written,

“And it shall be, if it was hidden from the eyes” and “for all the people, in error,” in the passage concerning the ruling of

idolatry, it is there that they were written,

and from where did they learn these laws also concerning the court’s ruling in the other mitzvot?

And we answer:

We derive it

by a gzera shava:

“from the eyes”—

“from the eyes.”

For concerning the other mitzvot it says “from the eyes of the congregation,” and concerning idolatry it says “And it shall be, if it was hidden from the eyes of the assembly.”

We learned in our Mishna:

If the court of one

of the tribes issued a ruling and that tribe acted on the basis of their ruling, that tribe is liable, while all the other tribes are exempt—these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And it implies that if one tribe sinned on the basis of the ruling of its court and brings a bull, the other tribes do not bring a bull by being drawn after it.

They raised a dilemma before them: One tribe, according to Rabbi Yehuda,

which transgressed one of all the mitzvot stated in the Torah

on the basis of the ruling of the Great Court—do the other tribes bring,

although they did not sin, a bull for the forgetting of a matter by being drawn after it,

or not 2.

And the sides of the doubt are:

Do we say

that specifically

seven tribes

that sinned

are the ones for whom the other tribes bring

a bull

with them, because there is a majority

of tribes that sinned, although they are not an actual majority of the congregation;

but one tribe

that sinned,

since there is no majority

of the entire congregation that sinned,

no?

Or perhaps, it makes no difference.

And even when only one tribe sinned, the other tribes that did not sin bring a bull by being drawn after it?

Come and hear

a proof from what we learned in a beraita:

What do they bring

when the congregation sinned inadvertently on the basis of the ruling of the court?

One bull.

Rabbi Shimon says: Two bulls.

And we considered it:

With what are we dealing? If you say that seven

tribes sinned, and the first tanna is Rabbi Meir, who obligates in such a case only one bull—if so,

according to Rabbi Shimon, eight [

eight] bulls

are required!

For he says in our Mishna that when seven tribes sinned, each of the seven tribes brings a bull, and the court also brings a bull, making eight bulls altogether. Yet here he says that they bring only two bulls. Necessarily, it is not referring to this case.

Rather,

necessarily, the beraita deals with a case in which

only

one

tribe sinned. And with what—

on the basis of the ruling of which court did this tribe sin?

If it was on the basis of the ruling of its court,

that of that tribe, and the first tanna is Rabbi Yehuda, who obligates one tribe to bring an offering on the basis of the ruling of its court—

It is not possible to say so. For

Rabbi Shimon

surely

does not have this law!

For he disputes Rabbi Yehuda’s words in the Mishna, and holds that a tribe that sinned on the basis of the ruling of its court does not bring a bull, because according to him no word “assembly” remained with which to expound this exposition—that even a tribe that sinned on the basis of the ruling of its court brings a bull.

Rather, no,

necessarily, the beraita is speaking of a case in which it sinned

on the basis of the ruling of the Great Court.

And in such a case Rabbi Shimon holds that that tribe brings one bull, and the court brings an additional bull; there are therefore two.

And the Gemara continues to clarify the words of the beraita, in order to prove what the law is concerning one tribe that sinned on the basis of the ruling of the Great Court according to Rabbi Yehuda:

And the first tanna

in the beraita, who disputed Rabbi Shimon and said that they bring only one bull,

who is he!?

If you say

that we wish to say that he is

Rabbi Meir,

it is impossible to say so. For Rabbi Meir

surely,

requires a majority!

For his view in our Mishna is that there is no obligation to bring a bull unless a majority of the congregation sinned, but not when one tribe sinned.

Rather, no,

perforce, the first tanna in the beraita is

Rabbi Yehuda.

If so, it is proven that according to him one tribe that sinned on the basis of the ruling of the Great Court brings one bull, while the other tribes do not bring a bull.

And it follows that the doubt has been resolved, and Rabbi Yehuda’s view is that specifically when a majority of the congregation or a majority of the tribes sinned, the others bring a bull through being drawn after it. But if only one tribe sinned, it does not draw the other tribes after it so as to obligate them to bring an offering.

And we reject this: There is no proof from this beraita. For it is not speaking of a case in which one tribe sinned on the basis of the ruling of the Great Court. Rather,

here, with what are we dealing? With a case in which six tribes sinned, and they are the majority of the congregation, and

the first tanna in the beraita follows the method of

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name

of Rabbi Meir:

If six

tribes

sinned, and they are the majority of the congregation, or

if they

sinned—seven

tribes,

even though they are not the majority of the congregation, they bring one bull.

And he does not hold like Rabbi Yehuda, that they bring a bull for each and every tribe. [

And Rabbi Shimon said that they bring only two bulls and not according to the number of the tribes. Although in our Mishna he said like Rabbi Yehuda, that each and every tribe that sinned brings a bull, it must be said that this applies specifically when seven tribes sinned and they are the majority of the congregation. But when a majority of the congregation sinned and they are not a majority of the tribes, or a majority of the tribes and they are not a majority of the congregation, they bring only two bulls: one bull for all those who sinned, and one bull for the court, in accordance with his view that the court also brings a bull] .

Come and hear: Rabbi Yehuda says: A tribe that acted

and sinned

on the basis of the ruling of its court, that tribe is liable, while all the other tribes are exempt.

And if that tribe sinned

on the basis of the ruling of the Great Court, even the other tribes are liable.

And it is explicit that Rabbi Yehuda’s view is that even if one tribe sinned, the other tribes bring an offering through being drawn after it.

And we conclude: indeed, from this beraita

infer from it

that the other tribes, as well, bring [a bull].

Rav Ashi said: Our Mishna, as well, is precise

in this way.

For it teaches:

“The court of one of the tribes issued a ruling,”

“and that tribe acted on their instruction; that tribe is liable, while all the other tribes are exempt.”

And it is apparently difficult:

Why do I need it to teach, ‘and the other tribes are exempt’?

It already

taught, ‘that tribe is liable,’ and since it taught, ‘that tribe is liable,’ I know by itself

that the

other tribes are exempt.

Rather,

necessarily,

this teaches us that

only when that tribe sinned

on the instruction of its court is it that the other tribes are exempt. But

if it sinned

on the instruction of the Great Court—

even the other tribes are liable!

And we conclude:

infer from it.

They raised a dilemma before them: If one tribe acted

and erred

on the instruction of the Great Court, according to Rabbi Shimon, does it bring

a bull,

or not?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Does everything that Rabbi Shimon said—that they bring a bull for each congregation and each congregation—is because one tribe is called a congregation; that is specifically in a case such as when seven tribes sinned, which are the majority. But when there is no majority, are they considered individuals and exempt, as is the law of an individual who acted on the instruction of the court, who is exempt?

Or perhaps, since one tribe is called a congregation, even if only one tribe sinned, the tribe brings one bull, and the court also brings one bull.

Come and hear:

from the beraita cited above:

“What do they bring

when they sinned on the instruction of the court?”

“One bull; Rabbi Shimon says: two bulls.”

And we inquire concerning this:

With what are we dealing? If you say that seven

tribes sinned, would Rabbi Shimon say in such a case that they bring only

two bulls? But

behold,

eight bulls are required,

one for each tribe and one for the court, as he said in our Mishna.

Rather,

necessarily,

one tribe sinned.

And by whose

instruction did they sin?

If you say, on the instruction of the court

of that tribe, but

Rabbi Shimon does not hold

that a tribe that sinned on the instruction of its court brings a bull.

Rather,

necessarily, it is speaking of a case in which that tribe sinned

on the instruction of the Great Court,

and concerning this Rabbi Shimon said that they bring two bulls, one for the tribe that sinned and one for the court.

And it is proven that one tribe that acted on the instruction of the Great Court brings a bull.

And we reject this:

And can you understand it so?

Is it possible to establish the beraita in this manner, that a tribe sinned on the instruction of the Great Court?

For if we explain it in this way, this will be difficult for us:

Who is the first tanna,

who disputes Rabbi Shimon in the beraita and says that they bring only one bull—

who is he?

If it is Rabbi Meir, then

according to him,

a majority

of the public

is required

to act on the instruction of the court.

And if it is Rabbi Yehuda,

behold, we proved above that according to him

the other tribes also bring

bulls through the gerira of one tribe. How, then, could he say that they bring only one bull?

Necessarily, the beraita is not dealing with a case in which only one tribe sinned.

Rather,

it must be said that

this,

the first tanna in this beraita,

is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

as we concluded above concerning the uncertainty according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And it is speaking of a case in which six tribes sinned, which are the majority of the congregation, or seven tribes, even though they are not the majority of the congregation.

As it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If six sinned and they are the majority of the congregation, or seven, even though they are not the majority of the congregation, they bring a bull.

It follows that there is no proof from the beraita except that they do not bring more than one bull, for it was established as referring to six tribes and a majority of the congregation, and Rabbi Shimon obligated them only in one bull for the tribes.

However, according to Rabbi Shimon, there is still room for uncertainty concerning a case in which a minority of the tribes and a minority of the congregation sinned on the instruction of the Great Court: will they bring one bull, or will they be entirely exempt?

Come and hear

from our Mishna:

“And the Sages

[who dispute Rabbi Yehuda, who said that one tribe that acted on the instruction of its court brings a bull]

say: It is never liable

that tribe

except

when they transgressed

against

the instruction of

the Great Court.

But if they transgressed on the instruction of their own court, they are exempt.”

And we inquire concerning this:

Who

are

“the Sages”?

If you say Rabbi Meir,

behold, according to him

a majority

of tribes that sinned

is required

in order to obligate [them to bring] a bull.

Rather, it is Rabbi Shimon.

And if so, it is proven that he holds that even one tribe that acted on the instruction of the Great Court brings a bull.

And the Gemara discusses:

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

who expounded

“one tribe is called a congregation,”

and therefore said that each and every tribe brings a bull—

from where do they derive

this principle?

They say: For it is written

[in II Chronicles, chapter 20]:

“And Jehoshaphat stood—

in the congregation of Judah—

and Jerusalem

in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard—

‘the new one.’”

And it is proven from here that the tribe of Judah by itself is called a congregation.

And since this verse was cited, the Gemara explains what is stated in it, “the new courtyard.”

What is “new”?

Rabbi Yohanan said: They renewed

in it

matters, and said: A tevul yom

[an impure person who immersed for his purification but whose sun has not yet set],

may not enter the Levite camp!

Rather, his law is that he is removed from two camps, both from the Divine Presence camp and from the Levite camp, and he is permitted to enter only the Israelite camp.

Rabbi Aha bar Yaakov raised an objection

to the proof from this source, from which they brought proof that one tribe is called a congregation:

From where

is this matter proven from this verse?

Perhaps Jerusalem is different,

because

there was also

the tribe of

Benjamin

in Jerusalem together with the tribe of Judah. There is proof from here only that two tribes are called a congregation; but as for one tribe, from where do we know it?!

Rather, Rabbi Aha bar Yaakov said:

The source that one tribe is called a congregation is from

that which is written

in the portion of Vayehi, that Jacob said to Joseph:

“El Shaddai appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan [after I departed from Laban’s house, before the birth of Benjamin], and He blessed me,

saying to me: ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make you a congregation of peoples,’ and so on.”

Who

was destined

to be born to Jacob at that time? Benjamin.

Infer from it that this is what the Merciful One said

to Jacob:

“A different congregation is now being born to you.”

And it is proven that one tribe, such as Benjamin, is called a congregation.

Rav Shava said to Rav Kahana:

This is not a proof, for

perhaps this is what the Merciful One said to him: “When Benjamin is born to you, then there will be twelve tribes, by whom you will be called

so that you will be called by them

‘a congregation.’”

He said to him,

Rav Kahana:

Rather,

if it is as you say, it follows that only

twelve tribes are called a congregation,

but

eleven tribes,

which existed before Benjamin was born,

were not called a congregation.

But it is impossible to say this, for eleven tribes were certainly called a congregation, since we proved above from the verse “the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem” that even two tribes are called a congregation. If so, it is impossible to explain as you said, that only after Benjamin’s birth were all twelve tribes called a congregation.

Rather, necessarily, the intention of the verse is to say that Benjamin will be born to you, and he himself is called a congregation, and it is proven that one tribe is called a congregation.

And the Gemara brings a beraita that contradicts from the verses the view of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the court brings the bull and not the public:

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: What does the verse come to teach

in the portion concerning the inauguration of the Levites [the portion of Behaalotekha], “And they shall take a young bull,

and you shall take a second young bull as a sin-offering”?

If

the verse came

to teach that they are two,

that they need to bring two bulls,

but was it not already stated

later in that passage there

“and he shall make the one a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering to Hashem”

and it implies that they are two.

Rather,

one must say that the verse came to teach that, lest it enter your mind,

could this sin-offering be eaten

this

by the Levites

[the priests], like other sin-offerings that are eaten,

the verse says, “and the second bull.”

And we expound that it is

second to

the first bull that was

a burnt-offering, -

to tell you that this second bull, too, its law is that of a burnt-offering,

just as a burnt-offering is not eaten,