|  |  | Previous Folio / Horayoth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Horayoth ### Folio 4a And there is no need1 [to say that this is so] according to him, who holds that the public bring the offering, since [in that case] the matter is well known;2 but even according to him who holds that the court brings the sacrifice, in which case the matter is not well known,3 [the asham talui must be brought, because] had he inquired he would have been told.4 R. Jose b. Abin — others say, R. Jose b. Zebida — said: [As to an] analogy [in respect of the view'] of Symmachus — to what may the thing be compared? To [the case of] a man who brought [an offering for] his atonement at twilight when there was doubt whether it was still day5 and6 his atonement was effective or night has already fallen7 and his atonement was not effective,6 who does not bring an asham talui.8 And there is no need9 [to say that this is so] according to him who holds that the court bring [the sacrifice] since [in that case] the matter is not sufficiently known;10 but even according to him who holds that the public bring the sacrifice, in which case the matter is well known and people could have told him,11 [this case is nevertheless the same] as12 that of doubt whether it was still day, or night has already fallen.13 For even if he had wished to ask he might not have found anyone who could tell him.14 SAID BEN 'AZZAI TO HIM: HOW DOES SUCH A PERSON DIFFER FROM ONE WHO REMAINS etc. R. Akiba, surely, answered Ben 'Azzai well!15 — Raba replied: The difference between them is [the case of one who started on a journey.16 According to Ben 'Azzai he is liable because he is still at home;17 according to R. Akiba he is exempt since he has already started on his journey.18 IF THE COURT RULED THAT AN ENTIRE PRINCIPLE WAS TO BE UPROOTED. Our Rabbis taught: And something be hid,19 but not when an entire commandment be uprooted. How? One might assume that if they said, for example, that [the law concerning] the menstrtiant is not found in the Torah [or the law concerning] the Sabbath is not found in the Torah [or the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the Torah — they are liable,20 hence it was expressly stated, 'And something be hid'21 but not when an entire commandment he hid. They are consequently exempt. One might assume, however, that if they said: [The law concerning] the menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has intercourse with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day22 is exempt [or that the law concerning] the Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain into a public domain he is exempt. [or that the law' concerning] idolatry occurs in the Torah but if a man only bows down to an idol be is exempt, they23 are exempt, hence it was expressly stated, 'and something he hid' but not the entire principle. The Master said, 'One might assume that … they are exempt'. But [it may be asked] if when [the ruling was that] part [of a commandment] be retained and a part annulled they are exempt. and when an entire principle be uprooted they are also exempt, in what case, then, would they be liable?24 — The Tanna bad raised his question thus: It might have been assumed that dabar'25 means the entire commandment,26 hence it was expressly said. And something be hid. How does this prove it? — 'Ulla replied: In this text, read, 'and a part of a thing was hid'.27 Hezekiah replied: Scripture says. And do any of the commandments 28 [which implies] of the commandments,29 but not all the commandments. Does not 'commandments' denote the plural?30 — R. Nahman b. lsaac replied: |  |  |
Dilling Exhibit 193 Begins
|  |  | It is written, commandment.31 R. Ashi replied: Dabar,32 here, is to be deduced from dabar mentioned in the case of a 'rebellious elder.'33 For concerning a 'rebellious elder' it was written, If there arise a matter too hard for thee34 … thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the riqht hand, nor to the left hand;35 as in the case of the 'rebellious elder' the meaning is 'a part of the thing' and not all the thing36 so in the case of an [erroneous] ruling, [of a court] a part of the thing [is meant] and not an entire principle. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The court is liable only when they ruled concerning a prohibition37 which the Sadducees38 do not admit,39 but if concerning a prohibition37 which the Sadducees admit40 they are exempt.41 What is the reason? It is a matter which anyone can learn at school.42 We learnt: [THE LAW' CONCERNING THE] MENSTRUANT OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A WOMAN THAT AWAITS A DAY CORRESPONDING TO A DAY HE IS EXEMPT. But why? Surely [the law concerning] a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day is mentioned in the Scriptures: Then she shall number to herself,43 teaches that she counts one [day] for one [day]!44 — They might rule that the first stage of contact is permitted and only the consummation of coition is forbidden. Surely this also is written in the Scriptures: He hath made naked her fountain!45 — They might rule that in the natural way |  |  |
Dilling Exhibit 194 Begins
|  |  | it is forbidden; in an unnatural way it is permitted. But, surely, it is written, As with womankind.46 — They might rule that in the natural way even the first stage of contact is forbidden; in the unnatural way, however, consummation of coition only is forbidden but the first stage of contact is permitted. If so, [the same might apply] even [to the case of] a menstruant also!47 — The fact, however, is [that the ruling might have permitted]48 even in the natural way49 alleging [that the prohibition of] the first stage50 has reference to a menstruant woman only.51 And if you prefer I might say: The — ruling may have been that a woman is not regarded as a zabah52 except during the day time because it is written, all the days of her issue.53 We learnt: [THE LAW CONCERNING THE] SABBATH OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN CARRIES ANYTHING FROM A PRIVATE DOMAIN INTO A PUBLIC DOMAIN IS EXEMPT [etc.]. But why? Surely the prohibition of carrying from [one domain into another] is mentioned in the Scriptures: Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on [the Sabbath day]!54 — They ruled that carrying out alone is prohibited but bringing in is permitted. And if you prefer I might say: They ruled that only carrying out and bringing in55 is prohibited but handing across and throwing56 is permitted.57 We learnt: [THE LAW CONCERNING] IDOLATRY OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN ONLY BOWS DOWN TO AN IDOL HE IS EXEMPT [etc.]. But why? The case of him, who bows down is certainly mentioned in the Scriptures: for it is written, Thou shalt bow down to no other god!58 — They ruled that bowing down is prohibited only when performed in the usual manner but if in an unusual manner it is permitted. And if you prefer I might say: They ruled that bowing itself in a natural manner is only then prohibited when the hands and the feet are stretched out but bowing without stretching out the hands and the feet is permitted. To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Lit., 'and it is not required'. And every individual is thus acquainted with the retraction of the court. And it might have been assumed that the transgressor could justify his action by claiming that he was not aware of the retraction of the court. As he did not take the trouble to inquire he must himself bear part of the responsibility. Sacrifices may only be offered in the day time. So MS.M., Cur. edd., 'it was atoned for him'. Lit., 'from when it was dark'. V. Glos. V. supra p. 19. n. 12. Hence the individual can justify his action by pleading ignorance of the retraction and claiming reliance upon the court's original ruling. Cf. Bomberg ed. So Ma'aseh Rab, quoted in marginal glosses, a.l., Cur. edd., 'in'. As no sacrifice is required in the latter case so it is not required in the former. So MS.M. v. D.S. a.l., Cur. edd. 'whom to ask'. How then, could the latter differ from the former's view? Lit., 'he took hold of the way', i.e., he already left his house but is still in town. The town being regarded as home MS.M. reads,'in town' for, 'in his house' of cur. edd. Being pre-occupied with the anxieties of travel he is not in a position to pay attention to what is happening in the town. Lev. IX, 13; then a sacrifice is to be brought. To bring the prescribed offering. V. p. 20, 11 13. V. Supra p. 17, n. 10. The court or the public. Since it is impossible that there should be no liability at all, how could such an assumption be entertained? [H] rendered something, may also signify 'a thing', i.e., an entire commandment. And that only when an entire commandment was uprooted is liability incurred, but not when a part only was annulled. The Mem, [H] in [H] is read twice; once as the final letter of [H] and again as the initial of [H] having the force of the partitive; [H] '( a part ) of a thing'. Lev. ibid. I.e., a part was annulled and a part retained. Lit., 'two'. Does not 'any of the commandments' imply one of several, and not a part of one, [H] (with the omission of the waw of the plural) is to be read as mizwath, [H], sing. const., 'commandment of', not mizwoth in the plur. [H] 'thing'. (Lev. ibid.). An elder who defies the authority of the supreme Court in Jerusalem. Deut. XVII, 8. Ibid. v. II. V. Sanh. 88b. Lit., 'thing'. A sect believing in the Scriptures (the Written Law) but not in the Rabbinic interpretations and traditions (Oral Law). I.e., a prohibition not mentioned in the Scriptures. A Biblical law'. Because their ruling, being Contrary to what everybody is expected to know, has no validity whatsoever. Lit., 'it (is a matter of) go read at school'. There was no reason why anyone should rely upon the court's erroneous ruling when any school boy knew it to be contrary to a Biblical prohibition. Lev. XV, 28. Cf. supra p. 17, n. 10. Since she is thus Biblically' considered unclean how could a court rule that one having intercourse with her is exempt? Lev. XX, 18. Ibid. 13. The plural [H] implies natural, and unnatural intercourse. Why then was the case of a woman who 'awaits a day corresponding to a day' given as an illustration when the case of a menstruant, already mentioned, should supply the same illustration. The first stage of Contact. In the case of one 'who awaits a day corresponding to a day'; only consummation of coition being forbidden in her case. Cf. Lev. XX, 18. Thus permitting a forbidden act which the Sadducees do not admit. A woman who has an issue of blood not in the time of her menstruation, and is subject to certain laws of uncleanness and purification (Lev. XV, 25 ff). Lev. XV, 26. Emphasis being laid on days. Jer. XVII, 22. Why then should there be liability to a communal offering seeing that the Court ruled against a specific Biblical prohibition? So Bomberg ed. Cur. edd. delete 'Carrying in' [ V. shap. 96b, where 'carrying in' is treated as a specific Biblical prohibition as well as 'carrying forth'.] From one domain into another. These are not mentioned in the Scriptures. Ex. XXXIV, 14; cf. p. 23. n. 9. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Horayoth 4b R. Joseph enquired: What [is the law where the court ruled that] ploughing is not forbidden on the Sabbath, is it assumed that, as they had admitted the whole law,1 the ruling is deemed to be a partial annulment and a partial retention [of a law]2 or, perhaps, since they have uprooted altogether the law of ploughing it is deemed to be an uprooting of an entire principle? — Come and hear! [THE LAW CONCERNING THE] MENSTRUANT OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A WOMAN THAT AWAITS A DAY CORRESPONDING TO A DAY HE IS EXEMPT [… THEY ARE LIABLE]. But why? surely, [the law concerning] a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day has been uprooted completely!3 — R. Joseph can reply4 [that the law of] a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day, that has been mentioned, is to be explained as above.5 Come and hear: [THE LAW CONCERNING THE] SABBATH OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN CARRIES ANYTHING FROM A PRIVATE DOMAIN INTO A PUBLIC DOMAIN HE IS EXEMPT [… THEY ARE LIABLE]. But why? Surely. [the law concerning] carrying from [one domain into another] has been completely uprooted!3 — There also the explanation is as given above.5 Come and hear: [THE LAW CONCERNING] IDOLATRY OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN ONLY BOWS DOWN TO AN IDOL HE IS EXEMPT [… THEY ARE LIABLE]. But why? Surely, the law concerning bowing to an idol has been completely uprooted!6 — It may be reported that [the law of] bowing also is to be explained as above.7 R. Zera enquired: What [is the law where the court ruled that] no Sabbath is to be kept in the seventh8 year? Wherein did they err? — In the following text: In ploughing time and in harvest thou shalt rest,9 when ploughing is carried on, [they explained,] Sabbath is to be observed but when no ploughing is carried on Sabbath is not to be observed. Is it to be assumed that, as they retain it10 in the other years of the Septennial, [their ruling] is deemed to be a partial annulment and a partial retention [of a law] or, perhaps, since they are uprooting it in the seventh year it is deemed to he an uprooting of an entire principle? Rabina replied: Come and hear! If a prophet taught11 that anything12 of the words of the Torah was to be uprooted, he is guilty; if only to annul a part of it and to retain a part he is, R. Simeon said, exempt. And in respect of idolatry, even if he said that the idol be worshipped only to-day and destroyed to-morrow, he is guilty.13 From this14 it may be inferred that [the ruling that] no Sabbath is to be kept in the Sabbatical year is to be deemed as partial annulment and partial retention.15 This proves it. MISHNAH. IF THE COURT RULED AND ONE OF THEM KNEW THAT THEY HAD ERRED AND SAID TO THEM, YOU ARE MISTAKEN', OR IF THE MUFLA16 OF THE COURT WAS NOT PRESENT,17 OR IF ONE OF THEM WAS A PROSELYTE OR A BASTARD OR A NATHIN18 OR TOO OLD TO HAVE CHILDREN,19 THEY ARE20 EXONERATED, FOR CONGREGATION WAS MENTIONED21 HERE22 AND CONGREGATION WAS MENTIONED FURTHER ON;23 AS CONGREGATION FURTHER ON [REFERS TO MEN] ALI. (IF WHOM MUST BE CAPABLE OF DECIDING MATTERS OF LAW24 SO [IN THE CASE OF] CONGREGATION. MENTIONED HERE [THE RULING IS INVALID] UNLESS25 THEY ARE ALL CAPABLE OF DECIDING MATTERS OF LAW. GEMARA. OR IF THE MUFLA OF THE COURT WAS NOT PRESENT. Whence is this derived? — R. Shesheth replied, and so It was taught by the School of R. Ishmael: Why has it been said that a court that ruled concerning a prohibition26 which the Sadducees admit, are exempt? because they should have learned and did not learn; [in the case of] the absence of the mufla of the court they are also exempt, because they should have learned and did not learn.27 CONGREGATION WAS MENTIONED HERE AND CONGREGATION WAS MENTION FURTHER IN … UNLESS THEY ARE ALL CAPABLE OF DECIDING MATTERS OF LAW. And whence is this28 derived there? — For R. Hisda said: Scripture states, That they may stand there with thee;29 with thee implies 'such as are like thee'. Might it not be suggested that with thee [has reference] to the divine presence?30 — but, said R. Nahman b. Isaac. Scripture states, And they shall bear the burden with thee,31 'with thee' implies 'such as are like thee'.32 MISHNAH. IF THE COURT ISSUED A [WRONG] DECISION UNWITTINGLY AND ALL THE PEOPLE ACTED UNWITTINGLY ACCORDINGLY, A BULLOCK MUST BE BROUGHT.33 [IF THE COURT RULED] WILFULLY AND [THE PEOPLE] ACTED UNWILLINGLY ACCORDINGLY, A LAMB OR A GOAT34 MUST BE BROUGHT. [IF THE COURT RULED] UNWILLINGLY AND [THE PEOPLE] ACTED WILLINGLY ACCORDINGLY, THEY ARE EXEMPT. GEMARA. [IF THE COURT RULED] UNWITTINGLY AND [THE PEOPLE] ACTED WILFULLY, THEY ARE EXEMPT. [From this35 it follows] that one acting unwittingly though in a way similar to one acting wilfully, is liable; and how' is this to be imagined? When e.g., the court ruled that suet was permitted and a man mistook it for fat and ate it.36 May it then he suggested that this answers Rann b. Hania's enquiry!37 — He can tell you: Because in the first clause it was taught, [IF THE COURT RULED] WILFULLY AND THE PEOPLE ACTED UNWITTINGLY it was also taught in the final clause,38 [IF THE COURT RULED] UNWITTINGLY AND [THE PEOPLE] ACTED WILFULLY.39 MISHNAH. IF THE COURT ISSUED AN [ERRONEOUS] RULING AND. ALL THE PEOPLE OR A MAJORITY OF THEM ACTED ACCORDINGLY, A BULLOCK MUST BE BROUGHT.40 AND IN [THE CASE OF] IDOLATRY A BUTTOCK OR A GOAT41 ARE TO BE BROUGHT; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. MEIR. R. JUDAH SAID: THE TWELVE TRIBES BRING TWELVE BULLOCKS;42 AND IN RESPECT OF IDOLATRY TWELVE BULLOCKS AND TWELVE GOATS. - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Lit., 'thing', the corpus of all the laws of Sabbath. Hence, in accordance with our Mishnah, they are liable. And yet it is regarded in out Mishnah as partial annulment only. So also in the case of the law of ploughing its denial where the other laws of the Sabbath are retained, should be regarded as partial annulment. Lit., 'he said to you'. Supra 4a, where it was explained that only a part of that law was annulled. V. p. 24, n. 4. V. p. 24. N. 6. V. Ex. XXIII, 10f, Deut. XV, 1ff. Ex. XXXIV, 21. The Sabbath. Lit., 'prophesied'. A Complete law. Sanh, 90a. That worshipping idols on one day and destroying them in another is regarded as partial annulment and partial retention of the law of idolatry. Like the case of idolatry cited the law of the Sabbath was, according to the ruling, to be retained at one time and annulled at another. [H] lit., 'distinguished'; an expert not a member of he court, to whom doubtful points are submitted and by whose directions the court is guided in its deliberations. For a fuller discussion of the term, v. Sanh. 9 Sonc. ed.) p. 574, n. 1. Lit., 'there'. [H] lit., 'given', i.e., dedicated in the service of the Temple and the people. A descendant of the Gibeonites (Josh. IX, 3ff) whom Joshua made into hewers of wood and drawers of water (ibid. v. 27) and david a excluded from intermarriage with the Community (Yeb. 78b) [They are not competent to act as members of the Beth din, v. Sanh. 32a] Others: 'too aged, or one who never had children.' [These too may not act on the Beth din, v. Sanh. 36b] So MS.M. Cur. edd 'he is exempt', is obviously a misprint. Lit., 'for it was said'. In the case of an erroneous ruling of the court, Lev'. IV, 13. In respect of the Sanhedrin. (V. Num. XV, and Sanh. 2a.) Proof of this is given in the Gemara infra. Lit., 'until', Lit., 'thing'. And as such are in be considered wilful transgressors. That they' must all be capable of deciding matters of law. Num. XI, 16. I.e., though God said to Moses, 'Gather unto Me seventy' men', they are to remain 'with thee', i.e., with Moses, and must not venture into the divine presence. Ex, XVIII, 22. The section deals with the appointment of judges. V. Sanh, (Sonc. ed.) p. 230. It will be explained infra by' whom it is to be brought. V. Lev, IV, 27ff, 32ff. The mention of wilful action only for which a sacrifice cannot atone, His eating of the suet was done unwittingly since he believed to be permitted fat, it is nevertheless similar to wilful action since in fact he has not been acting on the strength of the court's decision, V. Supra 2a. By way of contrast. Hence no deduction can be made, and Rami's enquiry remains unanswered. Lev. IV, 13ff. Num. XV, 24. V. Gemara, infra. In his view the people and not the court bring sacrifices, and each tribe is called 'congregation' (kahal). Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |