Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Horayoth

Folio 5a

IF THE COURT RULED [ERRONEOUSLY] AND SEVEN TRIBES OR A MAJORITY OF THEM²  ACTED ACCORDINGLY, A BULLOCK IS TO BE BROUGHT; AND IN RESPECT OF IDOLATRY, A BULLOCK AND A GOAT MUST BE BROUGHT; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. MEIR. R. JUDAH SAID: THE SEVEN TRIBES WHO SINNED MUST BRING SEVEN BULLOCKS AND THE REST OF THE TRIBES WHO DID NOT SIN MOST BRING BULLOCK[S]³  (IN THEIR ACCOUNT, BECAUSE EVEN THOSE WHO DID NOT SIN MUST BRING OFFERINGS ON ACCOUNT OF THESE WHO SINNED. R. SIMEON SAID: EIGHT BULLOCKS; AND IN RESPECT OF IDOLATRY, EIGHT BULLOCKS AND EIGHT GOATS, A BULLOCK AND A GOAT FOR EVERY TRIBE AND A BULLOCK AND A GOAT FOR THE COURT.

IF THE COURT OF ONE OF THE TRIBES RULED [ERRONEOUSLY], AND THAT TRIBE ACTED ACCORDINGLY, THAT TRIBE IS LIABLE, BUT ALL THE OTHER TRIBES ARE EXEMPT; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. BUT THE SAGES SAY: NO LIABILITY IS INCURRED EXCEPT AS A RESULT OF THE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT ONLY; FOR IT IS STATED, AND IF THE WHOLE CONGREGATION OF ISRAEL SHALL ERR,⁴  BUT NOT THE CONGREGATION OF ONE PARTICULAR TRIBE.

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: It might have been assumed that, if it had come to the knowledge of the court that a ruling of theirs was erroneous and they had forgotten what the ruling was,⁵  they are liable,⁶  hence it was expressly stated, When the salt was known,⁷  [implying] not, however, when only those who sinned were known. Wherein they have sinned⁸  [implies that] if two tribes had sinned they must bring two bullocks,⁹  if three had sinned three have to be brought. But is it not possible that this only means¹⁰  that if two individuals had sinned they bring two bullocks, if three had sinned they bring three? It was expressly stated. The congregation,¹¹  [showing that] only a congregation is liable, and that every congregation¹²  is liable. How? If two tribes sinned they bring two bullocks, if seven sinned they bring seven, and also the other tribes who did not sin bring each a bullock on account of the former,¹³  because even those who bad not sinned must bring sin offerings, because of those who sinned — Hence Scripture stated, 'congregation', in order to impose the obligation upon every congregation: these are the words of R. Judah. R. Simeon said: If seven tribes sinned they bring seven bullocks, and the court also brings a bullock on account of them, for 'congregation' was mentioned below¹⁴  and 'congregation' was also mentioned above,¹⁵  as 'congregation' that was mentioned above means both the court and the congregation¹⁶  so 'congregation' that was mentioned below means both the court and the congregation. R. Meir said: If seven tribes had sinned the court brings a bullock on their account but they themselves are exempt, for 'congregation' was mentioned below¹⁴  and 'congregation' was mentioned above,¹⁵  as 'congregation' that was mentioned above refers to the court and not to the people¹⁷  so 'congregation' that was mentioned below refers to the court and not to the people. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said in his name: If six tribes had sinned and they¹⁸  represent a majority of the people, or seven, although they¹⁸  do not represent a majority of the people, they bring a bullock.

The Master said: 'When the sin was known [implying], not, however, when only those who sinned were known'. Who is the author of this statement? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab (others say Raba): It is not¹⁹  R. Eliezer, for it was taught:²⁰  R. Eliezer said,²¹  'Whatever your assumption [he must bring a sin offering], for if\ he ate the suet he is liable and if he ate the nothar²²  be is also liable.²³  R. Ashi said: It may even be said to be R. Eliezer, for here the case is different since it is written, [When the sin] wherein they have sinned [is known]²⁴  But surely, there²⁵  also it is written, [If he sin], wherein he has sinned, [be known to him]!²⁶  — That²⁷  is required for the purpose of excluding the case of one who performed a forbidden act while his mention was to perform a different act.²⁸

What is the reason of R. Judah? — He holds the opinion that 'congregation' was written four times: 'Congregation', the congregation congregation, the congregation.²⁹  One of these is to indicate \hat the obligation bring offering falls on every congregation;³⁰  one is to indicate that the ruling depends on the court and the action depends on the congregation;³¹  one is to indicate attraction,³²  and one has reference to a tribe that acted in accordance with the [erroneous] ruling of its own court.³³

And R. Simeon maintains that 'congregation' was written three times: The congregation, congregation, the congregation³⁴  because the expression, from the eyes of the congregation is the usual form of Biblical speech — as people say, 'from the eyes of so and so',³⁵  one of these³⁶  is to indicate that the obligation to bring an offering falls on every congregation.³⁷  and the other two [are required for the following deduction]: 'Congregation' was mentioned below and 'congregation' was mentioned above, as below the reference is to the court together with the congregation, so here also it refers to the court together with the congregation.³⁸

And R. Meir makes no exposition on congregation, the congregation. Consequently, congregation was written only twice, and both are required [for the following deduction]: 'congregation was mentioned below and 'congregation' was mentioned above, as below the reference is to the court and not to the congregation, so here also the reference is to the court and not to the congregation.³⁸

As to R. Simeon b. Eleazar, what is his reason? It is written, And it shall be it from the eyes of the congregation³⁹  which clearly refers to a minority, since it is written, from the eyes,⁴⁰  but it is also written, For in the respect of all the people it was done in error,⁴¹  which indicates that the reference is only to⁴²  a majority and not to a minority; how', then, [are these contradictory deductions to be reconciled]? — If the sin was committed by six tribes who represent the majority of the congregation or by seven, even though they do not comprise a majority of the congregation, they are liable.

1. In the case of an erroneous ruling other than idolatry.
2. Of each tribe, representing a majority of all Israel.
3. Each of them one.
4. Lev. IV, 13.
5. Lit., 'they knew that they ruled and erred what they ruled'.
6. To bring an offering of a bullock if the people unwittingly infringed two prohibitions one or the other of which was that which the court erroneously permitted.
7. Lev, IV, 24: Emphasis on sin. Only then is an offering of a bullock to be brought.
8. Ibid.
9. I.e., one offering is not enough when more than one tribe had sinned.
10. Lit., 'or he does not say'.
11. kvev
12. I.e., 'tribe', which is called [H]. V. infra.
13. Lit., 'through them'.
14. Lev, IV, 24, 'then the congregation shall offer'.
15. Ibid, v. 13, 'the thing being hid from the eyes of the congregation'.
16. 'The eyes' referring to the court: 'congregation' to the people.
17. The eyes of the congregation', according to R. Meir, implying the court only.
18. In the number of their individuals,
19. Lit., 'that not as'.
20. Gut. edd. 'we learnt'.
21. In the case where it is not certain which of two prohibited foods a man has eaten through error,
22. [H], sacrificial meat that was left over beyond the period allowed for its consumption.
23. Shebu. 18b. So here, according to R. Eliezer, a sin offering would be obligatory even if it were not certain to what precise prohibition the ruling of the court referred. (Cf. supra p. 29, n. 2).
24. Lev, IV, 14. Emphasis on 'knowledge of the sin'.
25. The case of all individual who is uncertain which prohibited food he ate. Cf. supra n. 4.
26. Lev. IV, 23. Emphasis on 'wherein' ([H]).
27. The emphasis bah. V. previous note.
28. V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 426.
29. I.e., 'the congregation' (hakahal), occurs in Lev, IV, 13 and ibid. v. 14, and each expression (because the definite article is used there it could have been omitted) counts for two.
30. I.e., 'tribe'.
31. V. supra p. 10 notes 12 and 13.
32. [H] 'dragging', i.e., the tribes who sinned drag with them the others who did not sin into the liability of bringing the sin offerings.
33. V. the final section of our Mishnah.
34. Cf. p. 30, n. 12.
35. I.e., while the definite article in v. 14 is unnecessary and may, therefore, be regarded as doubling the expression of 'congregation', the article in v. 13 is grammatically required by the status constructus.
36. Expressions of 'congregation'.
37. I.e. tribe,
38. V. supra p. 29, for notes.
39. Num. XV, 24.
40. [H] ([H]) partitive.
41. Ibid, 26.
42. Lit., 'yes'.

And whence does R. Simeon and R. Meir¹  infer that the ruling depends on the court and the action depends on the con gregation?²  — Abaye replied: For Scripture stated, And it shall be it from the eyes of the congregation the sin be committed unwittingly.³  Raba said: [It is inferred] from, In respect of all the people it was done in error.⁴  And [both texts are] required. For if the All Merciful had written only', And it shall be if from the eyes of the congregation the sin be committed unwittingly it might have been assumed that the reference⁵  is even to a minority', hence it was written, In respect of all the people it was done in error. And if only In respect of all the people it was done in error had been written, It might have been assumed [that there is no obligation]⁶  unless the court⁷  committed the sin together with the majority, hence it was written. Did it shall be if from the eyes of the congregation the sin be committed unwittingly. But, surely, both these texts speak rather of⁸  idolatry! — From the eyes⁹  is inferred from [the other expression] from the eyes.¹⁰

IF THE COURT OF ONE etc, The question was raised: Where one tribe acted on the [erroneous] ruling of the supreme court, do the other tribes, according to the view of R. Judah, bring sin offerings] or not? Is it assumed that only where seven tribes [have sinned] do the other tribes bring [sin offerings] together with them because they¹¹  constitute a majority, but not where one tribe¹²  [only had sinned] since it does not constitute a majority, or is there, perhaps, no difference? — Come and hear! 'What do they bring? One bullock. R. Simeon said two bullocks.' Now, under what circumstances?¹³  If it be suggested where seven tribes had sinned. [it might be retorted.] R. Simeon, 'surely, requires [in such a ease] eight [bullocks]!¹⁴  If, again,¹⁵  [it be suggested,] where one tribe had sinned, [it may be asked] under what authority?¹⁶  If on the ruling of its own court, R. Simeon, surely, does not in such a case admit liability!¹⁷  Consequently it must be a case¹⁸  of acting under the ruling of the supreme court; who, however, is the first Tanna?¹⁹  If it be suggested R. Meir, be, [it may be asked] surely requires a majority;²⁰  consequently,²¹  it must be R. Judah!²²  — It may be argued²³  that here it is a case²⁴  where a sin was committed by six tribes who constituted a majority of the congregation and it²⁵  is the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleasar said in his name, 'Six [tribes] who form a majority of the congregation or seven [tribes], although they do not form a majority of the congregation who committed a sin, bring a bullock.²⁶

Come and hear: R. Judah said, 'If a tribe acted on the ruling of its own court, that tribe is liable²⁷  and all the other tribes are exempt: if, [however, it acted] on the ruling of the supreme court. even the other tribes are liable. This proves it.

Said R. Ashi: This may also be deduced from our Mishnah, for it was taught, AND THAT TRIBE ACTED ACCORDINGLY, THAT TRIBE IS LIABLE, BUT ALL THE OTHER TRIBES ARE EXEMPT; what need was there for the statement, THE OTHER TRIBES ARE EXEMPT when²⁸  it was stated, THAT TRIBE IS LIABLE? Surely, since it was stated, THAT TRIBE IS LIABLE it is obvious that THE OTHER TRIBES ARE EXEMPT! This, consequently, teaches us the following: That only when [one tribe acted] on the ruling of its own court are the other tribes exempt, but if on the ruling of the supreme court even the other tribes are liable — This proves it.

The question was raised: Does one tribe who acted on the [erroneous] ruling of the supreme court bring [a sin offering],²⁹  according to R. Simeon, or not?³⁰  Come and hear! 'What do they bring? One bullock. R. Simeon said: Two bullocks.' Now, under what circumstances? If it be suggested that seven tribes had sinned, [it may be retorted that in such a case not] two bullocks but eight bullocks are required! Consequently it must be a case where one tribe had sinned, but, [it may be asked,] under what authority?³¹  If on the ruling of its own court, R. Simeon surely does not in such a case admit liability! Consequently, [it must be a case of a tribe's acting] under the ruling of the supreme court!³²  Who, however, is to be understood to be the first Tanna? If [it be suggested] R. Meir, be, surely, [it may be asked,] requires a majority!³³  If R. Judah. [surely he holds] that other tribes also must bring;³⁴  consequently, it must be [the view of] R. Simeon b. Eleazar, and as it has been taught.³⁵

Come and hear: But the Sages say. 'One is never liable except when acting on a ruling of the supreme court.'³⁶  Now, who are the Sages? If it be suggested R. Meir, surely. [it may be retorted,] be requires a majority!³³  Consequently it must represent the view of R. Simeon. This proves it.

And whence do R. Judah and R. Simeon infer that one tribe is called 'congregation'? — It may be replied: Because it is written, And Jeheshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord before the new court.³⁷  What is meant by 'new'? — R. Johanan replied: They issued new regulations ordaining that an unclean man who bathed during the day³⁸  must not enter the camp of the Levites.

R. Aha b. Jacob demurred: How [does this prove it]?³⁹  Is it not possible that Jerusalem is different since Benjamin also was there!⁴⁰  — But, said R. Aha b. Jacob, because it is written, And he said unto me: Behold, I will make thee fruitful and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a congregation of Peoples;⁴¹  but who was born to him at that time? Only Benjamin! Consequently it must be concluded that the All Merciful said thus: Another congregation will now be born unto thee.⁴²

Said R. Shaba to R. Kahana: Is it not possible that the All Merciful said to him⁴³  thus: 'When Benjamin will have been born to you there will be twelve tribes so that you might then be called congregation'? — He said to him: Would twelve tribes, then, be called 'congregation' while eleven tribes would not be called 'congregation'.⁴⁴

It was taught, R. Simeon said: What need was there for stating. And a second young bullock shalt thou take for a sin offering⁴⁵  If it is to teach that there were two, surely, [it may be pointed out] it has already been stated, And he shall offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, unto the Lord!⁴⁶  But [the purpose of the statement is this]: As it might have been assumed that this sin offering was to be eaten by the Levites⁴⁷  it was expressly stated, And a second young bullock,⁴⁸  [implying that it is] second to the burnt offering; as the burnt offering must not be eaten

1. Who require the two expressions of 'congregation' (Lev. IV, 13 and 14) for the purpose of comparison.
2. A law which R. Judah inferred supra from one of the expressions of 'congregation'.
3. Num. XV, 24. The use of the Niph'al ([H]) implies that the commission of the sin by the people was due to the error of others, i.e., the court on whom the ruling depends.
4. Ibid. 26. 'All the people', implies the court as well as the congregation, the former through their ruling and the latter through their action.
5. To the obligation of bringing a bullock for a sin offering.
6. Cf. n. 4.
7. In addition to their erroneous ruling.
8. Lit., 'are written'.
9. Lev. IV, 13, dealing with an erroneous ruling of the court.
10. Num. XV, 24 speaking of idolatry.
11. The seven tribes.
12. Or any minority of the tribes.
13. Lit., 'in what are engaged '.
14. Seven for the tribes and one for the court.
15. Lit., 'but'.
16. Lit., 'in what'.
17. Lit., 'there is not to him', i.e., he does not impose the obligation to bring a sin offering, the word 'congregation', according to him, occurring only three times providing no Biblical authority for this obligation. (V. supra 5a)
18. Lit., 'but not',
19. In the Baraitha cited,
20. A minority bring no such sin offering.
21. Lit., 'but, not',
22. Thus it has been proved that according to R. Judah the other tribes do not bring sin offerings on account of the one tribe that sinned, (Cur. edd., 'and for example when one tribe had sinned').
23. Lit., 'said',
24. Lit., 'in what are we engaged'.
25. The statement of the first Tanna in the Baraitha.
26. On behalf of all the congregation (v. supra 3a). The first Tanna of the Baraitha cited who requires the offerings of one bullock may consequently be R. Simeon b. Eleazar.
27. To bring the sin offering of a bullock.
28. Lit., 'surely'.
29. As it must bring in the case where it committed the sin together with the majority.
30. Is one tribe, committing the sin alone, regarded as an individual who is exempt from an offering when acting on the ruling of the court?
31. Lit., 'and in what'.
32. This shows that according to R. Simeon a single tribe committing a sin has to bring an offering.
33. Cf supra p. 33, n. 5.
34. As shown supra p. 33.
35. Ct. p. 33. The Baraitha, consequently, does not deal with the case of one tribe.
36. Cf. our Mishnah. The Sages ate in dispute with R. Judah who speaks of the case where only one tribe had sinned.
37. II Chron. XX, 5. The tribe of Judah alone was mentioned and yet it is described as 'Congregation' (kahal).
38. [H], lit., 'immersed of the day', a person Levitically unclean who bathed during the day and is awaiting sunset (nightfall) for the completion of his purification,
39. That one tribe is called 'congregation'. Lit., 'from what'.
40. Congregation (Kahal) may have reference to the two tribes,
41. [H], Gen. XLVIII, 4.
42. Thus it is proved that one tribe is also called 'Congregation'.
43. Jacob.
44. Hence, it must have been Benjamin alone who was referred to as 'congregation', proving that one tribe also is so called.
45. Num, VIII, 5,
46. Ibid, 22.
47. As were the other sin offerings.
48. Num, VIII, 8.