POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Horayos 3
HORAYOS 3-4 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love
for the Torah and for those who study it.
1) LIKE WHOM IS THE MISHNAH? (Cont.)
(a) Answer #2: The second Beraisa cannot be R. Yehudah, for
it says 'when the majority sins...Beis Din brings a Par
for them' - R. Yehudah says, the Tzibur (congregation)
brings Parim, not Beis Din!
2) A MAJORITY THAT BECAME A MINORITY
1. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If seven of the Shevatim
(tribes) sinned (by following a mistaken Hora'ah of
Beis Din), each Shevet brings a Par.
(b) (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): Our Mishnah is like R. Meir,
but Chachamim obligate an individual who relies on Beis
(c) Question: What is the source that R. Meir and Chachamim
argue like this?
(d) Answer (Beraisa - R. Meir): If Beis Din gave a Hora'ah,
and (they) transgressed, they are exempt (there will be
different explanations of who is exempt);
1. Chachamim say, they are liable.
(e) Rejection #1 (Rav Papa): Really, all exempt an individual
that followed Beis Din; they argue whether or not Beis
Din can complete the majority of Yisrael (that sinned).
2. Question: Who transgressed?
i. If Beis Din did, all agree that they are
3. Answer #1: Rather, the majority of the Tzibur
ii. (Beraisa): One might have thought, if Beis Din
transgresses on account of Hora'ah, they bring
a Par - "Ha'Kahal v'Asu" teaches that a Par is
brought only when the Tzibur sins on account of
Beis Din's Hora'ah.
4. Rejection: If so, R. Meir would not exempt (Beis
5. Answer #2: Rather, the minority of the Tzibur sinned
(they argue whether or not the individuals bring
i. R. Meir exempts an individual that acted
according to Beis Din, Chachamim obligate.
(f) Rejection #2: We can defend Answer #1, the majority of
the Tzibur sinned;
1. Chachamim hold like R. Shimon, who says that *both*
the Tzibur *and* Beis Din bring Parim (R. Meir
obligates Beis Din and exempts the Tzibur).
(g) Rejection #3: We can explain the Beraisa a third way -
one Shevet sinned according to its own Beis Din;
Chachamim hold like R. Yehudah;
1. (Beraisa): If a Shevet acted according to a
(mistaken) Hora'ah of its Beis Din, that Shevet
brings a Par. (This is R. Yehudah's opinion in the
(h) Rejection #4: The case is, six Shevatim sinned,
comprising the majority of Yisrael, or seven Shevatim
even if they are the minority of Yisrael.
1. Version #1 (our text): (R. Meir's opinion in) the
Beraisa is as R. Shimon ben Elazar cites him;
(i) (Rav Asi): Regarding Hora'ah, we consider the majority of
Yisraelim in Eretz Yisrael - "...All Yisrael with
(Shlomo), a great Kahal, from Chamas until Nachal
2. Version #2 (R. Chananel (printed on the beginning of
Daf 4A)): Chachamim of the Beraisa are R. Shimon ben
Elazar (the Tana'im in the Beraisa argue about R.
Meir's opinion); (end of Version #2)
3. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar citing R. Meir): If
six Shevatim sinned, comprising the majority of
Yisrael, or seven Shevatim, even the minority of
Yisrael, Beis Din are liable. (Version #1 -
therefore, R. Meir exempts the individuals).
1. Question: It says "All Yisrael", why must it say
"From Chamas until Nachal Mitzrayim"?
2. Answer: This teaches that "Kahal" (the Tzibur) only
refers to Yisraelim inside Eretz Yisrael.
(a) Clearly, if the majority sinned, and then they became the
minority (some died), R. Shimon and Chachamim argue (like
they argue about a person who sinned, then was appointed
Nasi or Kohen Gadol;
1. There, Chachamim say that he brings the Chatas of a
commoner (a Kisvah or Se'irah); R. Shimon says, he
is exempt; here, Chachamim obligate.)
(b) Question: If the minority sinned, and then they became
the majority (some non-sinners died), do R. Shimon and
Chachamim also argue about this?
1. R. Shimon follows (the law that applies at) the time
we find out, they are liable; Chachamim follow the
time that they sinned, they are exempt;
(c) Objection: We find that R. Shimon *also* follows the time
we find out, i.e. if at the time we find out, his Din
already changed (e.g. he became Nasi or Kohen Gadol, who
bring different Korbanos) from his Din at the time of the
sin, he is exempt;
2. Or, they do not argue?
1. We never find that he *only* follows the time we
find out - if he did, if he became Nasi or Kohen
Gadol (after sinning) he would bring the Korban of a
Nasi or Kohen Gadol!
(d) Question #1: Beis Din permitted Chelev; and a minority of
Yisrael ate Chelev. If Beis Din retracted, and more
people (who did not hear the retraction) ate, making a
majority, what is the law?
1. Since the first transgressors found out in between,
they do not join to make a majority;
(e) Question #2: If we say that since they all ate Chelev,
they join up - what if Beis Din permitted Chelev on the
stomach and Chelev on the small intestines?
2. Or, since they all ate Chelev, they join?
1. Since these prohibitions are learned from different
verses, minorities that transgressed the two
prohibitions do not join;
(f) Question #3: If we say that since they are both Chelev,
they join - what if Beis Din permitted blood and Chelev?
2. Or - since they are both Chelev, they join?
1. Since these are two different prohibitions, they do
(g) Question #4: If we say that since one brings the same
Korban for either, they join - what if Beis Din permitted
Chelev and idolatry?
2. Or, since one brings the same Chatas for
transgressing either (a Kisvah or Se'irah), they
1. Since the Chatas brought for idolatry is different
(it must be a Se'irah), they do not join up;
(h) Question: Beis Din permitted Chelev; a minority of
Yisrael ate Chelev, the Beis Din died, and the next Beis
Din retracted. If more people (who did not hear the
retraction) ate, making a majority, what is the law?
2. Or - since both are Chayavei Kerisus, they join?
3. This is unresolved. (Rambam - wherever it says 'If
we say that...', the Halachah follows the
1. Surely, according to the opinion that Beis Din
brings the Par, clearly, since the Beis Din that
erred died, no Par is brought.
2. The question is according to the opinion that the
Tzibur brings the Par:
i. Since the Tzibur is here, they bring it.
3) THE "HORA'AH" MUST BE UNANIMOUS
ii. Or, perhaps they bring only if the Beis Din
that erred learn of their mistake?
iii. This question is unresolved.
(a) (R. Yonason): If a Beis Din of 100 Chachamim gathered to
give a ruling, they are liable only if all 100 agreed;
4) WHEN BEIS DIN RETRACTS
1. We learn from "V'Im *Kol Adas* Yisrael Yishgu" - all
the judges must err.
(b) (Mishnah): If a member of the Sanhedrin or a qualified
Chacham knew that the Sanhedrin erred, and transgressed -
whether he transgressed with them, after them, or without
them, he brings a Korban, because he did not rely on Beis
2. Support (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Hoshayah): The majority
always counts as the whole (had it said 'Adas', this
would mean the majority) - therefore, "Kol Adas"
means, every one.
1. Inference: Someone else (who did not know that Beis
Din erred) would be exempt.
(c) Question: Why is he exempt - the Hora'ah was not
unanimous (one member knew that they erred), it should be
as if there was no Hora'ah!
(d) Answer: The case is, the member (who knew that they
erred) nodded his head, showing agreement to the Hora'ah.
(e) (Mishnah): If Beis Din ruled and a member of the Beis Din
knew that they erred, and he told them, Beis Din is
1. Inference: Had he kept quiet, they would be liable,
even though it was not unanimous!
(f) Answer: Here also, he nodded his head.
(g) Question (against R. Yonason - Rav Mesharshiya -
Beraisa): Chachamim relied on R. Shimon ben Gamliel and
R. Eliezer bar Tzadok, who say that we do not impose a
decree on the Tzibur unless most of the Tzibur can
1. (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): They learn from "Ba'Me'erah
Atem Ne'arim v'Osi Atem Kov'im ha'Goy Kulo".
(h) (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): If 10 sit in judgment, all are
responsible (if they err).
2. Even though it says "Kulo (entire)", it only means
the majority - this refutes R. Yonason.
3. Question: If so, what do we learn from "*Kol* Adas"?
4. Answer: A Hora'ah is valid only if the entire
Sanhedrin was present.
(i) Question: This is obvious!
(j) Answer: The Chidush is, even a Talmid in front of his
Rebbi is responsible (if he knows that they erred and is
(k) When Rav Huna would judge a case, he would gather 10
Chachamim, to share the burden (lest he err).
(l) When Rav Ashi had to rule whether or not an animal is
Treifah, he would gather 10 butchers, to share the
(a) (Mishnah - R. Shimon): Beis Din ruled, realized their
mistake and retracted. If Reuven acted according to their
initial ruling, whether or not Beis Din brought a Par, he
(b) R. Elazar says, it is doubtful (if this is considered
relying on Beis Din, therefore, he brings an Asham Taluy
1. If he was sitting in his house, this is considered a
doubt; if he went abroad, he is exempt.
(c) If the Hora'ah totally uprooted a Mitzvah, e.g. Beis Din
said that the Torah does not forbid Nidah or Melachah on
Shabbos or idolatry, they are exempt;
2. R. Akiva: I agree, when he goes abroad, it is more
reasonable to exempt than to obligate;
3. Ben Azai: What is the difference whether he was at
home or travelling?
4. R. Akiva: Someone at home could have (asked and)
heard if Beis Din retracted, a traveler was unable
1. If they permitted some of the prohibitions of a
Mitzvah, e.g. they forbade Nidah, but exempted one
who has relations with a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom (a
woman who saw blood during one of the 11 days of
Zivah, she is forbidden like a Nidah), or if they
forbade Melachah on Shabbos, but exempted one who
transfers from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim,
or if they forbade idolatry, but exempted one who
bows, they are liable - "V'Nelam Davar" - not that
the entire Mitzvah was uprooted.
(d) Version #1 (Gemara - Rav): R. Shimon exempts because he
acted according to Beis Din.
(e) Version #2 (Rav): R. Shimon holds that if a Hora'ah
spread throughout the Tzibur, it exempts those who acted
according to it - we attribute his transgression to the
Hora'ah, we do not say that he himself forgot.
(f) Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon): If (Beis Din realized
that they erred and) Par He'elam Davar must be brought
(and Se'irim, if idolatry was transgressed), we collect
money from the Tzibur just for this;
1. R. Yehudah says, we buy them from Terumas ha'Lishkah
(money taken from the half-Shekalim that all men
give every year to buy all Korbanos Tzibur).
(g) Answer #1: The case is, he was not in the city when the
collection was made (he never heard about the
2. Summation of question: R. Shimon says that a special
collection is made to atone for the mistake, surely
everyone knows that Beis Din retracted (how can we
attribute his transgression to the Hora'ah?)!
(h) Answer #2: Rav holds like the following Tana (who
switches the opinions).
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If Par He'elam Davar (and/or
Se'irim) must be brought, we collect money from the
Tzibur for this;
(i) (Beraisa - R. Meir): If someone transgressed after Beis
Din retracted, he is liable;
2. R. Shimon says, the money is taken from Terumas
1. R. Shimon exempts him;
2. R. Eliezer says, he is in doubt;
3. They said in the name of Sumchus, Taluy (it depends;
this will be explained).