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 4
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) LIABILITY OF ONE WHO TRANSGRESSED AFTER BEIS DIN RETRACTED
(a) (R. Yochanan): R. Eliezer and Sumchus argue about whether
or not he brings Asham Taluy:
2) UPROOTING PART OF A "MITZVAH"
(b) (R. Zeira): R. Eliezer compares this to a man who is
unsure if he ate Chelev or permitted fat, he brings an
1. This is not only according to the opinion that the
Tzibur brings the Korban, the mistake becomes known;
(c) (R. Yosi bar Avin): Sumchus compares this to a man who
transgressed, and offered his Korban Bein ha'Shemashos (a
period of time which is doubtfully day, doubtfully
2. Rather, even according to the opinion that Beis Din
brings it, had he asked, he would have heard.
1. If it was still day, he fulfilled his obligation; if
it was night, he did not - he is in doubt, he does
not brings an Asham Taluy,
(d) (Mishnah - Ben Azai): What is the difference whether he
was at home or travelling?
2. This is not only according to the opinion that Beis
Din brings the Korban, the mistake does not become
3. Rather, even according to the opinion that the
Tzibur brings, he is exempt, he acted according to
the Hora'ah, he did not think to ask why a Korban
(e) Question: Why does Ben Azai argue, R. Akiva gave a fine
answer (someone at home could have asked if Beis Din
(f) Answer (Rava): They argue about someone who started to
1. Ben Azai obligates, because he is still inside his
house (Rashi - the city);
2. R. Akiva exempts, because he is occupied with his
journey, therefore he did not ask.
(a) (Mishnah): If the Hora'ah totally uprooted a Mitzvah...
3) LAWS THAT THE "TZEDUKIM" AGREE TO
(b) (Beraisa): "V'Nelam Davar" - not that the entire Mitzvah
1. One might have thought that if Beis Din said that
the Torah does not forbid Nidah or Melachah on
Shabbos or idolatry, they are exempt - "V'Nelam
Davar", but if the entire Mitzvah was uprooted, they
(c) Question: After saying that Beis Din are exempt if they
uprooted the entire Mitzvah, the Tana suggested that they
are exempt for uprooting part - if so, when would they be
2. One might have thought that if 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 one Reshus to
another (e.g. from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus
ha'Rabim), or if they forbade idolatry, but exempted
one who bows, they are exempt - "V'Nelam Davar" -
they are liable for permitting part of a Mitzvah.
(d) Answer: The Tana taught that "Davar" connotes (uprooting)
the entire Mitzvah, that is when they should be liable,
not for uprooting part.
(e) Question: The Tana answered "V'Nelam Davar" - how does
this imply part of a Mitzvah?
(f) Answer #1 (Ula): We read it as if the 'Mem' of "V'Nelam"
was also part of the word "Davar", making 'mi'Davar'
(part of a matter).
(g) Answer #2 (Chizkiyah): "V'Asu Achas *mi'Kol* Mitzvos" -
not the entire Mitzvah.
1. Question: "Mitzvos" is plural, "Achas mi'Kol
Mitzvos" refers to one of them!
(h) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): We learn from a Gezerah Shavah
"Davar-Davar" from Zaken Mamrei:
2. Answer: (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): (We expound
according to the way) it is written "Mitzvas"
1. Regarding Zaken Mamrei it says "Ki Yipalei...Lo
Sasur *Min* ha'Davar" - just as there, he is liable
for uprooting part, also Beis Din is liable for
(a) (Rav Yehudah): Beis Din is liable only if they permitted
something that the Tzedukim (who do not rely on our Oral
tradition) permit - but if they know that it is
forbidden, Beis Din is exempt.
1. Question: What is the reason?
(b) Question (Mishnah): (If Beis Din) forbade Nidah, but
exempted one who has relations with a Shomeres Yom
k'Neged Yom (they are liable);
2. Answer: Such a law is explicit in the Torah, people
should not have relied on the Hora'ah.
1. This is explicit in the Torah - "V'Sofrah Lah", she
must count one day (without seeing blood, and
refrain from relations on the day) corresponding to
a day she sees blood (during the days of Zivah)!
(c) Answer #1: Beis Din permitted Ha'ara'ah (the first stage
of relations) and forbade the full marital act (with a
(d) Objection: Also this is explicit in the Torah - "Es
Mekorah He'erah", (Ha'ara'ah is forbidden)!
(e) Answer #2: Beis Din permitted unnatural relations and
forbade natural relations.
(f) Objection: Also this is explicit in the Torah -
"Mishkevei Ishah" (both ways of having relations have
the same law)!
(g) Answer #3: Beis Din permitted Ha'ara'ah of unnatural
relations, and forbade even Ha'ara'ah of natural
relations and full unnatural relations.
(h) Objection: We could have said this about relations with a
Nidah - why did the Mishnah discuss a Shomeres Yom
(i) Defense of Answer #1: Really, Beis Din permitted
Ha'ara'ah with a Shomeres Yom;
1. This is not explicit in the Torah - "Es Mekorah
He'erah", forbids Ha'ara'ah with a Nidah, not with a
(j) Answer #4: Beis Din said that a woman becomes a Zavah
only if she sees blood during the days, not if she sees
1. (The Tzedukim say that she is Tehorah, for it says
"Kol *Yemei* Zovah".
(k) Question (Mishnah): (If Beis Din) forbade Melachah on
Shabbos, but exempted one who transfers from one Reshus
to another (they are liable);
1. Transferring Reshus is explicit (in Nevi'im) - "V'Lo
Sotzi'u Masa mi'Bateichem"!
(l) Answer #1: The verse forbids taking from Reshus ha'Yachid
to Reshus ha'Rabim, Beis Din permitted the other
(m) Answer #2: The verse forbids carrying from Reshus to
Reshus, Beis Din permitted passing or throwing something
from Reshus to Reshus.
(n) (Mishnah): If they forbade idolatry, but exempted one who
(o) Question: This is explicit - "Lo Sishtachaveh L'El
(p) Answer #1: They forbade bowing to idolatry normally
served by bowing, they permitted bowing to other
(q) Answer #2: They forbade spreading the hands and feet
while bowing, they permitted bowing without doing this.
4) UPROOTING PART OF A "MITZVAH"
(a) Question (Rav Yosef): If they permitted plowing on
Shabbos, what is the law?
5) AN INVALID "HORA'AH"
1. Since they acknowledge the other prohibitions of
Shabbos, this is like uprooting part and keeping
(b) Answer #1 (Mishnah): (If they ruled that) the Torah
forbids a Nidah, but exempts one who has relations with a
Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom (a woman who saw blood during
one of the days of Zivah), Beis Din is liable.
2. Or - since they totally permit plowing, is this like
uprooting the entire Mitzvah?
1. They are liable, even though they uprooted the
entire law of Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom!
(c) Rejection (Rav Yosef): We can answer as we did above (the
case is, they exempted Ha'ara'ah of abnormal relations).
(d) Answer #2 (Mishnah): (If they ruled that) the Torah
forbids Melachos on Shabbos, but exempts one who
transfers from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim (Beis
Din is liable).
1. They are liable, even though this uproots the entire
law of Hotza'ah (transferring Reshus)!
(e) Rejection (Rav Yosef): We can answer as we did above (the
case is, they forbade transferring from a Reshus
ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim, but permitted the other
direction (or throwing or passing)).
(f) Answer #3 (Mishnah): ...The Torah forbids idolatry, but
one who bows is exempt.
1. Beis Din is liable, even though this uproots the
entire prohibition of bowing!
(g) Rejection (Rav Yosef): We can answer as we did above
(Beis Din forbade spreading the hands and feet while
bowing, and permitted bowing without doing this).
(h) Question (R. Zeira): If they ruled that Shabbos does not
apply during Shemitah, what is the law?
1. Question: Why would they make such a mistake?
(i) Answer (Ravina - Beraisa): If a prophet prophesizes to
uproot a Mitzvah (he is a false prophet), he is killed;
2. Answer: They expounded "In plowing and reaping you
will rest" - Shabbos only applies in years when you
may plow and reap.
3. (Explanation of question): Do we say, since they
acknowledge that Shabbos applies during other years,
this is like uprooting part and keeping part;
4. Or, since they totally permit Shabbos during
Shemitah, this is like uprooting the entire Mitzvah?
1. R. Shimon says, if he uproots part of a Mitzvah, he
2. Regarding idolatry, even if he says to serve it
today and abolish it tomorrow, he is killed.
i. This teaches that saying that Shabbos does not
apply in Shemitah is like uprooting part and
(a) (Mishnah): In the following cases, Beis Din is exempt:
6) IF EITHER PARTY REALIZED THE MISTAKE
1. They ruled, and one of them said 'You are wrong';
(b) (Gemara) Question: What is the source that if the
greatest Chacham was not there, they are exempt?
2. The greatest Chacham of the Beis Din was not there;
3. One of them was a convert, Mamzer, Nasin, or too old
to have children.
i. We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Edah-Edah" from
capital cases - just as there, all the judges
must be qualified to give Hora'ah, also here.
1. Answer (Rav Sheshes) Question: Why is Beis Din
exempt if they permit something that even Tzedukim
know is forbidden?
(c) (Mishnah): We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Edah-Edah"
from capital cases; just as there, all must be qualified
(to give Hora'ah), also here.
2. Answer: They are exempt because people should not
have followed Beis Din, they should have known that
it was a mistake;
i. Likewise, if the greatest Chacham was not
there, people should not have followed Beis
Din, they should have been concerned, lest it
is a mistake.
(d) Question: How do we know that by capital cases all must
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): "(The Sanhedrin picked by Moshe)
will stand there with you" - they must be like you
(Moshe, i.e. qualified).
(f) Objection: Perhaps that teaches that they must stand with
Moshe and not enter the Kodshei ha'Kodoshim
(alternatively, they must be Tzadikim like Moshe, upon
whom the Divine Presence can rest).
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): "They will bear
with you" - they must be like you (fitting to rule).
(a) (Mishnah): If Beis Din ruled mistakenly, and the people
sinned b'Shogeg, Beis Din brings a Par;
(b) If Beis Din intentionally ruled the wrong way, and the
people sinned b'Shogeg, everyone who sinned brings a
Kisvah or Se'irah;
(c) If Beis Din erred, and the people sinned b'Mezid, they
(d) (Gemara) Inference: They are exempt only when Beis Din
erred, and the people sinned b'Mezid;
1. If they sinned b'Shogeg like Mezid (i.e. they
thought they were doing something permitted, they
actually did what Beis Din mistakenly permitted -
this is like Mezid, for they did not rely on the
Hora'ah), they are liable! (Rashi - the people would
bring Chata'os; Tosfos Rosh - a Par is brought, the
people are exempt.)
(e) Rejection: Perhaps the inference is not true, even if
they were Shogeg like Mezid, they would be exempt;
2. Question: What is the case?
3. Answer: Beis Din permitted Chelev, and people ate
4. Suggestion: This was Rami bar Chama's question - we
may settle it from our Mishnah!
1. The Tana taught 'Beis Din erred, and the people
sinned b'Mezid' for parallel structure.