(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Horayos 2

HORAYOS 2 (27 Iyar) - Dedicated by Gitle Bekelnitzky in honor of the fifth Yahrzeit of her father, Zev ben Ephraim v'Chaya Krause

Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of Rashi. Consequently, our notes and comments do not necessarily have any bearing on the practical Halachah.

***** Perek Horu Beis-Din *****


(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case where Beis-Din issued an erroneous verdict.
What kind of ruling is the Tana talking about?

(b) What does the Tana rule in a case where ...

  1. ... an individual acted on the Beis-Din's ruling, irrespective of whether they transgressed at the same time as he did, after him, or not at all?
  2. ... a member of Beis-Din who knew that they had erred, acted on their ruling in any of those three cases?
(c) What sort of Talmid is included in the previous ruling?

(d) What principle governs this Mishnah?

(a) Assuming that the Tzibur acted on their ruling, Shmuel requires Beis-Din to say 'Mutarin Atem', before they become Chayav to bring a Korban.
What other ramifications result from Shmuel's ruling?

(b) Rav Dimi from Neherda'a disagrees with Shmuel. According to him, Beis-Din need to add the word 'La'asos'.
Why is that?

(c) Abaye supports Rav Dimi's opinion from the Mishnah in Sanhedrin (in connection with a Zakein Mamrei) "Chazar le'Iro, Chazar ve'Limed ke'Derech she'Limed Patur'. How does the Mishnah continue?

(d) Whereas Rebbi Aba supports it from a Mishnah in Yevamos (in connection with a woman whose husband died) "Horu Lah Beis-Din Linasei ve'Halchah ve'Kilkelah, Chayeves be'Korban'.
With the help of how many witnesses did Beis-Din permit the woman to marry?

(a) What reason does the Mishnah in Yevamos give for declaring the woman Chayav?

(b) What final proof does Ravina bring from our own Mishnah 'Horu Beis-Din La'avor al Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos ha'Amuros ba'Torah ... '?

(c) And we conclude 've'Su Lo midi'.
What does this mean?

(d) In the second Lashon, Abaye, Rebbi Aba and Ravina ask on Rav Dimi from Neherda'a (rather than prove his opinion).
What does the second Lashon say about 'Mutarin Atem ... '? How does it cite the Machlokes?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah "ve'Halach ha'Yachid ve'Asah Shogeg al-Pihem ... Patur'.
What problem do we have with this?

(b) What, according to Rava in the first Lashon, does it come to include (in the P'tur)?

(c) According to the second Lashon, the Tana actually comes to preclude this case from the P'tur.
How does Rava then explain the wording of the Mishnah?

(d) We cite the two Leshonos of Rava again to resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah.
What is Rami bar Chama's She'eilah? Did he accept Rava's proof?

(a) Rav and Rebbi Yochanan were already involved in this same Machlokes much before Rava and Rami bar Chama. Rav said Patur.
What is Rav's reason?

(b) And what is then Rebbi Yochanan's reason for saying Chayav?

(c) What does the Tana Kama in a Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Korban Chatas) "me'Am ha'Aretz ba'Asosah"?

(d) Rebbi Shimon (ben Yossi) deems this D'rashah unnecessary.
How does he explain the Pasuk there "Asher Lo Se'asenah bi'Shegagah ve'Asheim"?

(a) How does this Beraisa pose a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan?

(b) Rav Papa explains how 'Horu Beis-Din she'Cheilev Mutar ve'Nischalef Lo Cheilev be'Shuman' can still be considered 'Shav mi'Yedi'aso'.
How is this possible?

(c) The Tzibur only bring a Par (He'elam Davar) if the majority of the community followed the ruling of the Beis-Din and sinned. What does Rava now mean when he says that Rav concedes that 'Eino Mashlim le'Rov Tzibur'?

(d) How does he learn this from ''bi'Shegagah"?

Answers to questions



(a) Both the Reisha of our Mishnah ('Horu Beis-Din ... ve'Halach Yachid ve'Asah ... Patur') and the Seifa (' ... ve'Yada Echad Meihen O Talmid ... ve'Halach ve'Asah ... Chayav') specifically mention that they speak irrespective of whether the Beis-Din transgressed at the same time as he did, after him, or not at all.
Why did the Tana find it necessary to mention all three cases ...
  1. ... in the Reisha?
  2. ... in the Seifa?
(b) And how does Rava explain the fact that the Tana found it necessary to mention in the Seifa both a member of Beis-Din and a Talmid who is eligible to issue rulings, who knew that Beis-Din erred?

(c) How did Abaye query this interpretation of a Talmid who is eligible to issue rulings.

(d) What did Rava really mean?

(a) Which two examples (of Tana'im) did Rava give of 'Talmid ha'Ra'uy le'Hora'ah'?

(b) Why did Abaye not like Rava's examples?

(a) What did Rava quote to counter Abaye's Kashya?

(b) What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ba'Asosah Achas"?

(c) So how does Rava explain the fact that even Talmidei-Chachamim of that caliber might still be considered a Shogeg? In which point will they be a Shogeg?

(a) When the Tana concludes with 'Zeh ha'K'lal', it generally comes to include something not already said in the Mishnah.
So what does our Mishnah come to include when it writes 'Zeh ha'K'lal ...
  1. ... ha'Toleh be'Atzmo Chayav'?
  2. ... ha'Toleh be'Beis-Din Patur come to include?
(b) Will it make any difference whether Beis-Din already brought their Korban or not?

(c) But is this not what Rebbi Shimon rules in the next Mishnah?

(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, our Mishnah is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.
What do the Chachamim say about a Yachid who acted on the erroneous ruling of Beis-Din?

(b) What does Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa learn from the Pasuk "ve'Im Nefesh Achas Techeta bi'Shegagah (me'Am ha'Aretz) ba'Asosah Achas"? How many exclusions are contained in this Pasuk?

(c) We learn the Rabbanan's opinion from another Beraisa.
What distinction does the Tana there draw between the minority and the majority of the Tzibur who sinned?

(d) What does the Tana therefore learn from "me'Am ha'Aretz"? What would we have otherwise thought?

(a) What is the problem with establishing the entire Beraisa when the sinners erred ...
  1. ... without Beis-Din having ruled (Shigegas Ma'aseh)?
  2. ... following Beis-Din's ruling (Shigegas Hora'ah)?
(b) How do we therefore establish the Beraisa? If the basic Halachah refers to Shigegas Ma'aseh, what is the Tana referring to when he distinguishes between a Yachid, on whose behalf Beis-Din do not bring a Chatas and a Tzibur, on whose behalf they do?

(c) What Chidush is the Beraisa coming to teach us?

(a) What does Rov Tzibur comprise?

(b) What is each person obligated to bring?

(c) What have we now proved from here? How do we learn it?

(d) How does Rav Papa try to refute the proof? What does he think the Tana holds?

(a) How do we reject Rav Papa's suggestion? How is it clear from the Beraisa that a Yachid is Chayav to bring his own Korban be'Shegegas Hora'ah?

(b) Why is the fact that Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan are not named in the two respective Beraisos, pose a problem?

(c) What does Rebbi Yehudah in another Beraisa, comment on the Pasuk in Tzav "Zos Toras ha'Olah"?

(d) How do we reconcile this with the principle 'Ein Miy'ut Achar Miy'ut Ela Lerabos'?

(e) What do we then learn from there?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,