(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

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.


(a) To what does Rebbi Zeira compare Rebbi Elazar (who refers to a Yachid who acted by the Beis-Din's ruling after they had retracted as 'Safek'?

(b) What does he mean when he says that this even speaks according to those who hold that it is the Beis-Din (and not the Kahal) who brings the Korban?

(c) If it is not considered common knowledge, why do we not consider the Yachid 'Toleh be'Beis-Din'?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "be'Yom Tzavoso"?

(b) Rebbi Yossi bar Avin (or Rebbi Yossi bar Z'vida) compares the ruling of Sumchus (in the same connection) to someone who brought his Korban during the period of Bein ha'Shemashos.
What do these two have in common?

(c) And this speaks even according to those who hold that it is the Kahal who bring the Korban.
Why is that? Seeing as the mistake is public knowledge, and anybody would have told him why they are bringing a Korban, why is he not considered 'Toleh be'Da'as Atzmo'?

(a) When ben Azai asked Rebbi Akiva why a Yachid who went overseas is Patur any more than one who stayed at home, Rebbi Akiva replied that whereas the latter might have heard about the error, the former was too preoccupied with his travels to have heard about it. Rebbi Akiva's answer seems obvious.
In which case are they actually arguing?

(b) What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) After informing us that if Beis-Din negate an entire Mitzvah, they are Patur from a Chatas, the Beraisa continues (in connection with where they only negated part of the Mitzvah) 'Yachol Yehu Peturin'.
What is strange about this suggestion?

(b) We answer that what the Tana really means is that perhaps "Ve'ne'elam Davar" refers to the whole Mitzvah and not to part of it (the reverse of the way we actually learn). Ula rejects this proposition by referring to the same words "Ve'ne'elam Davar".
How does he learn from there that the Pasuk is talking about part of the Mitzvah?

(c) Chizkiyah learns it from the latter part of the Pasuk "Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos", implying 've'Lo Kol Mitzvas'.
How can he make such a D'rashah, bearing in mind that the Torah writes "Mitzvos" in the plural?

(d) According to Rav Ashi, the Tana learns it from Zakein Mamrei, where the Torah writes in Shoftim "Ki Yipalei Mimcha Davar, Lo Sasur min ha'Davar Asher Yagidu Lecha ... ".
How does he learn it from there?

(a) In defining part of a Mitzvah, Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel explains that Beis-Din are not Chayav unless they negate something which the Tzedokim do not agree with.
Why is that?

(b) We query this from our Mishnah, which gives the example (with reference to Nidah) of Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom, which even the Tzedokim agree with. Which Pasuk in Tazri'a is the source for Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom?

(c) We also reject the suggestion that they ruled that Ha'ara'ah or she'Lo ke'Darkah (an unnatural Bi'ah) is permitted.
What is 'Ha'ara'ah'?

(d) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim ...

  1. ... "es Mekorah He'erah"?
  2. ... "Mishkevei Ishah"?
(a) What objection do we raise to the suggestion that the 'part of the Mitzvah' of a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom refers to Ha'ara'ah by Bi'ah she'Lo ke'Darkah (which Beis-Din permitted)?

(b) So we revert to the first suggestion.
Why is the ruling that Ha'ara'ah is permitted by a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom not so obvious? Why would the Tzedokim not agree with it?

(c) Alternatively, we explain the case, based on the Pasuk "Kol Yemei Zovah".
How does that explain why the Tana refers specifically to Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom?

(d) Does it also preclude a Zavah?

(a) We also query Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel from our Mishnah, which gives the example of part of a Miztvah of Shabbos as when Beis-Din permitted carrying from one domain to the other.
Why does the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Lo Sotzi'u Masa mi'Bateichem" pose a Kashya on Shmuel?

(b) How do we answer the Kashya ...

  1. ... based on the wording of the Pasuk itself?
  2. ... even if the Pasuk incorporates Hachnasah (carrying from the street into the house)?
(c) Our Mishnah also gives as an example of part of a Mitzvah by Avodah-Zarah as prostrating oneself in front of an Avodah-Zarah. Considering that the Torah in Ki Sisa specifically writes "Lo Sishtachaveh le'Eil Acher", why might the Tzedokim not agree that Hishtachavayah is forbidden?

(d) Why might they not even agree by ke'Darkah either?

Answers to questions



(a) Rav Yosef asked what the Din will be if Beis-Din permit plowing on Shabbos.
What is the She'eilah? Why should it *not* be considered part of Shabbos'?

(b) They queried Rav Yosef from Nidah in our Mishnah, which the Tana established by 'Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom' (and Shabbos, by 'carrying ... ', and Avodas-Kochavim, by 'Hishtachavayah').
Why should the negation of plowing on Shabbos be any worse than the negation of these three?

(a) Rebbi Zeira asked whether it would be considered a partial negation or a complete one if Beis-Din issued a ruling that Shabbos did not take effect in the Sh'mitah year.
What would be the source of such an error?

(b) What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(a) Ravina cites a Beraisa regarding a Navi who prophesies to uproot a Mitzvah.
How can we prove anything from a Navi Sheker? Who would take him seriously anyway?

(b) What distinction does the Tana there draw between a Navi who prophesies to uproot an entire Mitzvah and one who prophesies to negate part of one?

(c) What is the exception to this rule?

(d) What are the ramifications of 'Chayav' in the case of a Navi Sheker?

(e) Ravina resolves the She'eilah from the Tana's example of part of a Mitzvah by Avodah-Zarah.
What example does the Tana give? How does that solve our She'eilah?

(a) If a member of Beis-Din warned his colleagues that their ruling was in error, our Mishnah exempts Beis-Din from bringing a Chatas.
Why is that?

(b) What does the Tana say about a case where the most learned sage was not present (even though all seventy members were)?

(c) The Tana also considers the Beis-Din ha'Gadol deficient in this regard, if one of the Dayanim was a Ger.
What else would disqualify someone from sitting on the Beis-Din?

(d) How do we learn this from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Ve'shaftu ha'Eidah, ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah"?

(a) Why are Beis-Din Patur for issuing an erroneous ruling if the wisest Chacham was not present?

(b) Rav Chisda learns that the faults mentioned in our Mishnah disqualify a Dayan from joining the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Ve'hisyatzvu Sham Imach". How does he learn it from there?

(c) We ask on this Limud however 've'Eima Imach li'Shechinah', which might mean that it was only because they were going to experience Hashra'as ha'Shechinah that the above were disqualified (but not otherwise).
What else may it mean?

(d) So from where does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak finally learn it?

(e) How can we also learn from here that the current Halachah is confined to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol?

(a) Our Mishnah obligates Beis-Din to bring a Par He'elam Davar if both the Beis-Din ruling and the Tzibur's actions were be'Shogeg.
What will be the Din assuming that Beis-Din ruled ...
  1. ... be'Meizid and the Tzibur acted be'Shogeg?
  2. ... be'Shogeg and the Tzibur acted be'Meizid?
(b) We try to extrapolate from the case in our Mishnah 'Shogegin ve'Asu Meizidin Patur' that in a case of 'Shogeg Dumya de'Meizid, Chayav'.
What is the case?

(c) What do we mean when we say that Beis-Din permitted Cheilev?

(d) How will Rami bar Chama, who asked earlier whether one is Chayav in such a case or not, reject the proof from here that the Yachid is Chayav?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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