Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

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:
(b) (R. Zeira): R. Eliezer compares this to a man who is unsure if he ate Chelev or permitted fat, he brings an Asham Taluy;

1. This is not only according to the opinion that the Tzibur brings the Korban, the mistake becomes known;
2. Rather, even according to the opinion that Beis Din brings it, had he asked, he would have heard.

(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 night):

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,
2. This is not only according to the opinion that Beis Din brings the Korban, the mistake does not become known;
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 was brought.

(d) (Mishnah - Ben Azai): What is the difference whether he was at home or travelling?
(e) Question: Why does Ben Azai argue, R. Akiva gave a fine answer (someone at home could have asked if Beis Din retracted)!
(f) Answer (Rava): They argue about someone who started to travel:

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...
(b) (Beraisa): "V'Nelam Davar" - not that the entire Mitzvah was uprooted:

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 are exempt;
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.

(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 liable?!
(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!
2. Answer: (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): (We expound according to the way) it is written "Mitzvas" (singular).

(h) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Davar-Davar" from Zaken Mamrei:

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 this.

(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?
2. Answer: Such a law is explicit in the Torah, people should not have relied on the Hora'ah.

(b) Question (Mishnah): (If Beis Din) forbade Nidah, but exempted one who has relations with a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom (they are liable);

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 Shomeres Yom).
(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 k'Neged 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 Shomeres Yom!

(j) Answer #4: Beis Din said that a woman becomes a Zavah only if she sees blood during the days, not if she sees at night;

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 direction.
(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 bows...
(o) Question: This is explicit - "Lo Sishtachaveh L'El Acher"!
(p) Answer #1: They forbade bowing to idolatry normally served by bowing, they permitted bowing to other idolatry.
(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?

1. Since they acknowledge the other prohibitions of Shabbos, this is like uprooting part and keeping part;
2. Or - since they totally permit plowing, is this like uprooting the entire Mitzvah?

(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.

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?
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?

(i) Answer (Ravina - Beraisa): If a prophet prophesizes to uproot a Mitzvah (he is a false prophet), he is killed;

1. R. Shimon says, if he uproots part of a Mitzvah, he is exempt;
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 keeping part.

(a) (Mishnah): In the following cases, Beis Din is exempt:

1. They ruled, and one of them said 'You are wrong';
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.

(b) (Gemara) Question: What is the source that if the greatest Chacham was not there, they are exempt?

1. Answer (Rav Sheshes) Question: Why is Beis Din exempt if they permit something that even Tzedukim know is forbidden?
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.

(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.
(d) Question: How do we know that by capital cases all must be qualified?
(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 are exempt.
(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.)
2. Question: What is the case?
3. Answer: Beis Din permitted Chelev, and people ate Chelev b'Shogeg.
4. Suggestion: This was Rami bar Chama's question - we may settle it from our Mishnah!

(e) Rejection: Perhaps the inference is not true, even if they were Shogeg like Mezid, they would be exempt;

1. The Tana taught 'Beis Din erred, and the people sinned b'Mezid' for parallel structure.