Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, in a case where Beis-Din err with regard to other sins, they bring a bull. If however, they err with regard to Avodah-Zarah, they are obligated to bring a bull and a goat. Note, that throughout the Sugya, whenever we speak about the obligation to bring one bull, or a number of bulls for other sins, this automatically means, one, or the equivalent number of, goats in the case of Avodah-Zarah.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, if Beis-Din err with regard to most sins, they bring twelve bulls; whereas if they err with regard to Avodah-Zarah, they must bring twelve bulls and twelve goats.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether the onus to bring the Chatas lies with Beis-Din (Rebbi Meir), or with the people (Rebbi Yehudah), and each tribe, he holds, is called a Kahal.

(d) Where Rebbi Yehudah says twelve ... - Rebbi Shimon says thirteen, because in his opinion, both each tribe and Beis-Din are obligated to bring a Korban.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, in a case where the majority of K'lal Yisrael sinned following Beis-Din erroneous ruling, Beis-Din bring one bull. According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah, in a case where one tribe sinned - then not only that tribe, but even those tribes that did not sin must each bring one bull each.
2. ... Rebbi Shimon, in a case where seven tribes sinned - then they bring eight bulls, one for each tribe that sinned and one for Beis-Din.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, if one tribe sinned following the erroneous ruling of its own Beis-Din (of twenty-three) - it is obligated to bring one bull.

(c) The Chachamim learn from the Pasuk "ve'Im Kol Adas Yisrael Yishgu" - that the Din of Shigegas Hora'ah only applies to Beis-Din ha'Gadol.

(d) This does not mean that no Korban is brought in this case - but that each person brings the a regular Kisbah or Se'irah.

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "ve'Nod'ah ha'Chatas (Asher Chat'u Alehah, Ve'hikrivu)'' - that if Beis-Din become aware that they erred, but are not sure whether the ruling that they issued concerned Cheilev or Dam, they are Patur (because they have to know what their sin was, and not just that they sinned).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah there learns from ...

1. ... "Asher Chat'u" - that if two tribes follow the Beis-Din ha'Gadol's erroneous ruling, they must bring two bulls.
2. ... "Ve'hikrivu ha'Kahal" - that the remaining ten tribes that did not din must each bring one, too.

(c) Actually, even one tribe brings a bull, if it alone followed the ruling of Beis-Din ha'Gadol. Nevertheless, he presents the case of two tribes that sinned - to teach us that they must bring one bull for each tribe (and cannot get away with one bull between them).

(a) Rebbi Shimon learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Kahal" "Kahal" ("Ve'Hikrivu ha'Kahal" from "ve'Ne'elam me'Einei ha'Kahal") - that just as the second Kahal (which is written earlier) requires the participation of Beis-Din and the people, so too, must they bring separate Korbanos (as we explained in our Mishnah).

(b) Rebbi Meir learns from the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that if seven tribes followed Beis-Din's ruling, the latter bring only one bull - because he Darshens "ve'Ne'elam *me'Einei ha'Kahal*" with reference to the error alone, which pertains to the Beis-Din exclusively, and not to the Kahal).

(a) We initially presume that the Tana Kama of the current Beraisa ('Ve'nod'ah ha'Chatas') cannot be Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Eliezer (in another Beraisa) rules that someone who knows that he ate either Cheilev or Nosar, but is not sure which one - is Chayav a Chatas 'mi'Mah Nafshach'.

(b) Rav Ashi reconciles Rebbi Eliezer with the earlier Beraisa by citing the Pasuk "Asher Chat'u Alehah", from which the Tana learns - that the Beis-Din must know exactly which ruling they issued (a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is confined to the Din of Shigegas Hora'ah, but not extend to a regular Chatas).

(c) We counter this by citing the Pasuk "Asher Chata Bah" (in connection with a regular connection) which has the same connotations. We refute this Kashya however, on the grounds - that Rebbi Eliezer learns from there 'P'rat le'Mis'asek' (that if someone meant to perform an act that is permitted, and he inadvertently performed one that was forbidden, he is Patur).

(a) When, to explain Rebbi Yehudah's opinion, we refer to four times "Kahal", we mean - the two times by Shigegas Hora'ah that the Torah writes "ha'Kahal" (and which we Darshen "Kahal, ha'Kahal, Kahal ha'Kahal") "me'Einei ha'Kahal" and "Ve'hikrivu ha'Kahal".

(b) The first of these comes to teach us that each tribe must bring a Chatas, and the second, that it is the Beis-Din who must issue the ruling and the Kahal who must act on it. The third "Kahal" comes to teach us G'reirah - which means that each of the tribes that did not sin are also obligated to bring a bull.

(c) From the fourth ''Kahal", Rebbi Yehudah learns - that each tribe is also obligated to bring a Chatas if it sins following the erroneous ruling of its own Beis-Din.

(d) According to Rebbi Shimon, "me'Einei ha'Kahal" is not redundant, which leaves him with only three times "Kahal". He too, agrees with Rebbi Yehudah - in that each tribe is called 'Kahal' and is therefore obligated to bring its own bull.

(a) From the other two 'Kahal's', Rebbi Shimon learns (with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah') - just as "me'Einei ha'Kahal" speaks about the Beis-Din in conjunction with the tribes, so too, does "ve'Hikrivu ha'Kahal" (and that Beis-Din is therefore obligated to bring a bull, too).

(b) Rebbi Meir learns the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' differently than Rebbi Shimon (i.e. that just as "me'Einei ha'Kahal" speaks exclusively about the Beis-Din [as we explained earlier], so too, does "ve'Hikrivu ha'Kahal" (and that Beis-Din alone is therefore obligated to bring a bull). He only contends with two of the 'Kahals and not three - because he does not Darshen "Kahal", "ha'Kahal''.

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar quoting Rebbi Meir Darshens from the Pasuk in Sh'lach Lecha ...

1. ... "Ve'hayah Im me'Einei ha'Eidah" - that Beis-Din are obligated to bring a bull even if only the minority of the Kahal sinned.
2. ... "Ki le'Chol ha'Am bi'Shegagah" - that they only bring it if the majority of K'lal Yisrael sinned.

(d) He reconciles the two D'rashos - by establishing the first Pasuk when seven tribes sinned, and the second Pasuk, when it was six.

8)

(a) Abaye learns from the Pasuk "Ve'hayah Im me'Einei ha'Eidah Ne'es'sah li'Shegagah" - that even according to Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Meir, they only bring a Chatas when the Kahal sin following Beis-Din's erroneous ruling.

(b) Rava learns it also from the Pasuk there "Ki le'Chol ha'Am bi'Shegagah", which he needs to teach us - that the Din of Shigegas Hora'ah only applies if the majority of Yisrael sin.

(c) And Abaye needs the Pasuk of "Ve'hayah . ... ", to teach us - that the majority who sin do need to incorporate the Beis-Din themselves.

(d) Both these Pesukim are written in connection with Avodah-Zarah. Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Meir will apply all of this to Shigegas Hora'ah by other Mitzvos - by means of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "me'Einei" ("me'Einei ha'Kahal") "me'Einei" ("Ve'hayah Im me'Einei he'Einei Ne'es'sah le'Shegagah").

(a) We ask whether, according to Rebbi Yehudah, if one tribe sins, each of the other tribes are obligated to bring a Par as well. We think that maybe Rebbi Yehudah only says it if a majority of tribes sin - in which case the She'eilah extends to two, three, four, five or six tribes that sin, too.

(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, where the Tana Kama obligates one bull, and Rebbi Shimon two. The Beraisa cannot be speaking about ...

1. ... seven tribes that sinned - because then Rebbi Shimon would require eight bulls, and not just two.
2. ... one tribe that sinned following the erroneous ruling of its Beis-Din - because then he would not require any bulls at all (as we just learned).

(c) So to resolve our She'eilah, we think the Beraisa must be speaking - when one tribe sinned, and the Tana Kama is Rebbi Yehudah. So we see that Rebbi Yehudah does not obligate the other tribes to bring a bull if less than seven tribes sin.

(d) We refute the proof by establishing the Beraisa when six tribes comprising the majority of Yisrael sinned - and the Tana Kama is Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.

(e) And Rebbi Shimon holds that each tribe must bring its own bull - only if seven tribes comprising the majority of Yisrael sinned.

(a) We resolve our She'eilah from Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, who draws a distinction between a tribe that sinned followed an erroneous ruling of its own Beis-Din - obligating only that particular tribe to bring a bull, and one that sinned following the erroneous ruling of Beis-Din ha'Gadol - where he obligates each tribe to bring one.

(b) Rav Ashi support this from Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, where (with regard to one tribe following an erroneous ruling of its own Beis-Din) he says 'Oso Sheivet Chayav, ve'Sha'ar Kol ha'Shevatim Peturim' - from the fact that having said 'Oso Shevet Chayav', it would be unnecessary to add 've'Sha'ar Kol ha'Shevatim Peturim', unless it was to teach us the inference that in the same case, but where Beis-Din ha'Gadol were the ones to have erred, each tribe would indeed be obligated to bring its own bull.

(a) We ask whether, according to Rebbi Shimon, one tribe that sins is obligated to bring a bull be'Shigegas Hora'ah (bearing in mind that he does, after all hold, that one tribe is called 'Kahal'). Assuming that there are not - they will be Patur from bringing anything (because 'Yachid she'Asah be'Hora'as Beis-Din, Patur').

(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah citing the same Beraisa again, where the Tana Kama obligates one bull, and Rebbi Shimon two, by establishing it when one tribe sinned following the erroneous ruling of Beis-Din ha'Gadol. We are forced to reject this explanation - because who would then be the Tana Kama, seeing as Rabbi Meir requires the majority of Yisrael to sin, and Rebbi Yehudah requires each tribe to bring its own bull.

(c) So we establish the Beraisa - when six tribes sinned, and the Tana Kama is Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, as we explained above.

(d) We finally resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah (with reference to Rebbi Yehudah's ruling, obligating one tribe who sinned following its Beis-Din's erroneous ruling) 'va'Chachamim Omrim Eino Chayav Ela al Hora'as Beis-Din ha'Gadol'. The Chachamim must be Rebbi Shimon and not Rebbi Meir - because Rebbi Meir requires the majority of Yisrael to sin.

(a) We try to prove from the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "Va'ya'amod Yehoshafat bi'Kehal Yehudah vi'Yerushalayim ... " - that, one tribe is called 'Kahal' (according to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, and Rebbi Meir will not argue with this).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan explains that "Lifnei Chatzer ha'Chadashah" in the same Pasuk, refers to a new decree - namely, that a T'vul Yom (who had Toveled from his Tum'ah, and was waiting for nightfall to become completely Tahor) was forbidden to enter the Machaneh Leviyah.

(c) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov rejects the proof from there that one tribe is called 'Kahal' on the grounds - that Yehudah incorporates Binyamin, so perhaps it is only two tribes that are referred to as 'Kahal'.

(a) So Rav Acha bar Ya'akov proves it from the Pasuk "Hineni Mafrecha Ve'hirbisicha u'Nesaticha li'Kehal Amim" - where Ya'akov is referring to Binyamin (the only one of his sons still to be born at the time to which this Pasuk refers) as 'Kahal'.

(b) Rav Sh'va asked Rav Kahana whether the Pasuk might not mean that when Binyamin was born, then the twelve tribes, who were called 'Kahal' would be complete. To which Rav Kahana replied - that it was impossible to say this, since we just learned from the Pasuk in Vayechi that two tribes are certainly called 'Kahal'.