Bartenura on Mishnah Horayot

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Nezikin · 64 sections

1.1.1
The beit din told the people that they are permitted to do (i.e. to transgress a commandment) one of the things for which the punishment is “karet”.
1.1.2
Rabbi Yehuda says that one who acted based on the beit din’s ruling is exempt. This is not the law. The rabbis said that an individual who acted based on the beit din’s ruling is obligated. He is not exempt until the majority of residents in the Land of Israel, or the majority of the tribes, act according to the beit din’s ruling, and then the beit din brings the bull for a communal error-in-judgment (para ha’elem davar) sacrifice, and those who acted according to the beit din’s ruling are exempt.
1.1.3
To exclude the case of one who does not rely on the beit din’s ruling, such as a case where the beit din ruled that forbidden fat (chelev) is permitted and the forbidden fat was switched with permitted fat (shuman) and he ate it; he is obligated because he did not eat it based on the beit din’s ruling.
1.1.4
If the beit din acted, i.e. upon its erroneous ruling, the individual is exempt and the beit din is obligated. The beit din does not bring an offering/sacrifice except when a person acted on an erroneous ruling, where the community acted and the beit din ruled.
1.1.5
Even though he transgressed wilfully, in that he knew the beit din ruled erroneously and still acted according to its ruling, he is not considered a wilful sinner who must bring an offering because in the gemara it says that he sinned in error, because he thought it was a positive commandment to act according to the beit din’s ruling, even when he knows the beit din is wrong.
1.1.6
That he rejects their ruling, that he does not usually act according to their ruling, but he acted according to the beit din’s ruling not because he relied on it but because in his own opinion it was permitted to do – therefore, he is obligated.
1.2.1
Rabbi Shimon exempts him – Because the ruling had reached the majority of the community.
1.2.2
Rabbi Elezar declares this case doubtful – Since he should inquire any time there are new rulings by the beit din and he didn’t inquire, this is similar to the case where he is in doubt whether it is a sin or not and he brings an asham talui. The law is according to Rabbi Elezar’s opinion.
1.2.3
Which case may be regarded doubtful – For example, like what Rabbi Elezar said, the matter being discussed is that he was satisfied with the ruling, whether a sin or not a sin and he is obligated to bring an asham talui.
1.2.4
One who remains at home – When a person is at home in the country where the beit din ruled, he could have heard that the beit din reversed its ruling.
1.2.5
If he went abroad – This does not necessarily mean he already set out, but if he was preparing to travel but had not yet left, Rabbi Akiva holds the opinion that a person who is preparing for a journey will not be able to inquire whether the beit din reversed its ruling and he is exempt from bringing an asham talui. Ben Azzai thinks that since he had not yet set out on the journey, he should have inquired. This is the disagreement in the Gemara. And the law goes according to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion.
1.3.1
An entire principle has to be uprooted – The essence of the commandment, as is explained.
1.3.2
They are exempt – As it is written (Leviticus 4) “the thing being hidden”, read it as if it said “and it was hidden from the thing, i.e. part of it [the commandment], not its entirety.
1.3.3
But if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt – The gemara answers that she who keeps a day for each day, as it is written in the Torah (Leviticus 15) “she shall count for herself” comes to teach that she counts one day for each day [of bleeding], and if something is written in the Torah the beit din does not bring a sacrifice. The Gemara explains, for example, that they are talking about a zava, which is only a case during the day, i.e., when she sees blood during the day and not when she sees at night, as it is written there, “all the days of her issue.”
1.3.4
If a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt – It is forbidden to take things in and out, as it is written (Exodus 16) “let no man go out of his place,” but throwing and proffering are permitted.
1.3.5
Bows down [to an idol] he is exempt - They state that bowing down means stretching out arms and legs and is forbidden, as it is written (Exodus 34) “you shall bow down to no other god” but if the bowing is without stretching out arms and legs it is permitted. The rule of the matter is, not beit din is obligated until it rules on a matter on which the Sadducees do not concur. But if it rules on a matter on which the Sadducees concur, the beit din is exempt from a communal sacrifice, and the majority that acts according to the beit din’s ruling, each one must bring a sacrifice for his erroneous transgression. What is the reason? Go read it in the school house [i.e. every school child understands].
1.4.1
.And one of them knew that they had erred, etc. – As it is written (Leviticus 4) “And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, until they will all agree that they acted in error.
1.4.2
Mufla of the beit din – the most important/knowledgeable, the head of a yeshiva.
1.4.3
An elder who did not have children – He is not fit to judge in capital cases because he is cruel and will not be compassionate.
1.4.4
It says later on “congregation” – the congregation was judged.
1.4.5
Just as the “congregation” further on, etc. – As it is said that in the Sanhedrin (Numbers 11) “that they may stand there with you,” meaning like you, with a distinguished lineage like you. Except for a convert, a nateen (variously translated as “subject” and “Temple slave”) and a mamzer (child of an illicit marriage) who are not fit to judge in capital cases.
1.4.6
Intentionally – The beit din knew that the matter was forbidden and is exempt from bringing a communal sacrifice because one who wilfully transgresses does not bring a sacrifice. Those who transgress in error bring a ewe or a female goat as an individual sin-offering.
1.4.7
[If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt – The beit din is exempt because they did not act, the people acted according to the ruling and not did not make their actions dependent on the beit din because they knew the beit din ruled wrongly. Everyone who acted is exempt because they acted willfully and those who sin wilfully do not bring a sacrifice.
1.5.1
They bring a bull – It says in Leviticus that the congregation sacrifices a bull.
1.5.2
And in the case of idolatry they bring a bull and a goat – And if the beit din ruled to permit the prohibition of idol worship, they bring a bull and a goat, as it says in the parasha Shlach Lecha, “When you shall err and not observe all the commandments” the commandment that is equal to all the other commandments is idol worship, as it is written (Numbers 15) “then it shall be, if it be done in error by the congregation, it being hid from their eyes, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt-offering . . . and one he-goat for a sin-offering.” And Rabbi Meir believes that that if the congregation brings a bull, in Leviticus it is referring to transgressing in error all the other commandments, but that in Shlach Lecha when the congregation brings a bull and a goat the error is idol worship, and it is the congregation that ruled, i.e. the beit din gadol [Sanhedrin], that brings the sacrifices.
1.5.3
The twelve tribes bring - Rabbi Yehuda understands that each and every tribe is called a congregation, as it is written (Chronicles II 20), “And Yehoshephat stood before the congregation of Yehuda.”
1.5.4
Thirteen bulls – Rabbi Shimon understands that the beit din that erred in its ruling cannot atone through the bulls and goats brought by the tribes but must bring their own bull and goat.
1.5.5
Seven tribes – Which comprise the majority of the tribes, even if they contain a minority of the people of Israel. Or a majority of the people of Israel even if they form a minority of the tribes, and even if only one tribe acted and it comprises the majority of the people of Israel. Every other tribe that did not sin must bring a sacrifice to atone for those that did sin.
1.5.6
Eight bulls – Rabbi Shimon believes that the tribes that did not sin need not bring sacrifices to atone for those that did sin. And the law goes according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
1.5.7
That tribe acted accordingly – That tribe’s beit din ruled for it and it acted and it does not comprise the majority of the people of Israel or the majority of the tribes.
1.5.8
But the Sages say: there is no liability etc. – The law goes according to the opinion of the Sages.
2.1.1
An anointed priest who rendered a decision – A high priest who was anointed with the anointing oil ruled on a leniency for himself and acted by himself on a matter whose transgression is liable with “karet.”
2.2.1
He makes his atonement alone - He alone must bring a bull for a sin-offering.
2.2.2
If he rendered his ruling together with [the court of] the congregation – He was a member of the Sanhedrin that ruled in error.
2.2.3
He makes his atonement together with the congregation – With the congregation’s bull for an error-in-judgment (para ha’elem davar) sacrifice and is not obligated to bring any other sacrifice. It would have occurred to you that I might say that on Yom Kippur he does not atone with the congregation, as it is written (Leviticus 16), “and shall kill the bullock of the sin-offering which is for himself,” so too he will need to bring his own sacrifice; here it teaches us that he does not. He derives it from the Torah (Leviticus 4), “on the sin which he sinned.” For a sin that is unique to him he brings his own sacrifice, but for a sin that is not unique to him he does not bring his own sacrifice.
2.2.4
For the court is not liable – I.e., the law is that the high priest atones with the congregation, that the beit din is not liable, etc. but that the high priest is. It follows that the high priest is equal to the beit din on all matters. If he issued a ruling for the congregation he is equal to them and must atone with the congregation.
2.2.5
Nor [are they liable] for idolatry unless they ruled to annul the law in part – As it is written about all the other commandments (Leviticus 4), “the thing being hidden from the eyes of the congregation.” And about idol worship it is written (Numbers 15), “If it be hidden from their eyes . . .”, in all the commandments the matter will be hidden but not from the entire body, so too with idol workshop it will be hidden [from the eyes] and not from the whole body.
2.3.1
.The [court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] except where ignorance of the law – A beit din that ruled for the community on one of all the commandments does not need to bring a bull for a communal error-in-judgment (para ha’elem davar) sacrifice for the community but only for the ignorance of the matter in which it ruled in error and because they did not realize that they were transgressing.
2.3.2
Was accompanied by an unwitting action – The majority of the community erred and acted according to their ruling, as it is written, “they erred and the thing was hidden,” an act in error and the matter was hidden.
2.3.3
So it is with the anointed priest – The high priest that was anointed with the anointing oil is not obligated to bring a sacrifice unless he forgets the law and he acts and rules in error, as it is written (Leviticus 4), “to bring guilt on the people,” which comes to teach that the anointed priest is like the people.
2.3.4
Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry – The beit din issued a mistaken ruling regarding idol worship and they are obligated to bring a bull and a goat.
2.3.5
Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action – Like all the other commandments. We learn about idol worship from the other commandments from a g’zeira shava (“equivalent form”) of “eyes” and “eyes”, as written above.
2.3.6
The court is not obligated unless they ruled concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is karet, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly – There are 36 commandments in the Torah for which the punishment is “karet” and for each one a sin offering is required if the commandment was transgressed unwittingly, except for five that do not require a sin offering if transgressed in error: brit mila and the Passover sacrifice, since they are positive commandments. Even though wilfully transgressing them has a punishment of “karet” no sin offering is required if they are transgressed in error, as it is written about a sin offering (Leviticus 4), “do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done.” And making an oath, because there is no action and the Torah says about a sin offering to transgress in error: if an oath was uttered there was no action. And impurity in the Temple and of its contents create no obligation if transgressed in error, but rather a sliding scale sacrifice (oleh ve’yored), as said in Leviticus. And a beit din does not have to bring a sin offering if these are transgressed in error and neither does a high priest. There are 31 commandments for which the punishment is wilful transgression is “karet” and for erroneous transgression is a sin-offering, for which a beit din and a high priest have to bring a sacrifice.
2.4.1
[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple – A beit din that issued a ruling and erred regarding impurity in the Temple and of its contents is not obligated to bring a communal offering.
2.4.2
For the transgression of a positive commandment – I.e. one who became impure while in the Temple and who is thus commanded to leave by the shortest route. If he left by a longer route, he is punished with “karet.” The beit din that ruled that he should leave by the longer route is not obligated to bring a sacrifice because on an error regarding this law one does not bring a sin-offering, i.e., an individual who erred in this commandment and left by a longer route needs to bring a sliding scale sacrifice and not a sin-offering.
2.4.3
For the transgression of a negative commandment – That he should not enter the Temple while he is impure.
2.4.4
Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui, etc. – For every commandment transgressed in error one is obligated to bring a sin-offering and an asham talui must be brought if he is in doubt whether or not he transgressed. Because transgressing in error the commandment regarding impurity in the Temple does not require a sin-offering, if it there is doubt whether he sinned he does not bring an asham talui.
2.4.5
For the transgression of a positive commandment relating to the menstruant – He was having relations with her when she was clean and in the midst of relations she tells him that she has become impure, the commandment is for him to withdraw. But he may not withdraw immediately because withdrawing is just as pleasurable as intercourse. Rather, he should dig his toenails in the ground and wait without moving until he loses his erection and then he should withdraw. And this is the positive commandment for the menstruant. If the beit din ruled erroneously that he should withdraw immediately, it is obligated to bring a bull for an error-in-judgment sacrifice, since the individual is obligated to bring a sin-offering for his error.
2.5.1
[The court] is not obligated [to bring an offering] for [an errant ruling relating to] the hearing of the voice [of adjuration] – That he adjured someone else to make a false oath that he does not know any testimony, as it is written (Leviticus 5), “And if any one sin, in that he heard the voice of adjuration, he being a witness.”
2.5.2
For an oath made by an expression – He swore he would not eat and he ate, or that he would eat and he did not eat. Or that he said, “I ate” but he did not eat or he said, “I did not eat” and he ate.
2.5.3
For impurity relating to the Temple and its holy contents – Someone who entered the Temple when he was impure or at something sanctified. If there was a ruling in error on one of these commandments, there is no obligation for the beit din or the high priest to bring a sacrifice because individuals are not obligated to bring a sin-offering when they sin in error.
2.5.4
And the ruler is similarly [exempt] - A king who accidently transgressed one of these commandments does not bring a goat and is exempt from bringing any sacrifice, because it is written, “And if his means do not suffice” (Leviticus 5:7,11), meaning one who is poor. A king and the high priest will never be poor.
2.5.5
Rabbi Akiva says the ruler is liable – Regarding the ruler it is written, (Leviticus 4) “and the priest shall make atonement for him” and the sliding scale sacrifice for hearing the voice of adjuration, making an oath and impurity in the Temple, it is written (Leviticus 5), “and the priest shall make atonement for him” to teach that the ruler is obligated regarding these commandments. The high priest is exempt from the sacrifice needed for hearing the voice of adjuration, making an oath and impurity in the Temple, according to Rabbi Akiva, as it is written, (Leviticus 6) “This is the offering of Aharon . . . the tenth part of an ephah. This excludes it, the “chavitin” offering is required of the high priest and he is not obligated in any other tenth of an ephah, except the tenth of an ephah required for hearing the voice of adjuration, etc. that the high priest does not bring. Because the Torah excludes him from the tenth of an ephah, he is also excluded from bringing two doves and any other sacrifice on this issue. At the end of the parasha it is written, “and the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things.” If one atones for one of these commandments he must atone for all of them, because it cannot be that atonement is needed for one but not for all. The law does not follow Rabbi Akiva or Rabbi Yossi’s opinions. Rather, the high priest and the ruler are obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice for hearing the voice of adjuration, making an oath and impurity in the Temple, as will be explained in our Mishnah below. When it teaches not obligated on hearing the voice of adjuration, etc., the meaning is not the beit din and not the high priest, both are not obligated to bring a bull for the other commandments, but are obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice.
2.6.1
In the case of idolatry, the individual and the ruler and the anointed priest bring a goat – In the parasha Shlach Lecha, the sacrifice for idol worship, it is written “And if one person sin through error, then he shall offer a goat.” And it is written, “you shall have one law for him,” meaning that this sacrifice is for all of them [high priests, rulers, regular people].
2.7.1
Asham talui – Commandments for which wilful transgressions receive the punishment of “karet” and accidental transgressions must bring a sin-offering, when there is doubt whether or not there was a transgression an asham talui must be brought, i.e. two amounts, one of forbidden fat and one of permissible fat and he does not know which one he ate.
2.7.2
But the anointed priest and the court are exempt – As it is written about a communal sacrifice (Leviticus 4), “when the sin wherein they have sinned is known, then the assembly shall offer.” There is no obligation to bring a sacrifice unless the sin is clearly known. And the law for the high priest is like that for the beit din.
2.7.3
Asham vadai – An asham vadai offering is required for five matters: for robbery (Leviticus 5:21-25); 2) for illegal use of sacred property (Leviticus 5:14-16); 3) for relations with a betrothed slave woman (Leviticus 19:20-22); 4) a nazir (Numbers 6:9-12); 5) a person who had tzara’at (Leviticus 14:10-12).
2.7.4
The individual and the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated – Because each of these is the act of an individual. There is no difference between a layman, a high priest and a ruler.
2.7.5
But the court is exempt – Because a beit din ruling has no bearing on these acts. And the beit din does not bring an asham offering.
2.7.6
Except that the anointed priest is not liable for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon – Rabbi Shimon’s meaning is that it is written “impurity relating to the Temple” (Numbers 19) and a person who is impure and transgresses, his soul will be cut off from the congregation. One who sins is equal to the congregation, but the high priest’s sin is not equal to the congregation. If any of the congregation accidentally transgresses by entering the Temple or transgressed accidentally, he is obligated only for the accidental transgression. The high priest is obligated only to bring a bull for an error-in-judgment (para ha’elem davar) sacrifice when he accidentally transgresses, as proven above. The law does not follow Rabbi Shimon’s opinion; rather, the high priest brings a sliding scale sacrifice even for impurity in the Temple and of its contents.
2.7.7
Rabbi Eliezer says: the ruler brings a goat – For impurity in the Temple and of its contents, because wilful transgression of these is liable for “karet.” Just as the ruler brings a goat for transgression of other commandments for which the punishment is “karet.” The law does not follow Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion because there is no obligation to bring a sin-offering for accidental transgression of impurity in the Temple and the ruler brings a sacrifice in the same way as an individual.
3.1.1
If an anointed priest transgressed and afterwards relinquished his priesthood - And he was unable to bring his offering until after he had already relinquished his priesthood.
3.1.2
The anointed priest brings a bull offering - And even if he transgressed after he relinquished his priesthood, we say later on in our Mishna that he brings a bull offering. We only mention [the offering of an anointed priest] because we needed to teach that a ruler brings a he-goat when he transgresses before he relinquishes [his rulership], therefore we also teach [/mention] that an anointed priest brings a bull offering.
3.1.3
And the ruler brings a he-goat. As it says (Leviticus 4:3) "for the sin that he transgressed," which teaches us that he brings a sin offering in accordance with his obligation at the time of his sin.

Sefaria Community Translation. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: https://www.sefaria.org Licence: CC0. Source.