Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

הוריות א׳:ב׳ - א׳:ג׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Thursday, April 3, 2031 is הוריות א׳:ב׳ - א׳:ג׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Horayos Perek 1 Mishnah 2

הוריות פרק א׳ משנה ב׳

2
In a case where the judges of the court issued an erroneous ruling and they discovered that they erred and reversed their decision, whether they brought their atonement offering for their erroneous ruling or whether they did not bring their atonement offering, and an individual who was unaware of the new ruling proceeded and performed a transgression on the basis of their first ruling, Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt from bringing an offering, and Rabbi Elazar says: There is uncertainty with regard to his status and he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering. Which is the case of uncertainty for which one is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering? If one sat inside his house and performed the transgression he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering, as he could have learned of the change in the court’s ruling. If he went to a country overseas and is relying on the initial ruling, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiva said: I concede in that case of one who went overseas that he is closer to exemption than he is to liability. Ben Azzai said to him: In what way is this person who went overseas different from one who sits in his house? Rabbi Akiva said to him: The difference is that with regard to one who sits in his house it would have been possible for him to hear of the court’s reversal, but with regard to that person who went overseas, it would not have been possible for him to hear of the court’s reversal.
הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין, וְיָדְעוּ שֶׁטָּעוּ, וְחָזְרוּ בָהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ כַפָּרָתָן וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאוּ כַפָּרָתָן, וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶן, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, סָפֵק. אֵיזֶהוּ סָפֵק. יָשַׁב לוֹ בְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, חַיָּב. הָלַךְ לוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, פָּטוּר. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מוֹדֶה אֲנִי בָזֶה שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לִפְטוּר מִן הַחוֹבָה. אָמַר לוֹ בֶן עַזַּאי, מַה שָּׁנָה זֶה מִן הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ, שֶׁהַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ אֶפְשָׁר הָיָה לוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע, וְזֶה לֹא הָיָה אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁמָע:
ב׳
ברטנורא

Rabbi Shimon exempts him – Because the ruling had reached the majority of the community.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ר׳ שמעון פוטר. כיון שפשטה הוראתם ברוב צבור:

ור׳ אליעזר אומר ספק. הואיל והיה לו לשאול בכל עת על דברים שנתחדשו בבית דין ולא שאל, הרי זה כמי שנסתפק לו אם חטא אם לא חטא, ומביא אשם תלוי. והלכה כר׳ אליעזר:

איזהו ספק. כלומר במה אומר ר״א שהוא נדון כמי שנסתפק לו אם חטא אם לא חטא וחייב אשם תלוי:

ביושב בביתו. כשהוא יושב בביתו במדינה שהורו בה בית דין, שהיה אפשר שישמע שחזרו בהם בית דין מהוראתם:

אבל הלך לו למדינת הים. ולאו דוקא הלך, אלא החזיק בדרך ללכת אע״פ שעדיין לא הלך, סבירא ליה לר׳ עקיבא שמפני טרדתו לצאת לדרך אינו שואל אם חזרו בהן בית דין, ופטור מאשם תלוי. ובן עזאי סבר, הואיל ועדיין לא הלך היה לו לשאול. ובהכי מוקי לה פלוגתייהו בגמרא. והלכה כר״ע:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Horayos Perek 1 Mishnah 3

הוריות פרק א׳ משנה ג׳

3
The mishna explains for which type of unwitting transgression based on the ruling of the court there is liability to bring an offering. In a case where the judges of the court issued an erroneous ruling to abolish the entire essence of a mitzva, not only a detail thereof, e.g., they said: There is no prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman written in the Torah, or there is no prohibition against performing prohibited labor on Shabbat written in the Torah, or there is no prohibition against engaging in idol worship written in the Torah, these judges are exempt, as this is an error based on ignorance, not an erroneous ruling. If the judges issued a ruling to nullify part of a mitzva and to sustain part of that mitzva, these judges are liable. How so? An example of this is if the judges said: There is a prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman written in the Torah, but one who engages in intercourse with a woman who observes a clean day for a day she experiences a discharge is exempt. When the woman sees a discharge of blood for one or two days during the eleven days between the end of one menstrual period and the expected start of another, the blood is assumed to not be menstrual blood. If after the second day, the next day passes without any discharge of blood, she may immerse immediately and she is ritually pure. The judges ruled erroneously that it is permitted to engage in intercourse with her on the day that she is observing a clean day, even without the day having passed and her having immersed. Another example is if they said: There is a prohibition against performing prohibited labor on Shabbat written in the Torah, but one who carries out objects from the private domain to the public domain is exempt. Another example is if they said: There is a prohibition against engaging in idol worship written in the Torah, but one who bows to the idol but does not sacrifice an offering is exempt. In all of these cases, these judges are liable, as it is stated: “And the matter is hidden” (Leviticus 4:13), from which it is derived that there is liability only if a matter, a single detail, is hidden, but not if the entire essence of a mitzva is hidden.
הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין לַעֲקֹר אֶת כָּל הַגּוּף, אָמְרוּ, אֵין נִדָּה בַתּוֹרָה, אֵין שַׁבָּת בַּתּוֹרָה, אֵין עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בַתּוֹרָה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. הוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵּם מִקְצָת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. כֵּיצַד. אָמְרוּ, יֵשׁ נִדָּה בַתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם פָּטוּר. יֵשׁ שַׁבָּת בַּתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, פָּטוּר. יֵשׁ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בַתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה פָטוּר, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ד) וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר, דָּבָר וְלֹא כָל הַגּוּף:
ג׳
ברטנורא

An entire principle has to be uprooted – The essence of the commandment, as is explained.

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.

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.”

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.

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].

לעקור את כל הגוף. כל עיקרה של מצוה, כדמפרש ואזיל:

הרי אלו פטורים. דכתיב (ויקרא ד׳) ונעלם דבר, קרי ביה ונעלם מדבר, מקצת הדבר ולא כולו:

אבל הבא על שומרת יום כנגד יום פטור. בגמרא פריך דהא שומרת יום כנגד יום בתורה כתיב (שם ט״ו) וספרה לה, מלמד שסופרת אחד כנגד אחד, וכל מידי דכתיב בתורה אין בית דין מביאין עליו קרבן. ומפרש בגמרא כגון דאמרי זבה לא הוי אלא ביממא, כלומר, כשרואה דם ביום ולא כשרואה בלילה, דכתיב (שם) כל ימי זובה:

המוציא מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים פטור. דאמרי הכנסה והוצאה אסורה דכתיב (שמות ט״ז:כ״ט) אל יצא איש ממקומו, זריקה והושטה מותרת:

המשתחוה פטור. דאמרי השתחואה דאית בה פשוט ידים ורגלים אסורה דכתיב (שם ל״ד) לא תשתחוה לאל אחר, ושאין בה פשוט ידים ורגלים מותרת. וכללא דמילתא, אין בית דין חייבין עד שיורו בדבר שאין הצדוקין מודין בו. אבל הורו בדבר שהצדוקין מודין בו, פטורין מקרבן צבור, והרבים העושים על פיהם כל אחד חייב להביא קרבן על שגגתו. מאי טעמא, דזיל קרי בי רב הוא:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר