json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Horayot/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Horayot",
    "versionSource": "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1",
    "versionTitle": "William Davidson Edition - English",
    "status": "locked",
    "priority": 2.0,
    "license": "CC-BY-NC",
    "versionNotes": "English from The William Davidson digital edition of the <a href='https://www.korenpub.com/koren_en_usd/koren/talmud/koren-talmud-bavli-no.html'>Koren Noé Talmud</a>, with commentary by <a href='/adin-even-israel-steinsaltz'>Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz</a>",
    "shortVersionTitle": "Koren - Steinsaltz",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה הוריות",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Nezikin"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "If <b>a court</b> erroneously <b>issued a ruling</b> permitting the Jewish people <b>to violate one of all the mitzvot that are stated in the Torah, and an individual proceeded and performed</b> that transgression <b>unwittingly on the basis of</b> the court’s ruling, then <b>whether</b> the judges <b>performed</b> the transgression <b>and he performed</b> it <b>with them,</b> or <b>whether</b> the judges <b>performed</b> the transgression <b>and he performed</b> it <b>after them,</b> or <b>whether</b> the judges <b>did not perform</b> the transgression <b>and he performed</b> it alone, in all these cases the individual is <b>exempt</b> from bringing an offering. This is <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that he associated</b> his action <b>with</b> the ruling of the <b>court.</b> If the <b>court issued a ruling and one of</b> the judges <b>knew that they erred,</b> despite the fact that the majority ruled against his opinion, <b>or</b> if he was <b>a student and he</b> was <b>qualified to issue</b> halakhic <b>rulings, and</b> that judge or student <b>proceeded and performed</b> that transgression <b>on the basis of its</b> ruling, then <b>whether</b> the judges <b>performed</b> the transgression <b>and he performed</b> it <b>with them,</b> or <b>whether</b> the judges <b>performed</b> the transgression <b>and he performed</b> it <b>after them,</b> or <b>whether</b> the judges <b>did not perform</b> the transgression <b>and he performed</b> it alone, in all these cases, the judge or the student <b>is liable</b> to bring an offering. This is <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that he did not associate</b> his action <b>with</b> the ruling of the <b>court. This is the principle: One who associates</b> his action <b>with himself</b> is <b>liable, and one who associates</b> his action <b>with</b> the ruling of the <b>court</b> is <b>exempt.</b>",
            "In a case where the judges of the <b>court issued</b> an erroneous <b>ruling and they discovered that they erred and reversed their</b> decision, <b>whether they brought their atonement</b> offering for their erroneous ruling <b>or whether they did not bring their atonement</b> offering, <b>and</b> an individual who was unaware of the new ruling <b>proceeded and performed</b> a transgression <b>on the basis of their</b> first ruling, <b>Rabbi Shimon deems</b> him <b>exempt</b> from bringing an offering, <b>and Rabbi Elazar says:</b> There is <b>uncertainty</b> with regard to his status and he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering. <b>Which is</b> the case of <b>uncertainty</b> for which one is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering? If one <b>sat inside his house</b> and performed the transgression he is <b>liable</b> to bring a provisional guilt-offering, as he could have learned of the change in the court’s ruling. If he <b>went to a country overseas</b> and is relying on the initial ruling, he is <b>exempt.</b> <b>Rabbi Akiva said: I concede in that</b> case of one who went overseas <b>that he is closer to exemption than</b> he is to <b>liability. Ben Azzai said to him:</b> In <b>what</b> way <b>is this</b> person who went overseas <b>different from one who sits in his house?</b> Rabbi Akiva said to him: The difference is <b>that</b> with regard to <b>one who sits in his house it would have been possible for him to hear</b> of the court’s reversal, <b>but</b> with regard to <b>that</b> person who went overseas, <b>it would not have been possible for him to hear</b> of the court’s reversal.",
            "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 <b>court issued</b> an erroneous <b>ruling to abolish the entire essence</b> of a mitzva, not only a detail thereof, e.g., <b>they said: There is no</b> prohibition against engaging in intercourse with <b>a menstruating woman</b> written <b>in the Torah,</b> or <b>there is no</b> prohibition against performing prohibited labor on <b>Shabbat</b> written <b>in the Torah,</b> or <b>there is no</b> prohibition against engaging in <b>idol worship</b> written <b>in the Torah, these</b> judges <b>are exempt,</b> as this is an error based on ignorance, not an erroneous ruling. If the judges <b>issued a ruling to nullify part</b> of a mitzva <b>and to sustain part</b> of that mitzva, <b>these</b> judges <b>are liable.</b> <b>How</b> so? An example of this is if the judges <b>said: There is</b> a prohibition against engaging in intercourse with <b>a menstruating woman</b> written <b>in the Torah, but one who engages in intercourse with</b> a woman <b>who observes</b> a clean <b>day for a day</b> she experiences a discharge is <b>exempt.</b> 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: <b>There is</b> a prohibition against performing prohibited labor on <b>Shabbat</b> written <b>in the Torah, but one who carries out</b> objects <b>from the private domain to the public domain</b> is <b>exempt.</b> Another example is if they said: <b>There is</b> a prohibition against engaging in <b>idol worship</b> written <b>in the Torah, but one who bows</b> to the idol but does not sacrifice an offering is <b>exempt.</b> In all of these cases, <b>these</b> judges <b>are liable, as it is stated: “And the matter is hidden”</b> (Leviticus 4:13), from which it is derived that there is liability only if <b>a matter,</b> a single detail, is hidden, <b>but not</b> if <b>the entire essence</b> of a mitzva is hidden.",
            "If the <b>court issued a ruling, and one of</b> the judges <b>knew that they erred and he said to them: You are mistaken; or if the most distinguished [<i>mufla</i>]</b> member <b>of the court was not there</b> for that session of the Sanhedrin, <b>or if one of</b> the judges <b>was</b> disqualified from serving as a judge, e.g., because he was <b>a convert, or a child born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [<i>mamzer</i>], or a Gibeonite, or an old man no</b> longer <b>able to</b> father <b>children, this</b> court <b>is exempt,</b> because they have not rendered a full-fledged ruling. This is derived by means of a verbal analogy, <b>as “assembly” is stated here</b> with regard to a court that issues an erroneous ruling: “And if the entire assembly of Israel shall act unwittingly” (Leviticus 4:13), <b>and “assembly” is stated there</b> with regard to the <i>halakha</i> of one who commits murder unwittingly: “And the assembly shall judge between the one who struck and the blood redeemer” (Numbers 35:24). <b>Just as</b> in the <b>“assembly” stated there,</b> with regard to the unwitting murderer, <b>all</b> the judges must be <b>fit to issue rulings, so too,</b> in the <b>“assembly” stated here,</b> with regard to the court that issued an erroneous ruling; the court will not be liable <b>unless all</b> the judges <b>will be fit to issue rulings.</b> If the judges of the <b>court issued</b> an erroneous <b>ruling unwittingly and the entire congregation performed</b> a transgression <b>unwittingly</b> on the basis of their ruling, the court <b>brings a bull,</b> as it is stated in the Torah with regard to an unwitting communal sin-offering. If the court issued the erroneous ruling <b>intentionally,</b> as they knew that their ruling was incorrect, <b>and</b> the congregation <b>performed</b> a transgression <b>unwittingly</b> on the basis of the ruling of the court, each member of the congregation <b>brings a female lamb or a female goat</b> as an individual sin-offering. If the court issued the erroneous ruling <b>unwittingly and</b> the congregation <b>performed</b> a transgression <b>intentionally,</b> i.e., with the knowledge that the ruling of the court was erroneous, <b>these</b> people <b>are exempt</b> from bringing an offering.",
            "If the judges of <b>the court issued</b> an erroneous <b>ruling and the entire congregation or a majority thereof performed</b> a transgression <b>on the basis of their</b> ruling, the judges <b>bring a bull</b> as an unwitting communal sin-offering. <b>And</b> if the erroneous ruling <b>involved idol worship,</b> the judges <b>bring a bull and a goat,</b> as it is written in the Torah (see Numbers 15:24); this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> It is not the court that brings the offering, it is the people. <b>Twelve tribes,</b> each of which performed a transgression, <b>bring twelve bulls,</b> i.e., each tribe brings one, <b>and for idol worship they bring twelve bulls and twelve goats,</b> as each tribe is a congregation. <b>Rabbi Shimon says:</b> They bring <b>thirteen bulls; and for idol worship</b> they bring <b>thirteen bulls and thirteen goats, a bull and a goat for each and every tribe and a bull and a goat for</b> the <b>court.</b> The mishna continues: If the judges of the <b>court issued a ruling, and</b> at least <b>seven tribes, or a majority of</b> each of those tribes, <b>performed</b> a transgression <b>on the basis of their</b> ruling, the judges <b>bring a bull; and for idol worship they bring a bull and a goat.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> The <b>seven tribes that sinned bring seven bulls,</b> i.e., each tribe brings one bull, <b>and</b> each of <b>the rest of the tribes,</b> i.e., those <b>that did not sin, brings</b> one <b>bull on the basis of</b> the sin of the other tribes, <b>as even those who did not sin bring</b> an offering <b>on the basis of</b> the actions of the <b>sinners. Rabbi Shimon says:</b> When seven tribes sin <b>eight bulls</b> are brought as offerings, one bull for each and every tribe and one bull for the court. <b>And for idol worship, eight bulls and eight goats</b> are brought, one <b>bull and</b> one <b>goat for each and every tribe</b> and one <b>bull and</b> one <b>goat for</b> the <b>court.</b> If the <b>court of one of the tribes issued a ruling and</b> the majority of <b>that tribe performed</b> a transgression <b>on the basis of its</b> ruling, <b>that tribe is liable</b> to bring an offering <b>and the rest of all the tribes</b> are <b>exempt;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: One is liable</b> to bring an offering for an unwitting communal sin <b>only for rulings of the High Court alone, as it is stated: “And if the entire assembly of Israel shall act unwittingly”</b> (Leviticus 4:13), from which it is derived that there is liability only for a ruling of the assembly, i.e., the court, of the entire people, <b>but not</b> for a ruling of <b>the assembly of that</b> particular <b>tribe.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "In a case where <b>an anointed priest,</b> i.e., the High Priest, <b>issued</b> an erroneous <b>ruling for himself</b> permitting performance of an action prohibited by Torah law, if he issued the ruling <b>unwittingly and</b> then <b>unwittingly performed</b> the transgression in accordance with his ruling, he is liable to <b>bring a bull</b> as a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression by the anointed priest. If he issued the ruling <b>unwittingly, and performed</b> the transgression <b>intentionally,</b> or if he issued the ruling <b>intentionally and performed</b> the transgression <b>unwittingly,</b> he is <b>exempt</b> from liability to bring any offering, <b>as</b> there is a principle: The legal status of <b>the ruling of an anointed priest for himself is like</b> that of <b>the ruling of the court for the</b> general <b>public.</b> Therefore, the High Priest is liable to bring the bull as a sin-offering for his unwitting transgression in a case when the court would be liable to bring the bull as a communal sin-offering for an unwitting transgression performed by the general public.",
            "If the anointed priest <b>issued a ruling by himself and performed</b> a transgression <b>by himself, he achieves atonement by himself</b> by bringing a bull as his sin-offering. If <b>he issued a ruling with the</b> general <b>public,</b> i.e., the Sanhedrin, <b>and performed</b> a transgression <b>with the</b> general <b>public,</b> i.e., the Jewish people, <b>he achieves atonement with the</b> general <b>public. As, the court is not liable unless</b> the judges <b>issue a ruling to nullify part</b> of a commandment <b>and to sustain part</b> of that commandment, <b>and likewise</b> with regard to the ruling of <b>the anointed</b> priest. <b>And</b> the court and the priest are <b>not</b> liable for a ruling <b>with regard to idol worship unless they issue a ruling to nullify part</b> of that commandment <b>and to sustain part</b> of it.",
            "<b>The court is liable only for absence</b> of awareness <b>of</b> the <b>matter,</b> leading to an erroneous ruling, together <b>with unwitting</b> performance <b>of the action</b> by the general public on the basis of that ruling. <b>And likewise, the anointed</b> priest is liable only for an erroneous ruling and his unwitting performance of an action on the basis of that ruling. <b>And</b> the court and the priest are liable for a ruling <b>with regard to idol worship only for absence</b> of awareness <b>of the matter,</b> leading to an erroneous ruling, together <b>with unwitting</b> performance <b>of the action</b> on the basis of that ruling. <b>The court is not liable</b> to bring an offering for absence of awareness of the matter <b>unless they issue a ruling with regard to a matter</b> for <b>whose intentional</b> violation one is liable to receive <b><i>karet</i> and</b> for <b>whose unwitting</b> violation one is liable to bring <b>a sin-offering. And likewise the anointed priest</b> is liable only for such a ruling. <b>Neither</b> is the court liable to bring a sin-offering <b>for idol worship unless</b> the judges <b>issue a ruling with regard to a matter</b> for <b>whose intentional</b> violation one is liable to receive <b><i>karet</i>, and</b> for <b>whose unwitting</b> violation one is liable to bring <b>a sin-offering.</b>",
            "The court is <b>not liable</b> to bring a bull as an unwitting communal sin-offering for issuing a ruling with regard <b>to a positive</b> mitzva <b>or a prohibition related to</b> the defiling of <b>the Temple</b> by one being there while ritually impure, or the defiling of its sacrificial foods by one partaking of them while ritually impure. There is a positive mitzva to remove impure people from the Temple, and there is a prohibition against entering the Temple while in a state of ritual impurity. <b>And one does not bring a provisional guilt-offering for a positive</b> mitzva <b>or a prohibition related to</b> the defiling of <b>the Temple</b> or its sacrificial foods. <b>But</b> the court <b>is liable</b> to bring a bull <b>for a positive</b> mitzva <b>or</b> for <b>a prohibition that is related to a menstruating woman, and one brings a provisional guilt-offering for a positive</b> mitzva <b>or</b> for <b>a prohibition that is related to a menstruating woman. What is</b> the <b>positive mitzva that is related to a menstruating woman? Distance</b> yourself <b>from the menstruating woman.</b> If a man engages in intercourse with a woman and she begins menstruating, he is required to separate from her. <b>And what is the prohibition? Do not engage in intercourse with</b> a woman whom you know is <b>a menstruating woman.</b>",
            "The court <b>is not liable for</b> issuing a ruling with regard to <b>hearing of a voice,</b> i.e., a false oath of testimony taken by a witness who refuses to testify on behalf of a litigant who demands that he testify, <b>or for an utterance of the lips,</b> i.e., a false oath stated about some matter, <b>or for the defiling of</b> the <b>Temple or its sacrificial</b> foods. <b>And the</b> status of the <b>king is like</b> that of the court, and he is exempt from bringing an offering in those cases; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: The king is liable in all of</b> those cases <b>except for</b> the case of <b>hearing of a voice,</b> and even in that case, his exemption is not intrinsic to the mitzva. Rather, it is for technical reasons, <b>as the king neither judges</b> others <b>nor</b> do others <b>judge him; he does not testify nor</b> do others <b>testify against him.</b> Therefore, a demand that he testify is not applicable.",
            "In summation: <b>For all mitzvot that are in the Torah for whose intentional</b> violation one is <b>liable</b> to receive <b><i>karet</i> and for whose unwitting</b> violation one is liable to bring <b>a sin-offering, the individual brings a ewe or female goat</b> for their unwitting transgression, <b>and the king</b> brings <b>a male goat</b> for their unwitting transgression, <b>and an anointed</b> priest <b>and a court</b> who issued an erroneous ruling <b>bring a bull. And for</b> unwittingly engaging in <b>idol worship, the individual, and the king, and the anointed</b> priest <b>bring a female goat, and the court</b> brings <b>a bull and a goat: A bull for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering.</b>",
            "With regard to <b>a provisional guilt-offering, the individual and the king are liable, and an anointed</b> priest <b>and a court are exempt.</b> With regard to <b>a definite guilt-offering, the individual, the king, and the anointed</b> priest <b>are liable, and a court is exempt.</b> <b>For hearing of a voice,</b> i.e., a false oath of testimony, <b>and for</b> a false oath on <b>an utterance of the lips, and for the defiling of</b> the <b>Temple or its sacrificial</b> foods, <b>a court is exempt, and the individual, the king, and the anointed</b> priest <b>are liable. But an anointed High Priest</b> is <b>not liable for the defiling of</b> the <b>Temple or its sacrificial</b> foods; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Shimon. And what</b> offering are <b>they</b> liable to <b>bring?</b> It is <b>a sliding-scale offering</b> based on their financial circumstances, as delineated in the Torah (see Leviticus 5:1–13). <b>Rabbi Elazar says: The king brings a goat.</b>"
        ],
        [
            "In the case of <b>an anointed priest who sinned</b> on the basis of his own erroneous halakhic ruling <b>and thereafter moved on from his anointment,</b> e.g., if he was disqualified due to a blemish that befell him before he brought his sin-offering, <b>and likewise</b> in the case of <b>a king [<i>nasi</i>] who sinned and thereafter moved on from his prominence</b> before he had brought an offering, <b>an anointed priest brings a bull</b> despite the fact that he is no longer the High Priest, <b>and the king brings a goat,</b> as he would have done during his reign. ",
            "In the case of <b>an anointed</b> priest <b>who moved on from his anointment and thereafter sinned, and likewise the king who moved on from his prominence and thereafter sinned, an anointed priest brings a bull,</b> which he would have brought while he was High Priest, <b>and the</b> status of the <b>king</b> is <b>like</b> that of <b>a commoner [<i>kehedyot</i>].</b>",
            "If a king or High Priest <b>sinned before they were appointed, and thereafter they were appointed,</b> the status of <b>these</b> people is <b>like</b> that of <b>commoners;</b> they bring the sin-offering of an individual. <b>Rabbi Shimon says: If it became known to them, before they were appointed</b> as king or High Priest, that they had sinned, <b>they are liable</b> to bring the sin-offering of an individual, <b>but</b> if it became known to them <b>after they were appointed</b> as king or High Priest <b>they are</b> completely <b>exempt.</b> <b>Who is</b> the <b><i>nasi</i>? This is a king, as it is stated:</b> “When a <i>nasi</i> sins, and performs any one <b>of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God</b> that shall not be performed, unwittingly, and he is guilty” (Leviticus 4:22), referring to one <b>who has only the Lord his God over him</b> and no other authority. That is only the king. ",
            "<b>And who is the anointed</b> priest? It is the High Priest <b>who is anointed with the anointing oil, not the</b> High Priest consecrated by donning <b>multiple garments,</b> i.e., one who served after the anointing oil had been sequestered, toward the end of the First Temple period. <b>The difference between</b> a High <b>Priest anointed with the anointing oil and</b> one consecrated by donning <b>multiple garments</b> unique to the High Priest <b>is only</b> that the latter does not bring the <b>bull that comes for</b> the transgression of <b>any of the mitzvot.</b> <b>And the difference between</b> a High <b>Priest</b> currently <b>serving</b> in that capacity <b>and a former</b> High <b>Priest</b> who had temporarily filled that position while the High Priest was unfit for service <b>is only</b> with regard to the <b>bull</b> brought by the High Priest on <b>Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah</b> meal-offering brought by the High Priest daily. Each of these offerings is brought only by the current High Priest, and not by a former High Priest. Both <b>this</b> High Priest currently serving <b>and that</b> former High Priest <b>are equal with regard to</b> performing the rest of <b>the Yom Kippur service, and they are</b> both <b>commanded with regard to</b> marrying <b>a virgin</b> (see Leviticus 21:13), <b>and</b> it is <b>prohibited</b> for both <b>to</b> marry <b>a widow</b> (see Leviticus 21:14), <b>and they may not render themselves impure</b> with impurity imparted by a corpse even <b>in</b> the event that one of <b>their relatives</b> dies (see Leviticus 21:11), <b>and they may not grow</b> their hair <b>long and they may not rend</b> their garments as expressions of mourning (see Leviticus 21:10), <b>and</b> when they die <b>they restore the</b> unwitting <b>murderer</b> to his home from the city of refuge (see Numbers 35:25). ",
            "<b>A High Priest rends</b> his garments <b>from below</b> when he is in mourning, <b>and an ordinary</b> priest rends his garments <b>from above</b> like a non-priest. <b>A High Priest sacrifices</b> offerings as <b>an acute mourner,</b> i.e., on the day of the death of one of his close relatives, <b>but he may not eat</b> from those offerings. <b>And an ordinary</b> priest who is an acute mourner <b>neither sacrifices</b> offerings <b>nor eats</b> from those offerings.",
            "<b>Any</b> mitzva <b>that is</b> more <b>frequent than another</b> mitzva <b>precedes</b> that <b>other</b> mitzva if the opportunity to fulfill one of them coincides with an opportunity to fulfill the other. <b>And anyone who is</b> more <b>sanctified than another precedes</b> that <b>other</b> person. If <b>the bull of the anointed</b> priest <b>and the bull of the congregation,</b> which are brought for absence of awareness of the matter, <b>are pending, the bull of the anointed priest precedes the bull of the congregation in all its actions,</b> i.e., its sacrificial rites.",
            "<b>The man precedes the woman</b> when there is uncertainty with regard to which of them <b>to rescue or to return a lost item</b> to first. <b>And the woman precedes the man</b> with regard to which of them <b>to</b> provide with <b>a garment</b> first, because her humiliation is great, <b>or to release from captivity</b> first, due to the concern that she will be raped. <b>When they are both subject to degradation,</b> i.e., there is also concern that the man will be raped in captivity, the release of <b>the man precedes</b> the release of <b>the woman.</b>",
            "<b>A priest precedes a Levite. A Levite</b> precedes <b>an Israelite. An Israelite</b> precedes <b>a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [<i>mamzer</i>], and a <i>mamzer</i></b> precedes <b>a Gibeonite, and a Gibeonite</b> precedes <b>a convert, and a convert</b> precedes <b>an emancipated slave. When</b> do these <i>halakhot</i> of precedence take effect? In circumstances <b>when they are all equal</b> in terms of wisdom. <b>But if there were a <i>mamzer</i></b> who is <b>a Torah scholar and a High Priest</b> who is <b>an ignoramus, a <i>mamzer</i></b> who is <b>a Torah scholar precedes a High Priest</b> who is <b>an ignoramus,</b> as Torah wisdom surpasses all else."
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}