Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Horayoth

Folio 8a

'And both also agree that he does not bring an asham talui'. Whence is this deduced? — From the Scriptural text. And the priest shall make atonement for him concerning the error which he committed.¹  Rabbi is of the opinion [that only] he whose 'sin'²  depends entirely on error in action³  [brings such a guilt offering]; a High Priest, however,⁴  whose sin⁵  does not [invariably] depend entirely on error in action alone but also on ignorance of the law, is excluded. Is it, then, written 'entirely'?⁵  — [Virtually] Yes; for otherwise⁶  it should have been written, 'Concerning his error'; what need was there for which he committed! Its object, consequently, must be, to teach us that [there is no obligation] unless all one's sin⁷  is dependent on error in action.⁸  And the Rabbis?⁹  — Only he whose sin⁷  depends on error in action alone [is liable]; an anointed High Priest, however, is excluded since his sin⁷  does not depend on error in action alone, either in idolatry or in the other commandments, but on ignorance of the law together with error in action.

MISHNAH. THE COURT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION¹⁰  UNLESS THEY RULED CONCERNING A PROHIBITION¹¹  THE PUNISHMENT FOR WHICH IS KARETH,¹²  IF IT WAS TRANSGRESSED WILFULLY, AND A SIN OFFERING IF TRANSGRESSED UNWITTINGLY; AND SO [IT IS WITH] THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST. NOR [ARE THEY LIABLE] IN RESPECT OF IDOLATRY UNLESS THEY RULED CONCERNING A MATTER THE PUNISHMENT FOR WHICH IS KARETH, IF IT WAS COMMITTED WILFULLY, AND A SIN OFFERING IF COMMITTED UNWITTINGLY.

GEMARA. Whence is this deduced? — From the following.¹³  Rabbi said: Here¹⁴  it is stated 'aleha,¹⁵  and further on¹⁶  it is stated 'aleha;¹⁷  as further on¹⁶  the prohibition involves the penalty of kareth,¹⁸  if it was transgressed wilfully, and that of a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, so¹⁴  here also, [the ruling must be concerning] a prohibition which involves the penalty of kareth, if it was transgressed wilfully and that of a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly.

Proof has thus been found for the case of the congregation, whence that of the anointed High Priest? — So as to bring guilt upon the people¹⁹  shows²⁰  that the anointed High Priest is like the congregation.

As to a ruler? — The inference is made by a comparison of 'commandments';²¹  with 'commandments' in respect to a ruler it is written, And doeth [through error] any one of all the commandments which the Lord,²²  and in respect of the congregation it is written, And do any of the commandments,²³  as the [obligation of the] congregation relates to a prohibition involving kareth, if it was transgressed wilfully, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, so also the obligation of a ruler relates to a prohibition involving kareth, if it was transgressed wilfully, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly.

As to an ordinary individual? — Scripture states, And if any one,²⁴  and the latter is inferred from the former.²⁵

NOR [ARE THEY LIABLE] IN RESPECT OF IDOLATRY UNLESS THEY RULED etc. Whence [is this law deduced] in regard to idolatry? — [From] what our Rabbis taught: From the fact that idolatry was singled out²⁶  it might have been assumed that, [in regard to it] obligation is incurred even in respect of a prohibition which does not involve kareth when it was transgressed wilfully and a sin offering when transgressed unwittingly,²⁷  hence it was stated here, From the eyes²⁸  and elsewhere it was stated, From the eyes.²⁹  as there obligation is incurred only in respect of a prohibition involving kareth when it was transgressed wilfully and a sin offering when transgressed unwittingly, so here also obligation is incurred only in respect of a prohibition involving kareth when it was transgressed wilfully and a sin offering when transgressed unwittingly.

Proof has thus been found for the case of the congregation. whence that of an ordinary individual, a ruler or an anointed High Priest? — Scripture stated, And if one person.³⁰  [which implies that] there is no distinction between a private individual, a ruler, or an anointed High Priest. All of then, are included in the general expression of one person, and the latter may be deduced from the former.³¹

[This explanation] is satisfactory in accordance with the view of him who employed³²  the expression of 'aleha for an analogical purpose, as stated above; whence, however, do the Rabbis, who employed 'aleha in connection with the laws of incest and rival wives,³³  deduce that obligation is incurred only where the prohibition involves kareth when it was transgressed wilfully, and a sin offering when transgressed unwittingly? — They deduce it from that which R. Joshua b. Levi taught his son: Ye shall have one law for him that doeth aught in error. But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand etc.,³⁴  all the commandments of the Torah were compared to the prohibition of idolatry;³⁵  as in regard to idolatry obligation is incurred only where the offence involves the punishment of kareth when it was committed wilfully, and a sin offering when committed unwittingly, so also here obligation is incurred only where the offence involves kareth when committed wilfully and a sin offering when committed unwittingly.

Proof has thus been found³⁶  for the case of a private individual, a ruler and an anointed High Priest both in regard to idolatry and the rest of the commandments; whence, however, [is it proved that the same applies to the] congregation? The former³⁷  is deduced from the latter.³⁸

As to Rabbi,³⁹  what does he do with R. Joshua b. Levi's text? He applies it to the following:⁴⁰  Since we find that Scripture made a distinction⁴¹  between a majority and individuals, a majority being punished by the sword and their money destroyed⁴²  while individuals are punished by stoning and their money is spared.⁴³  it might have been assumed that a distinction should also he made in respect of their sacrifices,⁴⁴  hence⁴⁵  it was expressly stated, Ye shall have one law etc.⁴⁶

R. Hilkiah of Hagronia⁴⁷  demurred: is the reason⁴⁸  because Scripture did not differentiate in this respect, but had it differentiated it would have been suggested that a distinction should be made [in respect of their sacrifices]? What, however, could they⁴⁹  bring! Should they bring a bullock? The congregation, surely, brings a bullock for the infringement of any of the other commandments!⁵⁰  Should they bring a bullock for a burnt offering and a goat for a sin offering? The congregation, surely, brings such offerings in respect of idolatry!⁵¹  Should they bring a goat? A ruler, surely, brings such an offering in the case of his transgression of any of the other commandments!⁵¹  Should they bring a goat? This, Surely, is also the sacrifice of an individual!⁵¹  — It⁵²  is required; because it might have been suggested that whereas the congregation brings a bullock for a burnt offering and a goat for a sin offering, these⁵³  should reverse the procedure and bring a bullock for a sin offering and a goat for a burnt offering. Or [the meaning⁵⁴  may be]; It might have been assumed to be necessary⁵⁵  and that consequently there is no remedy for them,⁵⁶  hence it was taught [that there was no such necessity].⁵⁵

All,⁵⁷  at any rate, agree that if these verses were written [for any purpose at all] they were written for that of idolatry; but what is the proof? Raba, (others say R. Joshua b. Levi, and again others say, Kadi), replied: Scripture says; And when ye shall err, and not observe all these commandments.⁵⁸  Now, which is the commandment that is as weighty as all other commandments? Surely⁵⁹  it is that concerning idolatry.

The School of Rabbi⁶⁰  taught; Scripture Says, Which the Lord hath spoken unto Moses,⁶¹  and it is also written That the Lord hath commanded you by the hand of Moses.⁶²  Now, which is the commandment that was given in the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, and also by the hand of Moses? Surely⁶³  it is that of idolatry; for R. Ishmael recited; [The words] I⁶⁴  and Thou shalt not have⁶⁵  were heard⁶⁶  from the mouth of Omnipotence.⁶⁷

The School of R. Ishmael taught:

1. Lev. V, 18, dealing with the laws of asham talui.
2. Making him liable to a sin offering.
3. Lit., 'all his sin in error'.
4. Lit., 'this'.
5. Lit., 'all'.
6. Lit., 'if so', i.e., if 'entirely' was not implied.
7. V. p. 50, n. 15.
8. Cur. edd. insert in parenthesis: 'An anointed High Priest is excluded, all whose sin is not in error but in idolatry, not in the rest of the commandments, where it must be through ignorance of the law together with error in action'.
9. Why do they exempt a High Priest from the asham talui?
10. To bring the sin offering prescribed in Lev. IV, 13ff.
11. Lit., 'a thing', 'matter'.
12. V. Glos.
13. Lit., 'for it was taught'.
14. Concerning an erroneous ruling.
15. [H] Lev. IV, 14. (E.V. 'wherein'.)
16. Concerning the marriage of two sisters.
17. Ibid. XVIII, 18. (E.V. 'to her')
18. V. Ibid. 29.
19. Ibid. IV, 3.
20. Lit., 'behold'.
21. [H] 'commandments'.
22. Lev. IV, 22.
23. Ibid. 13.
24. Ibid. 27. dealing with one of the common people.
25. Yeb. 9a. Lit., 'lower from the upper', the case of the individual (Lev. IV. 27ff) is deduced from that of ruler (ibid. v. 22ff). [The inference is from the copulative particle. waw', 'and' (Rashi. Yeb. 9a).]
26. V. supra p. 48, notes 6 and 7.
27. When the idol, e.g., was only kissed or embraced.
28. Num. XV, 24, dealing with idolatry.
29. Lev. IV, 13, with reference to other commandments.
30. Num. XV, 27.
31. Cf. supra p. 52, n. 7. 'One person' (in Num. XV, 27) which includes a private individual, ruler and High Priest is deduced from the law relating to the congregation (ibid. 24).
32. I.e., Rabbi.
33. V. Yeb. 3b. [Read with MS.M. 'to prohibit the rivals if the forbidden relatives'.]
34. Num. XV, 29-30.
35. The text quoted refers to idolatry (v. infra), and in it the expression of law or Torah is mentioned.
36. By deduction from 'person' (Num. XV. 27) which includes persons of all ranks and the analogy, supra, in Num. XV. 29-30.
37. Num. XV, 22, 'and when ye shall err', which refers to the congregation. v. ibid. 24.
38. Ibid. 27, 'and if one person'.
39. Who derives this latter ruling from the similarity of expressions — 'aleah.
40. Lit., 'as it was taught'.
41. Where the offence was committed wilfully.
42. In the case of a town 'condemned for idolatry'. V. Deut. XIII, 13ff.
43. V. ibid. XVII, 21f.
44. If the sin was committed unwittingly.
45. To show that where an entire town committed idolatry (v. Deut. XIII, 13ff) unwittingly they only bring the same sacrifices as individuals.
46. Yeb. 911.
47. [A suburb of Nebardea; Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonean, p. 265.]
48. Why there is no differentiation between the sacrifices of a majority and those of individuals. V. supra.
49. The inhabitants of the 'condemned town'. (V. supra notes 5 and 6).
50. If a distinction must be made between the sin offerings of a 'condemned town' and those of individuals, how-much more should such a distinction be made between the sin offerings of such a town and those which the congregation — which must consist of at least one tribe (v. supra 3a) and which consequently is never subject to the laws of a 'condemned town' (v. Sanh. 2a) brings for the transgression of any of the other commandments!
51. And consequently if a distinction is to be made, these could not be offerings of a condemned town.
52. The Scriptural text of Num. XV. 29.
53. The inhabitants of a condemned town.
54. Of the citation supra from Yeb. 9a.
55. For the inhabitants of a 'condemned town' to bring a special sin offering.
56. If the sin was committed unwittingly; since an offering all peculiar to themselves is an impossibility.
57. Lit., 'that all the world'.
58. Num. XV, 22, emphasis on all.
59. Lit.,'be saying'.
60. Bomberg Ed., 'R. Ishmael'.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid. 23.
63. Lit., 'be saying'.
64. The first word of the first commandment, 'I am the Lord etc.' Ex. XX, 2.
65. First words of the second commandment. Ibid. 3.
66. Lit., 'we heard them'.
67. The Almighty. Mak. 24a. The commandment was repeated by Mosei in many passages of the Pentateuch. [The other commandments, according to R. Ishmael, the people received from Moses only. This is another way of saying that the Revelation at Sinai that enabled Israel to apprehend in a unique manner the Divine was limited, as far as the people themselves were concerned, to God's special dealings with Israel and to His Oneness as proclaimed in the first two commandments; the others the people accepted on trust at the hands of Moses whose divine mission they bad seen confirmed before their eyes.]

MISHNAH. [THE COURT] ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION [TO BRING A SIN OFFERING] FOR THE TRANSGRESSION⁸  OF A POSITIVE OR A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT RELATING TO THE SANCTUARY; NOR [DOES ANYONE]⁹  BRING AN ASHAMTALUI¹⁰  FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF A POSITIVE OR A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT RELATING TO THE SANCTUARY. THEY¹¹  ARE LIABLE, HOWEVER,¹²  FOR THE TRANSGRESSION¹³  OF A POSITIVE, OR A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT RELATING TO THE MENSTRUANT; AND [ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS] BRING AN ASHAM TALUI FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT RELATING TO THE MENSTRUANT. WHICH IS THE POSITIVE COMMANDMENT CONCERNING THE MENSTRUANT? [THE COMMANDMENT]. SEPARATE THYSELF FROM THE MENSTRUANT.¹⁴  AND THE NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT? — DO NOT COME IN UNTO THE MENSTRUANT.¹⁵

GEMARA. Whence is it deduced¹⁶  that elsewhere¹⁷  the congregation is not liable to bring a sacrifice and that an individual also is not liable to bring an asham talui?¹⁸  — R. Isaac b. Abdimi replied: Scripture said, And he is guilty in connection with a sin offering¹⁹  and an asham talui,²⁰  and it also said, And they are guilty in connection with the congregation;²¹  as [the phrase] 'and he is guilty' in connection with an individual refers to the fixed sin offering²²  So And are guilty, said in connection with the congregation, also refers to the fixed sin offering, and, furthermore, as the congregation brings only the fixed sin offering, so is the asham talui²³  brought only in the case of doubt in respect of one's liability to the fixed sin offering.²⁴  If so, the same law should also apply to a sliding scale sacrifice,²⁵  for Surely it is written, And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things?²⁶  — Deduction may be made from the analogy between 'is guilty' and 'are guilty', but no deduction may be made from an analogy between 'is guilty' and 'he shall be guilty'.

But what is the difference? The School of R. Ishmael taught. [with reference to the expressions.] The priest shall return²⁷  and The priest shall come²⁸  that 'returning' and 'coming' mean the same thing!²⁹  Furthermore, let deduction be made from And he is guilty, said in connection with uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things; for it is written, And [it being hidden from him that] he is unclean and he is guilty!³⁰  — R. Papa replied: An analogy is drawn only between the expressions. And he is guilty, and, The commandments of the Lord [on the one hand],³¹  and the expressions. And are guilty, and, The commandments of the Lord³²  [on the other].³³

Said R. Shimi b. Ashi to R. Papa; Then let deduction be made from the analogy between, 'And he is guilty, and, Bearing of iniquity³⁴  [used in reference to the asham talui] and he is guilty, and, Bearing of iniquity³⁵  [that occur in connection with sliding scale sacrifices]! — But, said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Deduction is made from analogy between 'he is guilty', and The thinks which the Lord hath commanded not to be done³⁶  [used in reference to asham talui] and 'they are guilty' and 'The things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done³⁷  [that' occur in connection with the congregational sin offering];³⁸  no proof, however, may be adduced from, The hearing of the voice,³⁹  Swearing clearly with the lips,⁴⁰  and uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things,⁴¹  concerning 'which it has not been said, 'he is guilty' and 'The thinks which the Lord hath commanded not to be done'.

MISHNAH. [THE COURT] ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION [TO BRING AN OFFERING] FOR [AN ERRONEOUS RULING RELATING TO] THE HEARING OF THE VOICE [OF ADJURATION].⁴²  FOR SWEARING CLEARLY WITH THE LIPS⁴³  AND FOR UNCLEANNESS RELATING TO THE SANCTUARY AND ITS CONSECRATED THINGS;⁴⁴  AND THE RULER IS SIMILARLY [EXEMPT]; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JOSE THE GALILEAN. R. AKIBA SAID; THE RULER IS LIABLE⁴⁵  IN THE CASE OF ALL THESE EXCEPT THAT OF HEARING OF THE VOICE [OF ADJURATION], BECAUSE THE KING⁴⁶  MAY NEITHER JUDGE NOR BE JUDGED, NEITHER MAY HE GIVE EVIDENCE NOR MAY EVIDENCE BE TENDERED AGAINST HIM.⁴⁷

GEMARA. 'Ulla said: What is the reason of R. Jose the Galilean? — Scripture said, And it shall be when he shall be guilty in one of these things;⁴⁸  whoever is subject to liability for every one of these is liable for any of them, and whosoever is not subject to liability for every one of these is not liable for any of them.⁴⁹

Might not this⁵⁰  be suggested to imply that liability is incurred for one⁵¹  even where a person is not subject to liability for all!⁵²  — But the following is the source from which⁵³  R. Jose the Galilean derives his reason. It was taught: R. Jeremiah⁵⁴  used to say, it was stated in the Scriptures,

1. Num. XV, 23.
2. before any of the other commandments.
3. Lit., 'be saying'.
4. Since it is the first of the Ten Commandments.
5. Sanh. 56b. Marah was reached long before Sinai where the Ten Commandments were given.
6. Cut. edd. insert in parenthesis: For it is written, If thou wilt diligently. hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God (Ex. XV, 26).
7. Either that of Rabbi's school or R. Joshua b. Levi.
8. Through an erroneous timing of theirs (V. Lev. IV. 13).
9. Who in the case of doubtful transgressions has to bring an asham talui.
10. V. Glos.
11. The Court.
12. To bring a sin offering.
13. V. supra, note 6
14. V. Shebu. 18b.
15. V. Lev. XVIII. 19.
16. Lit., 'these words'.
17. I.e., wherever the sin involves a sliding scale sacrifice, the value of which is determined by the sinner's financial position, as in the case of a transgression relating to the sanctuary, v. Shebu. 2a.
18. For transgressing a positive or negative precept relating to the Sanctuary.
19. Lev. IV, 27, dealing with the sin offering of an individual.
20. Ibid. V. 17.
21. Ibid. IV, 13.
22. [H]
23. Of an individual.
24. But not in the case of an offering that must be brought for the certain transgression of precepts (positive and negative) relating to the Sanctuary, the value of which varies according to one's means.
25. [H], determined by the means of the offender.
26. Lev. V. 5, dealing with a sliding-scale sacrifice.
27. Lev. XIV, 39.
28. Ibid. 44.
29. Viz. the coming of the priest to the affected house. Now, if a comparison is made between words which resemble each other in their general significance only, how much more should comparison be made between the same verbs that differ in tense only!
30. Lev. V, 2. (Cf. vv. 3 and 4).
31. Ibid. V, 17, used with reference to the asham talui.
32. Ibid. IV. 13. used in reference to the congregation.
33. In the case, however, of uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things these two expressions do not occur.
34. Lev. V, 17.
35. Ibid. vv. 1 and 4.
36. Lev. V, 17.
37. Ibid. IV. 13.
38. As the congregation brings the fixed sin offering only so is an asham talui to be brought in here there is doubt about that kind of sin offering only; but not where the doubt relates to an offering the value of which is not fixed, and varies according to one's means.
39. Of adjuration; Lev. V, I.
40. Lev. V, 4.
41. For the transgressions for which sliding scale sacrifices are prescribed. v. Lev. V, 1-13.
42. V. Lev. V, 1.
43. V. ibid. v. 4.
44. For these transgressions individuals are liable to a sliding scale sacrifice, whereas the court is exempt.
45. To bring the offering.
46. Ruler, v. infra 10a, Mishnah.
47. Sanh. 18a. Since he cannot act as witness the laws of evidence cannot apply to him.
48. Lev. v, 5, dealing with the transgressions enumerated in our Mishnah.
49. Since the former is exempt from one (hearing of the voice) he is also exempt from the others.
50. The text cited from Lev. V, 5.
51. Of the transgressions enumerated.
52. The ruler should, consequently, be liable for the last two transgressions mentioned though he may be exempt from the first.
53. Lit., 'from here'.
54. [A Tanna and contemporary of Rabbi; not to be confused with the Palestine Amora.]