I was wondering the following:
The first mishnah in Horayos is of the opinion that we say yachid sh'aseh al horaas beis din is patur because they are telui b'beis din. On amud beis and 3a, the gemara says our mishnah is a daas yochid (either R' Yehuda 2b or R' Meir 3a), while the Chachamim say Chiyuv. My question is why do we go like the Rabannan l'halacha. That is, we go like the rabbanan usually because they are a rov. In this, that isn't true. Rabbi Akiva famously had 5 talmidim Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosi, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Elazar after the 24000. In the next mishna in Horayos (3b) we see an extension of the first din, where the question is a person acted on beis din's psak after beis din retracted. Simply learned, all opinions stated agree though on the first mishna that normally one is patur, just here it is question what the din is. Who goes like the shita of the first mishnah? So Rabbi Akiva (1) who goes like Rabbi Shimon (2) at least partially that you are patur on a case of medinas hayam. Unlike R' Elazar (3) that you bring an asham taluy. In the Gemara we also see Rabbi Meir (4) says you are chiyuv (unlike his ruling on the first mishna). Not to mention, Rabbi Yehuda (5) who is m'stama the shita of our first mishnah. The only one standing perhaps against is R' Yose, who therefore (if he is like the Rabannan) a daas yochid. So why isn't the halacha yachid sh'aseh al horaas beis din is patur?
Thanks for the time to answer!
Avraham Serbin, Far Rockaway, NY
1. The key here is that it all depends on whether it was an individual who acted according to the ruling of the Beis Din, or whether it was Rov Yisrael, the majority of Klal Yisrael, who mistakenly followed the Beis Din.
2. The only two opinions that say that even a Yachid who is Toleh b'Beis Din is exempt are Rebbi Yehudah (2b) and Rebbi Meir (3a). The Gemara points out that for both of them (in the name of Rav Yehuda Amar Shmuel, and Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel, respectively) that the Halachah does not follow them but follows the Chachamim instead. In contrast, the Mishnah (3b) refers to a scenario in which Rov Yisrael acted wrongly according to the ruling of the Beis Din, as Rashi writes in the Mishnah (DH Horu). Rebbi Akiva, Rebbi Shimon, and Rebbi Elazar in the Mishnah (3b) are discussing a case in which the majority of the people erred, but if it was only an individual (or even a minority of Yisrael) that followed Beis Din, these Tana'im agree with the Chachamim (2b) that the Yachid is Chayav. Therefore, the Halachah does not follow Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, because they are in the minority.
3) This is the way the Rambam rules. In Hilchos Shegagos (12:1), the Rambam writes that if the Beis Din erred and the people (this means the majority of the people)followed the Beis Din, the Beis Din must bring a Korban and the people are exempt from a Korban. In contrast, later in Hilchos Shegagos (end of 13:1), the Rambam writes that if Beis Din ruled and the minority of the community followed them, the Beis Din is exempt from a Korban and each individual of the minority who acted according to Beis Din's ruling must bring a Korban.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
I thought the pashut pshat in the Mishnah on 3b was that all agree with the first Mishnah (taluy b'horaas beis din is patur). It happens to be the patur/safek/taluy discussion on the mishnah according to all is after Beis din retracts and rov klal yisrael does the aveirah.
BUT as Rashi says on the gemara describing all the shitas tannaim (3b s'v rabbi meir mchiyuv and rabbi shimon potur) that it's a machlokes if it's STILL considered talui b'azmo or b'beis din. That is though the second mishnah has different requirements, it still is based on (at least according to Rashi) the first mishnah.
It could be the Rambam learns like you are saying, so that would answer the kasha on Rambam himself that it is only a daas yochid. But on the way that Rashi learns, it still in my opinion, should be the Halacha is not like Rabbanan but rather like the first mishna (taluy b'horaas beis din is patur).
Shkoyiach,
Avraham Serbin
Avraham, thank you very much for your comments.
1. I would point out that your original question was why we follow the Rabanan l'Halachah. I see that you appear to agree with the way I learned in the Rambam. We generally have a rule that when it comes to deciding the Halachah, the opinion of the Rambam is more crucial than that of Rashi. See Beis Yosef OC 10, DH ul'Inyan who writes that Rashi took the role of commentator on the Gemara and not Posek. Rashi's chief objective was to explain the Gemara; the main thrust of his work was not aimed at reaching Halachic conclusions. In contrast, the special nature of the Rambam's work was to show the Halachic conclusion of every discussion in the Gemara. Therefore, I claim that if one asks a question about the Psak Halachah in a Sugya, the opinion of the Rambam is possibly more important than that of any other Rishon.
2. However, I will attempt now to show that even according to Rashi, the Halachah may be that the Yachid who acted according to the Beis Din's ruling is Chayav. It is true that according to Rashi in Horayos (3b, DH Lefi), the opinion of Rebbi Shimon is that the Yachid is Patur in the latter case. However, our text in the Gemara in Shabbos (93a) is that according to Rebbi Shimon, a Yachid who acted according to the ruling of Beis Din is Chayav. Rashi there (DH Yachid) writes that Rebbi Shimon is consistent with his opinion in Horayos that Yachid she'Asah b'Hora'as Beis Din is Chayav. Tosfos there (DH Hachi Garsinan) disagrees with Rashi and maintains that according to Rebbi Shimon, he is Patur.
In summary, there is a contradiction between Rashi in Horayos and Rashi in Shabbos, and Tosfos in Shabbos follows the opinion of Rashi in Horayos that he is Patur.
3. In addition, even if Rebbi Shimon does maintain that one is Patur in the above case, it may still be that according to Rashi the Halachah does not follow Rebbi Shimon and the Yachid is Chayav. A crucial question is what is Rebbi Akiva's opinion. The Mishnah in Horayos (3b) states that according to Rebbi Akiva, the Yachid is Patur only if he has already left home and is on the road and therefore is unable to inquire about whether the Beis Din has retracted their original Psak. However, in any other scenario, Rebbi Akiva maintains that the Yachid is Chayav. This is because if the Yachid had the opportunity to find out that the Beis Din retracted but he did not inquire, this means that he is relying on himself and not on the Beis Din. This is similar to when the Yachid relies on Beis Din when the majority of the public does not rely on the Beis Din, in which case the Rabanan (2b and 3a) maintain that the Yachid is Chayav.
4. See the Bartenura to Mishnah 2, who writes that the Halachah follows Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah. The Tosfos Yom Tov explains that this is because Rebbi Akiva agrees with Rebbi Eliezer. Hence, even though we saw above that Rashi in Horayos writes that Rebbi Shimon maintains that a Yachid she'Asah b'Hora'as Beis Din is Patur, Rebbi Akiva disagrees with this. There is a rule (see Eruvin 46b) that the Halachah follows Rebbi Akiva when he disagrees with his colleague, so it would follow that the Halachah certainly follows Rebbi Akiva when he disagrees with his pupil, especially in this case, in which Rebbi Akiva has at least one Talmid on his side.
Again, Yeyasher Kochacha for your very important comments.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom