1)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses a case where Beis-Din issued an erroneous verdict - with regard to a ruling concerning a Chiyuv Kareis (for example, that Cheilev or Dam is permitted).

(b)The Tana rules that, in a case where ...

1. ... an individual acted on the Beis-Din's ruling, irrespective of whether they transgressed at the same time as he did, after him, or not at all - he is Patur from bringing a Korban Chatas, seeing as he relied on Beis-Din's ruling.

2. ... a member of Beis-Din acted on their ruling in any of these three cases, only he knew that they had erred - he is Chayav, since he did not rely on their verdict.

(c)Any Talmid who is 'Ra'uy le'Hora'ah' (eligible to issue rulings) is included in the previous case.

(d)The principle that governs this Mishnah is that - whoever relies on Beis-Din's ruling is Patur, whereas whoever relies on his own opinion is Chayav.

2)

(a)Assuming that the Tzibur acted on their ruling, Shmuel requires Beis-Din to say 'Mutarin Atem', before they become Chayav to bring a Korban. And by the same token - a Yachid will not be Patur for relying on Beis-Din, as long as they did not declare 'Mutarin Atah'.

(b)According to Rav Dimi from Neherda'a, Beis-Din need to add the word 'La'asos' to 'Mutarin Atem' - because without it, the ruling is incomplete.

(c)Abaye supports Rav Dimi's opinion from the Mishnah in Sanhedrin (in connection with a Zakein Mamrei) 'Chazar le'Iro, Chazar ve'Limed ke'Derech she'Limed Patur - Horeh La'asos, Chayav'.

(d)Whereas Rebbi Aba supports it from the Mishnah in Yevamos (in connection with a woman whose husband died) 'Horu lah Beis-Din Linasei, ve'Halchah ve'Kilkelah, Chayeves be'Korban' - which speaks about a woman receiving permission to remarry through the testimony of one witness.

3)

(a)The reason the Mishnah in Yevamos gives for declaring the woman Chayav is - because Beis-Din only permitted her to get married, but not to commit adultery (in which case, she did not act on the Beis-Din's ruling).

(b)Ravina's final proof is from our own Mishnah 'Horu Beis-Din La'avor al Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos ha'Amuros ba'Torah ... ' - implying that Beis-Din actually gave permission to perform such an act, and did not just indicate their opinion.

(c)And we conclude 've'Su Lo midi' meaning that - this is final, and there is nothing more to say on the matter.

(d)In the second Lashon, Abaye, Rebbi Aba and Ravina query Rav Dimi from Neherda'a (rather than prove his opinion), by inverting the Machlokes, so that Shmuel is the one who requires 'Mutarin Atem La'asos' whereas Rav Dimi from Neherda'a holds that 'Mutarin Atem' will suffice.

4)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah "ve'Halach ha'Yachid ve'Asah Shogeg al-Pihem ... Patur'. The problem with this is - why the Tana needs to add the word 'Shogeg'.

(b)According to Rava in the first Lashon - it comes to include (in the P'tur) - someone who not only relies on Beis-Din's ruling in principle, but in addition, he actually intended to eat a piece of Shuman, and by mistake, he picked up and ate a piece of Cheilev.

(c)According to the second Lashon, the Tana actually comes to preclude this case from the P'tur - and Rava explains 'Shogeg ve'Asah al Pihem' as one phrase, meaning that he is only Patur if he was Shogeg in that he relied on Beis-Din's ruling (but not if he was Shogeg by virtue of what he did).

(d)We cite the two Leshonos of Rava again to resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah - who asked what Rava took for granted one way or the other.

(e)He did not accept Rava's proof - because (depending on the two Leshonos), when Rava explained the Mishnah one way, he countered the other way.

5)

(a)Rav and Rebbi Yochanan were already involved in this same Machlokes much before Rava and Rami bar Chama. Rav's reason for saying Patur was - because at the end of the day, the sinner did rely on Beis-Din's ruling.

(b)Whereas Rebbi Yochanan held Chayav - because his error has nothing to do with the Beis-Din's ruling.

(c)The Tana Kama in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "me'Am ha'Aretz ba'Asosah" that - a Mumar is precluded from bringing a Chatas.

(d)Rebbi Shimon ben Yossi deems this D'rashah unnecessary. He explains the Pasuk "Asher Lo Se'asenah bi'Shegagah ve'Asheim" to mean that - it is only someone who would have desisted had he realized what he was doing (ha'Shav mi'Yedi'aso'), who is a Chayav a Chatas (but not someone who would have gone ahead and sinned anyway).

6)

(a)The current Beraisa poses a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan - who obligates the sinner to bring a Korban, even though he would not have retracted even had he known that he was eating Cheilev (seeing as he relied on Beis-Din who permitted it).

(b)Rav Papa explains that 'Horu Beis-Din she'Cheilev Mutar ve'Nischalef Lo Cheilev be'Shuman' is considered 'Shav mi'Yedi'aso' - because the moment Beis-Din are aware of their mistake, they will retract, and so will the sinner.

(c)The Tzibur only bring a Par (He'elam Davar) if the majority of the community followed the ruling of the Beis-Din and sinned. When Rava says that Rav concedes that 'Eino Mashlim le'Rov Tzibur', he means that - the man currently under discussion will not complement fifty per-cent of the Tzibur who ate Cheilev purely on account of the Beis-Din's ruling (in which case, they will remain Patur from bringing a Par He'elam Davar).

(d)And he learns this from ''bi'Shegagah" - which implies that all the sinners share the same Shegagah (precluding our case, where the individual sinner sinned independently as well).

7)

(a)Both the Reisha of our Mishnah ('Horu Beis-Din ... ve'Halach Yachid ve'Asah ... Patur') and the Seifa (' ... ve'Yada Echad meihen O Talmid ... ve'Halach ve'Asah ... Chayav') specifically mention that they speak irrespective of whether they transgressed at the same time as he did, after him, or not at all. The Tana found it necessary to mention all three cases ...

1. ... in the Reisha - because of the principle 'Lo Zu Af Zu' (meaning that each successive case is a bigger Chidush [not only is the Yachid Patur in a case where Beis-Din sinned at the same time as he did or at least afterwards, but he is even Patur if they did not sin at all]).

2. ... in the Seifa - because of the principle (which we only apply reluctantly) 'Zu, ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu' (the Yachid concerned is Chayav there where Beis-Din sinned at the same time as he did, and obviously where they sinned only after him, and there is certainly no need to mention that he is Chayav when they did not sin at all).

(b)Rava explains the fact that the Tana found it necessary to mention in the Seifa both a member of Beis-Din and a Talmid who is eligible to issue rulings, who knew that Beis-Din erred, because we might otherwise have thought that it is only a Chacham, who is Gamir ve'Savir - who has learned and who is able to extrapolate one thing from the other [a Meivin]), who is Chayav, but not a Talmid, who is not.

(c)Abaye queried this interpretation of a Talmid - in that 'Ra'uy le'Hora'ah' implies that the Talmid is a Meivin, too.

(d)Rava replied that what he meant was (not that that is the definition of a Talmid, but) that from the fact that the case is redundant, we include a Chacham who is a Gamir but not a Savir, or a Savir who is not a Gamir.

8)

(a)The two examples that Rava gave of 'Talmid ha'Ra'uy le'Hora'ah' are - Shimon ben Azai and Shimon ben Zoma (who are both described in Sanhedrin as 'Yoshvin Lifnei Chachamim), neither of whom had actually received Semichah.

(b)Abaye did not like Rava's examples - because if Talmidei-Chachamim of such a caliber knew that the Beis-Din had erred, they would surely be considered Meizid and would be Patur from a Korban).

9)

(a)To counter Abaye's Kashya, Rava quoted a Beraisa - where the Tana specifically cites Shimon ben Azai as a Talmid ha'Ra'uy le'Hora'ah.

(b)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "ba'Asosah Achas" that - even a Talmid like Shimon ben Azai who errs in believing that he is obligated to accept the rulings of the Chachamim, even though he knows that they erred, is Chayav to bring a Korban.

(c)Rava explained the fact that even Talmidei-Chachamim of that caliber might still be a Shogeg - inasmuch as they think that they are obligated to listen to the (majority of) Chachamim, even if they erred.

10)

(a)When our Mishnah writes 'Zeh ha'K'lal ...

1. ... ha'Toleh be'Atzmo, Chayav' it comes to include - someone who is known not to abide by the rulings of Beis-Din, to obligate him to bring a Chatas even if he sinned following the ruling of the Beis-Din (since we can be rest assured that he sinned, not as a result of that ruling, but in spite of it).

2. ... ha'Toleh be'Beis-Din, Patur' it comes to include - someone who followed a ruling of Beis-Din, unaware of the fact that Beis-Din, realizing their mistake, had actually retracted from it.

(b)And this applies - even if they had already brought their Korban.

(c)Granted, Rebbi Shimon issues this very same ruling in the next Mishnah - but that is the way of the Tana, to make a vague statement first and then to clarify it later.

11)

(a)According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, our Mishnah is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. The Chachamim rule that - a Yachid who acted on the erroneous ruling of Beis-Din is not Patur from a Chatas.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa learns that a Yachid is Patur from a Chatas from the Pasuk "ve'Im Nefesh Achas Techeta bi'Shegagah (me'Am ha'Aretz) ba'Asosah Achas ... ". In fact, he learns three exclusions from this Pasuk, one from "Nefesh", one from "Achas" and one from "ba'Asosah".

(c)We learn the Rabbanan's opinion from another Beraisa, where the Tana draws a distinction between a sin perpetrated by the minority of the Tzibur - on whose behalf Beis-Din do not bring a Korban, and the majority of the Tzibur - on whose behalf they do.

(d)The Tana therefore learns from "me'Am ha'Aretz" that even the majority (or even all) of the Tzibur who sinned, are obligated to bring a Chatas (in spite of the fact that Beis-Din bring a Chatas on their behalf).

12)

(a)The problem with establishing the entire Beraisa where the sinners erred ...

1. ... without Beis-Din having ruled (Shig'gas Ma'aseh) - is the final statement (that Beis-Din bring a Chatas on behalf of the majority of the Tzibur that sinned), which is only true in a case of Shig'gas Hora'ah.

2. ... following Beis-Din's ruling (Shig'gas Hora'ah) is - the Limud from "me'Am ha'Aretz" (that even the majority (or even all) of the community who sinned, are obligated to bring a Chatas), since this Pasuk is speaking specifically in a case of Shig'gas Ma'aseh.

(b)So we establish the basic Halachah by Shig'gas Ma'aseh. But when the Tana distinguishes between a Yachid, on whose behalf Beis-Din do not bring a Chatas, and a Tzibur, on whose behalf they do - he is referring to a case of Shig'gas Hora'ah.

(c)And the Beraisa is coming to teach us that - even though in a case of Shig'gas Hora'ah, Beis-Din bring a Chatas on behalf of the majority of the Tzibur who followed their ruling, in a case of Shig'gas Ma'aseh, each person of that majority [or even of the entire Tzibur]) is Chayav to bring an independent Chatas.

13)

(a)Rov Tzibur comprises - seven tribes.

(b)Each person is obligated to bring - a young ewe or she-goat.

(c)We have now proved from here - by inference, that (seeing as Beis-Din do not bring a Chatas on behalf of a Yachid who sinned be'Shig'gas Hora'ah), a Yachid must be Chayav to bring his own.

(d)Bearing in mind that we proved our point by inference, Rav Papa tries to refute it by suggesting that perhaps the Yachid is Patur altogether. Perhaps the Tana holds that neither Beis-Din bring a Chatas on his behalf, nor does he bring one himself.

(e)We reject Rav Papa's suggestion however, in that it is clear from the Beraisa that a Yachid is Chayav to bring his own Korban be'Shig'gas Hora'ah - because otherwise the Tana should have first set out to prove that a Yachid is Chayav be'Shig'gas Ma'aseh (despite the fact that he is Patur be'Shig'gas Hora'ah), before going on to prove that a Tzibur is.

14)

(a)The problem with the fact that Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan are not named in the two respective Beraisos is - how we then know that they are the respective authors.

(b)In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah comments that - the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Olah Hi ... " incorporates three 'Mi'utin' ("Zos", "Toras" and "Hi").

(c)We reconcile this with the principle 'Ein Miy'ut Achar Miy'ut Ela Lerabos' - by confining the principle to where there two 'Miy'utin', but not where there are three.

(d)We learn from there that - the Tana of the first of the two previous Beraisos (where the Tana made an exactly similar D'rashah) must be the same author.

(e)And once we know that the author of the first Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah - it is natural to refer to the author of the second Beraisa as 'the Rabbanan' (as we find throughout Shas).