PAST DEDICATION

HORAYOS 4 (24 Cheshvan) - dedicated by Dr. Moshe and Rivkie Snow in memory of Rivkie's father, the Manostrishtcher Rebbi, Hagaon Rav Yitzchak Yoel ben Harav Gedaliah Aharon Rabinowitz Ztz"l, Rav of Kehilas Nachalas Yehoshua in Canarsie, NY. A personification of the Torah scholar of old, the Ukranian-born Rebbi lived most of his life in the United States where his warm ways changed many lives.

1)

(a)To what does Rebbi Zeira compare Rebbi Elazar's Mashal (which refers to a Yachid who acted by the Beis-Din's ruling after they had retracted as a Safek)?

(b)What does he mean when he says that this even speaks according to those who hold that it is the Beis-Din (and not the Kahal) who brings the Korban?

(c)If it is not considered common knowledge, why do we not consider the Yachid 'Toleh be'Beis-Din'?

1)

(a)Rebbi Zeira compares Rebbi Elazar's Mashal (which refers to a Yachid who acted by the Beis-Din's ruling after they had retracted as a Safek) - to someone who ate Safek Cheilev, Safek Shuman, who is obligated to bring an Asham Taluy, when he discovers his mistake.

(b)And when he adds that this even speaks according to those who hold that it is the Beis-Din (and not the Kahal) who brings the Korban, he means to say that - even though the sin is not common knowledge (in which case he ought to be Patur (because he is Toleh be'Da'as Beis-Din), he is nevertheless Chayav an Asham Taluy.

(c)And the reason that he is not considered 'Toleh be'Beis-Din' is - because he can easily have discovered that Beis-Din had erred, by asking someone why they brought a Korban.

2)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "be'Yom Tzavoso"?

(b)Rebbi Yossi bar Avin (or Rebbi Yossi bar Z'vida) compares the ruling of Sumchus (in the same connection) to someone who brought his Korban during the period of Bein ha'Shemashos. What do these two have in common?

(c)And this speaks even according to those who hold that it is the Kahal who bring the Korban. Why is that? Seeing as the mistake is public knowledge, and anybody would have told him why they are bringing a Korban, why is he not considered 'Toleh be'Da'as Atzmo'?

2)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "be'Yom Tzavoso" that - a Korban can only be brought in the day (but not at night).

(b)Rebbi Yossi bar Avin (or Rebbi Yossi bar Z'vida) compares the ruling of Sumchus (who refers to the same Yachid as Taluy) to someone who brought his Korban during the period of Bein ha'Shemashos - which is similar in that both do not atone properly, yet they are Patur from an Asham Taluy.

(c)And this speaks even according to those who hold that it is the Kahal who bring the Korban. In spite of the fact that the mistake is public knowledge, and anybody would have told him why they are bringing a Korban, he is nevertheless not considered 'Toleh be'Da'as Atzmo' - because maybe he had no-one to ask (it never occurred to him to ask why the Tzibur brought a Korban, and at the end of the day, his actions were based on the ruling of the Beis-Din at the time).

3)

(a)What did Rebbi Akiva reply, when ben Azai asked him why a Yachid who went overseas is Patur any more than one who stayed at home?

(b)R. Akiva's answer seems obvious. In which case are they actually arguing?

(c)What is then the basis of their Machlokes?

3)

(a)When ben Azai asked Rebbi Akiva why a Yachid who went overseas is Patur any more than one who stayed at home, Rebbi Akiva replied that - whereas the latter might have heard about the error, the former did definitely not.

(b)Since Rebbi Akiva's answer is obvious, they must be arguing in a case - where the Yachid had left home, but was still within the town's borders (leaving him with a slight chance of still discovering the error) ...

(c)... Rebbi Akiva holds that - once he leaves the house, he is busy with his travels, and is unlikely to discover that Beis-Din had erred; whereas according to ben Azai, as long as he is still in town, it is as if he is still at home, and he should have found out that Beis-Din erred.

4)

(a)After informing us that if Beis-Din negate an entire Mitzvah, they are Patur from a Chatas, the Beraisa continues (in connection with where they only negated part of the Mitzvah) 'Yachol Y'hu Peturin'. What is strange about this suggestion?

(b)We answer that what the Tana really means is that perhaps "Ve'ne'elam Davar" refers to the whole Mitzvah and not to part of it (the reverse of the way we just learnt). Ula rejects this proposition by referring to the same words "Ve'ne'elam Davar". How does he learn from there that the Pasuk must be talking about part of the Mitzvah?

(c)Chizkiyah learns it from the latter part of the Pasuk "Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos", implying 've'Lo Kol Mitzvas'. How can he make such a D'rashah, bearing in mind that the Torah writes "Mitzvos" in the plural?

(d)According to Rav Ashi, the Tana learns it from Zakein Mamrei, by whom the Torah writes in Shoftim "Ki Yipalei Mim'cha Davar, Lo Sasur min ha'Davar asher Yagidu l'cha ... ". How does he Darshen the Pasuk?

(e)How does he learn Hora'as Beis-Din from there?

4)

(a)After informing us that if Beis-Din negate an entire Mitzvah, they are Patur from a Chatas, the Beraisa continues (in connection with where they only negated part of the Mitzvah) 'Yachol Y'hu Peturin', a strange suggestion - because if they are Patur from a Korban for negating part of a Mitzvah, as well as for negating an entire one, then when are they Chayav?

(b)We answer that what the Tana really means is that perhaps "Ve'ne'elam Davar" refers to the whole Mitzvah and not to part of it (the reverse of the way we just learnt). Ula rejects this proposition by referring to the same words "Ve'ne'elam Davar" - linking the 'Mem' in "Ve'ne'elam" to the word that follows it, "Davar" (to read "mi'Davar", implying 've'Lo Kol Davar'), as well as to "Ve'ne'elam" that precedes it.

(c)Chizkiyah learns it from the latter part of the Pasuk "Achas mi'Kol Mitzvos", implying 've'Lo Kol Mitzvas'. Despite the fact that the Torah writes "Mitzvos" in the plural, this D'rashah is feasible - based on the fact that "Mitzvos" is written without a second 'Vav' (giving it singular connotations).

(d)According to Rav Ashi, the Tana learns it from Zakein Mamrei, by whom the Torah writes "Ki Yipalei Mim'cha Davar, Lo Sasur min ha'Davar asher Yagidu l'cha ... " - which we Darshen "Miktzas ha'Davar", 've'Lo Kol ha'Davar' ...

(e)... from which we learn Hora'as Beis-Din with a Gezeirah-Shavah "Davar" "Davar".

5)

(a)In defining 'part of a Mitzvah', Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel explains that Beis-Din are not Chayav unless they negate something which the Tzedokim do not agree with. Why is that?

(b)We query this from our Mishnah, which gives the example (with reference to Nidah) of Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom, which even the Tzedokim agree with. Which Pasuk in Tazri'a is the source for Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom?

(c)We also reject the suggestion that they ruled that Ha'ara'ah or she'Lo ke'Darkah (sodomy) is permitted. What is 'Ha'ara'ah'?

(d)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim ...

1. ... "es Mekorah He'erah"?

2. ... "Mishkevei Ishah"?

5)

(a)In defining 'part of a Mitzvah', Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel explains that Beis-Din are not Chayav unless they negate something which the Tzedokim do not agree with - because any D'rashah with which the Tzedokim agree is so obvious, that whoever transgresses it cannot be considered a real Shogeg since, seeing as it is so easy to arrive at the truth, he is considered a Meizid.

(b)We query this from our Mishnah, which gives the example (with reference to Nidah) of Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom, which even the Tzedokim agree with and whose source is the Pasuk in Tazri'a - "Ve'safrah lah".

(c)We also reject the suggestion that they ruled that Ha'ara'ah or she'Lo ke'Darkah (sodomy) is permitted. 'Ha'ara'ah' is - a partial Bi'ah (whose exact definition is a matter of dispute).

(d)We learn from the Pasuk (in Kedoshim) ...

1. ... "es Mekorah He'erah" that - Ha'ara'ah is considered Bi'ah with regard to a Nidah.

2. ... "Mishkevei Ishah" that - there are two ways of committing adultery or incest; either with a Bi'ah ke'Darkah or with a Bi'ah she'Lo ke'Darkah.

6)

(a)What objection do we raise to the suggestion that the 'part of the Mitzvah' of a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom refers to Ha'ara'ah by Bi'ah she'Lo ke'Darkah (which Beis-Din permitted)?

(b)So we revert to the first suggestion. Why is the ruling that Ha'ara'ah is permitted by a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom not so obvious? Why would the Tzedokim not agree with it?

(c)Alternatively, we explain the case, based on the Pasuk "Kol Y'mei Zovah". How does that explain why the Tana refers specifically to Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom?

6)

(a)The objection to the suggestion that the 'part of the Mitzvah' of a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom refers to Ha'ara'ah by Bi'ah she'Lo ke'Darkah (which Beis-Din permitted) is - why the Tana then cites the example of 'Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom', seeing as it pertains equally to a Nidah.

(b)So we revert to the first suggestion. And the reason that the Tzedokim do not agree with the ruling that Ha'ara'ah is forbidden by a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom is - because it is written by Nidah, and not by Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom.

(c)Alternatively, we explain the case, based on the Pasuk "Kol Y'mei Zovah" - which implies that she is only Tamei if she saw blood by day, which is what Beis-Din ruled. And this mistake pertains only to a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom, where "Kol Y'mei" is written (but not to a Nidah, where it is not, and where the Tzedokim would therefore not agree).

7)

(a)We also query Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel from our Mishnah, which gives the example of part of a Mitzvah of Shabbos as where Beis-Din permitted carrying from one domain to the other. Why does the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Lo Sotzi'u Masa mi'Bateichem" pose a Kashya on Shmuel?

(b)How do we answer the Kashya ...

1. ... based on the wording of the Pasuk itself?

2. ... even if the Pasuk incorporates Hachnasah (carrying from the street into the house)?

(c)Our Mishnah also gives as an example of part of a Mitzvah by Avodah-Zarah as prostrating oneself in front of an Avodah-Zarah. Considering that the Torah in Ki Sisa specifically writes "Lo Sishtachaveh le'Eil Acher", why might the Tzedokim not agree that Hishtachavayah is forbidden?

(d)Why might they not even agree by ke'Darkah either?

7)

(a)We also query Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel from our Mishnah, which gives the example of part of a Mitzvah of Shabbos as where Beis-Din permitted carrying from one domain to the other. But surely - this too, is obvious, seeing as the Pasuk in Yirmiyah writes "Lo Sotzi'u Masa mi'Bateichem", a clear-cut Pasuk forbidding carrying, posing a Kashya on Shmuel.

(b)We answer the Kashya ...

1. ... based on the wording of the Pasuk itself - by confining it to carrying from the house to the street ('Hotza'ah'), but not to Hachnasah (carrying from the street into the house, a separate prohibition), which is what the Tana is referring to.

2. ... even if the Pasuk incorporates Hachnasah (carrying from the street into the house) - by establishing our Mishnah where Beis-Din permitted handing or throwing from one domain to the other, which is not specifically mentioned.

(c)Our Mishnah also gives as an example of part of a Mitzvah by Avodah-Zarah as prostrating oneself in front of an Avodah-Zarah. In spite of the fact that the Torah in Ki Sisa specifically writes "Lo Sishtachaveh le'Eil Acher", the Tzedokim might not agree that Hishtachavayah is forbidden - because they will establish the Pasuk to an idol that is specifically worshipped by means of Hishtachavayah (ke'Darkah), to preclude one that is not (which is what Beis-Din permitted in our Mishnah).

(d)They might not even agree by ke'Darkah either however - because they might argue that Hishtachavayah is only forbidden if one prostrates oneself completely, but not if one does so without stretching out ones feet and hands (which is what Beis-Din permitted in our Mishnah).

4b----------------------------------------4b

8)

(a)Rav Yosef asks what the Din will be if Beis-Din permit plowing on Shabbos. What is the She'eilah? Why should it not be considered part of Shabbos'?

(b)They query Rav Yosef from Nidah in our Mishnah, which the Tana established by 'Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom' (and Shabbos, by 'carrying ... ', and Avodas-Kochavim, by 'Hishtachavayah'). Why should the negation of plowing on Shabbos be any worse than the negation of these three?

8)

(a)Rav Yosef asks what the Din will be if Beis-Din permit plowing on Shabbos. This might not be considered part of Shabbos - because it negates a complete Melachah.

(b)They query Rav Yosef from Nidah in our Mishnah, which the Tana established by 'Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom' (and Shabbos, by 'carrying ... ', and Avodas-Kochavim, by 'Hishtachavayah'). The negation of plowing on Shabbos might well be worse than the negation of these three - according to the previous Sugya, where we just established each of them where he only negated part of the Mitzvah ('Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom' by Ha'ara'ah or night-time, 'carrying' on Shabbos by handing over or throwing, and 'Hishtachavayah' by Avodah-Zarah by Hishtachavayah she'Lo ke'Darkah).

9)

(a)Rebbi Zeira asked whether it would be considered a partial negation or a complete one, if Beis-Din issued a ruling that Shabbos does not take effect in the Sh'mitah year. What would be the source of such an error?

(b)What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

9)

(a)Rebbi Zeira asks whether it would be considered a partial negation or a complete one, if Beis-Din issued a ruling that Shabbos did not take effect in the Sh'mitah year. The source of such an error would be - the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "be'Charish u'va'Katzir Tishbos", which implies that in a year where there is no plowing or reaping, Shabbos does not apply.

(b)The two sides of the She'eilah are - whether, on the one hand, they maintain Shabbos during the other six years of the cycle (it is considered a partial negation), or whether, since they negated it for the entire year, it is a total negation.

10)

(a)Ravina cites a Beraisa regarding a Navi who prophesies to uproot a Mitzvah. How can we prove anything from a Navi Sheker? Who would take him seriously anyway?

(b)What distinction does the Tana there draw between a Navi who prophesies to uproot an entire Mitzvah and one who prophesies to negate part of one?

(c)What is the exception to this rule?

(d)What are the ramifications of Chayav in the case of a Navi Sheker?

(e)Ravina resolves the current She'eilah from the Tana's example of part of a Mitzvah by Avodah-Zarah. What example does the Tana give? How does that resolve our She'eilah?

10)

(a)Ravina cites a Beraisa regarding a Navi who prophesies to uproot a Mitzvah. There is no problem about not taking him seriously - since the Beraisa is talking about a genuine Navi who has issued a false prophecy just this one time.

(b)The Tana there draws a distinction between a Navi who prophesies to uproot an entire Mitzvah - who is Chayav Misah, and one who prophesies to negate part of one - who is Patur.

(c)The exception to this rule is - where he prophesies permitting Avodah-Zarah, either completely or in part.

(d)The ramifications of Chayav in the case of a Navi Sheker are - Sekilah, according to the Rabbanan, and Chenek, according to Rebbi Shimon.

(e)Ravina resolves the current She'eilah from the Tana's example of part of a Mitzvah by Avodah-Zarah which is - to worship it today, but nullify it tomorrow, which is equivalent to the current She'eilah (where the temporary aspect of the nullification renders it Shemirah be'Miktzas ve'Kiyum be'Miktzass).

11)

(a)If a member of Beis-Din warnsd his colleagues that their ruling is in error, our Mishnah exempts Beis-Din from bringing a Chatas. Why is that?

(b)What does the Tana say about a case where the most learned sage is not present (even though all seventy-one members are [see Tos. Yom-Tov])?

(c)The Tana also considers the Beis-Din ha'Gadol deficient in this regard, if one of the Dayanim is a Ger. What else disqualifies someone from sitting on the Beis-Din?

(d)How do we learn this from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Ve'shaftu ha'Eidah, ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah"?

11)

(a)If a member of Beis-Din warns his colleagues that their ruling is in error, our Mishnah exempts Beis-Din from bringing a Chatas - because it was not a proper ruling (since not all members of Beis-Din agreed with the ruling, as we discussed earlier).

(b)Even if all seventy members are present, but the wisest Chacham is not - the Tana rules that they are Patur from a Korban.

(c)The Tana also considers the Beis-Din ha'Gadol deficient in this regard, if one of the Dayanim is a Ger - a Mamzer, a Nasin or an old man who can no longer father children (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

(d)We learn this from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Ve'shaftu ha'Eidah, ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah", where, based on a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Eidah" "Eidah", these faults disqualify a Dayan (as we will see shortly).

12)

(a)Rav Sheishes and Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael equate the Din exempting Beis-Din Patur for issuing an erroneous ruling if the wisest Chacham is not present with the Din exempting them where they issue a ruling in a matter with which the Tzedokim agree. What is the reason for that ruling?

(b)How does it apply to our case?

12)

(a)Rav Sheishes and Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael equate the Din exempting Beis-Din Patur for issuing an erroneous ruling if the wisest Chacham is not present with the Din exempting them where they issue a ruling in a matter with which the Tzedokim agree, where they are Patur - because it is close to Meizid, seeing as they needed only to learn a bit more to discover the correct ruling.

(b)And it is for the same reason that they are Patur in our case.

13)

(a)Rav Chisda learns that the faults mentioned in our Mishnah disqualify a Dayan from joining the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Ve'hisyatzvu Sham Imach". How does he learn it from there?

(b)We query this Limud however 've'Eima Imach li'Shechinah', which might mean that it was only because they were going to experience Hashra'as ha'Shechinah that the above were disqualified (but not otherwise). What else might it mean?

(c)How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore learn it from the Pasuk there "Ve'nas'u Itach" (and they will carry the burden with you)?

(d)How can we also learn from here that the current Halachah is confined to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol?

13)

(a)Rav Chisda learns that the faults mentioned in our Mishnah disqualify a Dayan from joining the Beis-Din ha'Gadol, from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Ve'hisyatzvu Sham Imach" - which he Darshens "Imcha" (referring to Moshe), indicating that the Dayanim must be like Moshe Rabeinu in the above regards ('be'Domin lach').

(b)We query this Limud however 've'Eima Imach li'Shechinah', which might mean that it was only because they were going to experience Hashra'as ha'Shechinah that the above were disqualified (but not otherwise). Alternatively, it might mean that the Pasuk came to warn the new Dayanim that they were to stand with Moshe, and not to venture closer to the Shechinah.

(c)So Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak finally learns it from the Pasuk there "Ve'nas'u Itach" (and they will carry the burden with you) - implying the same as we initially extrapolated from the earlier Pasuk.

(d)We can also learn from here that the current Halachah is confined to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol - since the Pasuk is speaking about the seventy elders who were chosen to sit on the Beis-Din of Moshe Rabeinu.

14)

(a)Our Mishnah obligates Beis-Din to bring a Par He'elam Davar if both the Beis-Din ruling and the Tzibur's actions were be'Shogeg. What will be the Din assuming that Beis-Din ruled ...

1. ... be'Meizid and the Tzibur acted be'Shogeg?

2. ... be'Shogeg and the Tzibur acted be'Meizid?

(b)We try to extrapolate from the case in our Mishnah Shog'gin ve'Asu Meizidin, Patur that Shogeg Dumya de'Meizid is Chayav. What is the case?

(c)What do we mean when we say that Beis-Din permitted Cheilev?

(d)How will Rami bar Chama, who asked earlier whether a Yachid is Chayav in such a case or not, reject the proof from here that he is Chayav?

14)

(a)Our Mishnah obligates Beis-Din to bring a Par He'elam Davar if both the Beis-Din's ruling and the Tzibur's actions were be'Shogeg. Assuming that Beis-Din ruled ...

1. ... be'Meizid and the Tzibur acted be'Shogeg - each individual sinner will have to bring a Kisbah or a Se'irah (since it does not conform to the Pasuk "ve'Im Kol Adas Yisrael Yishgu".

2. ... be'Shogeg and the Tzibur acted be'Meizid - they will be Patur from a Chatas.

(b)We try to extrapolate from the case in our Mishnah Shog'gin ve'Asu Meizidin, Patur, that Shogeg Dumya de'Meizid is Chayav. The case is - where Beis-Din permitted Cheilev, and someone inadvertently picked up a piece of Cheilev instead of Shuman (he erred in the same way as the Beis-Din, though he relied on himself and not on them).

(c)When we say that Beis-Din permitted Cheilev, we mean that - they permitted the Cheilev on the stomach say, but not that on the intestines (otherwise, it will be a complete Davar, and they will be Patur).

(d)Rami bar Chama, who asked earlier whether a Yachid is Chayav in such a case or not, will reject the proof from here that he is Chayav - because the Tana only presented the case in this way in order to balance the Reisha Meizidin ve'Asu Shog'gin ... , but not to extrapolate anything from the Lashon.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF