Today's שיעור will be from the beginning of מסכת הוריות. The word הוריות comes from the word הורה, which means פסקן. And the reason this מסכת is called הוריות, because mainly it deals with the kind of קרבנות that have to be brought if the בית דין, which means the סנהדרין, the בית דין הגדול, the supreme court, the main בית דין that was in ירושלים, they פסקן a certain דין, and later they found out that this דין was a mistake, and the אידן did as they had פסקן originally. So, then there are קרבנות that have to be brought, and since the מסכת deals mainly with the קרבנות that have to be brought if the בית דין פסקן by mistake, as the משנה starts with the words הורו בית דין, that is the reason that this מסכת is called מסכת הוריות. In order to understand the different דינים that we're going to discuss in the גמרא later, we have to first make an introduction. The דין is that for certain עבירות, if a person does it בשוגג, does it unintentionally, unwillingly, then he has to bring a קרבן חטאת. He has to bring an offering in the בית המקדש, which was called a קרבן חטאת. For which עבירות did a person have to bring a קרבן חטאת? So, the דין is only for עבירות that זדונו כרת, that if he would have done the עבירה intentionally, then the punishment would have been כרת, that the person dies at an early age. So, for those עבירות, if you do it unintentionally, then the punishment is a חטאת.

How many of such עבירות are there? So, we know there is a number of 31 עבירות that you are חייב כרת for, and if you do it בשוגג, you have to bring a חטאת. What is the חטאת? So, the פסוק says in חומש ויקרא, in פרשת ויקרא, קפיטל ד', פסוק כ"ז, ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה מעם הארץ, that if a person, an individual person will sin בשגגה, unintentionally, בעשותה אחת ממצות ה' אשר לא תעשינה ואשם, that he will do one of the מצות השם said he shouldn't do, and he will sin. So, the פסוק continues and says that when he will find out that he did the עבירה, then he has to bring the קרבן. What is the קרבן? The פסוק there gives a choice of two קרבנות. If a person wants, the פסוק says there in פסוק כ"ח, והביא קרבנו שעירת עזים תמימה נקבה על חטאתו אשר חטא, that his קרבן should be a שעירת עזים, a female goat, and the פסוק goes on telling us how the קרבן is brought. Then there, in פסוק ל"ב, it says, ואם כבש יביא קרבנו, if he wants to bring a קרבן, a sheep, then נקבה תמימה יביאנה, he must bring a female sheep as a קרבן, and the פסוק goes on telling us the process of that קרבן. So, we see here that for a חטאת, a יחיד, if a person did an עבירה that you are חייב חטאת for, so then you could bring or a שעירה, or a female goat, or a כבשה, a female sheep. This is

concerning all עבירות that you are חייב a חטאת for, with the exception of one, that one of the 31 עבירות that you are חייב a חטאת for is different, and that is if the עבירה was concerning עבודה זרה. And that is in פרשת שלח, קפיטל ט"ו. When there the פסוק speaks about עבודה זרה, the פסוק says in פסוק כ"ז, ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה, if one person will do this עבירה unintentionally, and the גמרא learns out from the פסוקים before that we are dealing here with עבודה זרה, so the פסוק says, והקריבה עז בת שנתה לחטאת, so there, there is no choice of what קרבן to bring, but there there is only one קרבן, a goat, that he's supposed to bring an עז for a קרבן, and there is no choice about that. This is if an individual person did an עבירה that you are חייב a חטאת for. Then there is a דין, that if the בית דין פסקן, also concerning one of these עבירות that if you would do it intentionally, you would get כרת, so בית דין פסקן by mistake, that you are allowed to do that עבירה, and the people followed the instructions of בית דין and did that עבירה, in a case like that, each individual person is פטור from bringing a קרבן. Since he did עבירה because of the פסק דין of בית דין, he was תולה בבית דין, he hung his דין, in other words, his action depended on the פסק דין of בית דין, so therefore the individual person, all individual people don't have to bring the קרבן חטאת. But

one חטאת is brought from the whole ציבור. The whole community, the whole congregation together brings a קרבן חטאת. What would be the קרבן? So, this is also in חומש ויקרא, פרשת ויקרא, קפיטל ד', פסוק י"ג, it says, ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, if the whole community will make a mistake, ונעלם דבר מעיני הקהל, and things will be covered up from the eyes of the community, which means from the eyes of the בית דין, that the בית דין will פסקן a דין by mistake, ועשו אחת מכל מצות ה׳ אשר לא תעשינה ואשמו, and they will do one of the things that השם said not to do and they will do, and this is because the בית דין פסקנד that they're allowed to do that. The פסוק continues: ונודעה החטאת אשר חטאו עליה, so when they find out the עבירה they did, והקריבו הקהל פר בן בקר לחטאת. So then the whole community brings one קרבן, which is a פר, a bull. But this דין only applies if it was one of the thirty עבירות that you're חייב כרת for it, with the exception of עבודה זרה. That if the בית דין פסקנד concerning עבודה זרה that you're allowed to do it, and then they found out it was a mistake, so there we find also in פרשת שלח, קפיטל ט״ו, that there is a different קרבן. And that is, in

פסוק כ״ב it starts: וכי תשגו ולא תעשו את כל המצות האלה אשר דבר ה׳ אל משה, that if you'll make a mistake and not do one of the מצות, and the גמרא learns out that this speaks about עבודה זרה. And in פסוק כ״ד it says: והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה, that if this was done from the eyes of the community, which means the reason the עבירה was done was because the פסק דין of בית דין, ועשו כל העדה פר בן בקר אחד לעולה, that then the קרבן is, not as we said before by the other עבירות, that the קרבן from the whole קהל would be that they would bring a פר, a bull, for a חטאת, but here they have to bring two קרבנות. There is פר בן בקר אחד לעולה, they bring one קרבן an עולה, and that would be a bull, and then the פסוק continues and says: ושעיר עזים אחד לחטאת, and one שעיר, one goat, for a חטאת. And when the community brings the קרבן, whether it is the regular פר העלם דבר של ציבור, the פר that is brought from the community for the עבירה they did, or it is in the case where the community has to bring the two קרבנות because of עבודה זרה, but in that case the individual does not bring his קרבן. Then

there is another דין, and that is concerning the כהן גדול, that if a כהן גדול did an עבירה בשוגג, and also it means a kind of עבירה that if you do it במזיד you get כרת for, so he also has a special קרבן. As the פסוק says in ויקרא, and that is קפיטל ד׳, פסוק ג׳: אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם, that if the כהן גדול will do an עבירה, והקריב על חטאתו אשר חטא פר בן בקר תמים לה׳ לחטאת, he should bring a פר, a bull, for a קרבן. The bull, the פר, that the כהן גדול brings for his עבירה בשוגג has the same דין as the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, as the פר that was brought by the whole community if the בית דין made a mistake and פסקנד wrong, and the people followed the פסק דין of בית דין. While the קרבן of a יחיד, of an individual who has to bring a חטאת, that is a different קרבן as we said before, and that is the קרבן of a כשבה or a שעירה. Then there is a special דין if the king does an עבירה בשוגג, that he has a special קרבן that he has to bring. And this is also later on in חומש ויקרא, in פרשת ויקרא, where it says in קפיטל ד׳, פסוק כ״ב: אשר נשיא יחטא, if a נשיא, which is a מלך, will sin, the פסוק says what does he have to bring, in פסוק כ״ג: והביא את קרבנו שעיר עזים זכר תמים, he brings a goat, a male, as a קרבן, and that is his חטאת. And in this מסכתא we're going to discuss these different קרבנות. When does the community bring a קרבן which is called the פר העלם דבר של ציבור? When doesn't the community bring? When does the individual bring? When does the כהן גדול bring? When does the מלך bring? And other דינים that surround this issue. And now we will start from inside the גמרא with the משנה. The

משנה says: הורו בית דין לעבור על אחת מכל מצות האמורות בתורה, if the בית דין פסקנד that you're allowed to be עובר on one of the מצות that are mentioned in the תורה, והלך היחיד ועשה שוגג על פיהם, and one person, an individual, went and did the עבירה based on what they said, but he did it unintentionally, in other words he didn't know it was wrong, he thought it was right because the בית דין פסקנד you're allowed to do that, and he went and did it because of what they said, בין שעשו ועשה עמהן, whether the בית דין themselves also did the עבירה and he did it with them, בין שעשו ועשה אחריהן, or they did it and he did it after them, not together with them, but after them, בין שלא עשו ועשה, or they did not do it, but he did do it, and the reason he did it was because they פסקנד, but they themselves did not do the עבירה, פטור, this individual is פטור from bringing his own individual חטאת, מפני שתלה בבית דין, because he hung it on בית דין, which means he did it because of what the בית דין said. And because he did it because of the פסק דין of בית דין, then it is not considered his personal חטא, and therefore he doesn't bring his personal individual חטאת. הורו בית דין, if the בית דין פסקנד, וידע אחד מהם שטעו, and

one of them knew that there was a mistake here or one of the members of the בית דין knew that this was wrong, או תלמיד והוא ראוי להוראה, or even if it wasn't a member of the בית דין, it was just a תלמיד that, listen, a student that was there listening to what was going on in בית דין, but he was already at a level that he was fit to פסק'ן דינים. והלך ועשה על פיהן, and this תלמיד or this member of the בית דין that knew that they were wrong went and did it because of what the בית דין פסקנ'ט, in this case, בין שעשו ועשה עמהן, whether they did it and he did it with them, בין שעשו ועשה אחריהן, or they did it and he did it after them, בין שלא עשו ועשה, or they didn't do it and he did do it, in all these cases, הרי זה חייב, he is חייב to bring his own individual קרבן חטאת. And the reason is מפני שלא תלה בבית דין, because he did not hang it on the בית דין, because he knew the בית דין was wrong, and nevertheless he did it. So we don't say that this is not his personal עבירה, and therefore he shouldn't have to bring his personal חטאת, but the דין is that he does have to bring his personal חטאת. זה הכלל, this is the rule. התולה בעצמו, if he hangs it on himself, in other words if you do the חטא, the עבירה, because of your own reasoning, then חייב, you are חייב your own חטאת. והתולה בבית דין, but if you do it because of בית דין, because of the פסק דין of בית דין, פטור, then you are פטור from your own חטאת. גמרא says, אמר שמואל, שמואל said, לעולם אין בית דין חייבין, בית דין is never חייב to bring this פר העלם דבר של ציבור, עד שיאמרו להם מותרין אתם, until they say you are allowed. When we say the דין, that when the בית דין פסקנ'ט that you're allowed to do an עבירה, and then the majority of the people or all the people did the עבירה because of the פסק דין of בית דין, so then the דין is that בית דין has to bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, whether it is the בית דין that has to bring or the community that has to bring as we will see in the גמרא later on, but whatever it is, this קרבן is not brought unless the בית דין actually פסקנ'ט that you're allowed to do the עבירה. If בית דין was discussing this, and the decision of בית דין was that you're allowed to do the עבירה, but the בית דין did not say the words מותרין אתם you are allowed, it was just understood from what they were saying, and then the people went and did according to this פסק דין, the בית דין or the people don't have to bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. The only time they have to bring it is if the בית דין said the words מותרין אתם you are allowed, and then the people went along and did the עבירה. רב דימי מנהרדעא אמר, but רב דימי of נהרדעא said, עד שיאמרו להם מותרין אתם לעשות, that they don't bring this פר העלם דבר של ציבור unless they said you are allowed to do it. According to him, if the בית דין just said מותרין אתם you are allowed, but they didn't say the word לעשות to do, you still don't bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. But if the בית דין said מותרין אתם לעשות you're allowed to do it, and then the people went and did it, then there is a דין of a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. מאי טעמא? What is the reason? לפי שלא נגמרה הוראה, because till they use the words you're allowed to do it, the פסק דין is not finished yet, and the דין of bringing a פר העלם דבר של ציבור is only if the people did it after the הוראה, the פסק דין of בית דין was finished. So therefore he says if the בית דין didn't actually say the words מותרין אתם לעשות, the פסק דין is not considered finished yet, and therefore, even if the people went and did it based on what they thought was the פסק דין of בית דין, there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור. אמר אביי, אביי said, אף אנן נמי תנינא, we also learned this in a משנה. As a proof in the משנה that this is right, it says in the משנה concerning the דין of a זקן ממרא. A זקן ממרא is a תלמיד חכם who has a dispute in his city concerning a דין, and he goes up to the בית דין הגדול in ירושלים and asks them what the דין is. And they פסקנ'ן the דין a certain way, and he rebels against them. So then, the דין is that he is חייב מיתה. So it says in the משנה in סנהדרין: חזר לעירו, if the זקן ממרא came back to his city after he inquired in the בית דין הגדול, שנה ולימד כדרך שלימד, he taught and he learned as he learned before, against what the בית דין had פסקנ'ט to him, פטור, he's still פטור from מיתה. הורה לעשות, if he פסקנ'ט to do as he held, not the way the בית דין הגדול פסקנ'ט, חייב, then he is חייב to get killed. So we see clearly here that when is it considered that this is a real הוראה and the פסק דין is finished only if he פסקנ'ס לעשות. So just like over there we say that only if he פסקנ'ס לעשות, that's when we really consider it that he פסקנ'ט against the בית דין הגדול, the same thing here too: when is it considered that the בית דין הגדול פסקנ'ט, that we should be able to say that when the people followed the פסק דין, we consider it that they followed it because of the פסק דין of בית דין, and the בית דין or the people would have to bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, that is only if they פסקנ'ט to do, which means that they said מותרין אתם לעשות. אמר רבא, רבא also said, אף אנן נמי תנינא, we also learned this in a משנה. We learned: הורו לה בית דין להינשא, if a woman that one witness came and said that her husband died. And the דין is that by עדות אשה, the testimony concerning a woman that she is able to remarry, we trust even one person. But the בית דין has to be מתיר her, that she should be able to get married. So if the בית דין was מתיר her to get married, והלכה, and she went, וקלקלה, and she was מזנה, she committed adultery, and later they found out that her husband was alive, חייבת בקרבן, she has to bring a קרבן. She has to bring her קרבן חטאת, and the reason is שלא התירו לה אלא להנשא, because the בית דין only allowed her to get married. If she would have gotten married and then later her husband would have come, she would be פטור from a קרבן חטאת, because even though she did a very strict עבירה בשוגג, she as a married woman got married to somebody else, nevertheless she would be פטור from a קרבן חטאת, because the reason she got married was based on the פסק דין of בית דין, and the בית דין were מתיר her to get married. But in this case, since the בית דין was only מתיר her to get married, she didn't get married, she was מזנה, so this is not considered that she did it based on what the בית דין said, and therefore she is supposed to bring a קרבן חטאת. So here too we see that when is it considered that you relied on בית דין, only if בית דין were מתיר her להנשא, to get married, if בית דין said to her, "You could get married." But otherwise it is not considered that she did it based on בית דין. And here too, that when is it considered that the people did it based on בית דין and that there would be a דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור, only if the בית דין said that you are allowed to do it. אמר רבינא, רבינא said, אף אנן נמי תנינא, we also learned this. It says in our משנה, הורו בית דין לעבור על אחת מכל מצות האמורות בתורה, that if בית דין פסק'נד that you are allowed to be עובר on one of the מצות that the תורה says, then the individual doesn't have to bring the קרבן. But the לשון of the משנה is that if בית דין פסק'נד לעבור, to be עובר, in other words בית דין said that you could be עובר, you could do it. So we see here that when is it considered that the בית דין actually פסק'נד and later on there would be a דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור, if they said, "You are allowed to do it." שמע מינה, there is nothing more to discuss about it because it's a clear ראיה that only if the בית דין said that you are מותר to do it, that's when later on there would be a דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. This is the way the גירסא is up to now. איכא דאמרי, some said the same discussion with the ראיה that the גמרא brought before in a little different way. That אמר שמואל, שמואל said, אין בית דין חייבין עד שיאמרו להם מותרים אתם לעשות, that שמואל was the one that said that when is the דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור, only if the בית דין said, "מותרים אתם לעשות", not like we had the גירסא before that שמואל holds that if the בית דין said "מותרים אתם", that's already enough. And רב דימי מנהרדעא was the one that said that only if the בית דין says "מותרים אתם לעשות", that's when you're חייב a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. But here it's different. שמואל was the one that said that you're only חייב if you said "מותרים אתם לעשות". And רב דימי מנהרדעא אמר, רב דימי of נהרדעא was the one that said, אפילו מותרים אתם נגמרה הוראה, that even if they just said, "You are allowed", and didn't add the words "לעשות", it is also considered that the פסק דין was finished, and therefore, when the people later on followed that פסק דין, there is a דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. אמר אביי, and אביי said, והא לא תנן הכי, we didn't learn like that. According to the גירסא before, that רב דימי was the one that said that you must say "מותרים אתם לעשות", so אביי brought a ראיה to רב דימי from the משנה in סנהדרין. According to this גירסא, it is not a ראיה to רב דימי, but אביי asked a קשיא on רב דימי from that משנה. There in the משנה, חזר לעירו, if the זקן ממרא came back to his city, ושנה ולימד, and he taught כדרך שלימד, as he taught before, פטור, he's פטור from מיתה. הורה לעשות, if he פסק'נד to do the way he פסק'נד before against the סנהדרין, חייב, he's חייב. So here we see that when is it considered that the הוראה was finished? If you say, "You are allowed to do it." So it's a קשיא on רב דימי who says that you don't have to say that. אמר רבא, and רבא said, והא לא תנן הכי, he also asked a קשיא against רב דימי that we've learned in the משנה different. In the משנה it says, הורו לה בית דין להנשא, if the בית דין פסק'נד that she's allowed to get married when the עד אחד came to testify that her husband died, והלכה וקלקלה, and she went and she was מזנה, חייבת בקרבן, she has to bring a קרבן, שלא התירו לה אלא להנשא, because even though she did it based on בית דין, but בית דין only allowed her to get married, but not to be מזנה. So here too we see that when would it be considered that she did it based on בית דין, if they are מתיר her להנשא, to get married. So this is also a קשיא on רב דימי. So here too, what רבא said according to this גירסא was a קשיא on רב דימי, not the way it was according to the first לשון, that it was a ראיה to רב דימי. אמר רבינא, רבינא also said, והא לא תנן הכי, didn't we learn different? This is also a קשיא on רב דימי. It says in our משנה here, הורו בית דין לעבור על אחת מכל מצות האמורות בתורה, that if the בית דין פסק'נד to be עובר on one of the מצות of the תורה, and the משנה goes on to say what the דין is. But here we also see the לשון that the בית דין פסק'נד לעבור, to be עובר, which is משמע that when is it considered a גמר פסק, a גמר הוראה, That only if they said you could be עובר, which means you could do it. That's also a קשיא on the דמיון. So we admit then that there's nothing more to discuss about this, that we have proven that the דמיון is wrong. Then the

גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, והלך היחיד ועשה שוגג על פיהם, that after the בית דין פסקנט, an individual person went and did it בשוגג, unintentionally, thinking it was right, did it על פיהם because of the פסק דין of בית דין, so then, whether he did it with them, or he did it after them, or they didn't do it at all, he just did it himself, he is פטור from his individual קרבן. The גמרא asks, the משנה, ועשה על פיהם, let it just say that he did it because of them, because of their פסק, שוגג למה לי, why does the משנה have to add the word שוגג? Obviously it's שוגג. Since he did it because of them, because they פסקנט you're allowed, so it is שוגג. He thought you're allowed because they פסקנט. So why does the משנה also have to add the word שוגג? It should have said והלך היחיד ועשה על פיהם, that the יחיד went and he did on their פסק דין, על פיהם, because of what they said. Why does it have to add the word שוגג? אמר רבא, so רבא said, שוגג, the word שוגג, לאתויי, it comes to include, to add another דין to the משנה, that if הורו בית דין שחלב מותר, if בית דין, for instance, פסקנט that חלב is מותר, חלב is a non-kosher fat, and חלב is one of those עבירות that זדו כרת, if you eat חלב במזיד, you get כרת. So therefore, חלב is included in these thirty-one עבירות that there would be a דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So בית דין פסקנט that חלב is מותר, ונתחלף לו חלב בשומן, and this individual ate חלב, but he didn't know it was חלב, he thought it was שומן, he thought it was kosher fat, לפועל it was non-kosher fat, ואכלו, and he ate it, פטור, he is פטור. Because we would think in this case he should be חייב, because after all, לפועל ממש, he didn't eat the חלב because of the פסק דין of בית דין. He ate חלב because he didn't know it was חלב, he thought it was שומן. So we would think that this person is not considered that he did it על פיהם based on בית דין, he did it בשוגג only. Nevertheless, the משנה tells us that still he is פטור from a חטאת. Why? Because even if he would have known that it's חלב, he still would have eaten it. It is not the פשט that because he didn't know it's חלב, he thought it was שומן, that's why he ate it. Had he known that it was חלב he wouldn't eat it. Since he knew that the בית דין פסקנט that חלב is מותר, so even if he would have known it's חלב, he still would have eaten it. So therefore he doesn't bring a חטאת. So the word שוגג speaks in a case when he actually ate it בשוגג, he ate it unintentionally, not knowing that this is the עבירה that they allowed, even though even if he would have known he would have done it, but לפועל he didn't know, so you are פטור. And the words על פיהם, that it says in the משנה, is על פיהם ממש, means really על פיהם, that he knew that it was חלב, and he nevertheless ate it because the בית דין פסקנט. So the משנה tells us that in both cases he is פטור from his individual חטאת. איכא דאמרי, but some say, אמר רבא, רבא answered, שוגג על פיהם הוא דפטור, that the reason it says in the משנה the word שוגג is not like we said before, to include the case that if חלב got mixed up for שומן and he ate it, that in that case he is also פטור, it is included in the דין of the משנה that he is פטור, but just the opposite. The משנה specially writes the word שוגג על פיהם to tell us that only if his שוגג was based על פיהם, the reason he ate it and what was his שוגג because of their פסק דין, that's when the משנה says you're פטור. אבל נתחלף לו חלב בשומן ואכלו, but if חלב got mixed up with שומן, and he ate the חלב thinking it was שומן, so in that case, חייב, he is חייב. Which means he has to bring his own individual קרבן חטאת, and is not considered that he did the עבירה because he was תולה in בית דין. And the reason is, because why did he eat it? Not because the בית דין said חלב is מותר, the reason he ate it was because he thought it was שומן. So it's his own individual private mistake, and therefore he has to bring his individual קרבן חטאת. The

גמרא says, מילתא דפשיטא ליה לרבא קמיבעיא ליה לרמי בר חמא, and this דין that was so simple for רבא was questionable by רמי בר חמא. דבעי רמי בר חמא, רמי בר חמא asked a question, הורו בית דין שחלב מותר, if בית דין פסקנט that חלב is allowed, ונתחלף לו בשומן, and to one individual חלב got mixed up with שומן, ואכלו, and he ate it, מהו, what is the דין? So he did not know the דין, but רבא did know. אמר רבא, רבא said, תא שמע, come and I'll answer you your דין, listen. We learned in our משנה, והלך היחיד ועשה שוגג על פיהם, that if the בית דין פסקנט, and then the individual went and did בשוגג על פיהם, so he דרשנ'ס, שוגג על פיהם למה לי, why does it have to say the words שוגג על פיהם? לאו, don't you think לאתויי this comes to include that if הורו בית דין שחלב מותר ונתחלף לו חלב בשומן, that if בית דין פסקנט that חלב is allowed, and חלב got mixed up with שומן by him, ואכלו, and he ate it, פטור, he is פטור. So we see from the משנה that this is also included. So this follows according to the first לשון in our גמרא, that רבא'ס answer was that the משנה means to include this case, and this case are also פטור. But then the גמרא asks, how do you know that's what the משנה means? דילמא שוגג על פיהם הוא דפטור, אבל נתחלף לו חלב בשומן ואכלו חייב. Maybe what the משנה is telling us is just the opposite, that only if it's שוגג על פיהם, the whole שוגג was that it was על פיהם, it was because of what they said, that's when the דין is he's פטור from his individual חטאת. But if the reason he ate the חלב was because it got mixed up with שומן, maybe he is חייב. This fits according to the first לשון before, that רבא learned פשט in the משנה that the word שוגג comes to include that case. So the discussion was, as we just have it now, that רבא tried to prove from here that this is included, and the question that רבא was asked was, how do you know this is what the משנה means? Maybe it means to exclude it, that only if it's שוגג על פיהם you are פטור, not if it got exchanged חלב for שומן. איכא דאמרי, others said, and this fits according to the second לשון that we said before, that אמר רבא, רבא answered different: תא שמע, come and hear, הלך יחיד ועשה שוגג על פיהם, it said in the משנה, that if an individual went and did בשוגג על פיהם, he is פטור. מאי לאו, don't you think that what does the משנה mean with these words? שוגג על פיהם הוא דפטור. His whole שוגג was because of their פסק דין, that's when he's פטור, אבל נתחלף לו חלב בשומן ואכלו, but if חלב got mixed up with שומן and he ate it, חייב, he is חייב. So this fits to the second לשון that רבא tried to learn פשט in the משנה that it tells us that in this case you are חייב. And the question that they asked רבא was, דילמא, maybe, או שוגג או על פיהם, that what the משנה means is או שוגג, or he was שוגג, which means that חלב got mixed up with שומן, or it didn't get mixed up and the reason he ate the חלב was because על פיהם, because of their פסק דין. In both cases the משנה says you're פטור. So whichever לשון we accept, one thing is for sure: that רמי בר חמא had the question and רבא answered him from our משנה. What he answered him and what later was asked of רבא, that depends on the two לשונות. But one thing is for sure, that רבא did not have a question, רבא learned a definite פשט from our משנה. Then the גמרא says, תפשוט ד, that this שאלה that we just said, whether חלב was exchanged for שומן, if he is חייב or פטור, is really a מחלוקת. Because we learned: הורו בית דין שחלב מותר, if בית דין פסקנ'ט that חלב is allowed, ונתחלף לו חלב בשומן ואכלו, and חלב got mixed up with שומן and he ate it, רב אומר פטור, רב says that it's פטור, ורבי יוחנן אומר חייב, and רבי יוחנן פסקנ'ט that חייב. גמרא says, מיתבי, I want to ask you a קשיא. We learned in a ברייתא, the ברייתא quotes the פסוק in ויקרא קפיטל ד' פסוק כ"ז, where it says, מעם הארץ בעשותה. This is the פסוק that we mentioned before that speaks about a קרבן חטאת of an individual person. The פסוק says, ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה, if one person will sin בשוגג, מעם הארץ, from amongst the people, בעשותה אחת מכל מצות ה' אשר לא תעשינה ואשם, by doing one of the מצות השם said not to do and he sinned. So the words מעם הארץ בעשותה are written next to each other. So we דרש'ן from the words מעם הארץ בעשותה that this person who sins and is חייב a חטאת has to be מעם הארץ, from amongst the people. Which means not every single person that does an עבירה בשוגג is חייב a חטאת. There are some people who are excluded. Whom do we exclude? פרט למומר, it excludes a מומר, a person who doesn't care about עבירות. So this person is פטור from a חטאת. We don't accept his חטאת. If this person did an עבירה that you are חייב חטאת for, still he is פטור, because since he is a מומר, he doesn't care about עבירות, we don't accept his קרבן. רבי שמעון בן יוסי אומר משום רבי שמעון, רבי שמעון בן יוסי says in the name of רבי שמעון, אינו צריך. We don't have to learn it out from these words. We can learn it out from different words: הרי הוא אומר, the פסוק says there, אשר לא תעשינה בשגגה ואשם. The פסוק says that this person will do the עבירה that you should not do, and he will do it בשגגה ואשם, and he sins. And then the פסוק says, או הודע אליו חטאתו. The next פסוק starts with the words or, his עבירה will be known to him אשר חטא, that he sinned. So we learn out from that פסוק: השב מידיעתו מביא קרבן על שגגתו, that

only a person that would return, that would do תשובה because of his ידיעה, that person brings a קרבן for his שגגתו. Which means that if a person, when he would have known that this is an עבירה, he wouldn't have done it, he would have stopped from doing it, that person brings a קרבן for his שגגתו. Which means that if a person, when he would have known that this is an עבירה, he wouldn't have done it, he would have stopped from doing it, a person like that, if he did the עבירה בשוגג, and later he found out that it was an עבירה, you are חייב a חטאת. But if it's לא שב מידיעתו, if he would not have returned from his knowledge, which means even if he would have known that this is an עבירה he still would have done it, אינו אינו מביא קרבן על שגגתו. This person does not bring a קרבן on his שגגות. So from here we know that a מומר is פטור from a קרבן, because a מומר is not שב מידיעתו, because even if he would have known when he did it that this was an עבירה, he still would have done it. And therefore, a מומר doesn't bring a קרבן. The difference between these two opinions, whether we learn out from the פסוק מעם הארץ בעשותה, or from the פסוק או הודע אליו חטאתו, so רש"י says, the גמרא later on says, that the difference is if he was a מומר for חלב, which means he didn't care about the איסור חלב, but the עבירה he did בשוגג was דם. He ate blood. Now, according to the first פסוק that you learned it out from מעם הארץ בעשותה, not every איד is חייב a חטאת, there are some that are not, and it comes to tell us a מומר is פטור. So as long as he is a מומר, he doesn't bring a קרבן חטאת. Even if he is a מומר for a different עבירה, but לפועל he is in the category of מומר, he doesn't bring a חטאת even for another עבירה. But according to the second ראיה, that we learned it out from the פסוק that you have to be שב מידיעתו, which means that you have to be a person that had you known that this was אסור you wouldn't do it, then if he was a מומר for חלב and he ate דם, he would be חייב a חטאת. Because since he is not a מומר for דם, had he known that דם is אסור, he wouldn't have eaten the דם. So therefore he is considered שב מידיעתו concerning דם, and he would be חייב a חטאת. But in the meantime we see from this גמרא that when do you bring a קרבן חטאת? Only if you are שב מידיעתו, which means if you would have known that this is חלב let's say, you would have not eaten it. So according to that, in the case where the בית דין פסק'נד that חלב is מותר, and then for one person חלב was exchanged for שומן and he ate it thinking it was שומן, he still shouldn't be חייב a חטאת. Because even if he would have known that it's חלב, he still would have eaten it. So he is not considered שב מידיעתו. And we just said that one of the conditions in bringing a חטאת is that you have to be שב מידיעתו. And therefore the גמרא says, ואי איתא if it's true, הלא לא שב מידיעתו הוא, he is not שב מידיעתו this person who got exchanged the חלב and שומן and ate it. Even if he would have known it's חלב, he still would have done it, he still would have eaten it because of the פסק דין of בית דין, so he should be פטור from a קרבן. So this is a קשיא on רבי יוחנן who said before that in this case you are חייב. אמר רב פפא, רב פפא says: קסבר רבי יוחנן, רבי יוחנן holds, כיוון דאי מיתידע להו לבית דינא, that since if the בית דין would find out that it is אסור, הדרי בהו, they would have changed their mind, והוא נמי הדר ביה, he also would have changed his mind. If בית דין would find out that it's אסור, and he would also hear that it's אסור, so then he would not have eaten it. שב מידיעתו קרינן ביה, we consider that שב מידיעתו. Because after all, it is a mistake that he made, because he relied on בית דין, and בית דין thought it was okay. But had he known that this was really אסור, he wouldn't have eaten it. So he is also in the category of שב מידיעתו. וחייב, and therefore he is חייב a קרבן. But one might ask: so in that case, why shouldn't he be חייב a קרבן even if it wasn't exchanged, if the בית דין פסק'נד that חלב is מותר, and he went and ate חלב knowing that it was חלב? He should be חייב a קרבן because he is considered שב מידיעתו. If בית דין would find out that חלב is אסור, and he would also find out, he would not have eaten it. So therefore he is considered שב מידיעתו, should be חייב a קרבן. But that is no קשיא, because there there is another דין. Because concerning תולה בבית דין, if you do it only because בית דין said, there's a special דין that you are פטור from a חטאת, because there is a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and you are part of that פר העלם דבר של ציבור. The only question here was, since לפועל you ate it not because בית דין פסק'נד, because you thought it was שומן, there there is a question whether are you חייב or not. So רבי יוחנן says you are חייב, because you are not considered תולה בבית דין. On the other hand, you are considered שב מידיעתו, and therefore you are חייב a קרבן. Then the גמרא says: אמר רבא, רבא said: מודה רב, רב admits, שאינו משלים לרוב ציבור, that this person would not add up to the majority of the community. Even according to רב who said that he is פטור from bringing his own private קרבן, so we would think that since he is פטור from his private קרבן, obviously he is included in the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, that when the בית דין will have to bring their קרבן, the פר העלם דבר של ציבור for this עבירה of חלב, this person would also be included. Because we said that he doesn't bring his own private קרבן, he's included in that קרבן. Now, if he is included in that קרבן, then he should be counted as one of the people also. Because the דין is that when does the community or the בית דין bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור? Only if at least the majority of the ציבור did as the בית דין פסק'נד. If the majority of the ציבור didn't do it, then there is no דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So let's say there was a case that 50% did it, and this one person, if he is considered part of the ציבור, then this makes the majority. It was exactly 50% that did it. He ate חלב, but thinking it was שומן. Now, if we

say that he is פטור from his individual קרבן, which means that he is considered part of the ציבור, so because of him there is a majority that did as the בית דין פסק'נט, and therefore there would be a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So רבא says that רב still admits that he is not included in the ציבור. In other words, he cannot be משלים to the to the majority of the ציבור. If the 50% did it only, and one other person exchanged חלב for שומן and ate it, it is still considered that only 50% did it, not the majority, and there would be no פר העלם דבר של ציבור. מאי טעמא? What is the reason? אמר רבא, because the פסוק says, "בשגגה", concerning the דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור it says if they all did it, "בשגגה", "עד שיהיו כולם בשגגה אחת". And when do you bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור? If all the people were within the same שוגג, the same category of שוגג. But here, not all of them were in the same שוגג. The 50%, their שוגג was because בית דין פסק'נט, his שוגג was because he didn't know this was חלב, so therefore it is not the same שוגג, and the דין is that it is not considered רוב ציבור and there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור. Then the גמרא says, it says in the משנה, "בין שעשו ועשה עמהן וכולי", that when this individual went and did as the בית דין פסק'נט, so the משנה mentions three categories, three possibilities: one is that they did, the בית דין did and he did with them; another possibility, they did and he did after them; and a third possibility, that they didn't do and he did, nevertheless he is פטור, because he is תולה בבית דין. Then the סיפא of the משנה says, also mentions these three categories, but in the case of being חייב, that if one of the members of the בית דין, or a תלמיד who was fit for הוראה knew that they were wrong, and nevertheless he went along and did it, and here again the משנה mentions the three possibilities: whether they did it and he did do it with them, or if they did it and he did it after them, or they didn't do it and he did do it, in all these three cases he is חייב. Why? Because he wasn't תולה בבית דין, because he knew that they were wrong. He did it because of himself, so therefore he is חייב. So the

גמרא asks, "למה לי למיתני כל הני?" Why does the משנה have to mention all these three possible cases? בשלמא רישא, we understand in the רישא where the משנה mentions these three possibilities, in the case where you are פטור, we understand why the משנה mentions these three cases, because "לא זו אף זו קתני". The לשון of the משנה is in the form of "לא זו אף זו", not only this, but that also. It is, as the משנה goes on, every second possibility is a bigger חידוש than the one before. Because if he did it together with them, then definitely it is considered that he is תולה בבית דין. If he did it after them, it is less that he is תולה בבית דין. If they didn't do it at all and he did it, that's even less תולה בבית דין. So what the משנה is telling us, not only if he did it together with them, which is definitely תולה בבית דין, he is פטור, but also if he did it after them. And not only if he did it after them, but even if they didn't do it at all and he did it himself, still he is considered תולה בבית דין. So as it goes, it is a bigger חידוש, and that is a normal סדר in the משנה, that the משנה should write different things in the form of "לא זו אף זו". אלא סיפא דלחיובא, but in the סיפא, where these three possibilities are mentioned for חיוב, איפכא מיבעי ליה, he should have said it the opposite, because there, where the משנה says that you are חייב, the bigger חידוש that you are חייב is even if you did it together with them. A lesser חידוש is if you did it after them, and the least חידוש is that you are חייב your own private קרבן if they didn't do it at all. So the משנה should have said it differently, should have said that not only if he did it and they didn't do it, and not only if he did it after them, but even if he did it together with them, still he is חייב because he is not considered תולה בבית דין. But the משנה doesn't do that, the משנה gives it in a different order. And the גמרא answers, "זו ואין צריך לומר זו קתני", that the order of the משנה is in the order of "זו ואין צריך לומר זו". Even though this is not common, but sometimes we find that order in the משנה also, that the משנה says one דין, and then the משנה continues that the second דין is definite, and the third דין is surely. In other words, this I'm telling you, and the other thing I don't even have to tell you, it's obvious, and then the third thing is even more obvious. And that's the order of this משנה. First it says that if he did it together with them, he is still חייב, then it says it's more obvious, certainly that he is חייב if he did it after them, and certainly he is חייב if they didn't do it and he

did it himself. Then the גמרא continues, it says in the משנה, that if there was one person of the בית דין, "ויודע אחד מהם שטעו", one of them knew that they made a mistake, "או תלמיד וראוי להוראה", or if he's a תלמיד and was fit to פסק'ן, he wasn't a member of the סנהדרין, but he was ready, fit to פסק'ן, and he knew that they made a mistake, and nevertheless he did it, he is חייב his own individual קרבן. The גמרא asks, "תרתי למה לי?" Why does the משנה have to mention both, that it was a member of the סנהדרין that knew the mistake, or a תלמיד שראוי להוראה? אמר רבא, so רבא said, "איצטריך", the משנה had to tell us both, because סלקא דעתך אמינא, I would have thought if the משנה would have just written that a member of the סנהדרין knew it was a mistake, he is חייב, and the משנה would have not mentioned תלמיד ראוי להוראה, I would think, הני מילי גמיר וסביר. When is this person considered that he did it on his own, not on בית דין, if he was גמיר, he learned, he knew how to learn a lot, וסביר, he also was able to understand the things that he learns, one from another. In other words, that he was able to compare different things that he didn't learn to the things that he learned, and come out with דינים. Such a smart person, if he feels that the בית דין made a mistake, and nevertheless he did it, we do not consider it that he did it because of בית דין. אבל גמיר ולא סביר, what happens if he learned, he's a person who knows how to learn, but לא סביר, he doesn't have the סברא, he's not in the level yet of comparing one thing to another. לא, I would think that if he goes along and does it, it is considered that he was תולה בבית דין, because he is not that great to say that when he felt that בית דין is wrong, that feeling really has a meaning to say that he did not rely on בית דין. Therefore the משנה says that even if it's a תלמיד ראוי להוראה, which comes to include even if he's just גמיר and not סביר, we also consider it that he was not תולה בבית דין, and he is חייב his own חטאת.

אמר ליה אביי, אביי said to him, the word להוראה גמיר וסביר משמע. The word להוראה means that he learned and he's able to compare, is able to understand. In other words, the way you want to prove that even if he's not סביר, still it is considered that he did it on his own, is from the words תלמיד ראוי להוראה? How do these words prove that? The words תלמיד ראוי להוראה doesn't mean that. A תלמיד ראוי להוראה could mean that he is גמיר and סביר. אמר ליה, so רבא said to him, אנא הכי קאמינא, this is what I meant. אי מההיא, if from that only, which means if the משנה would only have mentioned that a member of the סנהדרין knew that they were wrong, הוה אמינא, I would think, הני מילי גמיר וסביר, that when is it considered that he did it on his own, only if he is גמיר and סביר. אבל גמיר ולא סביר, לא, but if he's just גמיר and not סביר, it is not considered that he did it on his own. תני ראוי להוראה, that's why the משנה adds that if it was a תלמיד that was ראוי להוראה is also considered that if he did it on his own. ממשנה יתירה, from the extra משנה, from the extra words of the משנה, we know אפילו גמיר ולא סביר, סביר ולא גמיר. Even if he was a person that was just גמיר and not סביר, he knew a lot, but he couldn't compare one thing to the other, or even if he could compare one thing to the other, but he didn't know so much, if he felt that בית דין was wrong, and nevertheless he did it, so he is חייב his own חטאת. So רבא did not mean that we learn it out from the meaning of the words ראוי להוראה, what he meant was, from the extra words, that's where he learned out that even if it is גמיר ולא סביר or סביר ולא גמיר, still, if he knew that they were wrong and did it, it is considered that he did it on his own. ראוי להוראה וכולי, the משנה said if a תלמיד who is fit for הוראה, and he knew they were wrong, he is חייב his own חטאת. כגון מאן, for instance like who? אמר רבא, said רבא, כגון שמעון בן עזאי ושמעון בן זומא. For instance, שמעון בן עזאי and שמעון בן זומא, that it says in the first פרק of סנהדרין דף יז ע"ב, that there were תלמידים who were דנים לפני חכמים, who were sitting and discussing with the חכמים. And it says there, who were they? שמעון בן עזאי ושמעון בן זומא. That's an example of people who are not part of the סנהדרין, but nevertheless, they are תלמידים ראוי להוראה who are sitting in front of the סנהדרין. אמר ליה אביי, אביי said to him, כי האי גוונא, if it's that kind, מזיד הוא, it's מזיד, because the example you give is from שמעון בן עזאי and שמעון בן זומא, these were people who actually knew how to learn, and if they knew that the בית דין made a mistake, and nevertheless they went along and did it, we would consider that מזיד. We're saying here that if the תלמיד ראוי להוראה knew that they made a mistake, and nevertheless did it, he is חייב a חטאת, he's not included in the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and he has to bring his own individual חטאת. But a

חטאת is only brought if you do the עבירה by mistake, but if you do the עבירה intentionally, there is no חטאת. Now here, these people, if they realized that the בית דין made a mistake, and nevertheless they did it, it's considered מזיד. מילא if it wouldn't be such great people like them, then you say that even though he felt בית דין made a mistake, but still in his mind it is not sure, so when he did it later, we still consider it שוגג, but we don't consider it שוגג part of the ציבור, but a private שוגג. But if it's people like them, and if they felt that בית דין was wrong, they knew for sure בית דין was wrong, and if they still went along and did it, that is considered מזיד. So why should they בכלל be חייב a חטאת? So he says back to him, ולטעמיך, according to you, that you're asking me the question, I'll ask you a question back. הא דתניא, we learned in a ברייתא, the ברייתא quotes the פסוק בעשותה אחת. In that same פסוק, in פרשת ויקרא, קפיטל ד פסוק כז, where it says ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה מעם הארץ בעשותה אחת ממצות ה' אשר לא תעשינה, so we דרש'ן בעשותה אחת, that when is a קרבן חטאת brought? בעשותה אחת, which means, יחיד העושה מפי עצמו חייב, that if an individual person does on his own, he is חייב. בהוראת בית דין פטור, but if he didn't do it on his own, but he did it because of the פסק דין of בית דין, he is פטור. That's what the ברייתא says, this is the לימוד that we have from where we know that if a person does the עבירה because of בית דין, he is פטור from his own private קרבן. כיצד, and the ברייתא says, what does that mean? הורו בית דין, for instance if בית דין פסקן שחלב מותר, that חלב is allowed, ונודע לאחד מהם שטעו, and one of them knew that there was a mistake, או תלמיד יושב לפניהם וראוי להוראה, or if a תלמיד was sitting in front of them and was fit to פסקן, וכגון, and the ברייתא says clearly an example of who is it, for instance שמעון בן עזאי, and he knew it was wrong, and nevertheless he did it, יכול יהא פטור, I would think he is also פטור from his private קרבן, תלמוד לומר בעשותה אחת, that's what the פסוק means when it says בעשותה אחת, יחיד העושה על פי עצמו חייב, only if one does it, which means he does it as an individual thing as one, he doesn't do it as part of the community and based on what the בית דין said. If he does it as a יחיד, then he is חייב. בהוראת בית דין פטור, if he does it because בית דין פסקנס, he is פטור. And from here we know that this תלמיד, since he knew בית דין was wrong, and he nevertheless did it, he is חייב. But in this ברייתא, it says clearly an example of what kind of תלמיד do we mean, שמעון בן עזאי. So the question you asked by me, רבא is saying to אביי, that how could I say it's שמעון בן עזאי? Because it is מזיד in that case, and therefore you wanted to say that it can't be שמעון בן עזאי. Here we see a ברייתא where it says clearly שמעון בן עזאי, and nevertheless there it says that you are חייב a חטאת, and it's not considered מזיד. What will you say the ברייתא? מילא in the משנה where it doesn't say a name, it was I who said the name, so you want to show that I'm wrong. But here I'm showing you a ברייתא where it says also the name. What are you going to say there? אלא היכי משכחת לה, but how is it possible that in a case like this you should be חייב a חטאת? כגון דידע דאסור, he knew it's אסור. He knew that what בית דין said was מותר really was אסור. איי, the question we ask, if he still did it, he is מזיד? דקא טעי במצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים. He made a mistake in this דין that מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים. There is a דין you must listen to חכמים, but the דין is that you only must listen to them if they פסקן according to the תורה. But if they פסקן against the תורה, then you don't have to listen to them. But this תלמיד thought, even though he knew that they פסקנד against the תורה, but he thought that this מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים applies even if it's against the תורה, and that's why he went along and did it. So, he didn't do it because בית דין פסקנד you're allowed to do it, because he knew it's wrong, so we consider it that he did it on his own. On the other hand, we don't consider him מזיד, but שוגג, because the reason he did it was not because he wanted to do an עבירה, because he

thought you're allowed to do this עבירה. Why? Because מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים. So, just like you're going to answer this פשט in the ברייתא, לדידי נמי, according to me also when I'm saying פשט in the משנה, it also means דטעה במצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים, that it mean a תלמיד that knew it was wrong, and his mistake was that he thought that the מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים also applies in a case where the בית דין פסקנד wrong, and that's why it is considered שוגג and he is חייב a חטאת. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, זה הכלל, this is the rule, התולה בעצמו חייב, if someone is תולה in himself, does it because of his own doing, then he is חייב his own individual קרבן חטאת. If he does it because of the פסק דין of בית דין, he is פטור from his own individual חטאת. So the גמרא asks לאתויי מאי, what do these words, that if he is תולה in himself, he is חייב, what do these words come to add? It already said before in the משנה that if he does it because of himself, he is חייב a חטאת. It said there clearly that this תלמיד who knew they were wrong and nevertheless did it, he is חייב a חטאת. Why? Because he's not תולה in בית דין. So why does the משנה have to give us a כלל that anybody who's תולה in himself is חייב? The גמרא says לאתויי, it comes to add, מבעט בהוראה, a person who usually is not careful with the פסקי דינים of בית דין. So a person like that, even though he claims that he did it because בית דין said, but we know he never listens to בית דין, so therefore when he did it, he probably did it on his own, and he would be חייב. And that's added with the words that if he is תולה בעצמו, that this person is also considered תולה בעצמו and he is חייב. Then the משנה continued the second half, that if he is תולה בבית דין, he is פטור. What does that come to include? תולה בבית דין לאתויי, these words that if he is תולה בבית דין he is פטור, they come to include that if הורו בית דין, the בית דין פסקנד, וידעו שטעו, and they knew they made a mistake, וחזרו בהן, and they changed their mind, and after they changed, an individual person who did not know that they changed went along and did the עבירה based on their original פסק דין, he is also פטור from his קרבן because he's also considered תולה בבית דין. That's what the משנה comes to add with the words that if you are תולה בבית דין, you are פטור. But the גמרא asks, הא בהדיא קתני לה, this דין, it says בפירוש in the משנה later on. Later on in the משנה דף ג עמוד ב, the משנה discusses this דין. So how can we say that this משנה, the first משנה here comes to include this דין? The גמרא answers, תני והדר מפרש, first he says it in a general way, in a way of a rule, and the next משנה explains what this משנה meant generally. Then the גמרא says

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, זו דברי רבי יהודה, this דין that our משנה says, that if an individual person did the עבירה based on the פסק דין of בית דין, he is פטור from his private חטאת, this is only the opinion of רבי יהודה. אבל חכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say that יחיד שעשה בהוראת בית דין חייב, an individual person who did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין, he is חייב. And the גמרא explains: מאי רבי יהודה, where do we find the opinion of רבי יהודה? דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, quotes the פסוק in נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה בעשותה, and if one person, one נפש, will do the עבירה בשוגג בעשותה while it will do something that השם said you shouldn't do, הרי אלו ג' מיעוטין. In this פסוק we find three מיעוטין, three words which come to exclude something. Because we דרשנ'ן this word תחטא as if it would say three times: as if it would say נפש תחטא, אחת תחטא, and בעשותה תחטא. So each time it says, if a נפש will sin, one will sin, while he'll do, he'll sin. Because the meaning of the פסוק is that the word תחטא applies to each one. So it comes to exclude something else. Now,

one of the things that it comes to exclude is that העושה מפי עצמו חייב, if you do on your own, you are חייב. הוראת בית דין פטור, if you do the עבירה בשוגג because בית דין said you're allowed, then you are פטור. The other two things that we are ממעט from this פסוק the גמרא doesn't mention here, but the גמרא in שבת says in פרק המצניע, according to רבי יהודה the מיעוטין are as follows: One מיעוט comes to tell us that זה עוקר וזה מניח is פטור. For instance, by the מלאכה of שבת of carrying, the דין is that when you carry out from one רשות to another, you are חייב only if you made an עקירה and a הנחה. You picked it up from a resting place in one רשות, you took it out to the other רשות, and you were מניח, you put it down on a resting place in the other רשות, then you are חייב. But if two people together did the מלאכה, one made the עקירה, one picked it up in one רשות, and handed it over to the other, and the other one put it down in the other רשות, then you are פטור. Both of them are פטור from a חטאת because none of them did the whole עבירה. So that's one מיעוט that we learn out, that if זה עוקר וזה מניח you are פטור. Another מיעוט is that זה יכול וזה יכול you are פטור, that if two people do an עבירה together, not like we just said one does the first half and one does the other half, but together they do the whole עבירה, and each one could have done the עבירה himself, for instance, if both together carry out an object from one רשות to another, and the object wasn't big so that each one could have carried it out himself, and together they made an עקירה and הנחה, so each one is פטור, because since they did it together, each one only did a half of the מלאכה. So that's what we learn out from the second מיעוט. And the third מיעוט comes to teach us that if you did it based on the הוראה of בית דין, it is פטור. And as the גמרא will explain later on, this is the opinion of רבי יהודה. So here we see a place where רבי יהודה says that if a יחיד does בהוראת בית דין he's פטור. And then the גמרא will explain where we find that the רבנן hold that if a יחיד does בהוראת בית דין, he is חייב.

Concerning what we learned before that there were two לשונות in גמרא, concerning the מחלוקת between שמואל and רב דימי מנהרדעא, which one said that the only time this דין applies is if they say מותרין אתם לעשות, or it's enough if they say מותרין? So the first לשון was that שמואל said that you say מותרין, and רב דימי was the one that said that you have to say מותרין אתם לעשות. And then the different אמוראים brought ראיות from different משניות to רב דימי. And the second לשון was just the opposite, and then these אמוראים asked קושיות on רב דימי. The תוספות ask a קשיא that לכאורה, why did the גמרא change that, too? The difference should have been on whom the ראיה is. According to the first לשון it's a ראיה to רב דימי, according to the second לשון it's a ראיה to שמואל. Or it should have been that according to the second לשון it's a קשיא on רב דימי, and according to the first לשון it should be a קשיא on שמואל. But why is it that according to the first לשון it's a ראיה to רב דימי, and according to the second לשון it's a קשיא on רב דימי? And תוספות answers, because according to the first לשון we couldn't make a קשיא on שמואל. Why? Because maybe רב דימי didn't mean to argue on שמואל, but he meant to explain what שמואל said. Because שמואל said, לעולם אין בית דין חייבין עד שיאמרו להם מותרין אתם. רב דימי says עד שיאמרו להם מותרין אתם לעשות, because till then לא נגמרה הוראה. So maybe רב דימי is just explaining what שמואל meant. So all we did was brought a ראיה to רב דימי. In the second לשון it is clear that it's a מחלוקת, because in the second לשון first שמואל says that you have to say מותרין אתם לעשות, and then רב דימי says that even if they just said מותרין אתם, it's also enough. So there is definitely a מחלוקת, and therefore, in the second לשון the גמרא uses it as a קשיא. Another thing that תוספות says, that here it comes out at the end that למעשה concerning קרבן you have to say מותרין אתם לעשות. But if you just say מותרין אתם, it's not enough. So תוספות says that it's not only here, but this is a כלל always: that a תלמיד should not rely on the words of his רבי until he tells him that you are allowed to do it, till he פסקנ'ס clearly. אגב the גמרא says in בבא בתרא דף קל אין למדין הלכה מפי מעשה, you cannot learn out a הלכה from מעשה. So there it means if a person will tell you, I saw a מעשה happened so-and-so, that they פסקנ'ד this and this way, you can't rely on that, maybe he didn't look into it, maybe there was something else there. The only time you could rely, if it is told הלכה למעשה, which means that you find the הלכה in the words of the תנאים and אמוראים, and that was brought down למעשה, so then you could פסקן from there. But just by seeing a מעשה, and you didn't hear the פסק דין that you're allowed to do it, you can't rely on it.