Jewish audio on chabad.org. שיעור is in מסכת הוריות דף ג, but we will start 25 lines from the bottom of דף ב עמוד ב. The גמרא here is speaking concerning the דין that if בית דין פסקנ'ט that you are allowed to do a certain עבירה because they made a mistake and they thought you're allowed, and this is concerning an עבירה that if a person would do it במזיד, he would get כרת. Concerning such an עבירה, the בית דין פסקנ'ט that you're allowed to do it, and then a person went along and did it because he was תולה בבית דין, he did it because of the פסק דין of בית דין, so then he is פטור from bringing his own private קרבן חטאת. If he would do it on his own, not because the בית דין פסקנ'ט, then he would have to bring his own private קרבן חטאת, which would be a כשבה or a שעירה. But in the case where he did it because of בית דין, the משנה says he is פטור from bringing his own קרבן. And the גמרא said that this דין that the משנה says only goes according to רבי יהודה, but according to the רבנן, they hold that if a יחיד did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין, he is still חייב. In other words, this דין that if בית דין פסקנ'ס that you're allowed to do an עבירה, and the people followed the פסק דין of בית דין and did the עבירה, so then the בית דין, or the ציבור, or the people, as the גמרא will explain later the two opinions, have to bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. They bring a special קרבן that the whole community as a whole brings. But

each individual person who did the עבירה does not have to bring his own individual private קרבן חטאת. But this דין was only said if the whole ציבור did the עבירה the בית דין פסקנ'ד you're allowed to do, or at least the רוב ציבור, the majority of the ציבור did the עבירה. That's when you bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and that's when everyone agrees that the יחיד, that each individual person, does not have to bring his own private קרבן חטאת. But from our משנה it's משמע that not only if the whole ציבור or the majority of the ציבור did the עבירה, that's when each person is פטור from the קרבן חטאת, because then you bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, but it is משמע that even if one person or some people did what the בית דין פסקנ'ד you're allowed to do, nevertheless, they are פטור from bringing their own private קרבן חטאת. Which means that even though there will be no פר העלם דבר של ציבור brought, because as we said before, a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, this חטאת from the community, is only brought if all the people did the עבירה, or at least the majority of the people. But if the majority of the people didn't do the עבירה, just some of the people, then there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור. Nevertheless, the משנה says that even though he is a יחיד, an individual person who did the עבירה based on בית דין, he is still פטור from a קרבן חטאת. In other words, in a case like that, there will be no חטאת at all brought. There will be no פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and there will also be no private קרבן חטאת, because as the משנה says that since he did it because he based it on בית דין, he is פטור from a קרבן. So the גמרא said that this is the opinion only of רבי יהודה, but the רבנן argue and they say that if a יחיד did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין, he has to bring a קרבן חטאת. And the

גמרא first brought a ברייתא where we see that there is an opinion that holds that if a יחיד did it based on בית דין, he is פטור from a קרבן. And then the גמרא will now bring another ברייתא where we see that there is another opinion that says that if a יחיד did it based on בית דין, he is חייב a קרבן. And the גמרא at the end will prove that the first ברייתא is the opinion of רבי יהודה, and the second ברייתא is the opinion of the רבנן. And that's where we're holding where the גמרא asks מאי רבנן, where do we see a ברייתא that the רבנן hold that if a יחיד did it based on בית דין, he is חייב to bring a קרבן חטאת? And the גמרא says דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, עדיין אני אומר, the beginning of the ברייתא is as follows, as רש''י here brings, the ברייתא quotes the פסוק בעשותה, that a person when he did the עבירה he has to bring a קרבן חטאת, and the פסוק uses the לשון בעשותה, so the ברייתא says יכול, I would think, יחיד שעשה חייב שנים שעשו פטורין, that only if one person did the עבירה he is חייב, but if two people did the עבירה they are פטור, because the פסוק says בעשותה, when he will do the עבירה, is משמע only if he did it, but if two people did it, they are פטור. So the

ברייתא brings the פסוק מעם הארץ, אפילו מרובין, even if they are more than one, they are still חייב. And then the ברייתא continues, and that's where our גמרא starts quoting the ברייתא, עדיין אני אומר, but still I would think that even though we just said that even if there is more than one person that did the עבירה, nevertheless they are חייב a קרבן, but I still would think מיעוט קהל שחטאו חייבין, that if the minority of the congregation of the community did the עבירה, that's when they're חייב a קרבן. Why? שאין בית דין מביאין על ידיהם פר, because since the minority they are חייב a private קרבן. But if רוב קהל שחטאו, if the majority of the congregation did the עבירה, I would think יהיו פטורין, they would be פטור. Why? שהרי בית דין מביאין על ידיהן פר, because בית דין would bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So since בית דין brings the פר, so that's when I would think that each individual person is פטור. תלמוד לומר מעם הארץ אפילו רובה. The פסוק מעם הארץ teaches us, from the people of the land, that even the majority of the people did the עבירה, still they have to bring a חטאת, ואפילו כולה, even if all the יידן did the עבירה, they also have to bring, each person individually, his own personal קרבן חטאת. And the גמרא will explain what the ברייתא is talking about. And the

גמרא asks, במאי? What does the ברייתא mean? What kind of עבירה was done? אילימא בשגגת מעשה, if we'll be talking that the ברייתא is speaking only if each person did an עבירה בשוגג, but it has nothing to do with the פסק דין of בית דין, בית דין שלא בהוראה, there was no פסק דין of בית דין, בית דין מאי עבידתייהו? So then what is בית דין doing here? What does the ברייתא mention the בית דין? Because שלא בהוראת בית דין, if this was done without the פסק דין of בית דין, בית דין במעשה שלא בהוראה, does בית דין bring a קרבן if they didn't פסקן? The ברייתא says that why would I think that if the majority of the community did the עבירה they should be פטור, is because the בית דין will bring the קרבן. But if we're saying that we're talking in a case where the בית דין didn't פסקן, and they all did the עבירה on their own, then what does the ברייתא mean that the בית דין will bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור? If the בית דין didn't פסקן, and they all did it on their own, בית דין will not bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. Because this דין that a בית דין or the people bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור is only if they did it based on a פסק דין of בית דין. But if even all the יידן did the same עבירה בשוגג, but it has nothing to do with a פסק דין of בית דין, so then בית דין wouldn't bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So what does the ברייתא mean that I would think that if all of them did the עבירה, or the majority did the עבירה, they are פטור from a קרבן because בית דין brings the פר העלם דבר של ציבור? That is not true. If we're talking in a case where it wasn't through a פסק דין of בית דין, then בית דין will not bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. אלא, therefore you must say that the ברייתא is speaking בהוראה, that there was a פסק דין of בית דין. And the פשט of the ברייתא is like this: that the ברייתא starts off with saying that I would think that in the case where there was a פסק דין of בית דין, and the מיעוט did according to what the בית דין פסקנ'ד and did that, that's when each individual has to bring his own קרבן. But what about if the majority did according to the פסק דין of בית דין, they don't have to bring a קרבן? תלמוד לומר מעם הארץ בעשותה, that even if the majority did it based on a פסק דין of בית דין, they also have to bring, each one, his individual קרבן חטאת. But that is not true, that פשט, because כי כתיב מעם הארץ בשגגת מעשה הוא דכתיב, because this פסוק that the גמרא brings, מעם הארץ, that each individual person brings a קרבן, that is only if there was only שגגת מעשה, which means only if he did the עבירה בשוגג without the בית דין. So how can the ברייתא use this פסוק to prove that even if they did it with the הוראה of בית דין, nevertheless they are חייב, every individual his own קרבן? אלא לאו הכא קאמר, therefore we must say the פשט in this ברייתא is like this: מיעוט קהל שחטאו בשגגת מעשה חייבין, that if the minority of the people did an עבירה, just שגגת מעשה, they all did it בשוגג without the בית דין, חייבין, they are all חייב to bring each individual קרבן. That the ברייתא starts off saying, we know for sure. Why are we so sure that every person has to bring his own private קרבן in the case where they did the עבירה בשוגג without the בית דין? Because שאין בית דין מביאין על ידיהן פר בהוראה, because if it would be a similar case with the פסק דין of בית דין, בית דין wouldn't have brought their פר העלם דבר של ציבור. But what would have happened? הוו הנך חייבין, but they would be חייב. Which means that if the בית דין would have פסקנ'ד, and they would have followed the בית דין, but they would have been a minority, so then בית דין would not bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, as the דין is that the פר העלם דבר של ציבור is only brought if the majority did the עבירה, but if the minority did the עבירה, then בית דין does not bring the קרבן, but they are חייב, each individual one would be חייב even though they did it based on בית דין. So if so, the same thing would apply in a case when they did not base it on בית דין, that if just the minority did the עבירה on their own, they also have to bring, each one, his own personal קרבן חטאת. It is not worse than if the same thing would have happened with the פסק דין of בית דין, because if it would have happened with the פסק דין of בית דין, then they would have to bring, each individual one, because בית דין doesn't bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, so if it was done without the פסק דין of בית דין, each one also has to bring his own private קרבן. But יכול, I would think רוב ציבור ש... עשו בשגגת מעשה יהיו פטורין, but if the

majority of the people did the עבירה, only בשגגת מעשה, which means everyone his own שוגג, without the פסק דין of בית דין, I would think then they should be פטור. Even though there was no פסק דין of בית דין, but since the majority of the people did it, they should be פטור from each individual קרבן חטאת, why? שהרי בית דין מביאין עליהם פר בהוראה, because if it would be a similar case, and it would have been through the הוראה of בית דין, through the פסק דין of בית דין, then they would have been פטור. Why? Because the בית דין would have brought the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So we would think that just like if the majority did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין, each person is פטור from his own חטאת, because the בית דין brings the פר העלם דבר של ציבור for them, so too, if it was done without the פסק דין of בית דין, but since it was the majority, they should also be פטור from each individual, for קרבן חטאת. תלמוד לומר, says the ברייתא, brings the פסוק מעם הארץ, that this teaches us אפילו רובי, that even if the majority did the עבירה, but as long as it was done בשגגת מעשה, through their own שוגג without the פסק דין of בית דין, they are חייב. So from this ברייתא at least we see that if the minority did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין, they do have to bring their own קרבן חטאת. Because this was the beginning of the ברייתא. The whole reason why the ברייתא thought that there's a difference between a minority doing it בשגגת מעשה with their own שוגג לגבי if the majority did it with their own שוגג, was because in the case where the majority did it with their own שוגג, then they are פטור from a קרבן because the בית דין brings a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. In the case of the minority, since if it would have been through the פסק דין of בית דין, the בית דין wouldn't bring, but they would bring, so too, if it wasn't done through the פסק דין of בית דין, they also have to bring. So we see here that the ברייתא holds that if it was done through the פסק דין of בית דין, but if it was just a מיעוט that did it, they have to bring their own קרבן. So here we see that there is an opinion that says that if a יחיד or a מיעוט did the עבירה based on the פסק דין of בית דין, nevertheless, he is חייב to bring his own קרבן חטאת. The גמרא says, אמר רב פפא, רב פפא said, ממאי? How do you know that this is the פשט in the ברייתא? דילמא maybe לא הן ולא בית דין, not they and not בית דין. In the first part of the ברייתא, where it said that I would think that only if the מיעוט did it without the פסק דין of בית דין, you have to bring each individual קרבן חטאת, and the reason was because in a case like that, had it been through the פסק דין of בית דין, they would have been חייב? How do you know that is the פשט? Maybe the פשט is that since in a case like this, had it been through the פסק דין of בית דין, בית דין wouldn't bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, but they also wouldn't bring any קרבן. But what the ברייתא means that since the בית דין wouldn't have brought the פר העלם דבר של ציבור in the case of the מיעוט, טאקע they also wouldn't bring, but at least there would not be a פר העלם דבר של ציבור either, so therefore, in a case where it was not through the פסק דין of בית דין, each individual is חייב. In other words, this דין that if the מיעוט did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין, there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור, this just proves that a מיעוט, we don't consider them as a community, but each one has a separate דין. Each person has a דין for himself. והא ראיה that there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור brought in the case where the מיעוט followed their פסק דין. טאקע each individual himself would also be פטור in that case, because after all, he based his פסק דין on בית דין. And therefore you can't make him bring his own קרבן חטאת when it wasn't his own שוגג. That's why he's פטור himself. But from the fact that there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור either, that shows that they are not considered as being a ציבור. So from that we would understand that in the case where it was not done based on the פסק דין of בית דין, so one thing we know that they are not considered ציבור because it is only a מיעוט, but on the other hand, they do have to bring their own קרבן חטאת because it was their own שוגג, so why shouldn't they bring their own קרבן חטאת? The only reason we would think they shouldn't bring their own קרבן חטאת is because it's not considered as if each individual person did something on his own as an individual person. But as soon as we say that had it been done even through the פסק דין of בית דין, there wouldn't have been a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, so that shows that they are not a ציבור. So in the case where it was done without the בית דין, the סברא should be they should be חייב a חטאת. And that's what the ברייתא maybe means. But you have no ראיה from the ברייתא that if a יחיד did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין, the יחיד also has to bring his own קרבן חטאת. And the גמרא answers, אי הכי, if so, like you say that the ברייתא holds that if a יחיד, a מיעוט, did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין, they are also פטור. So if so, מאי אריא דקמהדר ארובא לחיובא? Why is the ברייתא looking to prove that if the majority did it, they are חייב? And as we said before, the ברייתא is looking to prove that if the majority did it without the בית דין, they are חייב. Is משמע לאו, doesn't that prove, מכלל הראיה דמיעוט בהוראה קיימי דמחייבי בהוראה, and if a מיעוט did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין, they are חייב. Why? Because if the פשט would be that the ברייתא hold that if a מיעוט did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין they are פטור, so how do we know that if the מיעוט did it without the פסק דין of בית דין, they are חייב? Why don't we say that just like if the מיעוט did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין, then they are פטור, בית דין doesn't bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and each individual is also פטור, so maybe the same thing if the מיעוט did it not based on the פסק דין of בית דין, they should also be פטור? Why should we be so sure they're חייב? And if the דין is that they are חייב, that should be the first step. In other words, the first thing the ברייתא should do is to prove that if the מיעוט did it בשגגת מעשה not based on בית דין, they should be חייב. Since if they did it based on בית דין, they are פטור, so first we have to prove that if they did it not based on בית דין, the מיעוט is חייב. And then we could go on to the second step and prove that not only מיעוט that did it without בית דין is חייב, even if the רוב did it without בית דין, they're also חייב. But the ברייתא doesn't mention that step at all. The מעשה is ברייתא just starts off saying that we are sure that if the מיעוט did it without the בית דין, they're חייב. What about if the רוב? Maybe they're פטור. תלמוד לומר מעם הארץ, they're also חייב. But

why doesn't the ברייתא first do that? לנהדר ברישא, first let's look how מיעוט דמחייבי בשגגת מעשה, to prove that a מיעוט that did it בשגגת מעשה without בית דין is חייב, ולבסוף נהדר, then we should look, ארובא לחיובא בשגגת מעשה, to prove that even if a רוב that did it בשגגת מעשה without בית דין, are also חייב. אלא לאו, isn't it certain, מדלא מהדר אמיעוטא דמחייבי בשגגת מעשה, since the ברייתא doesn't do that, the ברייתא doesn't first look to prove that if the מיעוט did it בשגגת מעשה without בית דין they are חייב, ובסוף מהדר ארובא לחיובא בשגגת מעשה, and then the ברייתא should first look for proving that if the רוב did it on בשגגת מעשה without בית דין they're also חייב, but the ברייתא right away goes to prove that the רוב that did it בשגגת מעשה חייב, but concerning the מיעוט, the ברייתא doesn't even feel that it's important to prove that they are חייב, שמע מינה, that proves, דמיעוט בהוראה חייבין הן כשבה ושעירה, that if the מיעוט did it even based on the פסק דין of בית דין they are חייב, each individual person a כשבה או שעירה which is the private חטאת, ושלא בהוראה בשגגת מעשה חייבין, and also if they did it without פסק דין of בית דין they're also חייב. In other words, this is the reason why the ברייתא took it for granted that if the מיעוט does it without the בית דין, they are חייב, because even if they would have done it with the בית דין, they would also be חייב. And that's what the ברייתא means, that if the מיעוט does it without the בית דין, we know they're חייב, because even if they would do it with the בית דין, they would also be חייב. The question is, what about the רוב? Since if it would have done been done through the בית דין, they would have been פטור, so I would think even if it's done without the בית דין it's also פטור. תלמוד לומר, the פסוק teaches that they're חייב. But we see at least from this ברייתא that this ברייתא holds that if the מיעוט, and the same thing would be by a יחיד, if he did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין, nevertheless they are חייב. So we see that this is an opinion not like our משנה. And this is

what the גמרא meant before, that our משנה where it says that if a יחיד did it based on a פסק דין of בית דין, he is פטור, that only goes according to the first ברייתא which is רבי יהודה. But the רבנן in this ברייתא argue on this דין, and they hold that יחיד that did this based on a פסק דין of בית דין, is חייב. And then the גמרא asks, מכדי תרוייהו סתמתנן, both of these ברייתות don't have a name, ממאי, how do you know דקמייתא רבי יהודה ובתרייתא רבנן, that the first ברייתא is רבי יהודה and the second one is the רבנן? אימא איפכא, let's say just opposite: maybe the first one is the רבנן and the second one is רבי יהודה? And the גמרא says, מאן שמעת ליה דדריש מיעוטא כהאי גוונא? רבי יהודה היא. Who did you see דרש's the מיעוט as the first ברייתא? Because the first ברייתא, how did it know that if a יחיד did it based on a פסק דין of בית דין, he is פטור? They learned it out from the מיעוט. We said in the ברייתא that there are three מיעוטים in the פסוק. The פסוק says: אם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה. So he דרש's that if it would have said נפש תחטא, אחת תחטא, and בעשותה תחטא, and from there he learns out from one of the three מיעוטים that if a יחיד did it based on a פסק דין of בית דין he is פטור. So who is the one that דרש's פסוקים that way? That is רבי יהודה. רבי יהודה היא, דתניא, because we have in a ברייתא: רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, the פסוק says: זאת תורת העולה היא, the פסוק says: this is the דין of the עולה, היא העולה על מוקדה על המזבח, that this is the עולה on the fire on the מזבח. So he says, הרי אלו שלשה מיעוטין, this has three מיעוטים. From this פסוק we learn out that certain things that even though they didn't belong on the מזבח, but if they went on to the מזבח, then they stay there, they get burned. So he says there are three מיעוטים here, three words which come to exclude: the word זאת, and the word היא, and the word העולה, to exclude three things that even if they went on to the מזבח, you still have to take them off. One מיעוט comes to exclude if the קרבן was slaughtered, נשחט at night. One comes to exclude if it was a קרבן that its blood was spilled out, and one comes to exclude if the blood went outside of the קלעים, outside of the עזרה, that then those cases, even if it went on top of the מזבח, you must take it off. So we see here that רבי יהודה דרשנ'ס it in such a way that he דרשנ'ס the three words as three מיעוטים. So therefore in this ברייתא also, where it says that we דרש'ן the three מיעוטים from נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה, so we assume that this is also רבי יהודה. And the

גמרא says, ואיבעית אימא, if you want, I could tell you a different ראיה why I think that that's רבי יהודה and this is the רבנן, because the ברייתא that says עדין אני אומר, the second ברייתא we brought that started off with the words עדין אני אומר from where we proved that if a יחיד does it based on בית דין he is חייב, לא מצית מוקמת לה כרבי יהודה, that you couldn't say goes according to רבי יהודה. דקתני, because there it says, רוב קהל שחטאו בית דין מביאים על ידיהם פר. It said there that how do we know that if the majority did it, they are also חייב? And he gives a reason why we should think he's not חייב: because if the majority did it based on בית דין, then the בית דין would bring a פר. ואי רבי יהודה, if it is רבי יהודה, הא אמר, doesn't he say, ציבורא דמייתי, בית דין לא מייתי? He holds that it is the ציבור that brings, it is the community that brings, and not the בית דין that brings. And the ברייתא uses the לשון that if the majority did it, then the בית דין would have to bring the פר העלם דבר של ציבור. Since the ברייתא uses the לשון the בית דין would bring, that proves that it's not רבי יהודה, because he holds not the בית דין is the one that brings, but it is the ציבור that brings. ומנלן, because we learned in the משנה, רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, שבעה שבטים שחטאו, if seven שבטים, seven tribes did the עבירה, מביאין ז' פרים. You bring seven פרים. You bring seven פר העלם דבר של ציבור. And the reason for that is because רבי יהודה holds that each שבט separately is called קהל, is called a ציבור. And since seven שבטים did it, so there are seven ציבורים that did it, so you have to bring seven קרבנות. So that proves that he holds that the ציבור brings, not the בית דין. Because if the בית דין would bring, then why is it that if seven שבטים did the עבירה, you have to bring seven קרבנות? אלא מאי, it must be because the ציבור brings, and since each שבט is a separate ציבור, so each one has to bring a separate קרבן. Then the גמרא continues, רב

נחמן אמר שמואל, רב נחמן said in the name of שמואל, זו דברי רבי מאיר. Goes back to our משנה. That the משנה said that if a יחיד did it based on בית דין, even though the majority didn't do it, so there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור, nevertheless, he himself is פטור from bringing a קרבן, a private קרבן, because he was תולה in בית דין, so he says this is the opinion of רבי מאיר. Before, we said that this is the opinion of רבי יהודה and the חכמים argue, but רב נחמן אמר שמואל said that this is the opinion of רבי מאיר, אבל חכמים אומרים, and the חכמים hold, יחיד שעשה בהוראת בית דין חייב, that if an individual person did it based on בית דין he is חייב. And the גמרא asks, מאי רבי מאיר ומאי רבנן? Where is it that we find that רבי מאיר says you are פטור and the רבנן say you are חייב? The גמרא says, דתניא, because we learned in a ברייתא, הורו ועשו, if they פסק'נד and they did, רבי מאיר פוטר, רבי מאיר says you are פטור, וחכמים מחייבין, and the חכמים say you are חייב. And the גמרא explains, מאן עשו? Who did it? What does the ברייתא mean they פסק'נד and they did, who are they that did it? אילימא בית דין, if you are going to say the בית דין did it, מאי טעמא דרבנן דמחייבי? Why should the רבנן say that you are חייב? והתניא, didn't we learn, יכול הורו בית דין ועשו בית דין, I would think if the בית דין פסק'נד and just the בית דין did according to their פסק דין, but the other people didn't do, יכול, I would think, יהו חייבין, that they should be חייב to bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור? תלמוד לומר, the פסוק says הקהל ועשו. מעשה תלוי בקהל והוראה תלויה בבית דין. The פסוק says הקהל ועשו, if the community did, which means that מעשה תלוי בקהל, that when do you bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור? Only if the מעשה, the עבירה was done through the people, והוראה תלויה בבית דין, the פסק דין depends on בית דין. So you couldn't say that the ברייתא had a מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים that if they פסק'נד and they did, that רבי מאיר says that you are פטור from a פר העלם דבר של ציבור and the חכמים say you are חייב, that means that the בית דין did, because if the בית דין did, then even the חכמים would have to admit that there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור. אלא therefore you must say, what is the פשט in the ברייתא? הורו בית דין, the בית דין פסק'נד, ועשו רוב קהל, and the majority of the people did what the בית דין פסק'נד, and that's where we have the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים, that רבי מאיר says there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור and the חכמים say there is. But that couldn't be פשט either, because מאי טעמא דרבי מאיר דפוטר? What should be the reason of רבי מאיר who says פטור? If the בית דין פסק'נד and the majority did according to בית דין, certainly you have to bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. This is the דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So it couldn't be פשט in the ברייתא. אלא לאו therefore we must say פשט in the ברייתא means הורו בית דין, the בית דין פסק'נד, ועשו מיעוט קהל, and the מיעוט of the קהל, the minority of the congregation did what the בית דין פסקנד, ובהא קמיפלגי, and this is their

מחלוקת. מר סבר, one holds, which is רבי מאיר, יחיד שעשה בהוראת בית דין פטור, and if an individual or a מיעוט did based on the פסק דין of בית דין, he is פטור from his קרבן, ומר סבר, and one holds, which means the חכמים, that יחיד שעשה בהוראת בית דין חייב, and if an individual did it based on פסק דין of בית דין, he is חייב. In other words, in the ברייתא where it says רבי מאיר פוטר וחכמים מחייבין, is not concerning the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, but it is concerning if the people themselves, the individual has to bring. רבי מאיר says that the individual is פטור. Why? Because after all he did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין. Even though there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור because only a מיעוט did it, but according to חכמים they are חייב because it was only a מיעוט. אמר רב פפא, but רב פפא said that it's no ראיה this is the פשט in the ברייתא. באמת it could be that דכולי עלמא יחיד שעשה בהוראת בית דין פטור. It could be they both hold that if an individual did it based on בית דין, then the individual is פטור from a קרבן. אלא what is the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים? בית דין משלימין לרוב ציבור קמיפלגי. They argue whether בית דין could be משלים, could be considered part of the people, that because of them they should be considered a majority. In other words, let's say exactly 50% of the people followed the פסק דין of בית דין. Exactly half. But also some of the members of the סנהדרין of the בית דין also did it. Now if you're going to combine these people from the סנהדרין, then you will have a majority of people who did what the בית סנהדרין said, and there would be a חיוב of a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. If you don't consider them as part of the ציבור, then you only have exactly half. So you still don't have a majority who did it, and then there would be no פר העלם דבר של ציבור. And this is a מחלוקת. מר סבר, one holds בית דין משלימין לרוב ציבור, that בית דין is משלים to the majority of the ציבור. And therefore, if you consider the בית דין as part of the ציבור, it is considered we have a majority, and there would be a חיוב of a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. ומר סבר, and

one holds, which is רבי מאיר, אין בית דין משלימין לרוב ציבור, בית דין is not משלים to the majority of ציבור. And therefore, you would be פטור from a פר העלם דבר של ציבור in a case like this. ואי בעית אימא, if you want, I can tell you the פשט different. That what does the ברייתא mean? הורו בית דין ועשו רובו של קהל, that the בית דין פסקנד, and the majority of the community did what the בית דין said. איי the question we asked before, if that the פשט, what would be the reason of the חכמים that say that you're פטור, there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור? ומאן חכמים? רבי שמעון היא. Who is the חכמים? This is the opinion of רבי שמעון, דאמר, he says ציבור מייתי ובית דין מייתי, that a ציבור brings and the בית דין brings. רבי מאיר holds that the ציבור never brings. It's only the בית דין that brings. And therefore, in a case where seven שבטים did the עבירה, they are פטור from a קרבן. There is only one פר העלם דבר של ציבור from the בית דין. But רבי שמעון holds that both have to bring. The ציבור has to bring a פר העלם דבר and the בית דין has to bring. And this is the מחלוקת here. And it says in the ברייתא here רבי מאיר says פטור, he means that the ציבור is פטור. Why is the ציבור פטור? Because the בית דין will bring the קרבן. And if חכמים חייב חייבין, the חכמים say the ציבור is חייב, because this is רבי שמעון that says that even though the בית דין brings, but the ציבור has to also bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. ואי בעית אימא, if you want, it could be another פשט in the ברייתא. That what is the מחלוקת there? שבט שעשה בהוראת בית דינו. We're talking in a case where a שבט did based on the פסק דין of its own בית דין, not of the בית דין הגדול of ירושלים which is the בית דין of כלל ישראל, but the בית דין of each individual שבט. And that is the מחלוקת. That רבי מאיר says you're פטור from a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, because he holds that it depends on the בית דין הגדול. And the חכמים they say that there is a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. ומאן חכמים? רבי יהודה היא. Who is the חכמים? This is רבי יהודה. דתניא, we learned in a ברייתא, שבט שעשה בהוראת בית דינו, if a שבט did based on the פסק דין of its own בית דין, אותו שבט חייב, that שבט is חייב. And that's what the ברייתא means, חכמים say you're חייב. This is the opinion of רבי יהודה. ואי בעית אימא, if you want, I can give you another פשט. The פשט is, כגון שחטאו ששה, six שבטים did the עבירה, but והן רובו של קהל, but that is that six שבטים did the עבירה, but they are the majority of the קהל. Which means normally if you're going to look at it by שבטים, it is exactly half. There are 12 שבטים, six is half, not the majority. But it's possible that these six שבטים have a population which is the majority of the people of כלל ישראל. So that's the case here. או, or a case, שבעה אף על פי שאינן רובו של קהל. There were seven שבטים that did the עבירה, but in the population of people they were not the majority. There was the majority of שבטים because out of 12, seven is the majority. But as of people, they were not the majority. And this is a מחלוקת. In a case like that, רבי מאיר says there is no דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. It is not considered the majority, because it has to be the majority of the שבטים and of the population. And the חכמים say, you are חייב. Why? מתניתין מאן? רבי שמעון בן אלעזר היא. The משנה is the opinion of רבי שמעון בן אלעזר. דתניא, we learned in a ברייתא, רבי שמעון אומר משמו. If six שבטים did the עבירה, but they are the majority of כלל ישראל, או שבעה, or they were seven שבטים, which means a majority of the שבטים, אף על פי שאינן רובו של קהל, even though they were not the majority of the population, חייבין, you are חייב. This is the opinion of רבי שמעון בן אלעזר, so this is what the ברייתא means, that the חכמים say that you are חייב. Then the גמרא says, אמר רב אסי, רב אסי said, ובהוראה, concerning this דין, that the בית דין פסקנ'ד that you are allowed to do an עבירה, and the רוב of the people did the עבירה, so there is a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, הלך אחר רוב יושבי ארץ ישראל, we only follow the majority of the inhabitants of ארץ ישראל. In other words, we don't consider the אידן who live outside of ארץ ישראל as part of the קהל, in order to say that if with them together there is a רוב קהל, that should be considered a רוב קהל. שנאמר, because the פסוק says, ויעש שלמה בעת ההיא, שלמה made at that time, את החג, the יום טוב, וכל ישראל עמו, and all the אידן were with him, קהל גדול, a big congregation, מלבוא חמת עד נחל מצרים, from coming of חמת till נחל מצרים, לפני ה' אלקינו, in front of ה' our God, שבעת ימים ושבעת ימים, seven days and seven days together, ארבעה עשר יום, it was 14 days. But the גמרא says, מכדי, let us see. כתיב, the פסוק says, וכל ישראל עמו, and all the אידן were with him, קהל גדול מלבוא חמת עד נחל מצרים למה לי, why did the פסוק have to add that it was a big congregation from לבוא חמת to נחל מצרים? שמע מינה, that proves that הני הוא דאיקרו קהל, that these are called קהל, the people who live within those borders, from לבוא חמת to נחל מצרים, which are the borders of ארץ ישראל, that is called קהל, the community, the congregation. אבל הנך, but others, לא איקרו קהל, they are not called קהל, and therefore, when it comes to the דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור, that you bring it only if the majority of the קהל did the עבירה, we only count the people who live in ארץ ישראל. Then the גמרא continues, פשיטא, this is sure, that if מרובין ונתמעטו, if they were the majority and then they became the minority, for instance, if the בית דין פסקנ'ד that you're allowed to do a certain עבירה, and the majority of the people did the עבירה, so they were חייב a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, but before they managed to bring the קרבן, some of the people died, and now the people who are left that did the עבירה are the minority of כלל ישראל. So the גמרא says that that שאלה we are sure, היינו פלוגתא דרבי שמעון ורבנן. This would depend on the מחלוקת between רבי שמעון and the רבנן, because later on, on דף י' עמוד א', we find a מחלוקת between רבי שמעון and רבנן in a similar case. And from that case we could understand that the same מחלוקת would apply here. There the מחלוקת is concerning a כהן גדול or a נשיא. The דין is that a כהן גדול or a מלך, they have a special קרבן חטאת they bring. Other people, ordinary people bring a כשבה או שעירה, and they have to bring a special קרבן. Now, the case there is that before the כהן גדול became a כהן גדול, or before the מלך became a מלך, they did an עבירה בשוגג. So therefore, right away, they are חייב to bring an ordinary קרבן חטאת. But before they managed to bring the קרבן חטאת, they were appointed to their position. He was appointed for כהן גדול, or the other one was appointed for a מלך. Now when they're going to bring the קרבן, they have to bring the special קרבן of a כהן גדול or a נשיא. And the question is, do we follow the time when they did the עבירה, or the time they're going to bring the קרבן? So the משנה says there's a מחלוקת between the חכמים and רבי שמעון. The תנא קמא says that חטאו עד שלא נתמנו ואחר כך נתמנו, they sinned before they were appointed, and then they were appointed, הרי אלו כהדיוט, they bring like ordinary people. In other words, you follow the time of the חטא of the עבירה. But רבי שמעון says it depends on when they found out of the עבירה. If they found out the עבירה before they were appointed to their position, then they are חייב. But if they found out about the עבירה after they are appointed, they are פטור. Now the same מחלוקת would apply here, too. Because when they did the עבירה, since it was a majority, they are חייב a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. Now, by the time they're going to bring the קרבן, they are not a majority anymore, so according to the רבנן, who say over there that it depends on the time of the עבירה, so here, too, it would depend on the time of the עבירה. Since at that time they were חייב a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, so they're חייב now, too. But according to רבי שמעון, who says there it depends when they found out, the same thing would be here, too. If they found out before they became the minority, then they still would be חייב a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. If they found out that they made a mistake after they already became the minority, which means after some of the people died, then they would not have to bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So this the גמרא says is simple. The question the

גמרא asks is, מועטין ונתרבו מאי? What is the דין if when they did the עבירה, it was only a minority? For instance, בית דין פסקנ'ד that you're allowed to do the עבירה, and only a minority did the עבירה, so they are פטור from a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, because it wasn't a רוב. But then some of the other people who did not do the עבירה died, and after they died, the people who did the עבירה became the majority, and after they became the majority, that's when they found found out they did the עבירה. So, the question is מאי, what is the דין? Why is this more question than the case before? Why can't we say the same thing here, that this definitely depends on the מחלוקת between רבי שמעון and the חכמים? That according to the חכמים who say there it depends on the time of the חטא, same thing should be here, too. That since at the time of the חטא they were a minority, they should be פטור. And according to רבי שמעון who says that it depends on the time when they found out, so in this case, since they found out after they became the majority, they should be חייב. But it's not so. It's not so simple, because in the case of the מחלוקת between רבי שמעון and the חכמים, there בשעת he did the עבירה, there was a certain חיוב חטאת on him. And therefore, the חכמים say that since at the time when he did the עבירה he was מחוייב an ordinary חטאת, but even though later he was appointed to a higher position which changed his קרבן, we follow the חיוב that he had when he did the עבירה. So, that fits to the previous case, that when they did the עבירה they were the majority, so there was a חיוב upon them. Then they became the minority. So, that's exactly as the case of the מחלוקת of רבי שמעון and the חכמים, because here, too, when they did the עבירה they had a certain חיוב. So, the חכמים would hold that we follow that חיוב even though later we would think the חיוב fell off. But in this case, when they did the עבירה they were the minority, there was no חיוב. So, maybe here the חכמים would not say that you follow the time of the חטא, because at the time of the חטא there was no חיוב. Maybe here the חכמים would say that you do follow the time later on when they found out that they did the עבירה. In other words, maybe it is only when a חיוב fell upon the person, that's when the חכמים hold that that חיוב cannot be changed even though later the situation changed. But if no חיוב fell upon the person, maybe the חכמים also hold that we follow what happens later. And that's why here the גמרא is not sure. The גמרא asks the question, what is the דין here? מי פליגי רבי שמעון ורבנן? Do רבי שמעון and the רבנן argue in this case also? That רבי שמעון דאזיל בתר ידיעה, that רבי שמעון, over there, who follows the time when you find out that you did the עבירה, מחייב, would be חייב here too? Since here they found out after they already became the רוב, they should be חייב, because if it was a רוב that did the עבירה, there is a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. And רבנן דאזלי בתר חטא, the רבנן who follow the time of the עבירה, פטרי, they say it's פטור. Maybe even though there was no חיוב at the time of the עבירה because they were a minority, nevertheless the חכמים still follow the time of the

חטא. או לא, or no? Or maybe here it's different as we said before? Since here at the time of the חטא, there was no חיוב yet at all, maybe here the רבנן admit that we don't follow the time of the חטא, but we would do follow the time of the ידיעה? מאי, what is the דין? And the גמרא answers, ותסברא, how could you even think that this would depend on the מחלוקת between רבי שמעון and the חכמים? In other words, that according to רבי שמעון the דין would be that since they found out after they became רוב, they should be חייב. But how can you say that? אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי שמעון, what did you hear that רבי שמעון said? דאזיל אף בתר ידיעה. He follows also the ידיעה. היכא דהויא ידיעה וחטאה בחיוב, the ידיעה and the חטא is בחיוב. In the case of רבי שמעון, he says that if they found out before they were appointed to their position, that's when they are חייב their ordinary קרבן. If they found out after they assumed their position, they are פטור completely. Which means that רבי שמעון only says that when are they חייב a קרבן, if the עבירה and the ידיעה came in the same status. And therefore he says, if they found out before they assumed the position, so the עבירה was done when they were ordinary people, the ידיעה came when they were ordinary people, so if you have these two things together, that's when you are חייב a קרבן. But if the ידיעה came after they assumed the position, so then the ידיעה and the חטא are not at the same time, therefore he says you are פטור. So that's where we find that he says that the ידיעה counts. אבל ידיעה דלא חטא מי שמעת ליה? Where did you hear that he says that ידיעה alone counts? If we want to compare רבי שמעון's case to our case, it would mean that we would be saying that according to רבי שמעון, the ידיעה itself counts, because in our case, when they did the עבירה, they were still a מיעוט, so they were פטור from a קרבן. It's only later, when they found out, that's when they were a רוב. So, if we will say that according to רבי שמעון you are חייב a קרבן, it would mean that we would hold that according to רבי שמעון, the fact that the ידיעה came at the time of חיוב, they are חייב, even though the חטא was not in the time of חיוב, but since the ידיעה came in the time of חיוב. In other words, we would say that according to רבי שמעון, it only follows the ידיעה, which is not true. According to רבי שמעון, all he says is that the חטא itself is not enough, you have to have ידיעה also. That if you did the עבירה at one time and the ידיעה came at another status, you are פטור. But if the ידיעה came together with the same time as the חטא, that's when you are חייב. In other words, all he says is that in order to be חייב a קרבן, you have to have both the חטא and the ידיעה. But the ידיעה itself, we don't find that he says that that should be enough. And a ראיה to it, דאם כן, if according to רבי שמעון, the ידיעה itself is enough to make you חייב, לייתי כהשתא. Let him bring like now in that case that the כהן גדול did the עבירה before he was appointed, but found out after he was appointed as כהן גדול, so רבי שמעון says he is פטור completely from a קרבן. Now, why should he be פטור? Why shouldn't he bring a קרבן as now? Since he found out after he became a כהן גדול, he should bring a קרבן חטאת of a כהן גדול. Because if we'll say that according to רבי שמעון, ידיעה itself is enough, so therefore, since the ידיעה came after he became a כהן גדול, that is enough to be מחייב him a קרבן חטאת of a כהן גדול. And since he says that in a case like that he is completely פטור, obviously רבי שמעון holds that ידיעה itself is definitely not enough to be מחייב. אלא, רבי שמעון חטאו וידיעתו בעי. רבי שמעון needs the חטא and the ידיעה. But if there is no חטא, just ידיעה, in other words, מצד the חטא there would be no קרבן, it's only because of the ידיעה there would be a קרבן, רבי שמעון also holds that you are פטור. And therefore we cannot say that in this case it would depend, it's a מחלוקת of רבי שמעון and the חכמים, but even according to רבי שמעון you would be פטור. Then the גמרא says, איבעיא

להו, there was a question asked, הורו בית דין חלב מותר, if the בית דין פסק'נד that חלב is allowed, ועשו מיעוט הקהל, and then only the minority of the people followed the פסק דין and ate חלב. וחזרו בית דין בהם, and then בית דין had חרטה, the בית דין changed their mind, they realized their mistake. So so far they're פטור from a פר העלם דבר של ציבור because only a minority did it. But והורו, then they פסק'נד the same פסק דין again, then they made a mistake again. And again ועשו מיעוט אחר, another minority did it. Now, together, it was a majority. So מהו, what is the דין? כיוון דשתי ידיעות נינהו, since they are two ידיעות, twice they found out. First they found out their mistake after the first פסק דין when only a minority did it, and later, when another minority did it after the second פסק דין, they found out again. So there's two separate ידיעות, לא מצטרף, you can't combine them, and we do not consider it that the majority did, and therefore there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור? או דילמא, or maybe כיוון דאידי ואידי חלב הוא, since both פסקי דינים, both הלכות they פסק'נד was concerning חלב, מצטרף, it is מצטרף, and therefore if you combine the two מיעוטים, it does turn into a majority and you are חייב. And he continues, ואם תמצי לומר, and if you're going to tell me כיוון דאידי ואידי חלב הוא, since after all they both are concerning חלב, מצטרף, it is מצטרף and it is considered a majority and you're חייב, I'll ask you another question.

מיעוט בחלב שעל גבי קיבה ומיעוט בחלב שעל גבי דקין, מהו? If בית דין first פסק'נד that you're allowed to eat חלב which is on the קיבה, the fat that's on the maw, and later they פסק'נד that you're allowed to eat the חלב, the fat which is on the small bowels. Now, they're both forbidden חלבים, but they're both different types of חלב. And first בית דין פסק'נד concerning this חלב, and a מיעוט followed that פסק דין, then בית דין פסק'נד concerning the other חלב, and then another מיעוט followed that פסק דין. So here the שאלה is מהו, what is the דין? הכא ודאי, here for sure, כיוון דבתרי קראי כתיבי, since these two חלבים, these two איסורים come from two separate פסוקים, לא מצטרף, you can't combine them. או דילמא, or maybe כיוון דאידי ואידי חלב הוא, since both of them are חלב, they both are under the same name, the same איסור of חלב, מצטרף, you do combine them. And if you do combine them, it comes out that you do have a majority and you are חייב a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. And he continues, ואם תמצי לומר, if for some reason you're going to פסק'ן that שם חלב הוא מצטרף, that they are considered the same עבירה of חלב, and you do combine them and it is considered a רוב, I'll ask you another question.

מיעוט בחלב ומיעוט בדם, מהו? If first the בית דין פסק'נד that you're allowed to eat חלב, and only a minority followed their פסק דין. Then they פסק'נד that you're allowed to eat blood, and another minority followed their פסק דין, do you combine them? הכא ודאי, here for sure, דתרי איסורי נינהו, here they're two separate איסורים. וכיוון דאין איסורן שווה, לא מצטרף. And since their איסור is not equal, you're not combining. In other words, what makes it into two separate איסורים, not only the fact that this is חלב and this is דם, but more than that. חלב is a type of איסור which doesn't apply to everything. The same fat, if it would be in a חיה and not in a בהמה, it is מותר, while blood is אסור from a בהמה and from a חיה. So therefore these two איסורים are two separate categories, and therefore we would say they're not מצטרף. או דילמא, or maybe כיוון דקרבנם שווה, מצטרף. Since after all you bring the same קרבן for both עבירות, then you could combine them, and therefore you would consider it a רוב. And he continues, ואם תמצי לומר, and if you're going to tell me, if for some reason you're going to come to a פסק דין that כיוון דקרבנם שווה מצטרף, that since they are the same קרבן, for חלב and for דם you have to bring the same קרבן, so you do combine them, and therefore it is considered a רוב, I'll ask you another question.

מיעוט בחלב ומיעוט בעבודה זרה, מהו? If בית דין first פסק'נד that you're allowed to eat חלב, and a מיעוט did as they פסק'נד, then בית דין פסק'נד that you're allowed to worship עבודה זרה, and another מיעוט followed that פסק דין, מהו, what is the דין here? And why is this question different than before? Because הכא ודאי אין איסורן שווה ואין קרבנן שווה. Here, they're not the same עבירות, and not even the same קרבן, because as we know That if a person does עבודה זרה בשוגג, he brings a different קרבן חטאת than if he does any other עבירה. As we mentioned in the beginning, that there are thirty-one עבירות for which you are חייב a קרבן חטאת. And the rule is that for any עבירה that if you do it במזיד you are חייב כרת, if you do it בשוגג you are חייב חטאת. And there are thirty-one such עבירות. For thirty of them, you bring a same קרבן חטאת, which is a כשבה or a שעירה, and for one, which is עבודה זרה, you bring only a שעירה, which is a different kind of חטאת. So the קרבן that you bring for עבודה זרה is different than the קרבן you bring for other עבירות. So therefore we would say that since these two עבירות have different קרבנות, you can't combine them. או דילמא maybe כיוון דאידי ואידי כרת הוא, since the punishment for both of them is כרת, מצטרף, you do combine them. And if you do combine them, that means that you do have a majority who followed the פסק דין of בית דין, and you would have to bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. And the גמרא says, תיקו, this question remains unanswered. Then the גמרא continues, איבעיא להו, there was a question asked, הורו בית דין שחלב מותר, if בית דין פסקנ'ד that חלב is מותר, ועשו מיעוט הקהל, and the minority of the קהל followed their פסק דין, so far there is no חיוב of a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. ומת אותו בית דין, and this בית דין died, ועמד בית דין אחר, and another בית דין came, וחזרו והורו, and they again פסקנ'ד that חלב is מותר, ועשו מיעוט אחר, and another מיעוט, another minority followed the פסק דין of the second בית דין. So the question is, do we combine the two minorities and turn it into a majority and you bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור or don't we? And the גמרא explains, אליבא דמאן דאמר בית דין מייתי, according to the one that holds that בכלל the פר העלם דבר של ציבור is brought by בית דין, not by the people, not by the ציבור, לא תיבעי לך, then I can't ask such a question, דהא ליתנהו, because the בית דין isn't here, they're two separate בתי דינים, the first בית דין died. So how could we combine both cases when there are two separate בתי דינים, and the קרבן is brought by the בית דין? אלא כי תיבעי לך, when is my question asked? אליבא דמאן דאמר ציבור מייתי, according to the opinion that the ציבור brings it. So מאי, what is the דין? Do we say ציבור הא קאי, the ציבור is here, it's the same ציבור. First some people followed the first בית דין, and now other people from the same ציבור followed the פסק דין of the second בית דין, but it's the same ציבור, so together it is a majority and you are חייב. או דילמא maybe ידיעה דההוא בית דין דהורו בעינן. In order to be חייב a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, you have to find out that you did the עבירה. In other words, the בית דין פסקנ'ד, and the people did, and then they found out that you did the עבירה, that it was wrong, so then you bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So you have to have that which בית דין should find out that it was an עבירה, the same בית דין that פסקנ'ד. But in this case, since this first בית דין died, when did they find out that this is wrong? After the second בית דין פסקנ'ד. So the ידיעה of the first בית דין is not here, and therefore maybe you do not bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. תיקו, this question remains unanswered. Then the גמרא says,

אמר רבי יונתן, רבי יונתן said, מאה שישבו להורות, if a hundred people sat down to פסק'ן, אין חייבין עד שיורו כולם. You are not חייב a פר העלם דבר של ציבור unless all of them פסקנ'ד. Even though you don't need a hundred people in the בית דין, but if it happened to be that a hundred people sat down to פסק'ן, so then you must have all hundred to agree to this decision that this is מותר before we could מחייב them a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. שנאמר, because the פסוק says, ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, that if the whole congregation of the אידן will make the mistake. So since it says כל עדת, we דרשנ'ן עד שישגו כולם, till they all will make a mistake. Which means עד דתפשט הוראה בכל עדת ישראל, till this פסק דין was spread in the whole עדת ישראל. Now here עדת ישראל doesn't mean the congregation, the people, the community, but this refers to בית דין. We learn now that עדה means בית דין. When it says here כל עדת ישראל ישגו, means the whole בית דין has to make the mistake. But if it wasn't an unanimous decision, but some of the people, some members of the בית דין didn't agree to the decision, then even if the majority of the אידן followed the פסק דין, they will not have to bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע, רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע said, הכא נמי מסתברא דלא תיקשי קשיא טובא, that when it says here in the תורה, ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, that if the whole congregation will make a mistake, it means ממש every single person. And it's not enough just if the majority of the בית דין will פסק'ן that way, and based on the majority the decision of the בית דין will be that you're allowed to do it, but in this case where it says כל עדת ישראל, it means every single person of the בית דין has to hold that way. How do we know that? Because בכל התורה כולה קיימא לן רובו ככולו. In the whole תורה we פסק'ן that a majority is like the whole thing. We always go בתר רובא, we always follow the majority. Wherever we have a majority, we consider it as if the whole thing is like the majority. So if so, why does the תורה have to write here special ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, if everyone will make a mistake? If it would say ואם עדת ישראל ישגו, if the community will make a mistake, without the word כל, which would mean if the בית דין makes a mistake, so on our own we would understand that it means if the majority of the בית דין will make a mistake, then it is considered did, that the whole בית דין make the mistake. But the word כל is extra. והכא כתיב כל העדה, here it says the whole community. הרי על כרחך, if so, what does the פסוק mean? אפילו הן מאה, even if they're a hundred, still, when is this דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור? If all, meaning every single one. Here we don't follow the rule of רובו ככולו, that the majority has a דין like the whole thing, because if so, the תורה wouldn't have to write the word כל, it would be self-understood. And if the תורה writes the word כל, it comes to tell us that here you ממש must have every single person of the בית דין to פסקן that way. Then the גמרא says, תנן, we

learned the משנה: הורו בית דין, if the בית דין פסקנד, וידע אחד מהן שטעו, and if one of the members of the בית דין knew that they made a mistake, או תלמיד וראוי להוראה, or a תלמיד who was not a member of the בית דין, but he was a תלמיד that was fit for הוראה, he was at the level already that he could have פסקנד, and he knew also that בית דין didn't פסקן right, והלך ועשה על פיהן, and this member of בית דין who knew they were mistaking or this תלמיד went nevertheless and did it because of their פסק דין, בין שעשה עמהן, whether they also did and he did with them, בין שעשה אחריהן, whether they did and he did after them, בין שלא עשו ועשה, whether they didn't do at all and he just did himself, הרי זה חייב, he is חייב his own personal קרבן חטאת, מפני שלא תלה בבית דין, because we don't consider that he hanged it on בית דין, which means he did it because of בית דין, because he knew בית דין was wrong. But the question of the גמרא is, that comes out from this משנה: האי הוא דחייב, this person himself, this member himself, or this תלמיד himself who knew that בית דין was wrong, he is חייב because him we don't consider that he was תולה בבית דין. הא אחר, but another person is פטור? Other אידן who followed this בית דין, they would be פטור? Why? Why? Because we consider it that they followed the בית דין. But the question is, אמאי, why? והא לא נגמרה הוראה! But the הוראה, the פסק דין wasn't finished! Since we just said that when is it considered a complete פסק דין? That if people follow this פסק דין, they are פטור from their own קרבן חטאת, it is if everybody agreed to the פסק דין. But here it's a case where one of them knew they were wrong, so obviously he didn't agree to them. So then why should everybody be פטור? So every other person should also be חייב his own personal קרבן חטאת, because this is not considered the דין of the בית דין פסקנינג, because we just said before that when is this considered that the בית דין פסקנד? If everybody agreed to it. The גמרא answers,

הכא במאי עסקינן, here we're talking in a case כגון שהרכין ההוא אחד מהן בראשו, that this one that didn't agree to them still shook his head. So they took it as if he agrees to them, but in his mind he didn't agree. But as far as the הוראה of בית דין, we do consider it that the הוראה came out from everybody. Then the גמרא says, תא שמע, come here, I'll ask another question. We learned: הורו בית דין, the בית דין פסקנד, וידע אחד מהן שטעו, and one of them knew that it was a mistake, ואמר להם, and he said to them, טועים אתם, you are mistaking, הרי אלו פטורין, so they are פטור from bringing a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. טעמא דאמר להם טועים אתם דפטורין, here we see that the reason they are פטור from a פר העלם דבר של ציבור is because one of them said to them clearly, you are mistaking. הא שתק, meaning, but if one of them was quiet, חייבין, they are חייב, וגמרה להוראה, and we do consider it that the פסק דין was finished. ואמאי, why? והא לא הורו כולם! But not all פסקנד! We said before that when do we consider this as a פסק דין of בית דין? If all of them פסקנד, but if one of them didn't say anything, he didn't include himself in the פסק דין, so it didn't come from all. Now, if it didn't come from all, the דין should be they should be פטור! אמר, the גמרא says, I'll say, הכא נמי, here too, כגון שהרכין בראשו, that he shook his head, which means to say that when you come to be מדייק from the ברייתא and say that from here we see that if one of them was quiet, then they are חייב, that is not the right דיוק. If one of them is quiet, he is also פטור. But what you have to be מדייק from the ברייתא is that if one of them just shook his head, then they are חייב. Because since he shook his head, we do consider it that he participated in the פסק דין. But if he was ממש quiet, then טאקע they would be פטור because we wouldn't consider it an unanimous decision from the בית דין. Then the גמרא says,

מותיב רב משרשיא, רב משרשיא asked a question. We learned: סמכו רבותינו על דברי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ועל דברי רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק, that our חכמים relied on the words of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and on the words of רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק שהיו אומרים, that they used to say, אין גוזרין גזירה על הציבור אלא אם כן רוב הציבור יכול לעמוד בה, that you are not allowed to make a decree on the ציבור, בית דין is not allowed to decree a דין on the ציבור unless they know that the majority of the ציבור will be able to take it, will be able to withstand this גזירה. And this the גמרא says concerning the דינים of when they're about to make a גזירה. ואמר רב אדא בר אהבה, and רב אדא בר אהבה said, מאי קרא, what פסוק teaches us this דין? The פסוק says, במארה אתם נארים, you will be cursed with a curse, ואותי אתם קובעים, and Me you will establish, הגוי כולו, the whole nation. And the פשט the way they learn is that the אייבערשטער is cursing for not keeping the תקנות חכמים, and the פסוק says that when is a תקנה a תקנה? Only if הגוי כולו, which means if the whole nation is able to take it. From here we learn out that when can you make a גזירה on the ציבור? Only if the רוב הציבור could take it. והכא דכתיב הגוי כולו, here we see clearly the words גוי כולו, ורובא ככולו דמי, and nevertheless, the majority is considered like the whole thing. We said before, how do we know that you must have every member of the סנהדרין agree?

Because the פסוק says אם כל עדת ישראל ישגו. Now, if it would mean just a majority, the פסוק wouldn't have to say כל, it would be self-understood. So here, too, since the פסוק says כל, הגוי כולו, the דין should be that every single person of the community should have to be able to take the גזירה. That's when you make the גזירה. And nevertheless, the דין is not like that. The דין is, as long as the majority is able to take the גזירה, we already make the גזירה. תיופתא דרבי יוחנן תיופתא, it's a קשיא on רבי יוחנן. But then the גמרא asks: ואלא מאי כל עדת דקאמר רחמנא, so what does the פסוק mean כל עדת ישראל? If you טאקע don't have to have a unanimous decision, so why does the פסוק say if the כל עדת ישראל will make the mistake? הכא קאמר, this is what it means: אי איכא כולם, הוה הוראה, if all the members of the סנהדרין are there, even though not all of them participated in the פסק דין, then it is called a הוראה. אי לא, if they're not all there, לא הוה הוראה, it is not considered a הוראה. Then the גמרא says: אמר רבי יהושע, רבי יהושע says: י' שיושבין בדין, if 10 people sit to פסק'ן a דין תורה, קולר תלוי בצואר כולם, the chain hangs on the neck of all of them, which means that they are all responsible, even though you don't have to have 10 people by the בית דין, but if you do have 10, then they all share the responsibility. The גמרא says פשיטא, that's simple, הא

קא משמע לן, this comes to tell us, אפילו תלמיד בפני רבו, even if it's a תלמיד in front of his רבי, then he could think that it's not his responsibility because his רבי is there, he still shares the responsibility. גמרא says רב הונא כי הוה נפיק לבי דינא, רב הונא when he used to go to the בית דין, מייתי עשרה תנאי דבי רב לקמיה, he used to bring 10 students with him, and the reason was כי היכי דנמטיין שיבא מכשורא, that each one should have a chip of the beam, which means that each one should share the responsibility so the whole responsibility won't be on him. רב אשי כי הוה מייתי טרפה לקמיה, when they used to bring a טרפה to ask a שאלה by רב אשי, מייתי עשרה טבחי ממתא מחסיא, he would bring 10 butchers or 10 שוחטים from the city of מתא מחסיא, ומותיב קמיה, he would put it in front of them. אמר, he said, the reason why he wants them all to participate in the פסק דין, כי היכי דנמטיין שיבא מכשורא, in order for each one to have just a chip of the beam, which means that the responsibility should be on all of them, and he shouldn't be the only one to have the responsibility.