Jewish audio on chabad.org. We will be in מסכת הוריות דף ה, but we're going to start on דף ד עמוד ב, six lines from the bottom of the עמוד, from the beginning of the משנה. And the משנה starts: הורו בית דין שוגגין, if בית דין פסקנ'ד the דין wrong, by mistake, ועשו כל הקהל שוגגין, and the whole קהל, the whole community, did as they פסקנ'ד, also בשוגג, in other words, the reason they did the עבירה was because they thought it was right, since בית דין פסקנ'ד that way, מביאין פר, that's when you bring the פר, this פר העלם דבר של ציבור that is brought for the הוראת בית דין when the people follow. This is the normal case of the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, when the בית דין made a mistake and they פסקנ'ד wrong, and the whole קהל followed them. That's when this פר has to be brought. Now, who has to bring the פר? Whether it's the בית דין that brings the פר, or it is the קהל that brings the פר, or it is each שבט that brings the פר, that the משנה doesn't talk about here, that will be in the next משנה. In this משנה, the משנה is just telling us the general דין, that when is this דין that you have to bring a פר? When the בית דין פסקנ'ד בשוגג, and the whole קהל followed them בשוגג.

מזידין ועשו שוגגין, if the בית דין פסקנ'ד במזיד, they knew they were wrong, and nevertheless, they פסקנ'ד that way, but the people followed them בשוגג, they did it because of the פסק דין of בית דין, מביאין כשבה ושעירה, then each individual person has to bring his own personal חטאת, which is a כשבה or a שעירה. And the reason is, because when is each individual person פטור from his own personal חטאת? It is only if there was a הוראת בית דין. If the בית דין פסקנ'ד בשוגג, and then they followed the פסק דין of בית דין, then there is no דין of a personal חטאת, and if the majority of the קהל did it, then there would be a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. But if there was no הוראת בית דין, in other words, the way the בית דין פסקנ'ד wasn't according to the דין that we are talking about here that is בשוגג, but they פסקנ'ד במזיד, then, even though the people did it because of the פסק דין of בית דין, there is no דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and there is a דין that each individual person has to bring his own private חטאת. שוגגין ועשו מזידין, if the בית דין פסקנ'ד בשוגג, but the people who followed them was not because the בית דין פסקנ'ד, but the people did the עבירה במזיד, in other words, they knew it was wrong, and nevertheless they did it, then הרי אלו פטורין, they're פטור completely. There is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור, because the only time you bring this פר העלם דבר של ציבור is if the people followed the פסק דין of בית דין, and in this case they did it במזיד. There is also no private חטאת for each person, because a חטאת only comes if you do an עבירה בשוגג, but these people, since they did it במזיד, they don't bring a קרבן חטאת. So there is no קרבן at all in this case. And the גמרא says: שוגגין ועשו מזידין הרי אלו פטורין. The משנה had said that if the בית דין פסקנ'ד בשוגג, but the people did it במזיד, so they are פטור, is משמע: הא שוגג דומיא דמזיד חייב, that when are they פטור? Only if they did it a hundred percent במזיד. So then there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and there is also no private חטאת because they did it במזיד. But if they did it בשוגג which is similar to מזיד, so then they would be חייב a personal חטאת. והיכי

דמי? What would be the example if they did it שוגג which is close to מזיד? שהורו בית דין שחלב מותר, for instance, if בית דין פסקנ'ד that חלב is allowed, ונתחלף לו בשומן, and one person ate חלב, but he didn't eat the חלב because of the פסק דין of בית דין, he ate חלב because he thought it was שומן. So the truth is, had he known it was חלב, he would have eaten it anyway, because the בית דין פסקנ'ד you're allowed to eat it. But לפועל, the reason he ate it was because he thought it was שומן. ואכל, and he ate it. So in a case like that, he would be חייב a personal חטאת. And this case is called שוגג דומיא דמזיד, because לפועל it is שוגג, he didn't know that it was חלב and that's why he ate it, but it is also close to מזיד, not because it is close to him doing the עבירה במזיד, but what the גמרא means close to מזיד is that just like when you do an עבירה במזיד you are not תולה בבית דין, you don't do it because of בית דין, you do it because you want to do it, that's what מזיד means, in this case also it's like מזיד, because לפועל he didn't do it because of בית דין, he did it because he wanted to do it on his own, because he thought it was שומן. So he wasn't תולה בבית דין, so this is, in one way, similar to מזיד לגבי קרבן חטאת. Just like if you do it במזיד you would have nothing to do to the פסק דין of בית דין, so this one also had nothing to do to the פסק דין of בית דין, because the reason he ate it was because he thought it was שומן. So from our משנה is משמע that when are they פטור? If it was מזיד completely, real מזיד. Is משמע that if it wouldn't be real מזיד, it would be שוגג but close to מזיד, then he would be חייב a personal קרבן חטאת.

So the גמרא says: לימא דלא say תפשוט that we will answer, we will resolve, הא דבעי רבא בר חמא, the question that רבא בר חמא asked. In the beginning of the מסכתא, רבא בר חמא asked the question: What is the דין in this case where the בית דין פסק'נד that חלב is מותר, and the person ate thinking it was שומן, and really it was חלב? So on one hand he was not תולה בבית דין, because the reason he ate it was because he thought it was שומן, and on the other hand, even if he would have known that it's חלב, he still would have eaten it because of הוראת בית דין. So he had a question: is this person חייב a personal חטאת or is not חייב a personal חטאת? So now if we are מדייק from this משנה that only when are they פטור from the personal חטאת, if it was real מזיד, but if it was a case like this he would be חייב, so לכאורה we have a ראיה from this משנה that the דין in such a case is that you are חייב. So this resolves the שאלה that רבא בר חמא had. And the גמרא says, אמר לך, he could tell you, from here it's no ראיה, that באמת you cannot be מדייק from the משנה that only if they were real מזיד that's when they're פטור, but in a case like this שוגג דומיא דמזיד they are חייב. באמת there is no reason to be מדייק. Even if they were שוגג דומיא דמזיד you're also פטור. אי, why does the משנה mention דוקא the word מזיד which is משמע only if it's מזיד then they are פטור? So he says, משום דתני רישא מזידין ועשו שוגגין, because in the beginning of the משנה it says the case of מזידין that the בית דין פסק'נד במזיד and the people did it בשוגג. So there it says the דין is that each one brings his personal חטאת, תני סיפא so that's why in the end of the משנה it also says שוגגין ועשו מזידין, it says in a case where the בית דין was שוגגין and they were מזידין, so then they are פטור. But not because the משנה wants to be מדייק דוקא real מזיד, not if it's שוגג דומיא דמזיד. It is only because it follows the same לשון as it says in the רישא of the משנה. Now we

will continue with the next משנה: הורו בית דין ועשו כל הקהל או רובן על פיהן, if the בית דין פסק'נד that you're allowed to do a certain עבירה, and all the people, the whole קהל, the whole community, or the majority of the community did the עבירה because of their פסק דין, מביאין פר, so that's when the בית דין brings the פר, this פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So it's the בית דין that brings it. ובעבודת כוכבים, the same thing happens concerning the עבירה of עבודה זרה, מביאים פר ושעיר, so then you have to bring a פר and a שעיר, one is for a חטאת and one is for an עולה. It's the same דין as the other עבירות, the only difference is that the קרבן that is brought, if the mistake was concerning other עבירות which the punishment normally is כרת, you bring a פר, if the mistake that בית דין made and the יידן followed it was concerning עבודה זרה, then there is a פר and a שעיר, a חטאת and an עולה. דברי רבי מאיר, that's the opinion of רבי מאיר, that in the case when the בית דין פסק'נד and the people followed, the בית דין is the one that brings the קרבן. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, י״ב שבטים מביאין י״ב פרים, that if all the יידן followed, which means all 12 שבטים followed the פסק דין of בית דין, so the 12 שבטים bring 12 פרים. Which means that רבי יהודה holds that the פר is brought not by the בית דין, but it is brought by the קהל, by the community. And he holds that every שבט is considered a separate community, and therefore every שבט has to bring a separate קרבן. So in this case, when you have to bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור and all the יידן followed, so the 12 שבטים would have to bring 12 פרים. ובעבודת כוכבים, if the same thing happened by עבודה זרה where you have to bring a פר and a שעיר, so if all the יידן followed, which means all the 12 שבטים followed, מביאין י״ב פרים ושנים עשר שעירים, so then they would have to bring 12 פרים and 12 שעירים, 12 חטאות and 12 עולות. This is the opinion of רבי יהודה. רבי שמעון אומר, רבי שמעון says, י״ג פרים, that in a regular עבירה you would have to bring 13 פרים, because רבי שמעון holds that each שבט has to bring a separate פר plus the בית דין has to bring another one also. So therefore you would have to bring 13 פרים, 12 for each שבט and one for בית דין. ובעבודת כוכבים, if the same thing happened by עבודה זרה, שלשה עשר פרים וי״ג שעירים, you'd have to bring 13 פרים and 13 שעירים. Since by עבודה זרה you bring a פר and a שעיר, so every שבט would have to bring and one for בית דין. פר ושעיר לכל שבט ושבט, a פר and a שעיר for every שבט, ופר ושעיר לבית דין, a פר and a שעיר for בית דין. Then the משנה continues:

הורו בית דין, if the בית דין פסק'נד, ועשו ז' שבטים או רובן על פיהן, and seven שבטים or the majority of the seven שבטים followed the פסק דין of בית דין, and this is a case where the majority of the seven שבטים happens to be the majority of כלל ישראל, מביאין פר, so then the בית דין has to bring the פר. ובעבודת כוכבים, if it happened by עבודה זרה, מביאין פר ושעיר, the בית דין would have to bring a פר and a שעיר, דברי רבי מאיר, this is the opinion of רבי מאיר. Since רבי מאיר holds that it's the בית דין that brings, not the קהל, so therefore if you have the majority of כלל ישראל that did the עבירה, so then the בית דין has to bring the קרבן. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, ז' שבטים שחטאו מביאין ז' פרים, the seven שבטים that did the עבירה, they would have to bring seven פרים. As we said before, that רבי יהודה holds that it's not the בית דין that brings, but it is the קהל that brings. And each שבט is called a קהל. So, therefore, the seven שבטים that did the עבירה, they have to bring seven פרים. ושאר שבטים שלא חטאו, and the other שבטים that did not do the עבירה, מביאין על ידיהם פר. They also would have to bring, each שבט, a פר. And the reason is, because when the majority of כלל ישראל does the עבירה, so then it pulls all the rest of them also that they also have to bring the קרבן. And since he holds that the קרבן has to be brought by every שבט, so, therefore, if the seven שבטים did the עבירה, that automatically pulls the rest of the שבטים, that they also are included in the קרבן, so, therefore, they also would have to bring a פר for each שבט. שאפילו שלא חטאו, because even though they didn't do the עבירה, מביאין על ידי חוטאים, they bring a קרבן because of those that did the עבירה, since those that did the עבירה were the majority. ר' שמעון אומר, ר' שמעון says, that in a case like this, ח' פרים, that if the seven שבטים did the עבירה, you would have to bring eight פרים. And the reason is, because ר' שמעון holds that the קהל brings and the בית דין brings. So, therefore, the seven שבטים, that each one is considered a קהל, has to bring seven פרים, and in addition to that, the בית דין has to bring a פר, which makes it into eight פרים. בעבודת כוכבים, if it happened by עבודה זרה, ח' פרים וח' שעירים, there would have to be eight פרים and eight שעירים. פר ושעיר לכל שבט ושבט, a פר and a שעיר for every שבט, ופר ושעיר לבית דין, and a פר and a שעיר to בית דין. But ר' שמעון doesn't hold that the other שבטים would be pulled because of these שבטים, and they should also have to bring a פר and a שעיר, or in a regular case, a פר. And it's important to note, that רש"י says here, that according to ר' יהודה, that says that this is the דין in case when seven שבטים did the עבירה, so then all the rest of the שבטים are pulled along and they also have to bring, really, it's not only when seven שבטים do this. If one שבט did it, it would be the same דין. If the בית דין הגדול פסק'נט, and one שבט followed the פסק דין of בית דין, and since he holds that every שבט is a separate קהל, so automatically that one שבט, which is a קהל, has to bring the קרבן, because they followed the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול and they are a קהל, so then all the other שבטים would also have to bring a פר for each שבט. Since there is one שבט, which is a קהל that has to bring, according to ר' יהודה, all the other ones are pulled along, and they would also have to bring. Then the משנה continues,

הורו בית דין של אחד מן השבטים, if the בית דין of one of the שבטים פסק'נט, not the בית דין הגדול of כלל ישראל, but the highest בית דין of that שבט, ועשה אותו השבט על פיהם, and that שבט did according to the פסק דין of בית דין, אותו השבט הוא חייב, so then that שבט is חייב, ושאר כל השבטים פטורין, and all other שבטים are פטור. דברי ר' יהודה, that is the opinion of ר' יהודה. When does ר' יהודה hold that if one שבט did it and they have to bring, so that pulls along all the other שבטים? That's only if they followed the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול. So then this פסק דין, what they're doing, is also שייך to the other שבטים, because after all, it's a פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, which is the בית דין of all the שבטים. But if it was through the פסק דין of that שבט, so then the other שבטים don't have to bring the קרבן. וחכמים אומרים, the חכמים say, אין חייבין אלא על העלם בית דין הגדול בלבד, that בכלל there is no such דין as a פר העלם דבר של צבור unless the פסק דין came from the בית דין הגדול, שנאמר, because the פסוק says, ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, that if the whole community of the יידן made a mistake, so we דארש'ן, ולא עדת אותו השבט, and not if it was the עדה, which means the בית דין of that שבט, only the עדת of ישראל, which means the בית דין of כלל ישראל, which is the בית דין הגדול. But not if it was the בית דין of one שבט, then בכלל there is no פר העלם דבר של צבור. And now we'll learn the גמרא.

תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, ידעו שהורו, בית דין knew that they פסק'נט, וטעו במה הורו, and they made a mistake concerning what they פסק'נט, for instance, the בית דין פסק'נט that חלב is מותר, and they פסק'נט it, obviously, in such a way that they did not מבטל the whole דין of חלב, but they just פסק'נט that a certain type of חלב is מותר, and the קהל went along and they ate חלב. But the קהל, in addition to eating חלב, also ate דם. And one of them, obviously, was שגגת מעשה. The דם, that the בית דין did not פסק'ן about, that was a regular שוגג by all the people, and the חלב, that they ate because the בית דין פסק'נט. But what happened was, later on, when the בית דין realized their mistake, they didn't remember whether they פסק'נט their דין concerning חלב or concerning דם. So one of the two things was the שגגת מעשה, one was שגגת בית דין through the הוראה of בית דין, but they don't know which one of the two that they did was because of the פסק דין of בית דין, and which one was because of their own שוגג. יכול יהו חייבין, I would think that they are חייב, that there is a דין of פר העלם דבר של צבור, and the reason is because ממה נפשך, one of the things they definitely did because of the הוראה of בית דין. So we would think there is a דין of פר העלם דבר של צבור, תלמוד לומר, so the פסוק says, ונודעה החטאת, that they found out their עבירה. That's when the פסוק says that there has to be a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, ולא שיוודעו החוטאים, but not only if they know who sinned, but they know don't know what the עבירה was. In a case like that, there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור. Then the ברייתא continues, the פסוק says אשר חטאו, they find out the עבירה that they sinned. And it says in plural, so that comes to show that חטאו שני שבטים, if these two שבטים sinned, מביאין שני פרים, so you bring two פרים. חטאו שלשה, if three שבטים sinned, מביאין שלשה, then you bring three פרים. גמרא says, או אינו אומר, or maybe what he is saying is different. How do we know if this is what the פסוק is telling us? That if two שבטים sinned, they bring two פרים, or three, three, etc., maybe it means to tell us, אלא חטאו שני יחידים מביאין שני פרים, if two individuals did the עבירה, so that's when you bring two פרים. חטאו גימל מביאין גימל, or if three individuals did the עבירה, you bring three פרים? That depending how many individuals followed the פסק דין of בית דין, that's how many פרים you bring. That's maybe what the פסוק means. תלמוד לומר, where the פסוק says הקהל, the community, הקהל חייב, the community is חייב, וכל קהל וקהל חייב, and every community is חייב. כיצד, what does that mean? What do we mean that every community is חייב? That if חטאו שני שבטים מביאין שני פרים, if two שבטים sinned, you bring two פרים, because each שבט is called a קהל. So if two שבטים, which is two קהל that sinned, bring two פרים. חטאו זין, if seven sinned, מביאין זין, you bring seven. ושאר השבטים שלא חטאו, and the other שבטים that didn't sin, מביאין על ידיהם פר פר, they bring because of those that did sin, each שבט a פר. שאפילו אלו שלא חטאו, because even those that didn't sin, מביאין על ידי החוטאים, they bring because of those that did sin. לכך נאמר קהל, that's why it says the word קהל, לחייב על כל קהל וקהל, to teach us that every קהל is חייב, which means every שבט is חייב. דברי רבי יהודה, that's the דעה of רבי יהודה. רבי שמעון אומר, רבי שמעון says, זין שבטים שחטאו, if seven שבטים sinned, מביאין זין פרים, they would bring seven פרים. ובית דין מביאין על ידיהם פר, and בית דין would also have to bring a פר in addition to the seven פרים of the seven שבטים. And how does he know that? שנאמר למטה קהל, ונאמר למעלה קהל, because it says lower the word קהל, and it says higher the word קהל. Lower means in the place where it says that the קהל has to bring the קרבן. Earlier it says קהל, that means in the place where it says that the קהל sinned. So we say מה קהל האמור למעלה בית דין עם הקהל, just like the word קהל that it says earlier concerning the sin, it means the בית דין with the קהל, because the only time that the קהל has to bring the קרבן is if it followed the פסק דין of בית דין, so it means the בית דין with the קהל, אף קהל האמור למטה, so too the word קהל that says by the קרבן, also it means בית דין עם הקהל, the בית דין with the קהל. That means that the בית דין also has to bring a קרבן together with the קהל in addition to the קהל. רבי מאיר אומר, רבי מאיר says, זין שבטים שחטאו, if seven שבטים sinned, בית דין מביאין על ידיהם פר, so בית דין brings because of them a פר, only the בית דין, והם פטורים, and they are פטור, the קהל is פטור. Because נאמר קהל למטה ונאמר קהל למעלה, he says it says קהל by the קרבן, and it says the word קהל by the עבירה. מה קהל האמור למעלה בית דין ולא ציבור, just like the word קהל that says earlier by the עבירה, it means only the בית דין, not the ציבור, אף קהל האמור למטה בית דין ולא ציבור, so too the קהל that says concerning the קרבן also means only the בית דין and not the ציבור. Which means that the מחלוקת between רבי שמעון and רבי מאיר is whether when the תורה says ונעלם מעיני הקהל, when it speaks about the עבירה, that it'll be covered from the eyes of the קהל, whether that means the בית דין with the קהל or just the בית דין. According to רבי שמעון, that means the בית דין with the קהל. מעיני would mean the בית דין, the eyes, that is the בית דין, and the word הקהל means the קהל. And what the פסוק means is that the בית דין made the mistake and the קהל followed, but that פסוק means both. And according to רבי מאיר, it says מעיני הקהל, from the eyes of the קהל, that means the בית דין only. And therefore when we make the comparison from the קהל that says by the קרבן to the קהל that says by the עבירה, so according to רבי שמעון, since the קהל by the עבירה means the בית דין with the קהל, so

therefore by the קרבן also, the קהל brings their קרבן and the בית דין also brings another קרבן. While according to רבי מאיר, since מעיני הקהל where it says by the עבירה it means only the בית דין, so by the קרבן it's also only the בית דין, that the קהל does not bring a קרבן, it's only the בית דין that brings the קרבן. רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר says משמו, in his name, in the name of רבי מאיר, a different פשט. שחטאו שיש שישה שבטים והם רובו של קהל, if six שבטים sinned, but they happen to be the majority of the קהל, which means the population of these six שבטים happened to be the majority of כלל ישראל. As far as שבטים are concerned they're not the majority, since you have twelve שבטים, so six is only half, not the majority. But if these six שבטים happen to be the majority of כלל ישראל, או זין אף על פי שאינן רובו של קהל, or if they were seven שבטים, even if they were not the majority of the קהל, but they were the majority of the שבטים, מביאין פר, you still bring a פר. As long as in one way there was a majority, then the בית דין would have to bring a פר. And now the גמרא goes to explain that ברייתא. אמר מר, we had learned earlier in the ברייתא that we דרש'ן from the פסוק, ונודעה החטאת, that the עבירה will be known, ולא שיודעו החוטאים, and not, it's not enough if the sinners will be known. And therefore, in the דין when בית דין forgot concerning what their פסק דין was, so then there is no קרבן פר העלם דבר של ציבור. And the גמרא says, מאן תנא? Who is the תנא that holds like that? אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, said רב יהודה said in the name of רב, ואיתימא רבא, some say it was רבא that said it, דלא כרבי אליעזר, this does not go according to the opinion of רבי אליעזר. דתנן, because we learn in a משנה, אמר רבי אליעזר, רבי אליעזר said, מה נפשך, אם חלב אכל חייב, נותר אכל חייב. This is a משנה concerning the דין of a person who had חלב and נותר in front of him. For חלב you get כרת, and for נותר you get כרת. And he ate one of them, and he doesn't know which one he ate. So רבי אליעזר says he has to bring a חטאת anyway, and רבי יהושע says he doesn't have to bring a חטאת. And we

learned in the ברייתא פשט in that משנה, that the reason רבי אליעזר says that he does have to bring a חטאת is because of מה נפשך: if he ate חלב, then he has to bring a חטאת for חלב; if he ate נותר, he has to bring a חטאת for נותר. So what difference does it make whether he knows exactly which עבירה he did? After all, whichever one it was, there is a חיוב חטאת, and therefore he has to bring a חטאת. But רבי יהושע said to him that that's not a דין, because the פסוק says by a קרבן חטאת that you bring a חטאת for the עבירה אשר חטא בה, for the עבירה that you sinned in it. That means to tell us till you find out which עבירה it was. אשר חטא בה, you know the one that you sinned. But רבי אליעזר obviously doesn't hold that way. He holds that even if you don't know exactly what the עבירה was, as long as you know for sure that it was an עבירה that you have to bring a חטאת for, he has to bring a חטאת. So the same thing would be here, too, that according to רבי יהושע, that since בית דין doesn't know what עבירה they פסק'נד, so they would be פטור from a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, even though whichever one it was, this is in the category, but nevertheless, since they don't know which עבירה it is, they don't bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. But according to רבי אליעזר, they would have to bring, because in מה נפשך, it is in that category. And since the ברייתא said that they don't have to bring, obviously the ברייתא goes not according to רבי אליעזר. רב אשי אמר, רב אשי says, no, אפילו תימא רבי אליעזר, באמת you could say the ברייתא here goes according to רבי אליעזר also. שאני הכא, here it's different, דכתיב אשר חטאו עליה. Here, רבי אליעזר would admit that if you don't know which עבירה it was, you don't have to bring the קרבן, because the פסוק says here clearly אשר חטאו עליה, that you find out the עבירה that you sinned for it. So it means that you have to know which עבירה it is, and therefore here רבי אליעזר would also hold that if you don't know, you are פטור. But the גמרא says, why is this different than the case of the חטאת? התם נמי הא כתיב אשר חטא בה. There it also says the פסוק אשר חטא בה, which would mean that he has to know which עבירה he did, and nevertheless רבי אליעזר argues and says that even if you don't know, you're still חייב a חטאת. So לכאורה the same thing should be here, that even though it says אשר חטאו עליה, nevertheless, that even if you don't know which עבירה it is, you still have to bring the קרבן פר העלם דבר של ציבור. But the גמרא says, no, over there, רבי אליעזר does not דרש'ן אשר חטא בה. Why? Because ההוא מיבעי ליה, there he needs the פסוק for something else, פרט למתעסק, it comes to exclude if the עבירה was done through מתעסק. The פסוק is telling us that only if it was done through שוגג you are חייב a חטאת, but not if it was done through מתעסק, because מתעסק is not שוגג. שוגג means that the person knows what he is doing, and intends to do what he is doing, he just forgot that this is אסור. For instance, if he did a מלאכה on שבת, so שוגג means that he knew that he is going to do the מלאכה, he intended to do the מלאכה, but he forgot that this מלאכה is forbidden on שבת, or he forgot that today is שבת. מתעסק means that he didn't even intend to do the מלאכה he is doing. For instance, he took a knife, and he wanted to cut תלוש, תלוש is something which is not connected to the ground, and there is no איסור in cutting it, and by mistake, he cut the מחובר, he cut something which is connected to the ground, which is a מלאכה. So that is not שוגג, that is מתעסק. So the

פסוק אשר חטא בה comes to tell us that when are you חייב a חטאת, only if you intend to do the עבירה you did. You didn't intend to do it as an עבירה, but you intended to do the act. But if you didn't intend to do the act, then you are פטור. So since רבי אליעזר uses the פסוק אשר חטא בה for that, so the פסוק is not left over to teach us that he is only חייב a חטאת if he knows that this is the עבירה he did. So therefore he holds over there, that even if he doesn't know that this is the עבירה, he doesn't know which עבירה it was, he's still חייב a חטאת, as long as ממה נפשך it was one עבירה that you bring a חטאת for. But by us, when we do have the פסוק אשר חטאו עליה, which is not used for anything else, so over here רבי אליעזר would admit that this פסוק comes to teach us that only if the בית דין knows which עבירה they פסק'נד, that's when there is a פר העלם דבר של ציבור, but if they don't know, there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור. Then the גמרא goes back to the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and רבי יהודה and רבי שמעון. מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה? What is the reason of רבי יהודה, who holds that every שבט has to bring his own פר? Because סבר, he holds, ארבעה קהל כתיבי. The תורה says four times the word קהל. In truth, it only says twice, but each time, it says the word הקהל. So we דרש'ן once the word קהל of the word הקהל, and the extra ה puts as if it would have been another word קהל. So he says קהל, הקהל. From this one word הקהל, we דרש'ן the word קהל and the word הקהל, and again, קהל, הקהל. And the two פסוקים are, first it says that ונעלם מעיני הקהל, it'll be covered, hidden from the eyes of the קהל, and later, it says והקריבו הקהל, that the קהל should bring the קרבן. So the first time, it could have said ונעלם מעיני קהל. Why did it have to say מעיני הקהל with the ה? So that comes to put another word קהל here. And later on also, where it says והקריבו הקהל, that the קהל should bring the קרבן, it could have said והקריבו קהל, the קהל would bring the קרבן. Why does it have to say הקהל? So that comes to teach us as if it would be another time the word קהל. Really, there is another time where it says קהל, חטאת הקהל, but that פסוק cannot be counted, because that פסוק is not mentioned not concerning the פסק דין of בית דין, and not concerning the קרבן that they bring. That's just a statement that it is חטאת הקהל, so that קהל is not counted. So we only could count the other two. So he says these other two really are four, and therefore, since we have four times the word קהל, we דרש'ן it as follows: חד לחייב על כל קהל וקהל. One time the word קהל comes to teach us that every קהל separately is חייב a קרבן. וחד, and once the word קהל comes to teach us דהוראה תלויה בבית דין ומעשה תלוי בקהל. The פסק דין depends on בית דין, and the מעשה depends on the קהל. That means that even though the קהל is the one that has to do it, but when is there the דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור? Only if the reason they did it was because the הוראה came from the בית דין. The הוראה has to be תלוי in בית דין in order to have this דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. וחד, the third time the word קהל, לגררא, comes to tell us that even those שבטים that didn't do the עבירה are pulled along with those that did do the עבירה. As we said before, that if seven שבטים or even one שבט did the עבירה based on the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, all other שבטים, according to רבי יהודה, also have to bring each one a פר. That is learned out from this word הקהל. וחד, the fourth קהל, לשבט שעשה בהוראת בית דינו, that if a שבט followed the פסק דין of his own בית דין, then just this שבט has to bring. But how do we know that? From the word קהל, and since each שבט is a קהל for itself, so therefore, we know that each שבט, if it did according to its own פסק דין of its own בית דין, is also חייב a פר, even though, according to רבי יהודה also, the other שבטים in this case would not have to bring because it wasn't done through the הוראה of בית דין הגדול, but at least this שבט has to bring a קרבן, and that is learned out from this word הקהל. רבי שמעון,

רבי שמעון says, תלתא קהל כתיבי. He says we only דרש'ן three times the word קהל. Once from the word הקהל, when it says ונעלם מעיני הקהל. He doesn't דרש'ן that as two because of the extra ה. That is just one דרש, once the word הקהל. And then, the second time, when it speaks about the קרבן that the קהל brings, and there it says והקריבו הקהל, there he does דרש'ן it as two: קהל and הקהל. Why doesn't he דרש'ן the first time where it says ונעלם מעיני הקהל as two? So he says because מעיני הקהל, אורחא דקרא הוא. The words מעיני הקהל, that ה is not extra. That is the, say, the normal דרך of the פסוק. כי דאמרי אינשי, like people say, מעיני דפלניא, from the eyes of that person. That it was covered from the eyes of that person. That's the normal way to talk, and therefore, it is a normal way for the פסוק to write. And therefore, we cannot דרש'ן the extra ה from the words מעיני הקהל as if the תורה would have written another time קהל. So according to him, we only have three times the word קהל. חד לחייב על כל קהל וקהל. One is to teach us that every קהל is חייב, because רבי שמעון holds that every שבט is also חייב a פר. ותרי אחריני, and the other two, comes to teach us a דין: נאמר למטה קהל ונאמר למעלה קהל. It says the word קהל concerning the קרבן, and it says the word קהל earlier concerning the עבירה, the הוראה, so we say, מה להלן בית... נאמר למטה קהל ונאמר למעלה קהל. It says the word קהל concerning the קרבן, and it says the word קהל earlier concerning the עבירה, the הוראה, so we say, מה להלן בית דין עם הקהל, just like the first part, when it speaks about the הוראה, it means the בית דין with the קהל, אף כאן, so here too concerning the קרבן, it's בית דין עם הקהל, it's the בית דין with קהל. So רבי שמעון uses the other two words of קהל for the גזירה שוה. So therefore, he doesn't have all other לימודים. So according to him, he doesn't hold that the other שבטים are pulled along, because he doesn't have a special לימוד to teach us that. And the גמרא will ask, what will he do with the other לימוד that רבי יהודה learned out that he doesn't have a פסוק for? And the גמרא will discuss that. Then the גמרא continues, רבי מאיר, what does

רבי מאיר do? He says קהל הקהל לא דריש, בכלל he doesn't דרש'ן the extra ה as if the תורה would have written another word קהל. הילכך תרי קהל כתיבי. So therefore, according to him there is לכתחילה only two קהלs, the first time and the last time, second time. And מבעיא ליה, these two we need for the גזירה שוה: לנימא למטה קהל ולנימא למעלה קהל, for this דין that it says למטה by the קרבן it says the word קהל, and earlier by the עבירה, by the הוראה it says the word קהל. מה להלן בית דין ולא ציבור, just like earlier it means only the בית דין, not the ציבור because he learns when it says ונעלם מעיני הקהל it means only בית דין, and the קהל is not mentioned there. So just like concerning the הוראה it is only the בית דין, not the קהל, אף כאן, so too concerning the קרבן it's בית דין ולא ציבור, it's only the בית דין, not the ציבור. So therefore he holds that only the בית דין brings, and not the קהל, and therefore he argues on this דין that every שבט would bring, because he holds that only the בית דין has to bring, and not every שבט. And he doesn't have an extra פסוק to teach us that every קהל has to bring, because he doesn't דרשן that there are four times the word קהל as רבי יהודה, or even as רבי שמעון who דרשןs that there are three times. He says בכלל there are only two, and it's only used for this גזירה שוה. And the גמרא continues,

ולרבי שמעון בן אלעזר מאי טעמא? What is the reason of רבי שמעון בן אלעזר? רבי שמעון בן אלעזר gave over another דין in the name of רבי מאיר: that it doesn't have to be the majority of the people of כלל ישראל to do the עבירה in order to have a חיוב of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. Even if it was the majority of the שבטים, and they were not the majority of the people, it was seven שבטים, and they were not the majority of the population of כלל ישראל, you still have a חיוב of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. What is his reason? The גמרא says, כתיב because it says in פרשת שלח, concerning the פר and שעיר that you have to bring for עבודה זרה, so there it says, והיה אם מעיני העדה. And this is the פסוק in פרשת שלח, קפיטל ט״ו פסוק כ״ד, where it says, והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה, if from the eyes of the community it was done בשגגה, ועשו כל העדה פר בן בקר אחד לעולה, and then the פסוק says, ושעיר עזים אחד לחטאת, and you have to bring a פר for an עולה, and a שעיר for a חטאת. But here the פסוק speaks about the people doing the עבירה, and the פסוק says, והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה, if from the עיני העדה it was done בשגגה. And since it says from the עיני העדה, is משמע that even if some of the people from the עדה did the עבירה, אלמא מיעוט, is משמע even if the minority of the יידן did the עבירה, you also have a חיוב of bringing this פר and the שעיר, וכתיב מעיני, because it says מעיני, from, which is משמע even if a מיעוט did it. וכתיב, but later on it says there, כי לכל העם בשגגה, because the whole nation, the whole עם did it בשגגה. למימרא, doesn't that tell us, דרובא אין מיעוטא לא? Only if the majority did it, that's when you have a חיוב of a פר and a שעיר, but not if the מיעוט did it. Even though the פסוק says לכל העם, to the whole nation, but we understand that the majority is enough, because רובו ככולו, the majority is considered like the whole. So this פסוק is משמע that the majority at least has to do it in order for the חיוב of a פר and a שעיר to be, and in the פסוק before is משמע even if a מיעוט. So הא כיצד? How do we put these two פסוקים together? So we דרשן: או ששה והן רובו של קהל, if six שבטים, if they are the majority of the קהל did it, או שבעה אף על פי שאינן רובו של קהל, or if it was seven שבטים, even if they were not the majority of the קהל, חייבין, they are חייב. So here we see that it doesn't have to be ממש the majority of the population, but it could be a case that it's the minority of the population, and still you should be חייב. איי, we know for sure it has to be the majority, because it's still considered a majority because it's the majority of the שבטים. And even though this פסוק speaks about עבודה זרה, but we know that the דין by עבודה זרה, when it's done through the הוראה of בית דין, has the same דין as by other עבירות when it was done through the הוראה of בית דין. The only difference is what the קרבן is: that by other עבירות there is only a פר, and by the דין of עבודה זרה there's a פר and a שעיר. But as far as when the חיוב of the קרבן comes, they're both equal. And since by עבודה זרה we see that the פסוק teaches us that sometimes, even if the מיעוט did it, there is a possibility of a קרבן, and we said that means when it was a majority of the שבטים, so the same would apply to the פר העלם דבר של ציבור by other עבירות, that if seven שבטים did it, even though they were the minority of the population, nevertheless there is a חיוב. Then the

גמרא continues, ולרבי שמעון ולרבי מאיר, הוראה תלויה בבית דין ומעשה תלוי בקהל מנא להו? According to רבי שמעון and רבי מאיר, who say that there are only or three times the word קהל, or two times the word קהל, and they used it up for the דינים that they felt it goes for, for the גזירה שוה, and according to רבי שמעון also the third one to teach us that you are חייב for every קהל. But we don't have an extra קהל to teach us this דין, that the הוראה is תלוי in בית דין, that when is this דין that they're bringing the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, only if it came through a פסק of בית דין. According to רבי יהודה, who דרשןs that there are four times the word קהל, so he uses one of the four times to teach us this דין: that it depends, the הוראה depends on בית דין, and the מעשה depends on the קהל. But according to them, that they don't have four times the word קהל, so if they don't have an extra word קהל to teach us this דין, מנא להו, how do they know this דין? אמר אביי, so אביי said, אמר קרא, because the פסוק says, והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה. It's the פסוק from פרשת שלח concerning עבודה זרה, where the פסוק says, if from the eyes of the עדה it would be done בשגגה, is משמע that the שוגג that is done through the people came because of something someone else's mistake. So that teaches us that when is this דין, only if it came through a mistake of the בית דין. רבא, אמר רבא says לכל העם בשגגה, that we learn it out from another פסוק. That over there in שלח the פסוק finishes it off, לכל העם בשגגה, that the whole עם made it with שוגג, is משמע that they made it because of a שוגג of something else. So that teaches us that the שוגג has to be from the בית דין. וצריכא, באמת we have to have both פסוקים to teach us this דין. דאי כתב רחמנא והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה, if we would only have the פסוק, אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה, and that's where we would know that it has to go through the הוראה of בית דין, הוה אמינא, I would say אפילו מיעוטא, that even if the minority of the אידן did it, as long as it was done because of the שוגג of בית דין, you have to bring the קרבן, because the פסוק says מעיני העדה, from the עיני העדה, which משמע even a מיעוט. להכי כתיב, therefore the פסוק has to write the other פסוק, לכל העם בשגגה, that the whole nation has to do it בשוגג, which means at least a majority, which is like the whole thing, because רובו ככולו. ואי כתיב, if the פסוק would write לכל העם בשגגה, only the second פסוק, לכל העם בשגגה, הוה אמינא, I would think עד דעבדי בית דין בהדי רובא, that when is the דין of the פר העלם דבר של ציבור or by עבודה זרה the פר ושעיר, if the בית דין did it along with the ציבור, because it says לכל העם בשגגה, the whole עם, everybody including the בית דין. להכי כתיב, therefore the פסוק also has to write והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה, which comes to tell us that they did it through the שוגג of somebody else, which teaches us that only the שוגג has to be somebody else, which means the בית דין only has to be the one to פסקן and make the mistake, but the actual doing doesn't have to be through בית דין, could be done through the other people. But then the גמרא asks: וכי כתיב הני קראי בעבודה זרה הוא דכתיב, but doesn't this פסוק only say by עבודה זרה? And we're trying to say this דין concerning the פר העלם דבר של ציבור, which is not by עבודה זרה. And the גמרא answers: יליף, we learn out, מעיני מעיני, גזירה שוה. It says מעיני by the regular פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and it says מעיני by the פר ושעיר of עבודה זרה, so we make a גזירה שוה. From here we learn

out that all the דינים that apply to the time of the חיוב by עבודה זרה applies also to the time of the חיוב by פר העלם דבר של ציבור. The only difference is, as I said before, here it's a פר, and by עבודה זרה it's a פר ושעיר. But when the חיוב comes, we make a גזירה שוה that they both come in the same condition. Then the גמרא continues. It said in the משנה, הורו בית דין של אחד וכולי, which means if the בית דין of one of the שבטים פסקנ'ד, and that שבט followed the פסק דין of בית דין, so that שבט is חייב to bring the קרבן, and all other שבטים are פטור, that's the opinion of רבי יהודה. והחכמים say that בכלל there is never a דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור unless it came from the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, because the פסוק says אם כל עדת ישראל ישגו, but not the עדת of that שבט. The גמרא says, איבעיא להו, there's a question asked: שבט אחד לרבי יהודה בהוראת בית דין הגדול, if one שבט did the עבירה, but it came because of the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, מי מייתי שאר שבטים או לא, do the other שבטים bring along with this one שבט or not? And even though רבי יהודה said בפירוש in the משנה that if seven שבטים did the עבירה, so they bring, each שבט brings a פר, but the other שבטים that didn't do the עבירה also bring along with them. So what is the שאלה here? The שאלה here is, did רבי יהודה mean only if seven שבטים did it, that's when they pull the other שבטים along, or even if one שבט did it, as long as it came through the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול? Let me explain.

מי אמרינן, do we say שבעה שבטים הוא דמייתי שאר שבטים בהדייהו, only if seven שבטים did it, that's when the other שבטים bring along, משום דאיכא רובא, because there is a majority of the שבטים, there were seven שבטים did the עבירה, so that's why the other שבטים have to follow along and also bring the קרבן. אבל חד שבט, but if only one שבט did it, דליכא רובא, so there is no majority of שבטים, לא, so then there is no דין that the other שבטים also have to bring, או דילמא, or maybe לא שנא, there is no difference, as long as it came from the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, and one קהל followed and has to bring the פר, so all other שבטים also have to bring a פר? The גמרא says, תא שמע, come here, I'll answer your question. We learned, מה הם מביאין, what do they bring? פר אחד, one פר. רבי שמעון אומר, Reb Shimon says, שני פרים, two פרים. That's what it says in the ברייתא, and we don't know clearly exactly in which case the ברייתא is talking about. ובמאי עסקינן, what are we talking about? אילימא, if we'll say that the case is שחטאו שבעה, that seven שבטים sinned, and that's what the ברייתא says that according to the first מאי דאמר you only bring one, and according to רבי שמעון you bring two, that couldn't be, because רבי שמעון, תמניא בעי, Reb Shimon would need eight, because רבי שמעון says that the קהל and the בית דין bring. So if it was seven שבטים that did the עבירה, so you have to have seven plus one more of the בית דין. אלא,

therefore we must say דחטא שבט אחד, that the ברייתא is speaking in a case where only one שבט did the עבירה, and the תנא קמא says you only bring one פר, and רבי שמעון says you bring two פרים. Why? One for the שבט who did the עבירה, and then one for בית דין. But then, במאי? What it was the case? Why did they do the עבירה? אי בהוראת בית דינה, if this one שבט did the עבירה through the פסק דין of its own בית דין, רבי שמעון לית ליה. רבי שמעון בכלל holds that in a case like that there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור at all. And even though we didn't find רבי שמעון's opinion clearly in this דין, where he says clearly that you do not bring if it was done only through the פסק דין of a בית דין of one שבט, but it's self-understood that that's the way he holds. Because how does רבי יהודה know that if it was done through the פסק דין of the בית דין of that שבט, that שבט brings? Because he learns it out from the extra word קהל, as the גמרא said before. But according to רבי שמעון, as we said before, he doesn't have an extra word קהל. He דרש's one קהל, that every שבט himself is חייב, a קהל, קהל, וקהל. The other two he uses for the גזירה שוה. So he doesn't have the extra קהל to teach us that if it was done through the בית דין of that שבט you're חייב. Obviously, רבי שמעון holds that if it was done through the פסק דין of that בית דין, בכלל there is no דין of פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So we can't say that this ברייתא where it says רבי שמעון says you bring two פרים means in the case when the one שבט that did the עבירה did it because of the פסק דין of its own בית דין. אלא לאו, therefore you must say the ברייתא means בהוראת בית דין הגדול, that this one שבט did the עבירה through the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול. ותנא קמא מני? Who is the תנא קמא that says that you only bring one קרבן? אילימא, if you'll say רבי מאיר, that רבי מאיר is the one that said that, can't be, הא רובא בעי. Since רבי מאיר holds it's only the בית דין that brings, so it doesn't depend on every שבט. You have to have the majority of כלל ישראל in order to be חייב a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. And if we're talking here in a case where only one שבט did the עבירה, then there will be no קרבן at all according to רבי מאיר. The

תנא קמא who says that there is one קרבן couldn't be רבי מאיר. אלא לאו, therefore we must say, who is it? רבי יהודה. Because רבי יהודה holds that every שבט is a separate קהל and therefore every שבט brings separately. So in this ברייתא where it says that according to the תנא קמא you bring one קרבן, it must mean that it was done through the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, and only one שבט did the עבירה. And therefore he says there's only one קרבן, because he holds that the בית דין doesn't bring, it's only the שבט that brings, and since it was one שבט that did the עבירה, there's only one קרבן. So if we learn that פשט in the ברייתא, we have an answer to our question. Our question was that if one שבט did it based on the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, do the other שבטים have to bring or not? Here we see clearly that they do not have to bring, because here we proved that the ברייתא must be talking in a case where it was done through the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול. We also proved that it must be in a case where the עבירה was done through one שבט, and we proved that the תנא קמא is רבי יהודה, and nevertheless it says that only one פר is brought. Obviously, the other שבטים do not bring. The גמרא says, אמר, I will tell you that it's no ראיה.

הכא במאי עסקינן, maybe here we're talking in a case כגון שחטאו שיתא, ששה שבטים והן רובו של קהל, that six שבטים did the עבירה and they are the majority of the קהל, ורבי שמעון בן אלעזר היא. And who is the תנא קמא who says that you bring one קרבן? It's רבי שמעון בן אלעזר. דתניא, because we learned that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משמו, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said in the name of רבי מאיר: חטאו ששה והן רובו של קהל, if six sinned, and they were the majority of the קהל, או שבעה אף על פי שאינן רובו של קהל, or if they were seven שבטים and they were not the majority of the population of כלל ישראל, מביאין פר, they bring a פר. So we could say that the תנא קמא of this ברייתא happens to be רבי שמעון בן אלעזר, and that's why the ברייתא says that what do they bring? They bring one פר. When is the case that you bring one פר? The case that was only six שבטים, but it was the majority of כלל ישראל. So according to him, you only bring one פר, because he is going according to the opinion of רבי מאיר, who says that only the בית דין brings as long as there was a majority. And that's the case of the ברייתא, that we're talking in a case where six שבטים sinned, so that's why he says you bring one פר. רבי שמעון argues and he says you have to bring two, because he because he holds, in addition to the קהל, also the בית דין has to bring, and therefore there are two קרבנות. But one might ask, how can we say that this is the case of the ברייתא, when רבי שמעון says you bring two קרבנות, and the reason we're saying it's two is because one is for the קהל and one is for the בית דין, but we know that רבי שמעון is of the opinion that every שבט has to bring separately? So therefore, in this case where there were ששה שבטים that did the עבירה, and they were the רוב of the קהל, according to רבי שמעון there should be seven קרבנות, six for each שבט, and then one for the בית דין. But the פשט is like this: when does רבי שמעון say that each שבט has to bring? Only if the קרבן is brought because this was the majority of כלל ישראל plus the majority of the שבטים. But if it was just the majority of כלל ישראל and they were not the majority of the שבטים, then not every שבט brings. You just bring one for the כלל ישראל, and then one for בית דין. And therefore, this ברייתא fits through all sides. The תנא קמא is רבי שמעון בן אלעזר, who goes according to רבי מאיר, who says that if the majority did it, even if they were not the majority of בית דין, you still bring a קרבן, and who brings the קרבן? The קהל and not the בית דין, and therefore there's only one. ר' שמעון says that you bring two, since it was not the majority of the שבטים, so you bring one for the קהל, and one for the בית דין. That's why you bring two. So we still have no ראיה, according to ר' יהודה who says that when you bring for every שבט, even those שבטים that didn't do the עבירה also have to bring, whether this דין would be true even if one שבט did the עבירה, does he also pull all the other שבטים or not? The גמרא says, תא שמע, come here, I'll answer the question. ר' יהודה אומר, we've learned ר' יהודה said, שבט שעשה בהוראת בית דינו, if a שבט did through the פסק דין of its own בית דין, אותו השבט חייב, that שבט is חייב, ושאר כל השבטים פטורין, and all the other שבטים are פטור. ובהוראת בית דין הגדול, but if it was done through the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, and he's speaking here in a case where one שבט did it, אפילו שאר שבטים חייבין, even the other שבטים are also חייב. שמע מינה, that proves that even if one did it, but as long as it was done because of the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, it pulls along all the other שבטים. Then the גמרא says: אמר רב אשי, רב אשי said, מתניתין נמי דיקא, we could also prove this from the משנה, דקתני, it says in the משנה, concerning the case that if one שבט did it based on the פסק דין of its own בית דין, so it says there that ועשה אותו השבט על פיהם, if that שבט did because of that בית דין, אותו השבט חייב, that שבט is חייב, ושאר כל השבטים פטורים, the other שבטים are פטור. And the question is, למה לי למיתני ושאר שבטים פטורים, why does it have to say that the other שבטים are פטור? הא תנא, doesn't it say, אותו השבט חייב, that that שבט is חייב? וכיון דתנא אותו השבט חייב, and since he writes that that שבט is חייב, ממילא ידעינן, we automatically know שאר שבטים פטורים, that all the other שבטים are פטור. Because even if it would happen because of the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, all the other שבטים would be פטור, being that it's only one שבט that did it. And if we're going to hold that when one שבט does it, even by the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, all the other שבטים are פטור, it's only if seven שבטים did it that's when they pull along the other שבטים. But if one שבט did it, then it doesn't pull along the other שבטים, then why in this case does it have to mention that all the other שבטים are פטור? This case is the case when they did it based on their own בית דין. So here the משנה says that according to ר' יהודה that שבט is חייב. The fact that the other שבטים are פטור, we know ourselves, because even if it would be done through the בית דין הגדול, still the other שבטים would be פטור because only one שבט did it. So why in this case, where it was done not through the בית דין הגדול, through its own שבט, the משנה has to tell us that all the other שבטים are פטור? אלא הא קא משמע לן, doesn't this teach us, דבהוראת בית דינו, if it was done by one שבט because of its own בית דין, הוא דשאר שבטים פטורין, that's when the other שבטים are פטור. אבל בהוראת בית דין הגדול, but if this one שבט would have done it through the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, אפילו שאר שבטים חייבין, the other שבטים are also חייב. שמע מינה, so that proves that this is the דין. Then the גמרא continues: איבעיא להו, there was a question asked: שבט אחד שעשה בהוראת בית דין הגדול, לר' שמעון, מי מייתי או לא, that if one שבט did it based on the פסק דין of בית דין הגדול, according to ר' שמעון, what is the דין? Do they bring a פר העלם דבר של ציבור or not? And the reason for the question is because we know only that ר' שמעון holds that every שבט has to bring a פר. It's not the בית דין that brings, but every שבט separately brings. But what we don't know is, does he mean that only if the majority of the שבטים did it, that's when there's a חיוב of פר העלם דבר של ציבור, and who brings it? Not one for the בית דין, but each שבט brings it. But if לכתחילה it wasn't done by the majority, then לכתחילה there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור. And therefore, if only one שבט followed the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, then there is no פר העלם דבר של ציבור. Even though he says each שבט is called קהל for itself, that is only concerning bringing the קרבן. That when there is a חיוב קרבן because the majority did it, so then, who brings the קרבן? Each שבט. But not that if one שבט himself did it, it is already called that a קהל did it. Or maybe not, maybe what he means is that each שבט is called a קהל, and therefore, that if one שבט followed the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, it is considered that a קהל did it, and therefore there would be a פר העלם דבר של ציבור. The גמרא says, תא שמע, come here, I'll answer your question. מאי מביאין, the same ברייתא that we brought before, that what do they bring? פר אחד, one פר. ר' שמעון אומר, ר' שמעון says, שני פרים, that they bring two פרים. And the question is, ובמאי עסקינן, what is the case of that ברייתא? אילימא דחטאו שבעה, if you'll say the ברייתא is speaking that seven did the עבירה, seven שבטים did the עבירה, and that's the מחלוקת between תנא קמא and ר' שמעון: תנא קמא says that you only bring one פר, because תנא קמא holds that only the בית דין brings, and therefore even though seven שבטים did the עבירה, you only bring one. And ר' שמעון says two, because ר' שמעון says that the קהל brings and the בית דין brings, and therefore you bring two. But that's not true! שני פרים? Why should you bring two? שמונה פרים בעי, you need eight! Because ר' שמעון holds that every שבט brings a separate קרבן plus the בית דין brings. So in this case where seven שבטים did the עבירה, so it should be seven for each שבט plus one more for בית דין. אלא, therefore we must say the ברייתא means דחטא שבט אחד, that one שבט did the עבירה. And the question is, ובמאי, in which way did it do the עבירה? אילימא בהוראת בית דינו, if you're going to say the עבירה was done through the פסק דין of its own בית דין, רבי שמעון לית ליה, רבי שמעון doesn't hold בכלל that there's a קרבן then, as we said before, since he doesn't have the extra words קהל to דרשן this דרשה, so he holds that if it was done through the פסק דין of a private בית דין of the שבט, then there is no קרבן at all. אלא, therefore you must say, בהוראת בית דין הגדול, that it was done through the פסק דין of בית דין הגדול. In other words, one שבט did it through the פסק דין of בית דין הגדול. And that's a ראיה that according to רבי שמעון, if one שבט did it through the פסק דין of בית דין הגדול, there is a חיוב, and therefore, he says in this ברייתא, you bring two, one for that שבט and one for the בית דין. And then the גמרא asks, ותסברא, do you really think that this is the פשט? תנא קמא מאן היא? Who is the תנא קמא in this ברייתא? אי רבי מאיר, if you'll say it's רבי מאיר, רובא בעי! Doesn't רבי מאיר hold that you must have the רוב of כלל ישראל in order to be חייב this קרבן? Because רבי מאיר holds that it's only בית דין that brings, and he doesn't hold that each שבט is a separate קהל. So, when is the חיוב of בית דין to bring? Only when the רוב of the קהל did it. What is called קהל according to רבי מאיר? The whole of כלל ישראל. So, when is there a חיוב? Only if the רוב of the אידן did it, and not if one שבט did it. So if the פשט is, as we said before, that the ברייתא is talking in a case where one שבט did it, so then there would be no קרבן בכלל, according to רבי מאיר. אי רבי יהודה, if you'll say the ברייתא, the תנא קמא is רבי יהודה, שאר שבטים נמי מייתי! Doesn't רבי יהודה hold that even if one שבט did the עבירה based on the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, it pulls along all other שבטים and they also have to bring? So in this case where one שבט did it, there should be, according to רבי יהודה, 12 קרבנות! So, הא מני, the גמרא says you must say who is it? רבי שמעון בן אלעזר היא. It goes according to רבי שמעון בן אלעזר, וכדתניא like we said before, that this is a case where six שבטים did the עבירה, but they happened to be the רוב of כלל ישראל. And therefore, according to רבי מאיר, because רבי שמעון בן אלעזר follows the opinion of רבי מאיר, the דין would be that the בית דין would bring, even though it's not the majority of the שבטים, but since it's the majority of the people, the בית דין brings, but only one. And according to רבי שמעון, you only bring two. You do not bring for each שבט, because as we said before, when does רבי שמעון say each שבט brings? If there is the majority of כלל ישראל, so then each שבט brings, which means if there's a majority of שבטים and majority of people. In a case where there was only the majority of people, not of שבטים, then you only bring one for all the שבטים and one for בית דין. But we still have no proof what would be the case if one שבט does it based on the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול according to רבי שמעון, whether that one שבט brings a קרבן or not. And the גמרא, תא שמע, come hear, I'll answer your question. It's said in the משנה, וחכמים אומרים, the חכמים say, לעולם אינו חייב אלא בהוראת בית דין הגדול, you're only חייב on the הוראה of בית דין הגדול. This follows the opinion of רבי יהודה, that רבי יהודה said that if one שבט does it based on the פסק דין of its own בית דין, that one שבט is חייב. And the חכמים say that one שבט is only חייב if it was done through the הוראה of בית דין הגדול. But the question is, מאן חכמים? Who is the opinion of the חכמים? Who says this? אילימא רבי מאיר, if you're going to say this follows רבי מאיר, couldn't be. רובא בעי! רבי מאיר בכלל says, when are you חייב? Only if the majority does it. The משנה says that the חכמים hold that when is one שבט חייב, not if it was done through the פסק דין of its own בית דין, only through the פסק דין of בית דין הגדול. But according to רבי מאיר, even if it would be done through the פסק דין of בית דין הגדול, you wouldn't be חייב, because if one שבט did it, it is not the רוב of כלל ישראל. And according to רבי מאיר, who holds that not every שבט is called קהל, so then only if you have the majority of כלל ישראל, that's when you're חייב. אלא לאו, therefore you must say, רבי שמעון

היא. It goes according to רבי שמעון, who holds that each שבט is called קהל. And what the משנה is saying that רבי שמעון is saying that when is one שבט חייב, not if it was done through the פסק דין of its own שבט, only through the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול. שמע מינה, so that proves that according to רבי שמעון, if one שבט did it because of the פסק דין of the בית דין הגדול, that one שבט is considered a קהל and has to bring the קרבן.