Talmud for Horayot 1:2
גמרא נפש כי תחטא. אחת תחטא בעשותה תחטא הרי אילו מיעוטין. התולה בעצמו חייב והתולה בבית דין פטור. בכל אתר את מר מיעוט אחר מיעוט לרבות וכא את מר מיעוט אחר מיעוט למעט אמר ר' מתניה שנייא היא דכתיב מיעוט אחר מיעוט אחר מיעוט. ר' חגיי שאל לחברייה מניין לאוכל ברשות שהוא פטור מה בין סבור שהוא חולין ונמצאת תרומה שהוא חייב מה בין המחזיק עצמו שהוא כהן ונמצא ישראל שהוא פטור אמרין ליה מן הוריות בית דין. אמר לון אוף אנא צריכה לי מה בין סבור שהוא חול ונמצאת שבת שהוא חייב מה בין סבור שהוא פסח ונמצא שלמים שהוא פטור אמרין ליה מן השוחט ברשות. אמר לון אוף אנא צריכא לי מה בין סבור שהוא מותר
We recite [in our mishnah] "...from the time that the kohanim (Aaronide priests) enter to eat their Terumah (produce consecrated for priestly consumption)." Rabbi Chiya taught [in Tosefta Berakhot 1:1]: "...from the time that people usually go in to eat their bread on the eve of the Sabbath." And there is a baraita that comments on this: "These opinions are close enough to be equal."
Jerusalem Talmud Horayot
HALAKHAH: “They are only liable for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation,” etc. 39Cf. Yebamot 4:15, Notes 219–227.The commandments of the Eternal40Since the introduction to the rules of purification sacrifices, Lev. 4:2, seems to prescribe such a sacrifice for all the Commandments of the Eternal, it needs an argument why in all four cases (the High Priest, the High Court, Prince, and commoner) simple transgressions are excluded.. I could think that this also includes those who eat abominations and crawling things. 41Cf. Halakhah 1:8, Notes 145 ff. Here also one compares the transgressions for which the Court has to bring a bull to the sin of idolatry for which a bull and a goat are required. It says here from the eyes and it says there from the eyes. Just as from the eyes mentioned there means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin42The punishment for idolatry in the absence of witnesses or warning. and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so from the eyes mentioned here means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Or since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here should mean something that can lead to the death penalty43The punishment for idolatry if there are witnesses for warning and deed.? 44This is a wrong quote from Yebamot(Note 220). The father’s wife who is not the mother is forbidden in Deut. 23:1 (in addition to Lev. 18:8, 20:11). The bastard is mentioned in Deut. 23:3; it is inferred that the bastard is a child from a forbidden union exemplified by the father’s wife.
One may assume that the intended quote from Yebamot was the answer given there to the question: “R. Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation (Num.15:31), there was no mention of anything but extirpation (Num. 15:30–31). But the death penalty is written elsewhere (Lev.20:2, Deut. 17:5).” (Note 226). Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the (married woman) [father’s wife] came out to tell you about the bastard. 45Babli 8a, Yebamot 9a. In Lev. 4:14, speaking of the Court’s sacrifice, it is said, and the sin became known concerning which (עָלֶיהָ) they had sinned. In Lev. 18:18 one reads: Do not marry a woman in addition to her sister, to make them co-wives, to uncover her nakedness over her (עָלֶיהָ) during her lifetime. Lev.18:29 is a blanket warning that all sexual crimes mentioned in the Chapter are punishable by extirpation. The wife’s sister is not mentioned in the list of punishments in Lev. 20. Therefore this is a reference only to divine extirpation; even with witnesses and due warnings no death penalty is involved (Sanhedrin 7:5, Note 78). Rebbi said over which, over her. Since over her mentioned there refers to something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so over which mentioned here means something for which one is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Why does Rebbi not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? 46Text found only in B. Since the argument of R. Zeˋira is identical to that of R. Mana (student of R. Zeˋira’s student), the text is suspect. In Halakhah 3 it was established that Rebbi requires the High Priest to bring a sacrifice for an erroneous action even without an element of oblivion. If Rebbi would accept transfer of the argument of Halakhah 1:8, Notes 165ff. to the problem here, he would have to hold that the same applies to the Court. But since forgetting is mentioned in the verse speaking of the Court, this would disprove his thesis. Therefore, Rebbi cannot accept the application of the argument of Halakhah 1:8 to the problem of Mishnah 2:4.[Rebbi Zeˋira said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then from the eyes mentioned there for the Anointed refers to action in error; also from the eyes mentioned here would have to refer to action in error. Therefore, Rebbi will not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes.] Rebbi Yose said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here means something that can lead to the death penalty47He accepts the question (Note 43) as valid.. Therefore, Rebbi does not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. (Does Rebbi not have a book) [Will Rebbi not in the end have]48The text in parentheses is from the ms., the one in brackets from B. It seems that the ms. text is a scribal error. to infer from the eyes, from the eyes? 49Text of the ms. Since Rebbi only denies that for the High Priest’s offering an element of oblivion is necessary, for all others he accepts the reasoning of Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 4(6) that from a comparison with the rules for unintentional idolatry it is established that both oblivion and unintentional action are needed. The connection is established by from the eyes, from the eyes. For if it is not so, from where would we have the rules for the individual, the chief, and the Anointed? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? 50Text of B. But in Halakhah 3, there is no reference to inferences from idolatry. For if it is not so, from where would we have “unless they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part”? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have [the difference between] a ruling of the High Court and a ruling of a lower court51The fact that the court mentioned in Lev. 4 is the High Court is proven from Num. 15:24. The connection is established by from the eyes, from the eyes.? Rebbi Ḥanania52This is the correct attribution, not R. Hanina as in B.
53 Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 3(7). The reference is to Lev. 4:5: The Anointed Priest shall take of the bull’s blood and bring it to the Tent of Meeting. “To bring it” could have been expressed as וְהֵבִיאוֹ, but it is given as וְהֵבִיא אֹתוֹ. The choice of a separate word for “it” is read as emphasizing that precisely this blood is brought into the sanctuary, not blood of similar sacrifices. The one sacrifice similar to the bull of the High Priest and the one of the Court which follows the same rule (Lev. 4:16, where the language is: of the bull’s blood) is the bull offered for inadvertent idolatry. The latter is called “the singular commandment” both because it requires a rite of atonement different from all other commandments as also it is the only sin which in one act violates all commandments (cf. Halakhah 1:6, Note 135). said before Rebbi Mana: Would not Rebbi in the end have to infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi? Rebbi follows his own opinion, since Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error. Intentional error is only written for the Court46Text found only in B. Since the argument of R. Zeˋira is identical to that of R. Mana (student of R. Zeˋira’s student), the text is suspect. In Halakhah 3 it was established that Rebbi requires the High Priest to bring a sacrifice for an erroneous action even without an element of oblivion. If Rebbi would accept transfer of the argument of Halakhah 1:8, Notes 165ff. to the problem here, he would have to hold that the same applies to the Court. But since forgetting is mentioned in the verse speaking of the Court, this would disprove his thesis. Therefore, Rebbi cannot accept the application of the argument of Halakhah 1:8 to the problem of Mishnah 2:4.. 53It. It specifies about his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary. Does this follow Rebbi, as Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error; if it would follow the rabbis, there must be an instance of forgetting. (Rav) [Rebbi]54The text in parentheses is from the ms., the (correct) one in brackets from B. Cf. Note 34. Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. Lest you say, because there is extirpation55For idolatry which cannot be prosecuted in court for lack of eye witnesses or due warning. its blood should be brought into the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was necessary to say it, it specifies his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary.
One may assume that the intended quote from Yebamot was the answer given there to the question: “R. Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation (Num.15:31), there was no mention of anything but extirpation (Num. 15:30–31). But the death penalty is written elsewhere (Lev.20:2, Deut. 17:5).” (Note 226). Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the (married woman) [father’s wife] came out to tell you about the bastard. 45Babli 8a, Yebamot 9a. In Lev. 4:14, speaking of the Court’s sacrifice, it is said, and the sin became known concerning which (עָלֶיהָ) they had sinned. In Lev. 18:18 one reads: Do not marry a woman in addition to her sister, to make them co-wives, to uncover her nakedness over her (עָלֶיהָ) during her lifetime. Lev.18:29 is a blanket warning that all sexual crimes mentioned in the Chapter are punishable by extirpation. The wife’s sister is not mentioned in the list of punishments in Lev. 20. Therefore this is a reference only to divine extirpation; even with witnesses and due warnings no death penalty is involved (Sanhedrin 7:5, Note 78). Rebbi said over which, over her. Since over her mentioned there refers to something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so over which mentioned here means something for which one is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Why does Rebbi not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? 46Text found only in B. Since the argument of R. Zeˋira is identical to that of R. Mana (student of R. Zeˋira’s student), the text is suspect. In Halakhah 3 it was established that Rebbi requires the High Priest to bring a sacrifice for an erroneous action even without an element of oblivion. If Rebbi would accept transfer of the argument of Halakhah 1:8, Notes 165ff. to the problem here, he would have to hold that the same applies to the Court. But since forgetting is mentioned in the verse speaking of the Court, this would disprove his thesis. Therefore, Rebbi cannot accept the application of the argument of Halakhah 1:8 to the problem of Mishnah 2:4.[Rebbi Zeˋira said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then from the eyes mentioned there for the Anointed refers to action in error; also from the eyes mentioned here would have to refer to action in error. Therefore, Rebbi will not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes.] Rebbi Yose said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here means something that can lead to the death penalty47He accepts the question (Note 43) as valid.. Therefore, Rebbi does not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. (Does Rebbi not have a book) [Will Rebbi not in the end have]48The text in parentheses is from the ms., the one in brackets from B. It seems that the ms. text is a scribal error. to infer from the eyes, from the eyes? 49Text of the ms. Since Rebbi only denies that for the High Priest’s offering an element of oblivion is necessary, for all others he accepts the reasoning of Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 4(6) that from a comparison with the rules for unintentional idolatry it is established that both oblivion and unintentional action are needed. The connection is established by from the eyes, from the eyes. For if it is not so, from where would we have the rules for the individual, the chief, and the Anointed? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? 50Text of B. But in Halakhah 3, there is no reference to inferences from idolatry. For if it is not so, from where would we have “unless they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part”? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have [the difference between] a ruling of the High Court and a ruling of a lower court51The fact that the court mentioned in Lev. 4 is the High Court is proven from Num. 15:24. The connection is established by from the eyes, from the eyes.? Rebbi Ḥanania52This is the correct attribution, not R. Hanina as in B.
53 Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 3(7). The reference is to Lev. 4:5: The Anointed Priest shall take of the bull’s blood and bring it to the Tent of Meeting. “To bring it” could have been expressed as וְהֵבִיאוֹ, but it is given as וְהֵבִיא אֹתוֹ. The choice of a separate word for “it” is read as emphasizing that precisely this blood is brought into the sanctuary, not blood of similar sacrifices. The one sacrifice similar to the bull of the High Priest and the one of the Court which follows the same rule (Lev. 4:16, where the language is: of the bull’s blood) is the bull offered for inadvertent idolatry. The latter is called “the singular commandment” both because it requires a rite of atonement different from all other commandments as also it is the only sin which in one act violates all commandments (cf. Halakhah 1:6, Note 135). said before Rebbi Mana: Would not Rebbi in the end have to infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi? Rebbi follows his own opinion, since Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error. Intentional error is only written for the Court46Text found only in B. Since the argument of R. Zeˋira is identical to that of R. Mana (student of R. Zeˋira’s student), the text is suspect. In Halakhah 3 it was established that Rebbi requires the High Priest to bring a sacrifice for an erroneous action even without an element of oblivion. If Rebbi would accept transfer of the argument of Halakhah 1:8, Notes 165ff. to the problem here, he would have to hold that the same applies to the Court. But since forgetting is mentioned in the verse speaking of the Court, this would disprove his thesis. Therefore, Rebbi cannot accept the application of the argument of Halakhah 1:8 to the problem of Mishnah 2:4.. 53It. It specifies about his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary. Does this follow Rebbi, as Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error; if it would follow the rabbis, there must be an instance of forgetting. (Rav) [Rebbi]54The text in parentheses is from the ms., the (correct) one in brackets from B. Cf. Note 34. Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. Lest you say, because there is extirpation55For idolatry which cannot be prosecuted in court for lack of eye witnesses or due warning. its blood should be brought into the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was necessary to say it, it specifies his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy