תלמוד על הוריות 2:1

From where these things? He did one, and did these, and did of these. He did one, to obligate for each one separately; and did these, to obligate for all of them together²⁶Lev. 4:2 reads: If a person should sin inadvertently against any of the prohibitions of the Eternal and did one of these. The complicated structure of this verse is analyzed in detail in Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parshata 1, Pereq 1. The analysis of the Yerushalmi is attributed in the Babli 103b to R. Yose ben Ḥanina, mentioned at the end of the preceding Paragraph. Echoes of the discussion in Sifra are in the Babli 70a.
The questions raised about the verse are twofold. If it had simply said and did one, we would have inferred that every single infraction needs a separate sacrifice. If it had said and did these, all infractions committed in one state of inadvertence would be covered by one sacrifice. The mention of one in parallel with these creates a seeming contradiction. In addition, in each case the prefix מ “of” in standard rabbinic interpretation is read as “not all”. Then what does it mean that a single prohibition is partially violated?. Of these, to obligate for derivatives²⁷The last question is easily answered for the Sabbath. Later in the Chapter the forbidden actions on the Sabbath are described by 39 categories. The particular actions labelling the categories are called אַב מְלָאכָה “primary actions”; any other action subsumed under the same category is a תּוֹלְדָה “derivative”. All actions subsumed under the same category are considered identical in some abstract sense even if they actually are very different; e. g. plucking feathers from a bird is forbidden as a derivative of shearing. Any one of the actions subsumed under one category triggers the liability for a sacrifice; it is not necessary that all actions carrying the same label be acted on. On the other hand, most actions trigger liability only if a certain minimum of work was done, as will be detailed in the following Chapters; an action which is too insignificant remains forbidden but does not trigger liability for a sacrifice.. Or should we say that the verse refers to idolatry? Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken²⁸The expression is difficult to understand since one does not cross rivers (in this case Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan) by hand but by boat. Since the expression is confirmed later in the Chapter and in Nazir 6:1, it cannot be emended. It seems that Rav (not Rebbi) Zakkai swam crossing the rivers on his way to Palestine.; he is liable only once²⁹Sanhedrin Chapter 7:11 Note 256. Worshipping strange deities in the way prescribed for Jewish worship in all its forms is one and the same offense. But worshipping strange deities in their own characteristic ways is a separate offense for each deity.. Before it was broken in his hand there was one but no these; after it was broken in his hand there was these but no one³⁰Since the question was raised whether Lev. 4:2 could be interpreted to refer only to idolatry the answer seems to be in the negative, since for R. Zakkai there are only single offenses (one) and no general category (these) whereas for R. Joḥanan the situation is the inverse, in contrast to the Sabbath when liability for a sacrifice can be triggered either by a single action (one) or by a multiplicity of different actions all falling under the same category (these).. But it could be idolatry worshipped by the rules of worship of Heaven as by prostration. In its own worship to obligate for each one separately. By the rules of worship of Heaven to obligate one for all of them³¹Since in the Second Commandment prostration is mentioned before worship of strange deities it clearly is a separate offense. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:11 Notes 252 ff.. Like prostration to obligate for partial action³²It is punishable even if not executed in the full manner prescribed for the Temple, lying down flat with outstretched arms and legs.. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. It is written³³Lev. 4:3., if the anointed priest should sin to damage the people … he has to bring a bull. This excludes idolatry for which he does not bring a bull but only a she-goat³⁴Horaiot Mishnah 2:8.. They objected, are there not fat and sexual taboos for which the Anointed brings a bull? We come only to state things that have derivatives. Fat has no derivatives³⁵Fat is forbidden if it is from an animal whose kind is acceptable as a sacrifice and which is of the kind exactly prescribed in Lev. to be burned on the altar. There are no extensions or derivatives.. For sexual taboos He made one who touched equal to one who had full intercourse³⁶Forbidden sexual relations are exactly those described in Lev. 18. In addition in Lev. 20:18 the sex act is defined at touching of sexual organs; the only actions triggering the liability for a sacrifice are explicitly spelled out in the verses; there are no categories nor derivatives. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:5 (Notes 72–85).. The colleagues say, a Sabbath it is for the Eternal, to obligate for each single Sabbath³⁷Lev. 23:3. Since the attempt to derive the rules of the Mishnah from Lev. 4:2 ran into difficulties, they propose a direct interpretation of verses referring to the Sabbath only.. Rebbi Ila said, it is written³⁸Ex. 35:2. The Sabbath is mentioned in the singular.: Anybody doing work on it shall by put to death, not one who does on it and another. You are saying, the Sabbaths do not combine. Do they separate³⁹That Sabbaths do not combine means that if somebody did less than a punishable amount of work on one Sabbath and again less than a punishable amount the next Sabbath they do not add up to the liability for a sacrifice even if the actions were committed in the same period of oblivion of the rules of the Sabbath. In this the rules of the Sabbath parallel the rules of forbidden fat. Eating forbidden fat triggers the liability for a sacrifice only if a minimum was eaten within the time of a meal (defined as time needed to eat half a loaf of bread, Horaiot 3:3 Note 66). Less than minimum amounts eaten at different times do not trigger liability. On the other hand, once liability was triggered within one period of oblivion, it automatically covers all other offenses of the same kind during the same period of oblivion. The question is now asked whether if an inadvertent desecration of the Sabbath triggered the obligation of a sacrifice and the perpetrator did not become aware of his offense before committing the same also on another Sabbath, he is liable for only one or for several sacrifices?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun⁴⁰Since the father is known in the Babli as Rabin, the reading of G, בין, seems better than the reading everywhere in the Leiden ms., בון. said, just as they do not combine they do not separate.

MISHNAH: The king does not judge⁶⁶In the theory of the Yerushalmi this is biblical law, even though historically the administration of justice was the hallmark of kingship. Historically, the explanation of the Babli (19a) has much to recommend it, that the Mishnaic theory of kingship, positing total separation of the executive from the judiciary, is a reaction to the misrule of the later Hasmoneans and the Herodians., nor may one judge him;⁶⁷This would be too dangerous for judges and witnesses. he does not testify, nor may one testify against him; he does not give ḥalîṣah, nor does one give ḥalîṣah to his wife⁶⁸The ceremony would not be consistent with the dignity of his office/. He does not marry in levirate, nor may one marry his wife in levirate. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he wants to give ḥalîṣah or marry in levirate, let his good deeds be remembered. They told him, even if he wants to, one does not listen to him⁶⁹The king is obliged to sustain his dignity.. One may not marry his widow; Rebbi Jehudah says, a king may marry a king’s widow⁷⁰This seems to have been Solomon’s interpretation when he ordered Adoniah killed for asking Avishag’s hand (1K. 2:22)., since we find that David married Saul’s widow, as it is said⁷¹2S. 12:8.: I gave your master’s house to you and your master’s wives on your breast.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Maybe following Rebbi? If³³There is a lacuna in the text which must be filled by the text of B:
[Does it follow Rebbi, for Rebbi said,] the Anointed refers to the case of action in error, but for the rabbis, it refers to forgetting a topic.
In contrast to the Mishnah, which for the High Priest as for the Court requires both an element of oblivion and acting in error, Rebbi points out that for the Court, the forgetting is the Court’s but the action in error is the public’s. Rebbi compares the status of the High Priest to that of the Court. Since for general errors the Mishnah states that the same rules apply to the High Priest as to the Court, the argument must be about the sin of idolatry where the High Priest is not mentioned. The rabbis note that the High Priest does not have the status of the Court vis-a-vis the public; his rulings are private, not public actions. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible unless he act. They do not deny that an element of oblivion is required to trigger the obligation of the purification sacrifice. the Anointed, error in action it is. But if the rabbis, oblivion of a topic it is. Rebbi Huna³⁴The reading “R. Huna”, a student of R. Jeremiah, is preferable to the reading of B: “R. Hiyya”, the teacher of R. Zeˋira. said, it was needed for the rabbis. That you should not say, the Anointed and idolatry: Rebbi said, in acting in error; the rabbis said, in forgetting a topic. He said [ ]³⁵The text of the ms., “what for easy what” seems corrupt. It is better to follow the reading of B: “He said to them, why? Because … “. The Anointed is not mentioned in the last sentence of the Mishnah, but this does not mean that the rule given there does not apply to him., because we did not state about the Anointed. But in the former³⁶In Mishnah 2, in the last sentence about idolatry the High Priest is not mentioned but everybody agrees that it also applies to him; so the parallel sentence in Mishnah 3 also must apply to him. The Mishnah strictly follows the rabbis, not Rebbi., we did not state about the Anointed but the Anointed is included, and here, even though we did not state about the Anointed, the Anointed is included.