meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot/English/merged.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה הוריות
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  -
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot
  
  Introduction
  
  Leviticus 4 discusses sacrifices that must be brought as a result of unintentional sins.  Verses 1-12 discuss the unwitting sins of the high priest (the anointed priest) and verses 13-21 discuss the unwitting sins of the whole community of Israel.  According to the rabbinic interpretation of these passages, they refer to a case where either the high priest or the sanhedrin (a court) permitted a certain action, which when performed unwittingly by an individual causes him to be liable to bring a sin-offering.  In other words the court mistakenly permitted forbidden actions. Verses 1-12, according to the rabbis, refer to a case where the high priest himself performs the sin, and verses 13-21 refer to a case where the majority of the community performed the sin.  In both cases a sacrificial bull must be brought, either by the high priest or by the sanhedrin.  These bulls have different technical names which we will learn throughout the tractate.
  The above is true with regard to all sins except accidental idol worship.  If a court ruled that an action was not idol worship and the majority of the community performed the action, and later it was found that the court ruled wrongly, the court must bring a bull and a goat.  This situation is referred to in Numbers 15:22-29.  If an individual accidentally worshipped idols, he only brings a goat as a sin-offering.  This situation is referred to in Numbers 15:27-29.  
  With regard to an individual accidentally worshipping idols, there is no distinction made between a high priest, a prince or an individual.  However, with regard to all other sins which are punishable (if done with intent) by kareth (extirpation) if a regular person performs them s/he brings a she-goat or a female ship, but the prince brings a he-goat.
  Tractate Horayoth, which means “teachings” discusses various situations where a court has made a mistake, and in which of these situations the court must bring a bull to atone for its mistake but those who accidentally sinned are not liable to bring a sacrifice.  The tractate also talks about those cases in which the court is not liable but the actual sinners are liable for a sacrifice.  
  The reason that this tractate is part of Seder Nezikin is that it is directed to judges, the subject of tractate Sanhedrin and Makkot.  It is last in the order because it is the shortest of Nezikin’s tractates.  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  If the court ruled that one of the commandments mentioned in the Torah may be transgressed, and an individual proceeded and acted through error in accordance with their ruling, whether they acted and he acted with them or they acted and he acted after them or even if they did not act and he acted, he is exempt,  because he relied on the court.If the court ruled [in error], and one of them knew that they had erred, or a disciple who was himself fit to rule on matters of law, and [one of these] proceeded and acted in accordance with their ruling, whether they acted and he acted with them or they acted and he acted after them or even if they did not act and he acted, he is liable, since he did not rely upon the court.This is the general rule: he who is [in a position] to rely upon himself is liable, and he who relies upon the court is exempt.Our mishnah discusses a person who follows a ruling that a court made in error, and thereby accidentally transgresses a commandment.Section one:  If a person follows a court ruling that was made in error, and thereby transgresses a negative commandment which carries with it the liability to bring a sin-offering [when done unintentionally], he is not liable, since this was not his error but their error.  This rule is true whether he acted together with them, after them or even if he transgressed and the court itself did not even perform the transgression.  In other words, even if he relied on their words and not their concrete example, he is exempt.  This is not considered to be an unintentional sin that he has committed and therefore he need not bring a sin-offering.Section two: However, if the person who committed the transgression was a member of the court who knew that his fellow judges were in error, or was a student who was fit to be a member of the court and he knew that the court was in error, he is liable if he acts according to the wrong ruling. Note that this person is still considered to be an unintentional sinner and not an intentional one.  His mistake was that he thought that he should listen to the court, even if he knew they were wrong.  Since he did not need to rely on the court, but was fit to rely on his own ruling, he is liable, at least as an unintentional sinner, for his own transgression.  He therefore needs to bring a sin-offering.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If a court ruled, and later discovered that they had erred and changed their decision, whether they brought their offering or whether they did not bring their offering, if an individual proceeded and acted in accordance with their [erroneous] decision, Rabbi Shimon exempts him and Rabb Elazar declares [his case] doubtful.Which case may be regarded doubtful? If he was at home, he is liable. If he went abroad, he is exempt.Rabbi Akiba said: I agree that a person in such a case is nearer to exemption than to culpability. Said Ben Azzai to him: how does such a person differ from one who remains at home? He who remains at home is in a position to ascertain the facts but the other was not in such a position.This mishnah discusses a case where a court made a wrong decision and then reversed their decision, thereby correcting it.  The question asked is whether or not one who follows the wrong decision after it has been revoked is exempt from bringing a sin-offering for his accidental transgression.Section one:  The offering referred to in this section will be discussed more fully below in mishnah five, specifically the question of who brings the sacrifice.Rabbi Shimon exempts this person because he relied on the court.  As we learned above in mishnah one, a person who relies on the court is exempt from bringing an individual sin-offering.  Rabbi Elazar declares this case doubtful, for we do not know if he had already heard that the court had reversed its decision.The mishnah now continues to discuss in which specific cases the matter is in doubt.  If the person was at home and could have known that the court reversed its decision, he is responsible for not having followed the new decision.  However, if he had gone abroad, he could not have known of the reversal, and he is therefore exempt.Rabbi Akiva states that this person, who went abroad, is actually closer to being totally exempt, for it is very unlikely that he knew that the court reversed its decision.  As he explains to Ben Azzai, his colleague, the person sitting in his house could have heard, whereas the one who was abroad could not have.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  If the court ruled that an entire principle has to be uprooted; if they said that [the law concerning the] menstruant is not found in the Torah or the [law concerning the] Sabbath is not found in the torah or [the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the torah, they are exempt.If, however, they ruled that a part [of a commandment] was to be annulled and a part fulfilled, they are liable. How is this so?  If they said: [the law concerning the] menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt, [or that the law concerning the] Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt, [or that the law of] idolatry occurs in the Torah, but if a man only bows down to an idol he is exempt, they are liable, for it says, “And if some matter escapes [the notice of the congregation]” (Leviticus 4:13),  “some matter” but not the entire principle.Our mishnah teaches that if the court rules that an entire commandment does not exist, they are not liable.  Whereas if they rule that one part of the commandment does not exist, they are liable.This mishnah teaches an important principle for establishing when the court is liable to bring the special sin-offering for having made a wrongful ruling.  If the court were to state that the entirety of a well-known commandment does not exist, and people were to act upon the court’s ruling, the people who actually sin are liable and not the court.  Since these three things, the prohibition of sexual relations with a menstruant, the prohibition of Sabbath laws and the prohibition of idol worship are so clearly stated in the Torah, everyone should have known that the court erred when it ruled that these things don’t exist.  This is not even truly considered a ruling by the court, but merely an empty statement against the Torah.  While interpretation of the Torah is flexible, it does have its limits.However, if the court rules that a certain act which is one part of a larger prohibition, is permitted, and people act upon the court’s ruling, the court is liable and not the people.  For instance, a woman who sees blood at a time when she is not supposed to be menstruating must wait one day for every day that she saw blood before she can resume sexual relations.  If the court ruled that one could have relations with such a woman, they are permitting an act which is against the Torah.  Similarly, if they permit a person to remove an object from one domain to another on Shabbat, they are permitting carrying, which is forbidden.  Finally, if they admit that idol worship is prohibited, but bowing down is not considered idol worship, they have made an errant ruling.  In all of these cases, since they admit that the commandment exists, but have made an error on a detail (these are all well-known and rather large details in rabbinic literature), they are liable if the people listen to their ruling.   People might not have known that such actions were prohibited, even though they knew that the general commandment exists.  Therefore, they are not liable for following the court’s ruling.The mishnah ends with a midrash supporting this view.  One can understand the word davar to mean “part of the matter”; from here the rabbis learn that if the whole matter escapes the court, the court is not liable.QuestionsWhy do you think the rabbis posited this exception to the general rule of the court’s culpability for errors?
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah really contains two totally separate mishnayoth.  We will therefore explain each separately.
  This mishnah teaches three principles.  First of all, if even one judge on the court knew that the court had erred in its ruling and told the rest of the court so, and yet his advice was overrode, the court is not liable to bring an offering if people transgress by obeying their ruling.  For the special law of the erring court to be in effect, the entire court must err. If the mufla was absent when the errant decision was made, the court is not liable.  The mufla was evidently the person who sat on the court and had many, many halakhot memorized.  He was like a human archive who could recite orally from the tradition.  His absence would have impeded the court’s ability to make the correct decision, and therefore they are not liable. The third rule is that all of the members of the court must be “fit” to issue rulings.  Our mishnah lists several categories of people who are not fit for this type of court.  Converts, netinim (Temple slaves) and mamzerim (children born of illicit marriages) cannot act as judges in capital cases (see Sanhedrin 4:2).  The innovation of our mishnah is that an elder who does not have children can also not act as a judge.  This is because we are concerned that he will not have pity on others when it comes to adjudicating capital cases.  In other words having children makes a person more compassionate.  Personally, I can say that when my first child was born I began to look at other human beings differently; everybody is somebody’s child.  Having children can certainly increase a person’s sense of the suffering of others.  [I don’t mean to say that one who doesn’t have children is necessarily not sympathetic to others suffering.  When the mishnah sets qualities for judges it bases itself on the most likely norm and not on the range of possibilities for human characteristics]. This third rule is learned through a midrashic technique called a gezerah shavah, which is a linguistic comparison.  The word “congregation” (edah) is mentioned here in Lev 4 and in Num 35, which discusses capital cases brought before a court.  From those verses the rabbis learn that capital cases are tried before a court of 23 (see Sanhedrin 1:6).  Just as in capital cases, if there are not 23 qualified judges, the judgment is invalid, so too here, in order for the law that requires an offering for an unwitting errant ruling to be applicable, there must be only qualified judges.
  If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”;  just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulingsIf the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull.  This first section is the classic case in which the court must bring the bull as a sin-offering (mentioned in Lev 4:14).
  [If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat.  In this case the court intentionally made the wrong ruling.  They therefore cannot bring the bull as a sin-offering because intentional sinners are not allowed to bring offerings to atone for their sins.  Sin-offerings are an opportunity for atonement, and not a punishment.  Only one who sinned accidentally is given this opportunity to atone through sacrifice.  [Intentional sinners can possibly achieve atonement in other ways].  Since the court cannot bring an offering, the people are considered as individual unwitting sinners, and they bring the typical sacrifice for a person in such a category:  a lamb or goat (Lev 4:28, 32).
  [If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt.  If the court unwittingly ruled in error but the congregation knowingly sinned, the court does not bring the bull offering because the congregation did not act based on the court’s ruling.  The congregation knew that the act was wrong, even though the court said it was permitted.  Since they did not act upon the court’s ruling, the court is not held responsible for their transgressions.  The congregation cannot bring an offering since they transgressed intentionally.  As we learned in the previous section, intentional sinners cannot achieve atonement through sacrifice.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  In the previous mishnah we learned that if the court issued an errant ruling and everyone acted erroneously in accord with that ruling they bring a bull, as it says in Leviticus 4:14, “The congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering.”  Our mishnah discusses who the “congregation” is that brings the bull.
  Throughout this mishnah we will read that there is a distinction made between sins involving idol worship and all other sins.  In the introduction to the tractate I explained that the rabbis understood Leviticus 4 as referring to regular sins and Numbers 15:22-29 as referring to idol worship.  If the sin was idol worship, then the congregation brings a bull and a goat (Numbers 15:24).
  If the court ruled [in error] and all the people or a majority of them acted accordingly they bring a bull. And in the case of idolatry they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: the twelve tribes bring twelve bulls;And in the case of idolatry twelve bulls and twelve goats. R. Shimon says: thirteen bullocks;And in the case of idolatry, thirteen bulls and thirteen goats: a bull and a goat for each tribe, and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court ruled [in error] and seven tribes or a majority of them acted accordingly, they bring a bull; And in the case of idolatry, they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah said: the seven tribes who sinned must bring seven bulls and the rest of the tribes who did not sin must bring bulls on their behalf because even those who did not sin must bring on behalf of the ones who sinned. Rabbi Shimon said: eight bulls;And in the case of idolatry, eight bulls and eight goats, a bull and a goat for every tribe and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court of one of the tribes ruled [in error], and that tribe acted accordingly, that tribe is liable, but all the other tribes are exempt; these are the words of Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say: there is no liability except as a result of the rulings of the highest court; for it says, “And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err”,  but not the congregation of one particular tribe.  In this section we read three opinions as to who the congregation is that brings sin-offerings if all or most of the nation sins according to the courts errant ruling.  According to Rabbi Meir in all sins except idol worship the court brings a bull and if the sin was idol worship they bring a bull and a goat.  Rabbi Meir understands that the court is the “congregation” referred to in the verse who brings the offering. Rabbi Judah understands “congregation” to refer to the people of Israel themselves, namely all twelve tribes.  Therefore each tribe brings its own bull or bull and goat. Rabbi Shimon agrees in essence with both Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir:  each tribe brings its own bull (or bull and goat) and the court brings one as well, bringing the total to thirteen.
  If only seven of the tribes sin according to the errant ruling, but these seven tribes do not add up to a majority of all of Israel, or a majority of each of the seven tribes sins, Rabbi Meir still holds that the court brings a bull or bull and goat.  Rabbi Judah also holds that all twelve tribes still bring a bull, even though only seven sinned.  Even the tribes that did not sin are responsible to ask for atonement for those that did sin.  Rabbi Shimon, however, holds that only the tribes that actually sinned bring the sacrifices, as well as the court.
  If the high court of one of the individual tribes ruled in error and that tribe acted according to its ruling, that tribe is held accountable and must bring a bull, according to Rabbi Judah.  Note that if the high court of the entire nation had ruled in error, but only one tribe had followed the ruling, these laws would not be in effect (the individuals who sinned would therefore be regarded as individual sinners and not treated as a collective). The Sages disagree.  According to them all of these laws only apply in the case of the high court of the nation.  The verse states that “the whole congregation of Israel” must sin, or at least a majority thereof.  Therefore, the ruling court must also be the court of all of the congregation of Israel.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Leviticus 4:3 states, “If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, so that blame falls upon the people, he shall offer for the sin of which he is guilty a bull of the herd without blemish as a sin offering to the Lord.”  According to the rabbis, this verse refers to a high priest who issues an errant ruling to himself.  If he acts according to his errant ruling then he is not treated as if he was an individual who would have to bring a regular goat sin offering.  Rather in his ruling he is considered parallel to the court and in his acting he is parallel to a community, much in the same way we learned above in mishnah 1:4.  Our mishnah, and the mishnayoth that follow it, takes some of the rules that apply when a court rules and the congregation sins in error, and applies them to the high priest.
  An anointed priest who rendered a decision for himself in error and acted unwittingly accordingly, must bring a bull. If he rendered the decision in error but acted upon it willfully, or made it willfully but acted upon it unwittingly, he is exempt; for a decision a high priest made for himself is like a ruling issued by the court to the community. If the high priest ruled that something was permitted, and in reality it was punishable by kareth (if done willfully) or the transgression causes one to be liable to bring a sin offering (if done unwittingly) and then he acted upon his ruling, without realizing that he is transgressing, he must bring a bull as a sin offering.  In other words, instead of being just an individual who unwittingly transgresses and therefore brings a goat as a sin offering, the high priest brings a bull. If, however, either the ruling was in error but the action was an intentional transgression, or vice versa, the ruling was intentionally wrong, but the action was unwitting, he is not liable to bring the bull.  As we learned at the end of mishnah four, both the ruling and the act must be done unwittingly for the court, or in this case the high priest to be liable to bring a bull.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Mishnah two continues to discuss the anointed high priest who issues an errant ruling.
  An [anointed high priest] who rendered an errant decision alone and acted accordingly alone, he makes his atonement alone. If he rendered his ruling together with [the court of] the congregation and acted accordingly together with the congregation, he makes his atonement together with the congregation. For the court is not liable unless they ruled to annul part of a commandment and to retain a part of it; and so [it is with] the anointed [high] priest. Nor [are they liable] for idolatry unless they ruled to annul the law in part and to retain it in part.  If the high priest issued an errant ruling on his own, in other words without the court having taken part in the decision making, and then he acted alone, he alone must bring a bull as a sin offering.  This is basically the same rule that we learned in the previous mishnah.  It is summarized here in order to offer a contrast with the following section.
  If the high priest ruled in error with the court of the congregation, the sanhedrin, and transgressed together with the rest of the congregation, then he need not bring a special bull on his own.  Rather he receives atonement through the same bull that the community brings.
  The language of this section makes it look as if it is a commentary on the previous section, but its content seems independent.  The section teaches that just as we learned above in chapter one, mishnah three, that a court is not liable to bring the bull sin-offering unless it ruled to annul part of a commandment but retain the rest, the same is true for the high priest.  If he rules, for example, that there is no such thing as Shabbat, he is not liable to bring a bull; but if he rules that a certain forbidden activity is actually permitted on Shabbat, he is liable.  These same rules apply with regard to both regular sins and to sins involving idolatry.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Mishnah three continues to teach laws of errant rulings in which the court is treated the same way that a high priest is treated. It also continues to equate errant rulings with regard to idolatry with errant rulings with regard to other sins.
  The [court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] except where ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action. The court is not obligated unless they ruled concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless they ruled concerning a matter the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly.  The court is not obligated to bring a sacrifice except in a case where they did not realize that they were issuing an errant ruling and those that acted did not realize that they were transgressing.  The same is true if the high priest issues an errant ruling. He must rule and act unwittingly for him to be able to bring a bull as a sin offering.  There is no difference in this rule between idolatry and all other commandments.
  The particular commandment with regard to which the court erred and the people transgressed unwittingly, must be one for which the punishment is kareth (heavenly excommunication) if done intentionally and a sin offering if done unwittingly.  Examples of such commandments are Shabbat, many incest prohibitions, the eating of certain prohibited foods, work on Yom Kippur, and cursing God.  These are all listed in tractate Karetoth 1:1-2. Idol worship is a sin for which one is potentially liable for kareth or a sin offering (if done unwittingly).  However, not all forms of idol worship are punishable by kareth or a sin offering.  If one worships an idol in an unusual manner, a type of worship that is not considered normal for that idol or any other idol, than he is not liable for kareth or a sin offering.  If the court were to issue an errant ruling with regard to one of these types of worship, the court would not be liable to bring a bull as a sin offering.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Mishnah four discusses errant rulings with regard to Temple-related laws and compares them with errant rulings made in connection to a menstruating woman (a menstruant).
  The mishnah also discusses a sacrifice known as the “asham talui” or the “hanging guilt offering”.  The “asham talui” is brought by a person who may or may not have accidentally transgressed a prohibition, the punishment for which is kareth, if transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly.  For instance if a person has two pieces of animal fat in front of him, one is permitted fat and the other is forbidden fat (helev) and he eats one but he doesn’t know which he ate, he brings an asham talui.
  [The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple; Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui  for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple. But they are liable for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the menstruant; And [individuals] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or negative commandment relating to the menstruant.Which is the positive commandment relating to the menstruant?  Separate yourself from the menstruant.  An impure person is not allowed to enter the Temple precincts and if he becomes impure while in the Temple, he must leave immediately.  If the court issued an errant ruling with regard to this law, and an impure person followed their ruling, the court is not liable to bring a sin offering.  This is true both for positive and negative commandments.  A positive commandment is that if a person should become impure while in the Temple he must leave in the quickest, most direct manner possible.  If the court ruled that he can take a longer route, and he does so, the court is not obligated to bring a sin offering. A negative commandment is that an impure person in not allowed to enter the Temple.  If the court ruled that he may, they are not liable to bring a sin offering.  This is because the impurity laws of the Temple are atoned for by sliding scale sacrifices and not by sin offerings (see Shevuoth 2:3).  As we learned above, the court is obligated for errant rulings only if the sin was atoned for by a sin offering. This exact same rule applies to the laws regarding an asham talui.  A person brings an asham talui (explained above in the intro) only if the sin was usually atoned for by a sin offering, and not, as in this case, by a sliding scale sacrifice.
  And the negative commandment?  Do not have sexual relations with the menstruant.  In contrast to the previous section, where the court was not held liable for their errant ruling, if they make an errant ruling with regard to a menstruant the court is liable, since transgressions of the prohibition of sexual relations with a menstruant are punishable by kareth (if done intentionally) and a sin offering (if done unwittingly).  Similarly, one brings an asham talui for the transgression of positive and negative commandments involving a menstruant (such as a case where he does not know if he had relations with his wife while she was menstruating). The positive commandment with regard to a menstruant is that if a man is having sexual intercourse with his wife and she, in the middle of intercourse, tells him that she has become impure (she has begun to menstruate), he must not separate from her immediately, since his withdrawal is pleasurable (for further details see Shevuoth 2:4).  Rather he must stop and wait until he loses an erection and only then withdraw.  This waiting period is seen as a positive commandment. The negative commandment is the prohibition of having sexual relations with a menstruant.
  Questions for Further Thought:
   Why does the mishnah compare the laws of Temple related impurity with those of having relations with a menstruant?  Why doesn’t the mishnah use other prohibitions punishable by kareth and a sin offering as points of reference?
  Questions for Further Thought:
   Why does the mishnah compare the laws of Temple related impurity with those of having relations with a menstruant?  Why doesn’t the mishnah use other prohibitions punishable by kareth and a sin offering as points of reference?
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  The main topic of our mishnah is the king (a ruler, see below 3:3) who accidentally transgresses.  In Leviticus 4:22-23, we read, “In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of the Lord his God ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish.”  The question asked by our mishnah is for what sins does the king bring this type of sacrifice.
  [The court] is not obligated [to bring an offering] for [an errant ruling relating to] the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or  for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things. And the ruler is similarly [exempt]; these are the words of Rabbi Yose Hagalili. Rabbi Akiva says; the ruler is liable in the case of all these except that of hearing of the voice [of adjuration], because the king may neither judge nor be judged, neither may he testify nor may others testify against him.  This section basically states what we have already learned above.  A court that issues an errant ruling is liable to bring a bull as a sin offering only if the transgression was one which if done unwittingly can be atoned for with a sin offering.  The three transgressions mentioned in this mishnah are atoned for by sliding scale sacrifices (the rich bring a goat, the middle class bring bird and the poor bring grain, see Leviticus 5 and tractate Shevuoth).  The first transgression is the taking of a false oath that he does not know any testimony, called in our mishnah “the hearing of the voice of adjuration”.  It is called this because usually someone adjures someone else to take this oath (“I adjure you that you do not know any testimony concerning me”).  The second transgression is in regard to an oath of expression.  This is when a person swears that he will or will not do something.  The third transgression is either entering the Temple impure, or eating holy food while impure.  If the court makes an errant ruling with regard to any of these laws, the court is not liable to bring a sin offering.
  According to Rabbi Yose Hagalili, the same is true if the ruler, or king, accidentally transgressed one of these commandments.  The reason is that a sliding scale sacrifice is not applicable to a king, for a king never becomes poor.  Leviticus 5:7, 11 state, “But if his means do not suffice”.  Since this can never be true of a king, who always has financial means, Rabbi Yose Hagalili concludes that the entire law and sacrifice is not applicable to the king.  In other words, the king is not simply in the category of a rich person, because rich people can become poor, while kings do not. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and says that the king can be liable to bring a sliding scale sacrifice for all of these sins, with the exception of oaths of adjuration.  Since the king cannot judge or be judged, testify or be testified against, he is considered outside of the framework of the regular legal system.  If someone adjures him that he doesn’t know testimony and he swears that he does not know testimony, but in reality he does, he is not liable for a false oath.  This is because even if he had admitted that he knows testimony, he cannot testify in a court of law (see Sanhedrin 2:2).
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah summarizes who brings what type of sin offering for transgressions done unwittingly.
  For all the commandments in the Torah, the penalty for which, if committed intentionally, is kareth and, if committed unwittingly, a sin offering, the individual brings as an offering a lamb or a goat, the ruler brings a goat, and the anointed priest and the court bring a bull. In the case of idolatry, the individual and the ruler and the anointed priest bring a goat while the court bring a bull and a goat: the bull for a burnt offering and the goat for a sin offering.  The first section of the mishnah deals with all commandments except idolatry.  In these cases, if an individual unwittingly transgresses, s/he brings a sin offering of a lamb or a goat.  This is stated in Leviticus 4:27-28, 32. If a ruler (a king) is the unwitting transgressor, he brings a goat (Leviticus 4:22-23). If the anointed priest (the high priest) made an errant ruling and then unwittingly transgressed, he brings a bull.  This is stated in Leviticus 4:3.  The same is true of a court who made an errant ruling (Leviticus 4:13-14).
  If the transgression was one of idolatry the individual brings a goat.  As I stated in the introduction, the rabbis consider Numbers 15:22-29 to be dealing with sins of idolatry.  Verse 27 states, “In case it is an individual who has sinned unwittingly, he shall offer a she-goat in its first year as a sin offering.”  Since the Torah does not make any exceptions for rulers or high priests, they too bring the same sin offering in this case as does a regular Israelite. Verse 24, “If this was done unwittingly, through the inadvertence of the community, the whole community shall present one bull of the herd as burnt offering of pleasing odor to the Lord, with its proper meal offering and libation, and one he-goat as a sin offering.”  The rabbis consider this verse to be dealing with a case where a court issued an errant ruling and the people followed its ruling.  We saw this discussed above in mishnah 1:5.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Mishnah six compared the sin offerings offered for unwitting transgressions that the individual, the ruler, the high priest and the court bring.  Mishnah seven compares these parties with regard to the asham talui (see above 2:4), the asham vadai and the sliding scale sacrifice (see above 2:5).  An asham vadai is a guilt offering.  There are five different situations in which a person must bring an asham vadai:  1) for robbery (Lev 5:21-25; 2) for illegal use of sacred property (Lev 5:14-16); 3) for relations with an betrothed slave woman (Lev 19:20-22); 4) a nazir (Num 6:9-12); 5) a leper (Lev 14:10-12).
  The individual and the ruler are both obligated to bring an asham talui, but the anointed priest and the court are exempt. The individual and the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated to bring an asham vadai, but the court is exempt. For the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things, the court is not obligated but the individual, the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated. Except that the anointed priest is not liable for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon.What do they bring? A sliding scale sacrifice.  With regard to the asham talui, the king is like any individual Israelite.  If he may (or may not) have transgressed a commandment which is punishable by kareth, he brings an asham talui.  However, the high priest and the court, if they made a ruling and they do not know if they erred, do not bring an asham talui.  In other words, for the court or high priest to be liable for their errant ruling, it must be certain that they did so.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: the ruler brings a goat.  All individuals, even a high priest, who unwittingly transgress one of the five commandments which are atoned for by an asham vadai, must bring the asham.  However, if the court issues an errant ruling with regard to one of these commandments, and the people follow their errant ruling, the court does not bring an asham vadai, nor do they bring any sacrifice.  They are liable to bring a bull as a sin offering only if they issue an errant ruling about a commandment punishable by kareth and atoned for by a sin offering (and not a guilt offering).
  As we learned in mishnah five, if the court issues an errant ruling with regard to a commandment atoned for by a sliding scale sacrifice, they are not liable.  If, however, if an individual, king or high priest were to transgress one of these commandments, he must bring a sliding scale sacrifice.  The one exception is that the high priest is not obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice if he transgresses a commandment involving the purity of the Temple and its holy things. The mishnah now asks what type of sacrifice the king or the anointed priest brings should he transgress one of these commandments.  According to the first opinion, they bring a sliding scale sacrifice, as do all regular Israelites.  Rabbi Eliezer holds that the king brings a goat.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  In the case discussed by our mishnah, a high priest or king issued an errant ruling that was subsequently followed by the people, but before they could bring the appropriate sin-offering, they lost their office.  The question is, are they still obligated to bring the same offering, even though they are no longer high priest or king.
  As a background to this mishnah, I should point out that the removal of high priests and kings from their office was not an uncommon occurrence in the Second Temple period.  Due to the political pressures of the Roman rulers, kings and especially high priests were often replaced.
  If an anointed priest transgressed and afterwards relinquished his high priesthood, and similarly if a ruler transgressed and afterwards relinquished his reign, the anointed priest brings a bullock, and the ruler brings a he-goat. The mishnah rules that in the situation where the high priest or king issued an errant ruling but were removed from office before bringing their sin-offering, they still bring the same sin-offering that they would have brought had they still been in office.  The obligation for the offering is set at the time of the errant ruling, and not at the time of the bringing of the sacrifice.  Therefore, the high priest still brings a bull, and the king still brings a goat. In the next mishnah we will see that the high priest brings a bull even if he issued the errant ruling after he was removed from office.  Therefore, our mishnah is not really necessary with regard to the high priest because he in any case brings a bull. The only reason that the mishnah teaches about the high priest is because it wants to teach about the ruler, who brings a goat only if he issues the errant ruling while still a king.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Mishnah two teaches the halakhah regarding a high priest or king who issue an errant ruling after having relinquished their office.
  If the anointed priest relinquished his high priesthood and afterwards transgressed, and similarly if a ruler relinquished his reign and afterwards transgressed, the anointed priest brings a bull while the ruler is like a regular person. When the high priest is removed from office, he does not lose his sacred status (we will discuss this below in mishnah four).  Therefore, even if he issues an errant ruling after having been removed, he is still considered like a high priest, and he brings a bull.  However, the king does lose his status, and is therefore treated like a regular person who unwittingly sins and brings a she-goat or female sheep.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  The first section of this mishnah discusses a situation where the high priest or king issued an errant ruling before they were appointed to their position.
  Section two defines the word which we have been translating as ruler.  Leviticus 4:22 employs the word “nasi” which is translated occasionally by “chieftain” or “prince”.  In the Torah, it does not usually refer to a king.  However, our mishnah defines it as a king, as we shall see below.  It is worthwhile to note that in the times of the Mishnah, there was an official who used the title “nasi”, usually translated as the patriarch (for example Rabbi Judah Hanasi).  However, the patriarch certainly did not have kingly powers.
  If they transgressed before they were appointed, and afterwards they were appointed, they are regarded as regular people. Rabbi Shimon said: if their sin came to their knowledge before they were appointed they are liable, but if after they were appointed they are exempt. Who is meant by a ruler? A king; for it says, “Any of all the commandments of the Lord his God” (Leviticus 4:22), a ruler ( who has none above him save the Lord his God.  If the priest or king issued an errant ruling before they were appointed, they are not liable for the special sin offering, since at the time of the ruling they were regular individuals.  As we learned above, their liability is dependent upon the time of the ruling.  In this case, if they transgressed they are liable to bring the same sin-offering as would a regular Israelite. Rabbi Shimon holds that if they found out they had erred before their appointment they are liable to bring a sin offering as would a regular Israelite.  However, if they found out about their sin after they were appointed, they are completely exempt.  Rabbi Shimon holds that their liability is dependent both upon the timing of the errant ruling and the realization that it was errant.  In order for there to be liability, the high priest or king must be of the exact same status at the time of the realization that he was at the time of the ruling and sin.  Evidently, Rabbi Shimon would disagree with the opinion given in the previous mishnah as well, that if the high priest or ruler issued an errant ruling and then relinquished their office they are still liable.  According to R. Shimon, if they realized that the ruling was errant after they left office, they would not be liable.
  As stated above, according to the mishnah the word “nasi”, which we have been loosely translating as “ruler”, really refers to the king.  This is learned from the phrase, “the Lord his God”.  Only the king is second to God. Note, the simple meaning of “nasi” in Leviticus is probably head of a tribe.  That is the usual usage of the word in the Torah (see for instance Numbers 7).
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  During the time of the First Temple (destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.E.) the high priest was anointed with special anointing oils wore eight special pieces of priestly garments, as opposed to the four worn by regular priests.  From the time of King Josiah (640-609 B.C.E.) there was no anointing oil and therefore the high priest was only distinguished by his wearing more garments.
  The first part of our mishnah deals with the difference between the high priest who was anointed with the anointing oil and the high priest who only wore more garments.
  The second part of the mishnah deals with the difference between the high priest who currently holds office, and the high priest who has already relinquished his office.
  And who is the anointed priest?   He who was anointed with the anointing oil and not he that has more garments. The only difference between a high priest who is anointed with the anointing oil and one who has more garments is the bull that is offered for [the unwitting transgression of] any of the commandments. And the only difference between the acting ( priest and the former ( priest is the bull on the Day of Atonement and the tenth part of the ephah. They are both equal in the service of the Day of Atonement, and both are commanded to marry a virgin and are forbidden to marry a widow; they are both forbidden to become impure for their relatives; they do not let their hair grow long, nor do they rend their clothes; and they return the ( killer (from the city of.  Throughout this tractate we have been talking about the “anointed priest”.  Our mishnah teaches that these laws refer specifically to the anointed high priest, and not merely to a high priest who wears the eight garments.  In other words, all of these laws were no longer applicable during the entire Second Temple period.
  This section is taught in a familiar literary format for the mishnah: a direct comparison between two similar things.  The only difference between these two types of priests is that an anointed high priest who follows his own errant ruling brings a bull, whereas one who merely wears more clothing brings the same sin-offering that a regular person brings.
  The mishnah now continues to employ the same literary formula, this time comparing the high priest who has already relinquished office with one who currently holds office.  The only difference between the two is that the high priest who currently holds office offers the bull on Yom Kippur (see Leviticus 16:6) and the tenth of the ephah, which is a grain offering (a minhah) offered daily by the high priest (see Leviticus 6:13).  The former high priest does not make these offerings.
  With regard to the other laws special to the high priest, they are both the same.  Note that all of these laws are contained in the beginning of chapter 21 of Leviticus and all have to do with the special sanctity of priests and especially the high priest.  Both types of high priests can marry only virgins and not widows (Leviticus 21:13-14).  Neither are allowed to become impure in order to bury any of their relatives, even their mother or father (ibid. 21:11).  They are not allowed to grow their hair long (ibid. 21:10) nor tear their clothes (ibid.).  At the death of either one of them, accidental killers may leave the cities of refuge, as it says in Numbers 35:25, “And he shall dwell their until the death of the high priest” (see Makkot 2:6).
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  In the previous mishnah we learned that both acting high priests and former high priests do not rend their clothes when a relative dies.  Our mishnah clarifies that halakhah and teaches that the high priest does rend his clothes but not in the same way that an ordinary priest does.  In section two, the mishnah makes a further comparison between an ordinary and a high priest.
  A high priest rends [his clothes] from below and an ordinary priest from above. A high priest offers sacrifices while an onen but does not eat them and an ordinary priest neither offers sacrifices nor eats them.  If one of the high priest’s seven close relatives (father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter or wife) for whom he is obligated to mourn dies, he rends his clothes at the bottom.  When Leviticus 21:10 states that the high priest shall not rend his clothes, the interpretation of the rabbis is that he should not rend them in a normal fashion, which is above.  In contrast, an ordinary priest rends his clothes the same way that all people do, above.
  An onen is one who has had one of his seven close relatives die, but has not yet buried them (after the burial a person is an avel, a mourner).  According to the Torah he is an onen only for the day of the death, but the rabbis extended the status of aninut (being an onen) to include the night after the death, and the entire period until burial.  Our mishnah teaches that a high priest continues to offer sacrifices even while he is an onen, as it says in Leviticus 21:12, “He shall not go outside the sanctuary”.  He stays in the sanctuary in order to offer sacrifices. However, he does not eat sacrifices on that day.  We learn this from Aaron’s words on the day that his sons, Nadav and Avihu, die, “Had I eaten sin offering today would the Lord have approved?” (Leviticus 10:19).  It is clear from here that Aaron did not eat sacrifices on that day. In contrast, an ordinary priest who is an onen may neither offer sacrifices, nor eat them.  Since an ordinary priest is allowed to become impure for one of these seven relatives, his status during this period is basically the same as that of ordinary people.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah teaches which sacrifice takes precedence over other sacrifices, in a case where both are ready to be sacrificed.
  The importance of this mishnah is that it does not just give specific rules for precedence in sacrificial law, but teaches general principles, which are still applied today, especially in  laws of prayer.
  Whatever is more frequent than another takes precedence over that other; And whatever is more sacred than another takes precedence over that other. If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation are standing [to be sacrificed], the bull of the anointed priest precedes that of the congregation in all its details.  Something that is frequently done is performed before something else that is not frequently done.  This is learned from the fact that in the morning the tamid burnt offering is sacrificed before any of the special festival sacrifices are offered.  Since the tamid is a daily offering and is therefore frequent, it takes precedence over less frequently offered sacrifices. We should note that this principle seems somewhat counterintuitive.  A person would naturally be more inclined to do first that which is special, more unusual, and only afterwards do what is regular and routine.  Judaism teaches that it is the routine which takes precedence and not the special occasion.  Through this mishnah, we learn to appreciate not just what is ordinary, but to take note of the importance of those things that we do regularly.  We should not allow their frequency to diminish their significance. A couple of examples where this principle is still evoked.  During Shabbat and festival kiddush, one first recites the blessing over the wine and only then the blessing over Shabbat.  This is because the blessing over the wine is more frequent than the blessing over the Shabbat.  Another example: in morning prayers we recite a psalm for each day of the week.  On Rosh Hodesh (the first day of the new month) we also recite a special psalm.  The psalm that is recited for the day of the week is done first, because it is more frequently recited than the one for Rosh Hodesh.
  In cases where one cannot apply the previous rule, then the rule is that whatever is more sacred comes first.  We will see an application of this principle in the next section, and in the next mishnah.
  If the bull that is offered by the high priest for an errant ruling, and the bull that is offered by the community for their having followed the errant ruling of the court are both waiting to be sacrificed, the bull of the high priest takes precedence.  This is because the high priest is more sanctified than the general populace, and also because he brings atonement for others (see Leviticus 4:16), whereas they are just being atoned for.  This is also hinted at in Leviticus 16:17, “And he (the high priest) will make expiation for himself and his household, and for the whole congregation of Israel.”  He takes precedence over all of Israel.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  In the previous mishnah we learned which sacrifice takes precedence in cases where two need to be offered.  In addition, we learned some general principles of which things take precedence over others in halakhah.  Our mishnah contains another such principle.
  A man takes precedence over a woman in matters concerning the saving of life and the restoration of lost property, and a woman takes precedence over a man in respect of clothing and ransom from captivity. When both are exposed to degradation in their captivity the man takes precedence over the woman. Our mishnah is clearly chauvinistic, and we should acknowledge it as such. As I have stated before when such types of mishnayoth have appeared, while I can understand the mishnah as reflecting common societal values in the ancient world, I cannot internalize the mishnah as reflecting my own values.  Nor do I believe that any Jew reading this mishnah should do so. The mishnah states that if one has the opportunity to save the life of a man or a woman, but only one of them, the man takes precedence.  Similarly, if one has the opportunity to restore lost property to either a man or a woman, he should return that which belongs to the man. For instance if he finds two lost horses, one that he knows belongs to Jacob and one to Rachel, but can only return one, he should return that which belongs to Jacob. However, when it comes to issues of potential degradation, the woman’s modesty comes first.  If one has only enough money to help buy clothing for a man or woman, the woman takes precedence.  This is because it is more embarrassing for a woman to be poorly clothed than for a man.  Similarly, if one has only enough money to redeem one captive, one should redeem the woman, lest she be raped during captivity.  Men are not usually raped during captivity.  We know that this is the reason that women are redeemed first, because the end of the mishnah states that if there is concern that the man might be raped, he is to be redeemed first.  According to the mishnah, it is worse for the man to be raped than for the woman.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  The mishnah continues to provide rules of precedence.
  A priest takes precedence over a levite, a levite over an israelite, an israelite over a mamzer, a mamzer over a natin, a natin over a convert, and a convert over a freed slave. When is this so?  When all these were in other respects equal. However, if the mamzer was a scholar and the high priest an ignoramus, the scholar mamzer takes precedence over the ignorant high priest. According to commentaries, this mishnah deals with precedence in any matter of honor or profit.  The mishnah considers certain genealogical lines of Jews to be inherently more holy than others.  A priest is holier than a levite and a levite is holier than an Israelite.  A mamzer is someone who was born of an illicit sexual union of two Jews, therefore an israelite takes precedence over a mamzer.  A natin is a descendent of the Gibeonites who converted during the time of Joshua (see above 1:4).  Since a mamzer does not have any foreign descent, he is holier than a natin.  A natin is holier than a current convert, because a natin was part of Israel from before his birth, whereas a convert has only just now converted. A convert is holier than a freed slave for a convert was never part of such a lowly occupation. Up until now the mishnah has stated what must be considered something similar to a genealogical caste system.  Each person is born into a certain status, and these separate statuses are ranked.  We might think that at least during a person’s lifetime, he could not move up or down in status. The last clause of the mishnah radically undercuts that ideology.  While in theory a person’s “holiness” is attributed to birth, a person’s true holiness is attained through the study of Torah.  A mamzer who studies Torah is higher than a high priest who does not, even though the latter has the highest pedigree of genealogical status.  In practice, this will become the only criteria for “ranking” individuals, for no two individuals will be exactly the same in their Torah learning. This statement in essence is one of the supreme value statements for the entire Mishnah.  The rabbinic social system was a meritocracy, where one merited one’s position based on commitment to Torah study, and not based on one’s filial connections. Congratulations!  We have finished Horayoth and all of Seder Nezikin. As I have mentioned at the end of every tractate, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.  This time we have not only finished Horayoth, but we have finished all of Seder Nezikin, one sixth of the entire Mishnah.  This is a great accomplishment and for those of you who have been studying with us from the beginning, give yourselves hearty yasher koach, and a big pat on the back (those who haven’t been learning since the beginning may do so as well). The next Seder (order) which we will learn is Nashim.  As you will note, we are not learning the Mishnah in its order.  In truth, there is not really order between different seders of the mishnah, nor even between different tractates.  The only order internal to the Mishnah is inside the tractate.  Therefore, there is no reason to learn or not to learn the Mishnah in the order that its tractates appear. Again, congratulations and good luck with your continuing learning.  Tomorrow we begin tractate Yevamoth.