הוריות דף ה

רבי שמעון אומר: שלשה עשר פרים, ובעבודה זרה – שלשה עשר פרים ושלשה עשר שעירים, פר ושעיר לכל שבט ושבט, פר ושעיר לבית דין.

Rabbi Shimon says: They bring thirteen bulls; and for idol worship they bring thirteen bulls and thirteen goats, a bull and a goat for each and every tribe and a bull and a goat for the court.

הורו בית דין ועשו שבעה שבטים או רובן על פיהן – מביאין פר, ובעבודה זרה – מביאין פר ושעיר, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר:

The mishna continues: If the judges of the court issued a ruling, and at least seven tribes, or a majority of each of those tribes, performed a transgression on the basis of their ruling, the judges bring a bull; and for idol worship they bring a bull and a goat. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The seven tribes that sinned bring seven bulls, i.e., each tribe brings one bull, and each of the rest of the tribes, i.e., those that did not sin, brings one bull on the basis of the sin of the other tribes, as even those who did not sin bring an offering on the basis of the actions of the sinners. Rabbi Shimon says: When seven tribes sin eight bulls are brought as offerings, one bull for each and every tribe and one bull for the court. And for idol worship, eight bulls and eight goats are brought, one bull and one goat for each and every tribe and one bull and one goat for the court.

שבעה שבטים שחטאו – מביאין שבעה פרים, ושאר שבטים שלא חטאו – מביאין על ידיהן פר, שאף אלו שלא חטאו מביאין על ידי חוטאין.

רבי שמעון אומר: שמונה פרים, ובעבודה זרה – שמונה פרים ושמונה שעירים, פר ושעיר לכל שבט ושבט, פר ושעיר לבית דין.

הורו בית דין של אחד מן השבטים, ועשה אותו השבט על פיהן – אותו שבט הוא חייב, ושאר כל השבטים פטורין, דברי רבי יהודה. וחכמים אומרים:

If the court of one of the tribes issued a ruling and the majority of that tribe performed a transgression on the basis of its ruling, that tribe is liable to bring an offering and the rest of all the tribes are exempt; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: One is liable to bring an offering for an unwitting communal sin only for rulings of the High Court alone, as it is stated: “And if the entire assembly of Israel shall act unwittingly” (Leviticus 4:13), from which it is derived that there is liability only for a ruling of the assembly, i.e., the court, of the entire people, but not for a ruling of the assembly of that particular tribe.

אין חייבין אלא על הוריות בית דין הגדול בלבד, שנאמר: ״ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו״, ולא עדת אותו שבט.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן: ידעו שהורו, וטעו מה הורו, יכול יהו חייבין? תלמוד לומר: ״ונודעה החטאת״, ולא שיודעו החוטאין.

GEMARA: The Gemara elaborates on the dispute cited in the mishna. The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where the judges knew that they issued an erroneous ruling, and erred in remembering which erroneous ruling they issued, one might have thought that they would be liable to bring an offering for this. The verse states: “And the sin that they sinned became known, the congregation shall sacrifice” (Leviticus 4:14), indicating that liability is only in a case where the sin became known to the court that issued the erroneous ruling, and not in a case where it became known only to the sinners. In this case, the sinners are certain that they sinned, but the court does not know the sin with regard to which it issued the ruling.

״אשר חטאו״, חטאו שני שבטים – מביאין שני פרים, חטאו שלשה – מביאין שלשה, או אינו אומר אלא חטאו שני יחידים – מביאין שני פרים,

From the phrase “that they sinned” it is derived: If two tribes sinned they bring two bulls, one from each tribe; if three tribes sinned they bring three bulls, one from each tribe. Or perhaps that phrase says only that if two individuals sinned they bring two bulls, one from each individual; if three individuals sinned they bring three bulls, one from each individual. Therefore, the verse states: “The congregation,” from which it is derived: The congregation is liable, and each and every congregation is liable. How so? If two tribes sinned they bring two bulls. If seven tribes sinned they bring seven bulls. And each of the rest of the tribes that did not sin brings one bull on the basis of the sin of the other tribes, as even those tribes that did not sin bring an offering on the basis of the actions of the sinners. For that reason “congregation” is stated in the verse, to render each and every congregation liable. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

חטאו שלשה – מביאין שלשה? תלמוד לומר: ״הקהל״, הקהל חייב, וכל קהל וקהל חייב, כיצד? חטאו שני שבטים – מביאין שני פרים, חטאו שבעה – מביאין שבעה,

ושאר שבטים שלא חטאו – מביאין על ידיהן פר פר, שאפילו אלו שלא חטאו מביאין על ידי החוטאין, לכך נאמר ״קהל״ לחייב על כל קהל וקהל.

דברי רבי יהודה.

רבי שמעון אומר: שבעה שבטים שחטאו – מביאין שבעה פרים, ובית דין מביאין על ידיהן פר, שנאמר למטה ״קהל״ ונאמר למעלה ״קהל״.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon says: Seven tribes that sinned bring seven bulls, and the court brings one bull on the basis of their actions, as the term “congregation” is stated below: “The congregation shall sacrifice” (Leviticus 4:14), and the term “congregation” is stated above: “And the matter is hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Leviticus 4:13). Just as with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated above the reference is to the court, i.e., “the eyes of the congregation,” together with “the congregation,” so too, with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated below, with regard to liability to bring an offering the reference is to the court together with the congregation.

מה ״קהל״ האמור למעלה – בית דין עם הקהל, אף ״קהל״ האמור למטה – בית דין עם הקהל.

רבי מאיר אומר: שבעה שבטים שחטאו – בית דין מביאין על ידיהם פר, והן פטורין, נאמר ״קהל״ למטה ונאמר ״קהל״ למעלה,

Rabbi Meir says: In the case of seven tribes that sinned, the court brings a bull on the basis of their sin and the members of the tribe are exempt, as the term “congregation” is stated below: “The congregation shall sacrifice” (Leviticus 4:14), and the term “congregation” is stated above: “And the matter is hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Leviticus 4:13). Just as with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated above the reference is to the court and not to the public, so too, with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated below the reference is to the court and not to the public.

מה ״קהל״ האמור למעלה – בית דין ולא צבור, אף ״קהל״ האמור למטה – בית דין ולא צבור.

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משמו: חטאו ששה שבטים והם רובו של קהל, או שבעה אף על פי שאינו רובו של קהל – מביאין פר.

The baraita concludes: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, or if seven tribes, which constitute a majority of the tribes, sinned, even though in terms of population they do not constitute a majority of the congregation, the court brings a bull.

אמר מר: ״ונודעה החטאת״ – ולא שיודעו החוטאין. מאן תנא? אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, ואיתימא רבא: דלא כרבי אליעזר. דתנן,

The Gemara proceeds to analyze the baraita. The Master said: “And the sin that they sinned became known,” indicating that liability is only in a case where the sin became known to the court that issued the erroneous ruling and not in a case where it became known only to the sinners. Who is the tanna whose opinion is expressed here? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say it was Rava who said, that this is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a baraita that there is a dispute with regard to one who had two pieces before him, one of them prohibited because it is forbidden fat and one of them prohibited because it is left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar], and he ate one, but does not know whether he ate the forbidden fat or the notar.

אמר רבי אליעזר: מה נפשך? אם חלב אכל – חייב, נותר אכל – חייב.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Whichever way you look at it, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If it was forbidden fat that he ate he is liable, and if it was notar that he ate he is liable. Therefore, he must bring an offering. Likewise, in the case in the baraita, since the court issued an erroneous ruling and it is known that the erroneous ruling was with regard to a matter for which it is liable to bring an offering, according to Rabbi Eliezer it should make no difference that they do not know the precise nature of their error, and they should be liable to bring an offering. Nevertheless, the ruling in the baraita is that they are exempt, counter to what one would expect to be the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

רב אשי אמר: אפילו תימא רבי אליעזר, שאני הכא, דכתיב: ״אשר חטאו עליה״. התם נמי הכתיב: ״אשר חטא בה״! ההוא מיבעי ליה: פרט למתעסק.

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one can explain the ruling of the baraita. Here, in the baraita, it is different, as it is written: “And the sin that they sinned became known” (Leviticus 4:14). The verse underscores that the judges must be aware of the specific sin for which they are liable to bring an offering. The Gemara asks: There too, with regard to an individual sin-offering, isn’t it written: “Or if his sin that he sinned became known to him” (Leviticus 4:23), leading to the same conclusion? The Gemara answers: In the case of the individual sin-offering, that expression is necessary for the tanna to exclude one who acts unawares. One is liable to bring a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression only if he performs the action with intent.

מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה? קסבר: ארבעה קהלי כתיבי – ״קהל״, ״הקהל״, ״קהל״, ״הקהל״.

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that even one tribe that sinned is liable to bring an offering? The Gemara answers that he holds: There are four mentions of the term congregation written: Congregation, the congregation, congregation, the congregation. The term “the congregation” appears in both verses. Since the Torah could have written the term: Congregation, in both instances, Rabbi Yehuda derives two matters from each of the two terms, one from the term “congregation” itself, and another from the fact that it is written with the definitive article “the.”

חד לחייב על כל קהל וקהל, וחד להוראה תלויה בבית דין ומעשה תלוי בקהל. וחד לגרירה. וחד לשבט שעשה בהוראת בית דין.

One serves to render each and every congregation liable, as a tribe is also called a congregation; and one serves to establish that the ruling is dependent on the court and the action is dependent on the congregation; and one serves to teach the concept of drawing, i.e., a tribe that did not sin is drawn after a tribe that sinned and is liable to bring an offering; and one serves to teach that a tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court is liable to bring a bull as an unwitting communal sin-offering.

ורבי שמעון תלתא קהלי כתיבי: ״הקהל״, ״קהל״, ״הקהל״. ״מעיני הקהל״ אורחיה דקרא הוא, כדאמרי אינשי: מעיני דפלניא.

And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that seven tribes that sinned bring seven bulls and the court brings one bull? He holds that there are three mentions of the term congregation written. The first two are: The congregation, congregation, which he interprets in the manner that Rabbi Yehuda interpreted. He counts the third and last mention of the term: The congregation, as in the verse: “From the eyes of the congregation.” This is written in the typical manner of the verse, as people say: From the eyes of so-and-so, and the definitive article “the” does not serve to teach another halakha.

חד לחייב על כל קהל וקהל, ותרי אחריני: נאמר למטה ״קהל״ ונאמר למעלה ״קהל״, מה להלן בית דין עם הקהל – אף כאן בית דין עם הקהל.

Of those three, one serves to render each and every congregation liable, as a tribe is also called congregation, and the other two come so that a verbal analogy can be derived: The term “congregation” is stated below, and the term “congregation” is stated above. Just as with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated there, above, the reference is to the court, i.e., “the eyes of the congregation,” together with the congregation, so too, with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated here concerning liability to bring an offering, the reference is to the court together with the congregation.

ורבי מאיר, ״קהל״ ״הקהל״ לא דריש, הלכך תרי קהלי כתיבי. מיבעי ליה: לנאמר למטה ״קהל״ ונאמר למעלה ״קהל״, מה להלן בית דין ולא צבור –

And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the court brings a bull on the basis of its sin and the members of the tribe are exempt? He does not derive a halakha from the difference between the terms “congregation” and “the congregation.” He does not consider the addition of the definite article to be significant. Therefore, he holds that there are two mentions of the term congregation written. They are necessary for him to derive: The term “congregation” is stated below, and the term “congregation” is stated above. Just as with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated there, above, the reference is to the court and not to the public, so too with regard to the term “congregation” that is stated here, below, the reference is to the court and not to the public.

אף כאן בית דין ולא צבור.

ורבי שמעון בן אלעזר מאי טעמא? כתיב: ״והיה אם מעיני העדה״ – אלמא מיעוטא, דכתיב: ״מעיני״. וכתיב: ״כי לכל העם בשגגה״, למימרא דרובא – אין, מיעוטא – לא.

And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds that if six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, or if seven tribes sinned even though in terms of population they do not constitute a majority of the congregation, the court brings a bull? It is written: “Then it shall be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Numbers 15:24). Apparently, the reference is even to a minority of the people, as “from the eyes” is written, indicating: Not all of them, but some of them. And it is written: “As for all the people it was performed unwittingly” (Numbers 15:26), to say that based on the principle: The halakhic status of a majority is like that of the entirety, if the majority of the congregation sinned, then yes, the court is liable to bring an offering. If the minority sinned, then no, the court is not liable.

הא כיצד? עשו ששה והן רובו של קהל, או שבעה אף על פי שאינן רובו של קהל – חייבין.

How so? How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? The Gemara explains: If six tribes sinned and they constitute a majority of the congregation, or if seven tribes sinned, even though in terms of population they do not constitute a majority of the congregation, the court is liable to bring a bull. Although in both cases they are not a majority in every sense, the court is liable, as a reference to the minority is also indicated in the verse.

ורבי שמעון ורבי מאיר, דהוראה תלויה בבית דין ומעשה תלוי בקהל, מנא להו? אמר אביי, דאמר קרא: ״והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה״. רבא אמר: ״מלכל העם בשגגה״.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir, from where do they derive the fact that the ruling is dependent on the court and the action is dependent on the congregation? Abaye said that they derive it from a verse, as the verse states in the passive form: “Then it shall be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Number 15:24), indicating that the action of the congregation was generated by the ruling of the court. Rava said: It is derived from that which is stated: “For all the people it was performed unwittingly” (Numbers 15:26). The term “all the people” indicates that the unwitting action is common to all, the court through its ruling and the people through their action.

וצריכא, דאי כתב רחמנא ״והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה״, הוה אמינא: אפילו מיעוטא, להכי כתיב ״לכל העם בשגגה״. ואי כתב ״לכל העם בשגגה״, הוה אמינא:

The Gemara notes: And both of the verses are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written only: “Then it shall be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Number 15:24), I would say: There is liability to bring an offering even if only a minority of the congregation sinned. Therefore, it is written: “For all the people it was performed unwittingly.” And had the Merciful One written only: “For all the people it was performed unwittingly,” I would say: There is no liability unless the court performs the transgression together with the majority of the congregation, as the verse appears to refer to a single unwitting action. Therefore, it is written: “Then it shall be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation,” indicating that the unwitting act was performed on the basis of the ruling of the court, and the action of the court is not significant in this regard.

עד דעבדי בית דין בהדי רובא, להכי כתיב ״והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה״.

והא כי כתיבי הני קראי בעבודה זרה הוא דכתיבי. ילפינן ״מעיני״ ״מעיני״.

The Gemara challenges: But when these verses are written, they are written with regard to an erroneous ruling involving idol worship, not concerning erroneous rulings involving other transgressions. The Gemara explains: We derive it by means of a verbal analogy between “from the eyes of the congregation” written with regard to other transgressions, and “from the eyes of the congregation” written concerning idol worship.

הורו בית דין של אחד וכו׳. איבעיא להו: שבט אחד לרבי יהודה בהוראת בית דין הגדול, מי מייתו שאר שבטים או לא? מי אמרינן:

§ The mishna teaches: If the court of one of the tribes issued a ruling, and the majority of that tribe performed a transgression on the basis of its ruling, that tribe is liable to bring an offering and the rest of all the tribes are exempt; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Yehuda, in the case of one tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, are the other tribes liable to bring an offering or not? The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that it is specifically in a case where seven tribes sinned that other tribes each bring an offering together with them because there is a majority of the tribes that sinned, but in a case where only one tribe sinned, where there is no majority of the tribes that sinned, they do not? Or perhaps it is no different, and the other tribes are drawn after even one tribe.

שבעה שבטים הוא דמייתו שאר שבטים בהדייהו, משום דאיכא רובא, אבל חד שבט, דליכא רובא – לא, או דלמא לא שנא!

תא שמע: מה הן מביאין? פר אחד, רבי שמעון אומר: שני פרים. במאי עסקינן? אילימא שחטאו שבעה, רבי שמעון תמניא בעי! אלא דחטא שבט אחד. במאי?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear resolution of this dilemma from a baraita, which teaches: What do they bring? They bring one bull; Rabbi Shimon says: Two bulls. The Gemara elaborates: What are we dealing with in this baraita? If we say the reference is to a case where seven tribes sinned, Rabbi Shimon requires eight bulls, one for each tribe that sinned and one for the court. Rather, the reference must be to a case where one tribe sinned. The Gemara clarifies: In what circumstances did the tribe sin? If the tribe sinned on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court, Rabbi Shimon does not accept the halakha that an erroneous ruling of the tribal court renders them liable to bring an offering. Rather, is it not so that they sinned on the basis of a ruling of the High Court?

אי בהוראת בית דינו, רבי שמעון לית ליה! אלא לאו בהוראת בית דין הגדול.

ותנא קמא מני? אי נימא רבי מאיר, הא רובא בעי! אלא לאו רבי יהודה, וכגון שחטא שבט אחד.

The Gemara asks: And who is the first tanna, who says that they must bring one bull? If we say it is Rabbi Meir, that is difficult: Doesn’t he require that the majority perform a transgression in order for a bull to be brought? A transgression performed by one tribe does not suffice. Rather, is the first tanna not Rabbi Yehuda, and the reference is to a case where one tribe sinned and he deems it liable to bring one bull, and the remaining tribes are not liable to bring an offering.

אמרי, הכא במאי עסקינן? כגון שחטאו ששה שבטים והן רובן של קהל, ורבי שמעון בן אלעזר היא. דתניא, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משמו:

The Gemara rejects this proof and says there is an alternative explanation of the baraita. What are we dealing with here? With a case where six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, and the first tanna in the baraita is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, or if seven tribes, which constitute a majority of the tribes, sinned, even though in terms of population they do not constitute a majority of the congregation, the court brings a bull.

חטאו ששה והן רובו של קהל, או שבעה אף על פי שאינן רובו של קהל – מביאין פר.

תא שמע, רבי יהודה אומר: שבט שעשה בהוראת בית דינו – אותו השבט חייב, ושאר כל השבטים פטורין.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita, which teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of a ruling of its tribal court, that tribe is liable and all the rest of the tribes are exempt. But if it was on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, even the rest of the tribes are liable. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the other tribes are liable in a case where one tribe performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court.

ובהוראת בית דין הגדול – אפילו שאר שבטים חייבים. שמע מינה.

אמר רב אשי: מתניתין נמי דיקא, דקתני: ועשה אותו השבט על פיהם – אותו השבט חייב ושאר כל השבטים פטורין. למה לי למיתנא ושאר שבטים פטורים?

Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise in support of that conclusion, as the tanna teaches: If the court of one of the tribes issued an erroneous ruling and the majority of that tribe performed a transgression on the basis of its ruling, that tribe is liable to bring an offering and all the rest of the tribes are exempt. He explains: Why do I need the tanna to teach: And the rest of the tribes are exempt? Didn’t he already teach: That tribe is liable? And since he teaches: That tribe is liable, we know automatically that the rest of the tribes are exempt. Rather, this tanna is teaching us that it is specifically in a case where the tribe performed an unwitting transgression on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court that the rest of the tribes are exempt; but in a case where the tribe performed an unwitting transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, even the rest of the tribes are liable. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the mishna that this is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.

הא תנא אותו השבט חייב, וכיון דתנא אותו השבט חייב, ממילא ידענא שאר שבטים פטורין! אלא הא קמשמע לן, בהוראת בית דינו הוא דשאר שבטים פטורים,

אבל בהוראת בית דין הגדול – אפילו שאר שבטים חייבין. שמע מינה.

איבעיא להו: שבט אחד שעשה בהוראת בית דין הגדול, לרבי שמעון מי מייתי או לא?

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where one tribe performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, according to Rabbi Shimon are they liable to bring an offering or not?

תא שמע: מה הן מביאין? פר אחד, רבי שמעון אומר: שני פרים. במאי עסקינן? אילימא שחטאו שבעה – שני פרים? שמנה פרים בעי! אלא דחטא שבט אחד, ובמאי?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the baraita cited earlier: What do they bring? They bring one bull; Rabbi Shimon says: Two bulls. The Gemara elaborates: What are we dealing with in this baraita? If we say that the reference is to a case where seven tribes sinned, that is difficult. In that case, are two bulls brought? Eight bulls are required according to Rabbi Shimon. Rather, the reference is to a case where one tribe sinned. The Gemara clarifies: And in what circumstances did the tribe sin? If we say that the tribe sinned on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court, Rabbi Shimon does not accept the halakha that an erroneous ruling of the tribal court renders them liable to bring an offering. Rather, the circumstances are that they sinned on the basis of a ruling of the High Court. Apparently, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that in this case one tribe brings an offering.

אילימא בהוראת בית דינו, רבי שמעון לית ליה! אלא בהוראת בית דין הגדול.

ותסברא: תנא קמא מני? אי רבי מאיר – הא רובא בעי, אי רבי יהודה – שאר שבטים נמי מייתו!

The Gemara rejects this proof: And how can you understand that this is the reference? Who, then, is the first tanna who says that they must bring one bull? If it is Rabbi Meir, that is difficult. Doesn’t he require that the majority and not just one tribe perform a transgression in order for there to be liability? If it is Rabbi Yehuda, that is also difficult, as in his opinion the rest of the tribes are also liable to bring an offering. Rather, who is the first tanna of this baraita? The first tanna is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and the reference is to a case where six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, and this baraita is as it is taught in the baraita cited earlier. In that case, Rabbi Shimon holds that two bulls are brought, one by the congregation and one by the court. No proof may be cited from here with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of one tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of a ruling of the High Court.

אלא הא מני – רבי שמעון בן אלעזר היא, וכדתניא.

תא שמע, וחכמים אומרים: לעולם אינו חייב אלא על הוראת בית דין הגדול. מאן חכמים? אילימא רבי מאיר, רובא בעי! אלא לאו, רבי שמעון היא! שמע מינה.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from the mishna, which teaches: And the Rabbis say: One tribe is never liable, other than for violating a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court. The Gemara clarifies: Who are the Rabbis cited in the mishna? If we say that the Rabbis are Rabbi Meir, he requires that a majority perform a transgression in order to be liable. Rather, is it not that the Rabbis are Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that Rabbi Shimon holds that one tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court is liable to bring a bull.

ורבי יהודה ורבי שמעון, שבט אחד דאקרי קהל מנא להו? אמרי, דכתיב: ״ויעמד יהושפט בקהל יהודה וירושלים (נכח חצר בית ה׳) [בבית ה׳ לפני החצר] החדשה״. מאי ״חדשה״?

§ The Gemara elaborates on a matter raised earlier. And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who hold one tribe that performs a transgression liable, from where do they derive that one tribe is characterized as a congregation? The Sages say that it is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem before the new courtyard in the house of the Lord” (II Chronicles 20:5). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “new” in this verse? Rabbi Yoḥanan says that on that occasion they introduced new matters and said: One who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed may not enter even the Levite camp. From the fact that the verse employs the term “congregation” in reference to Judah and Jerusalem, it can be inferred that one tribe is characterized as a congregation.

אמר רבי יוחנן, שחידשו דברים ואמרו: טבול יום, אל יכנס במחנה לויה.

מתקיף לה רב אחא בר יעקב: ממאי? דלמא שאני ירושלים, דהוה נמי בנימין! אלא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב, דכתיב: ״ויאמר אלי הנני מפרך והרביתך ונתתיך לקהל

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to this: From where do you draw this conclusion? Perhaps Jerusalem is different, as Jerusalem was also in the tribal land of Benjamin. Accordingly, it was shared by two tribes. Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that proof that a tribe is characterized as a congregation is derived from another verse, as it is written that Jacob recounted what God said to him when he returned from Paddan: “And said to me: Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a congregation of peoples” (Genesis 48:4). Who was born to him from that time on? Only Benjamin. Conclude from it that this is what the Merciful One is saying to Jacob: Another congregation shall be now born to you. Apparently, one tribe is characterized as a congregation.

עמים וגו׳״ מאן אתיליד ליה ההיא שעתא? בנימין, שמע מינה הכי קאמר רחמנא: מתיליד לך השתא קהל אחרינא.

אמר ליה רב שבא לרב כהנא, דלמא הכי קאמר ליה רחמנא: לכי מתיליד לך בנימין, הוא דהוו שנים עשר שבטים דמתקריית קהל! אמר ליה:

Rav Shabba said to Rav Kahana: Perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying to Jacob: It is when Benjamin is born to you that you will have twelve tribes, who are together characterized as a congregation. Rav Kahana said to him: But is that to say that twelve tribes are characterized as a congregation, and eleven tribes are not characterized as a congregation? It has already been established that even two tribes are characterized as a congregation. Rather, it is apparent from this verse that even one tribe is characterized as a congregation.

אלא שנים עשר שבטים איקרו קהל, אחד עשר שבטים לא איקרו קהל?

תניא רבי שמעון אומר: מה תלמוד לומר: ״ופר שני בן בקר תקח לחטאת״? אם ללמד שהם שנים, והלא כבר נאמר: ״ועשה את האחד חטאת ואת האחד עלה לה׳״!

§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And a second young bull shall you take as a sin-offering” (Numbers 8:8), in the context of the purification of the Levites in the aftermath of the sin of the Golden Calf? If this is written to teach that they are two, i.e., that there is an additional bull sacrificed, isn’t it already stated: “And sacrifice the one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering, unto the Lord” (Numbers 8:12)? Rather, one might have thought that the sin-offering that is sacrificed for the Levites shall be eaten like other sin-offerings. To counter this, the verse states: “And a second bull,” to underscore that it is second to the burnt-offering and similar to it: Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten,

[אלא] יכול [תהא] נאכלת חטאת ללוים? תלמוד לומר: ״ופר שני״ – שני לעולה, מה עולה לא נאכלת,