Mishnayos Horayos Perek 1 Mishnah 2
Change text layout:
הוריות פרק א׳ משנה ב׳
In a case where the judges of the court issued an erroneous ruling and they discovered that they erred and reversed their decision, whether they brought their atonement offering for their erroneous ruling or whether they did not bring their atonement offering, and an individual who was unaware of the new ruling proceeded and performed a transgression on the basis of their first ruling, Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt from bringing an offering, and Rabbi Elazar says: There is uncertainty with regard to his status and he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering. Which is the case of uncertainty for which one is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering? If one sat inside his house and performed the transgression he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering, as he could have learned of the change in the court’s ruling. If he went to a country overseas and is relying on the initial ruling, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiva said: I concede in that case of one who went overseas that he is closer to exemption than he is to liability. Ben Azzai said to him: In what way is this person who went overseas different from one who sits in his house? Rabbi Akiva said to him: The difference is that with regard to one who sits in his house it would have been possible for him to hear of the court’s reversal, but with regard to that person who went overseas, it would not have been possible for him to hear of the court’s reversal.
הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין, וְיָדְעוּ שֶׁטָּעוּ, וְחָזְרוּ בָהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ כַפָּרָתָן וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאוּ כַפָּרָתָן, וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶן, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, סָפֵק. אֵיזֶהוּ סָפֵק. יָשַׁב לוֹ בְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, חַיָּב. הָלַךְ לוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, פָּטוּר. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מוֹדֶה אֲנִי בָזֶה שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לִפְטוּר מִן הַחוֹבָה. אָמַר לוֹ בֶן עַזַּאי, מַה שָּׁנָה זֶה מִן הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ, שֶׁהַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ אֶפְשָׁר הָיָה לוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע, וְזֶה לֹא הָיָה אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁמָע:
Bartenura
ר׳ שמעון פוטר. כיון שפשטה הוראתם ברוב צבור:
ור׳ אליעזר אומר ספק. הואיל והיה לו לשאול בכל עת על דברים שנתחדשו בבית דין ולא שאל, הרי זה כמי שנסתפק לו אם חטא אם לא חטא, ומביא אשם תלוי. והלכה כר׳ אליעזר:
איזהו ספק. כלומר במה אומר ר״א שהוא נדון כמי שנסתפק לו אם חטא אם לא חטא וחייב אשם תלוי:
ביושב בביתו. כשהוא יושב בביתו במדינה שהורו בה בית דין, שהיה אפשר שישמע שחזרו בהם בית דין מהוראתם:
אבל הלך לו למדינת הים. ולאו דוקא הלך, אלא החזיק בדרך ללכת אע״פ שעדיין לא הלך, סבירא ליה לר׳ עקיבא שמפני טרדתו לצאת לדרך אינו שואל אם חזרו בהן בית דין, ופטור מאשם תלוי. ובן עזאי סבר, הואיל ועדיין לא הלך היה לו לשאול. ובהכי מוקי לה פלוגתייהו בגמרא. והלכה כר״ע:
Rabbi Shimon exempts him – Because the ruling had reached the majority of the community.
Rabbi Elezar declares this case doubtful – Since he should inquire any time there are new rulings by the beit din and he didn’t inquire, this is similar to the case where he is in doubt whether it is a sin or not and he brings an asham talui. The law is according to Rabbi Elezar’s opinion.
Which case may be regarded doubtful – For example, like what Rabbi Elezar said, the matter being discussed is that he was satisfied with the ruling, whether a sin or not a sin and he is obligated to bring an asham talui.
One who remains at home – When a person is at home in the country where the beit din ruled, he could have heard that the beit din reversed its ruling.
If he went abroad – This does not necessarily mean he already set out, but if he was preparing to travel but had not yet left, Rabbi Akiva holds the opinion that a person who is preparing for a journey will not be able to inquire whether the beit din reversed its ruling and he is exempt from bringing an asham talui. Ben Azzai thinks that since he had not yet set out on the journey, he should have inquired. This is the disagreement in the Gemara. And the law goes according to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion.