Gemara Clarity

Horayos 4a

הוריות ד׳ ע״א

Horayot 4a

Learn Horayos 4a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Horayos 4a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

When a בית דין is liable for a mistaken ruling: not for uprooting a whole מצוה, and not for something the צדוקים agree with; also סומכוס's משל and בן עזאי's question.

Overview

The גמרא first explains why a person who relied on the בית דין after it took back its ruling must bring an אשם תלוי: he could have asked and found out. Then רבי יוסי בר אבין compares סומכוס's view to an offering brought at בין השמשות, a doubt nobody can answer, so no אשם תלוי is brought. Next the גמרא asks why בן עזאי needed to ask רבי עקיבא his question, and רבא answers that they argue about a traveler who set out but is still in town. A ברייתא then learns from "וְנֶעֱלַם דָּבָר" that a ruling uprooting a whole מצוה brings no קרבן, while permitting one detail does. עולא, חזקיה and רב אשי each give a source for this. Finally רב יהודה in the name of שמואל rules that the בית דין is not liable for a matter the צדוקים agree with, since even schoolchildren know it. The גמרא defends this rule against the משנה's cases of נדה, שבת and עבודה זרה by showing that each mistaken ruling permitted a detail the פסוק does not openly state.

Opening lines

וְלָא מִבַּעְיָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר

And it is not necessary to say this according to the one who said

צִבּוּר מַיְיתֵי, דִּמְפַרְסְמָא מִלְּתָא.

the congregation brings the offering, since then the matter is publicized.

אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר

But even according to the one who said

בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין, דְּלָא מְפַרְסְמָא מִלְּתָא –

the court brings the offering, where the matter is not publicized

The steps (35)

  1. StatementEven if the court brings the offering, he could have asked
  2. StatementThe analogy of the offering brought at twilight
  3. StatementThe analogy works even if the change was public
  4. StatementQuoting בן עזאי's question from the משנה
  5. ChallengeWhy did בן עזאי need to ask?
  6. Resolutionרבא: they argue about someone who set out but is still in town
  7. StatementQuoting the משנה: the court ruled to uproot the whole מצוה
  8. Proofברייתא: no קרבן when they deny a whole מצוה
  9. Statementברייתא: canceling only one detail does bring a קרבן
  10. ChallengeHow could anyone think the judges would be exempt here?
  11. ResolutionThe real question: maybe "דבר" means the whole thing
  12. QuestionHow does the verse show this?
  13. Responseעולא reads the verse as part of a matter
  14. Responseחזקיה learns it from 'of all the מצוות'
  15. ChallengeBut 'מצוות' means at least two
  16. ResolutionThe word is written as singular
  17. Responseרב אשי learns it from the rebellious elder
  18. StatementNo liability for something the Sadducees agree to
  19. QuestionWhat is the reason?
  20. ResponseEven schoolchildren know it
  21. ChallengeThe משנה's case of שומרת יום כנגד יום seems to contradict שמואל
  22. ResolutionThe judges only permitted the initial stage of relations
  23. Challengeהעראה is also written in the Torah
  24. ResolutionThe judges permitted relations in an atypical manner
  25. ChallengeAtypical relations are also written in the Torah
  26. ResolutionThe judges permitted only the initial stage of atypical relations
  27. ChallengeThen the משנה could have used a plain נדה
  28. ResolutionThe judges said the העראה prohibition applies only to a נדה
  29. ResolutionAnother answer: the judges said a זבה can only come from daytime bleeding
  30. ChallengeChallenge from the משנה's case of carrying on שבת
  31. ResolutionThe judges said only carrying out is forbidden, carrying in is permitted
  32. ResolutionAnother answer: the judges permitted handing over and throwing
  33. ChallengeChallenge from the משנה's case of bowing to an idol
  34. ResolutionThe judges permitted bowing that is not the idol's normal way of worship
  35. ResolutionThe judges permitted a bow without stretching out the arms and legs