Gemara Clarity

Horayos 7b

הוריות ז׳ ע״ב

Horayot 7b

Learn Horayos 7b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Horayos 7b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

When the כהן משיח's sin counts as separate, and what is needed for the court and the כהן משיח to be liable, including for עבודה זרה

Overview

The amud opens with רב פפא explaining that the case involves a כהן משיח and judges who were both qualified to rule. אביי and רבא then define when the כהן משיח 'sinned by himself': רבא says ruling on a different prohibition is enough, even in the same room. The גמרא asks whether two kinds of חלב from different verses count as two prohibitions. Assuming they do not, it asks the same about חלב and blood, which bring the same קרבן but have different sources, and that question ends in תיקו. Next the גמרא finds the sources for the משנה's rules: the court and the כהן משיח are liable only for a partial ruling, even for עבודה זרה. A new משנה then teaches that liability needs both a mistaken ruling and an action done because of it, with the sources brought for each case. Finally, the גמרא discusses a כהן משיח who sins with עבודה זרה. It suggests the משנה follows רבי, rejects that proof, and explains how רבי and the רבנן read the same פסוק differently. It ends by showing that everyone agrees he brings a female goat like any individual.

Opening lines

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא:

Rav Pappa said:

כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ מוּפְלִין שְׁנֵיהֶן.

For example, where both of them were distinguished scholars.

סָבַר אַבָּיֵי לְמֵימַר:

Abaye thought to say:

חָטָא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעָשָׂה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ

'He sinned by himself and acted by himself'

The steps (33)

  1. Statementרב פפא: both were qualified to rule
  2. Statementאביי's first idea: two places, two prohibitions
  3. Challengeרבא: does location really matter?
  4. Conclusionרבא: two different prohibitions are enough
  5. StatementObvious case: priest on fat, court on idol worship
  6. StatementEven more obvious: priest on idol worship, court on fat
  7. QuestionThe real question: two kinds of forbidden fat
  8. QuestionThe priest rules about fat, the court rules about blood
  9. ConclusionThe question stays unanswered
  10. QuestionSource for needing a partial ruling
  11. ResponseThe source is the word 'דבר'
  12. QuestionSource that the כהן משיח follows the same rule
  13. Response'לאשמת העם' makes the priest like the community
  14. QuestionSource that the rule applies to עבודה זרה
  15. ResponseA ברייתא starts: maybe a full uprooting counts for עבודה זרה
  16. ResponseThe word 'from the eyes of' links עבודה זרה to the other מצוות
  17. StatementA new משנה: both a mistaken ruling and a mistaken action are needed
  18. QuestionWhere do we learn that both conditions are needed?
  19. Response'They shall err, and a matter was hidden' teaches both conditions
  20. QuestionWhere do we learn the same for the כהן משיח?
  21. ResponseThe כהן משיח is treated like the community
  22. QuestionWhat is the source for the עבודה זרה rule?
  23. ResponseA shared word links עבודה זרה to other sins
  24. QuestionThe משנה leaves out a priest who sins with עבודה זרה
  25. ResponseThe משנה follows רבי
  26. RejectionIs leaving out the כהן משיח really a proof?
  27. ResolutionThe תנא teaches one case and the other follows
  28. QuestionWhat is רבי's reason?
  29. Responseרבי reads 'בְּחֶטְאָה בִשְׁגָגָה' as a simple mistaken act
  30. ResponseThe רבנן read the same words to leave out the כהן משיח
  31. StatementBoth sides agree he brings a female goat like an individual
  32. QuestionAsking for the source of the agreement
  33. Response'One soul' includes the individual, the נשיא, and the כהן משיח