Horayot

R. Jose b. Abin — others say, R. Jose b. Zebida — said: [As to an] analogy [in respect of the view'] of Symmachus — to what may the thing be compared? To [the case of] a man who brought [an offering for] his atonement at twilight when there was doubt whether it was still day  and  his atonement was effective or night has already fallen  and his atonement was not effective,  who does not bring an asham talui.  And there is no need  [to say that this is so] according to him who holds that the court bring [the sacrifice] since [in that case] the matter is not sufficiently known;  but even according to him who holds that the public bring the sacrifice, in which case the matter is well known and people could have told him,  [this case is nevertheless the same] as  that of doubt whether it was still day, or night has already fallen.  For even if he had wished to ask he might not have found anyone who could tell him. SAID BEN 'AZZAI TO HIM: HOW DOES SUCH A PERSON DIFFER FROM ONE WHO REMAINS etc. R. Akiba, surely, answered Ben 'Azzai well!  — Raba replied: The difference between them is [the case of one who started on a journey.  According to Ben 'Azzai he is liable because he is still at home;  according to R. Akiba he is exempt since he has already started on his journey. IF THE COURT RULED THAT AN ENTIRE PRINCIPLE WAS TO BE UPROOTED. Our Rabbis taught: And something be hid,  but not when an entire commandment be uprooted. How? One might assume that if they said, for example, that [the law concerning] the menstrtiant 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 liable,  hence it was expressly stated, 'And something be hid'  but not when an entire commandment he hid. They are consequently exempt. One might assume, however, that if they said: [The law concerning] the menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has intercourse with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day  is exempt [or that the law concerning] the Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain into a public domain he is exempt. [or that the law' concerning] idolatry occurs in the Torah but if a man only bows down to an idol be is exempt, they  are exempt, hence it was expressly stated, 'and something he hid' but not the entire principle. The Master said, 'One might assume that … they are exempt'. But [it may be asked] if when [the ruling was that] part [of a commandment] be retained and a part annulled they are exempt. and when an entire principle be uprooted they are also exempt, in what case, then, would they be liable?  — The Tanna bad raised his question thus: It might have been assumed that dabar'  means the entire commandment,  hence it was expressly said. And something be hid. How does this prove it? — 'Ulla replied: In this text, read, 'and a part of a thing was hid'.  Hezekiah replied: Scripture says. And do any of the commandments  [which implies] of the commandments,  but not all the commandments. Does not 'commandments' denote the plural?  — R. Nahman b. lsaac replied: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The court is liable only when they ruled concerning a prohibition  which the Sadducees38  do not admit,  but if concerning a prohibition  which the Sadducees admit  they are exempt.  What is the reason? It is a matter which anyone can learn at school. We learnt: [THE LAW' CONCERNING THE] MENSTRUANT OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A WOMAN THAT AWAITS A DAY CORRESPONDING TO A DAY HE IS EXEMPT. But why? Surely [the law concerning] a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day is mentioned in the Scriptures: Then she shall number to herself,  teaches that she counts one [day] for one [day]!  — They might rule that the first stage of contact is permitted and only the consummation of coition is forbidden. Surely this also is written in the Scriptures: He hath made naked her fountain!  — They might rule that in the natural way We learnt: [THE LAW CONCERNING THE] SABBATH OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN CARRIES ANYTHING FROM A PRIVATE DOMAIN INTO A PUBLIC DOMAIN IS EXEMPT [etc.]. But why? Surely the prohibition of carrying from [one domain into another] is mentioned in the Scriptures: Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on [the Sabbath day]!  — They ruled that carrying out alone is prohibited but bringing in is permitted. And if you prefer I might say: They ruled that only carrying out and bringing in  is prohibited but handing across and throwing  is permitted.  We learnt: [THE LAW CONCERNING] IDOLATRY OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN ONLY BOWS DOWN TO AN IDOL HE IS EXEMPT [etc.]. But why? The case of him, who bows down is certainly mentioned in the Scriptures: for it is written, Thou shalt bow down to no other god!  — They ruled that bowing down is prohibited only when performed in the usual manner but if in an unusual manner it is permitted. And if you prefer I might say: They ruled that bowing itself in a natural manner is only then prohibited when the hands and the feet are stretched out but bowing without stretching out the hands and the feet is permitted.