Horayot

R. Joseph enquired: What [is the law where the court ruled that] ploughing is not forbidden on the Sabbath, is it assumed that, as they had admitted the whole law,  the ruling is deemed to be a partial annulment and a partial retention [of a law]  or, perhaps, since they have uprooted altogether the law of ploughing it is deemed to be an uprooting of an entire principle? — Come and hear! [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 [… THEY ARE LIABLE]. But why? surely, [the law concerning] a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day has been uprooted completely!  — R. Joseph can reply  [that the law of] a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day, that has been mentioned, is to be explained as above. Come and hear: [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 [… THEY ARE LIABLE]. But why? Surely. [the law concerning] carrying from [one domain into another] has been completely uprooted!  — There also the explanation is as given above. Come and hear: [THE LAW CONCERNING] IDOLATRY OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN ONLY BOWS DOWN TO AN IDOL HE IS EXEMPT [… THEY ARE LIABLE]. But why? Surely, the law concerning bowing to an idol has been completely uprooted!  — It may be reported that [the law of] bowing also is to be explained as above. R. Zera enquired: What [is the law where the court ruled that] no Sabbath is to be kept in the seventh  year? Wherein did they err? — In the following text: In ploughing time and in harvest thou shalt rest,  when ploughing is carried on, [they explained,] Sabbath is to be observed but when no ploughing is carried on Sabbath is not to be observed. Is it to be assumed that, as they retain it  in the other years of the Septennial, [their ruling] is deemed to be a partial annulment and a partial retention [of a law] or, perhaps, since they are uprooting it in the seventh year it is deemed to he an uprooting of an entire principle? Rabina replied: Come and hear! If a prophet taught  that anything  of the words of the Torah was to be uprooted, he is guilty; if only to annul a part of it and to retain a part he is, R. Simeon said, exempt. And in respect of idolatry, even if he said that the idol be worshipped only to-day and destroyed to-morrow, he is guilty.  From this  it may be inferred that [the ruling that] no Sabbath is to be kept in the Sabbatical year is to be deemed as partial annulment and partial retention.  This proves it. MISHNAH. IF THE COURT RULED AND ONE OF THEM KNEW THAT THEY HAD ERRED AND SAID TO THEM, YOU ARE MISTAKEN', OR IF THE MUFLA  OF THE COURT WAS NOT PRESENT,  OR IF ONE OF THEM WAS A PROSELYTE OR A BASTARD OR A NATHIN  OR TOO OLD TO HAVE CHILDREN,  THEY ARE  EXONERATED, FOR CONGREGATION WAS MENTIONED  HERE  AND CONGREGATION WAS MENTIONED FURTHER ON;  AS CONGREGATION FURTHER ON [REFERS TO MEN] ALI. (IF WHOM MUST BE CAPABLE OF DECIDING MATTERS OF LAW  SO [IN THE CASE OF] CONGREGATION. MENTIONED HERE [THE RULING IS INVALID] UNLESS  THEY ARE ALL CAPABLE OF DECIDING MATTERS OF LAW. GEMARA. OR IF THE MUFLA OF THE COURT WAS NOT PRESENT. Whence is this derived? — R. Shesheth replied, and so It was taught by the School of R. Ishmael: Why has it been said that a court that ruled concerning a prohibition  which the Sadducees admit, are exempt? because they should have learned and did not learn; [in the case of] the absence of the mufla of the court they are also exempt, because they should have learned and did not learn. CONGREGATION WAS MENTIONED HERE AND CONGREGATION WAS MENTION FURTHER IN … UNLESS THEY ARE ALL CAPABLE OF DECIDING MATTERS OF LAW. And whence is this  derived there? — For R. Hisda said: Scripture states, That they may stand there with thee;  with thee implies 'such as are like thee'. Might it not be suggested that with thee [has reference] to the divine presence?  — but, said R. Nahman b. Isaac. Scripture states, And they shall bear the burden with thee,  'with thee' implies 'such as are like thee'. MISHNAH. IF THE COURT ISSUED A [WRONG] DECISION UNWITTINGLY AND ALL THE PEOPLE ACTED UNWITTINGLY ACCORDINGLY, A BULLOCK MUST BE BROUGHT.  [IF THE COURT RULED] WILFULLY AND [THE PEOPLE] ACTED UNWILLINGLY ACCORDINGLY, A LAMB OR A GOAT  MUST BE BROUGHT. [IF THE COURT RULED] UNWILLINGLY AND [THE PEOPLE] ACTED WILLINGLY ACCORDINGLY, THEY ARE EXEMPT. GEMARA. [IF THE COURT RULED] UNWITTINGLY AND [THE PEOPLE] ACTED WILFULLY, THEY ARE EXEMPT. [From this  it follows] that one acting unwittingly though in a way similar to one acting wilfully, is liable; and how' is this to be imagined? When e.g., the court ruled that suet was permitted and a man mistook it for fat and ate it.  May it then he suggested that this answers Rann b. Hania's enquiry!  — He can tell you: Because in the first clause it was taught, [IF THE COURT RULED] WILFULLY AND THE PEOPLE ACTED UNWITTINGLY it was also taught in the final clause,  [IF THE COURT RULED] UNWITTINGLY AND [THE PEOPLE] ACTED WILFULLY. MISHNAH. IF THE COURT ISSUED AN [ERRONEOUS] RULING AND. ALL THE PEOPLE OR A MAJORITY OF THEM ACTED ACCORDINGLY, A BULLOCK MUST BE BROUGHT.  AND IN [THE CASE OF] IDOLATRY A BUTTOCK OR A GOAT  ARE TO BE BROUGHT; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. MEIR. R. JUDAH SAID: THE TWELVE TRIBES BRING TWELVE BULLOCKS;  AND IN RESPECT OF IDOLATRY TWELVE BULLOCKS AND TWELVE GOATS.