Horayot

And whence does R. Simeon and R. Meir  infer that the ruling depends on the court and the action depends on the con gregation?  — Abaye replied: For Scripture stated, And it shall be it from the eyes of the congregation the sin be committed unwittingly.  Raba said: [It is inferred] from, In respect of all the people it was done in error.  And [both texts are] required. For if the All Merciful had written only', And it shall be if from the eyes of the congregation the sin be committed unwittingly it might have been assumed that the reference  is even to a minority', hence it was written, In respect of all the people it was done in error. And if only In respect of all the people it was done in error had been written, It might have been assumed [that there is no obligation]  unless the court  committed the sin together with the majority, hence it was written. Did it shall be if from the eyes of the congregation the sin be committed unwittingly. But, surely, both these texts speak rather of  idolatry! — From the eyes  is inferred from [the other expression] from the eyes. IF THE COURT OF ONE etc, The question was raised: Where one tribe acted on the [erroneous] ruling of the supreme court, do the other tribes, according to the view of R. Judah, bring sin offerings] or not? Is it assumed that only where seven tribes [have sinned] do the other tribes bring [sin offerings] together with them because they  constitute a majority, but not where one tribe  [only had sinned] since it does not constitute a majority, or is there, perhaps, no difference? — Come and hear! 'What do they bring? One bullock. R. Simeon said two bullocks.' Now, under what circumstances?  If it be suggested where seven tribes had sinned. [it might be retorted.] R. Simeon, 'surely, requires [in such a ease] eight [bullocks]!  If, again,  [it be suggested,] where one tribe had sinned, [it may be asked] under what authority?  If on the ruling of its own court, R. Simeon, surely, does not in such a case admit liability!  Consequently it must be a case  of acting under the ruling of the supreme court; who, however, is the first Tanna?  If it be suggested R. Meir, be, [it may be asked] surely requires a majority;  consequently,  it must be R. Judah!  — It may be argued  that here it is a case  where a sin was committed by six tribes who constituted a majority of the congregation and it  is the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleasar said in his name, 'Six [tribes] who form a majority of the congregation or seven [tribes], although they do not form a majority of the congregation who committed a sin, bring a bullock. Come and hear: R. Judah said, 'If a tribe acted on the ruling of its own court, that tribe is liable  and all the other tribes are exempt: if, [however, it acted] on the ruling of the supreme court. even the other tribes are liable. This proves it. Said R. Ashi: This may also be deduced from our Mishnah, for it was taught, AND THAT TRIBE ACTED ACCORDINGLY, THAT TRIBE IS LIABLE, BUT ALL THE OTHER TRIBES ARE EXEMPT; what need was there for the statement, THE OTHER TRIBES ARE EXEMPT when  it was stated, THAT TRIBE IS LIABLE? Surely, since it was stated, THAT TRIBE IS LIABLE it is obvious that THE OTHER TRIBES ARE EXEMPT! This, consequently, teaches us the following: That only when [one tribe acted] on the ruling of its own court are the other tribes exempt, but if on the ruling of the supreme court even the other tribes are liable — This proves it. The question was raised: Does one tribe who acted on the [erroneous] ruling of the supreme court bring [a sin offering],  according to R. Simeon, or not?  Come and hear! 'What do they bring? One bullock. R. Simeon said: Two bullocks.' Now, under what circumstances? If it be suggested that seven tribes had sinned, [it may be retorted that in such a case not] two bullocks but eight bullocks are required! Consequently it must be a case where one tribe had sinned, but, [it may be asked,] under what authority?  If on the ruling of its own court, R. Simeon surely does not in such a case admit liability! Consequently, [it must be a case of a tribe's acting] under the ruling of the supreme court!  Who, however, is to be understood to be the first Tanna? If [it be suggested] R. Meir, be, surely, [it may be asked,] requires a majority!  If R. Judah. [surely he holds] that other tribes also must bring;  consequently, it must be [the view of] R. Simeon b. Eleazar, and as it has been taught. Come and hear: But the Sages say. 'One is never liable except when acting on a ruling of the supreme court.'  Now, who are the Sages? If it be suggested R. Meir, surely. [it may be retorted,] be requires a majority!  Consequently it must represent the view of R. Simeon. This proves it. And whence do R. Judah and R. Simeon infer that one tribe is called 'congregation'? — It may be replied: Because it is written, And Jeheshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord before the new court.  What is meant by 'new'? — R. Johanan replied: They issued new regulations ordaining that an unclean man who bathed during the day  must not enter the camp of the Levites. R. Aha b. Jacob demurred: How [does this prove it]?  Is it not possible that Jerusalem is different since Benjamin also was there!  — But, said R. Aha b. Jacob, because it is written, And he said unto me: Behold, I will make thee fruitful and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a congregation of Peoples;  but who was born to him at that time? Only Benjamin! Consequently it must be concluded that the All Merciful said thus: Another congregation will now be born unto thee. Said R. Shaba to R. Kahana: Is it not possible that the All Merciful said to him  thus: 'When Benjamin will have been born to you there will be twelve tribes so that you might then be called congregation'? — He said to him: Would twelve tribes, then, be called 'congregation' while eleven tribes would not be called 'congregation'. It was taught, R. Simeon said: What need was there for stating. And a second young bullock shalt thou take for a sin offering  If it is to teach that there were two, surely, [it may be pointed out] it has already been stated, And he shall offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, unto the Lord!  But [the purpose of the statement is this]: As it might have been assumed that this sin offering was to be eaten by the Levites  it was expressly stated, And a second young bullock,  [implying that it is] second to the burnt offering; as the burnt offering must not be eaten