Le Lévitique 4:27 Références du Talmud : Jerusalem Talmud Horayot, Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot, Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat & Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim

MISHNAH: If the Court¹The High Court. ruled to violate one of the commandments spelled out in the Torah²A commandment clearly spelled out, like the prohibition of eating blood, where the biblical text does not imply an authorization of the rabbinical authorities to define the parameters of the obligation. and a single person went and acted inadvertently³When the Court realized its error and changed its ruling, the person acting in good faith on their prior ruling is now faced with the fact that his act violated a biblical commandment, against his intention. following their pronouncement, whether they acted and he acted simultaneously with them, or they acted and he followed their example, or they did not act but he did, he is not liable⁴For a purification sacrifice (Lev. 4:27–35) or, in the absence of a Temple, repentance and an expiatory action. since he depended on the Court. If the Court ruled but one of them knew that they erred, or a student worthy of ordination⁵He knows how to answer when asked any question of religious law. went and acted following their pronouncement, whether they acted and he acted simultaneously with them, or they acted and he followed their example, or they did not act but he did, he is liable⁴For a purification sacrifice (Lev. 4:27–35) or, in the absence of a Temple, repentance and an expiatory action. since he did not depend on the Court. This is the principle: The person depending on himself is liable⁶This rule, which declares that no instruction of the High Court supersedes one’s own certain knowledge, does not contradict the law of the rebellious Elder (Sanhedrin Chapter 8) since by definition the rebellious Elder came to ask the High Court; in the matter he came to ask, his knowledge is not independent of the Court., but one depending on the Court is not liable.

¹⁰This paragraph has a parallel in Terumot 8:1, Notes 14–22. As explained there, the background of the paragraph in Terumot is different from the one presumed here; therefore at a place where the readings there and here seem to be opposite to one another, both are correct in their settings. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues: From where that he who eats with permission be not liable¹¹Referring to Mishnah Terumot 8:1; a childless woman of non-priestly birth, married to a Cohen, was eating heave in purity, as is her right and duty, when she was informed of her husband’s death. By this death she returns to her non-priestly status and heave is forbidden to her. Nevertheless, she is not liable for a reparation sacrifice nor to pay for the heave eaten in error. This is the topic of Terumot 8:1, it is not followed up here.? What is the difference between him¹²An Israel to whom heave is forbidden, Mishnah Terumot 6:1. who thought that it was profane but it turned out to be heave, who is liable, and him who thought that he was a Cohen but it turned out that he was an Israel, who is not liable¹³He had been told from childhood that he was a Cohen; he was stripped of his priesthood by a court on the testimony of two witnesses that one of his female ancestors had been forbidden to her Cohen husband. His case is not different from that of the woman in Note 12.? They said to him, by the instruction of the court. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was weekday but it turned out that it was Sabbath¹⁴This is a paradigm of an inadvertent sin as mentioned in Lev. 4:27., who is liable, and him who thought that it was a Passover sacrifice but it turned out to be a well-being offering, who is not liable¹⁵Cf. Terumot 8:1, Note 18. The Passover sacrifice must be slaughtered in the afternoon of the 14^th of Nisan, whether Sabbath or weekday. A festival wellbeing offering may not be slaughtered on the Sabbath. If the 14^th was a Sabbath and somebody slaughtered a sheep in the Temple courtyard thinking that it was a designated Passover sacrifice when in fact it had been designated as a well-being offering, R. Joshua, an overriding authority, declares him not liable (Mishnah Pesahim 6:4).. They said to him, because he slaughtered with permission. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was permitted but it turned out to be forbidden¹⁵Cf. Terumot 8:1, Note 18. The Passover sacrifice must be slaughtered in the afternoon of the 14^th of Nisan, whether Sabbath or weekday. A festival wellbeing offering may not be slaughtered on the Sabbath. If the 14^th was a Sabbath and somebody slaughtered a sheep in the Temple courtyard thinking that it was a designated Passover sacrifice when in fact it had been designated as a well-being offering, R. Joshua, an overriding authority, declares him not liable (Mishnah Pesahim 6:4)., who is liable, and him who thought that it was forbidden fat¹⁶Fat of animals which would be burned on the altar if these animals were sacrifices, and the fat into which ischiatic tendons are embedded, is forbidden for human consumption. All other fat is permitted. If a person intended to commit a sin but, unknown to him at the time, failed to commit the sin, he is not liable for a purification sacrifice. and it turned out to be permitted fat, who is not liable. They did not answer at all. He told them, let me tell you from myself¹⁷Translated using the Bomberg Babli text.: Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring¹⁸Lev. 4:28. Since he was informed that he failed to commit the sin, he cannot bring a purification sacrifice. His repentance for his sinful intent will be a private matter between him and God.. Rebbi Yossi came to visit them; they told him, that problem is hard for us. He asked them, why did you not answer him, or his transgression in which hesinned was made known to him; he has to bring? They told him, Ḥaggai asked the question, Ḥaggai gave the answer.

Friday night, if someone saw one star and did work (forbidden on the Sabbath), he is free from punishment. Two, he brings a trespass offering for a sin in doubt²⁶The trespass offering described in Lev. 5:17–19 for somebody who without premeditation commits an act of which he later has doubts whether it was sinful or not. By the preceding statement, at the time when exactly two stars are visible it is impossible to know whether it is day or not. The sin offering for sins committed in error is described Lev. 4:27–35.. Three, he brings a sin offering. Saturday night, if someone saw one star and did (forbidden) work, he brings a sin offering. Two, he brings a trespass offering for a sin in doubt. Three, he is free from punishment.