וְאִ֨ם כָּל־עֲדַ֤ת יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ יִשְׁגּ֔וּ וְנֶעְלַ֣ם דָּבָ֔ר מֵעֵינֵ֖י הַקָּהָ֑ל וְ֠עָשׂוּ אַחַ֨ת מִכָּל־מִצְוֺ֧ת יְהוָ֛ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־תֵעָשֶׂ֖ינָה וְאָשֵֽׁמוּ׃
И если весь народ Израилев будет в заблуждении, то, что сокрыто от глаз собрания, и сделай все, что повелел Господь, чтобы не было сделано и виновны:
Jerusalem Talmud Horayot
HALAKHAH: “They are only liable for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation,” etc. 39Cf. Yebamot 4:15, Notes 219–227.The commandments of the Eternal40Since the introduction to the rules of purification sacrifices, Lev. 4:2, seems to prescribe such a sacrifice for all the Commandments of the Eternal, it needs an argument why in all four cases (the High Priest, the High Court, Prince, and commoner) simple transgressions are excluded.. I could think that this also includes those who eat abominations and crawling things. 41Cf. Halakhah 1:8, Notes 145 ff. Here also one compares the transgressions for which the Court has to bring a bull to the sin of idolatry for which a bull and a goat are required. It says here from the eyes and it says there from the eyes. Just as from the eyes mentioned there means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin42The punishment for idolatry in the absence of witnesses or warning. and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so from the eyes mentioned here means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Or since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here should mean something that can lead to the death penalty43The punishment for idolatry if there are witnesses for warning and deed.? 44This is a wrong quote from Yebamot(Note 220). The father’s wife who is not the mother is forbidden in Deut. 23:1 (in addition to Lev. 18:8, 20:11). The bastard is mentioned in Deut. 23:3; it is inferred that the bastard is a child from a forbidden union exemplified by the father’s wife.
One may assume that the intended quote from Yebamot was the answer given there to the question: “R. Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation (Num.15:31), there was no mention of anything but extirpation (Num. 15:30–31). But the death penalty is written elsewhere (Lev.20:2, Deut. 17:5).” (Note 226). Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the (married woman) [father’s wife] came out to tell you about the bastard. 45Babli 8a, Yebamot 9a. In Lev. 4:14, speaking of the Court’s sacrifice, it is said, and the sin became known concerning which (עָלֶיהָ) they had sinned. In Lev. 18:18 one reads: Do not marry a woman in addition to her sister, to make them co-wives, to uncover her nakedness over her (עָלֶיהָ) during her lifetime. Lev.18:29 is a blanket warning that all sexual crimes mentioned in the Chapter are punishable by extirpation. The wife’s sister is not mentioned in the list of punishments in Lev. 20. Therefore this is a reference only to divine extirpation; even with witnesses and due warnings no death penalty is involved (Sanhedrin 7:5, Note 78). Rebbi said over which, over her. Since over her mentioned there refers to something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so over which mentioned here means something for which one is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Why does Rebbi not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? 46Text found only in B. Since the argument of R. Zeˋira is identical to that of R. Mana (student of R. Zeˋira’s student), the text is suspect. In Halakhah 3 it was established that Rebbi requires the High Priest to bring a sacrifice for an erroneous action even without an element of oblivion. If Rebbi would accept transfer of the argument of Halakhah 1:8, Notes 165ff. to the problem here, he would have to hold that the same applies to the Court. But since forgetting is mentioned in the verse speaking of the Court, this would disprove his thesis. Therefore, Rebbi cannot accept the application of the argument of Halakhah 1:8 to the problem of Mishnah 2:4.[Rebbi Zeˋira said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then from the eyes mentioned there for the Anointed refers to action in error; also from the eyes mentioned here would have to refer to action in error. Therefore, Rebbi will not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes.] Rebbi Yose said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here means something that can lead to the death penalty47He accepts the question (Note 43) as valid.. Therefore, Rebbi does not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. (Does Rebbi not have a book) [Will Rebbi not in the end have]48The text in parentheses is from the ms., the one in brackets from B. It seems that the ms. text is a scribal error. to infer from the eyes, from the eyes? 49Text of the ms. Since Rebbi only denies that for the High Priest’s offering an element of oblivion is necessary, for all others he accepts the reasoning of Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 4(6) that from a comparison with the rules for unintentional idolatry it is established that both oblivion and unintentional action are needed. The connection is established by from the eyes, from the eyes. For if it is not so, from where would we have the rules for the individual, the chief, and the Anointed? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? 50Text of B. But in Halakhah 3, there is no reference to inferences from idolatry. For if it is not so, from where would we have “unless they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part”? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have [the difference between] a ruling of the High Court and a ruling of a lower court51The fact that the court mentioned in Lev. 4 is the High Court is proven from Num. 15:24. The connection is established by from the eyes, from the eyes.? Rebbi Ḥanania52This is the correct attribution, not R. Hanina as in B.
53 Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 3(7). The reference is to Lev. 4:5: The Anointed Priest shall take of the bull’s blood and bring it to the Tent of Meeting. “To bring it” could have been expressed as וְהֵבִיאוֹ, but it is given as וְהֵבִיא אֹתוֹ. The choice of a separate word for “it” is read as emphasizing that precisely this blood is brought into the sanctuary, not blood of similar sacrifices. The one sacrifice similar to the bull of the High Priest and the one of the Court which follows the same rule (Lev. 4:16, where the language is: of the bull’s blood) is the bull offered for inadvertent idolatry. The latter is called “the singular commandment” both because it requires a rite of atonement different from all other commandments as also it is the only sin which in one act violates all commandments (cf. Halakhah 1:6, Note 135). said before Rebbi Mana: Would not Rebbi in the end have to infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi? Rebbi follows his own opinion, since Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error. Intentional error is only written for the Court46Text found only in B. Since the argument of R. Zeˋira is identical to that of R. Mana (student of R. Zeˋira’s student), the text is suspect. In Halakhah 3 it was established that Rebbi requires the High Priest to bring a sacrifice for an erroneous action even without an element of oblivion. If Rebbi would accept transfer of the argument of Halakhah 1:8, Notes 165ff. to the problem here, he would have to hold that the same applies to the Court. But since forgetting is mentioned in the verse speaking of the Court, this would disprove his thesis. Therefore, Rebbi cannot accept the application of the argument of Halakhah 1:8 to the problem of Mishnah 2:4.. 53It. It specifies about his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary. Does this follow Rebbi, as Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error; if it would follow the rabbis, there must be an instance of forgetting. (Rav) [Rebbi]54The text in parentheses is from the ms., the (correct) one in brackets from B. Cf. Note 34. Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. Lest you say, because there is extirpation55For idolatry which cannot be prosecuted in court for lack of eye witnesses or due warning. its blood should be brought into the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was necessary to say it, it specifies his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary.
One may assume that the intended quote from Yebamot was the answer given there to the question: “R. Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation (Num.15:31), there was no mention of anything but extirpation (Num. 15:30–31). But the death penalty is written elsewhere (Lev.20:2, Deut. 17:5).” (Note 226). Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the (married woman) [father’s wife] came out to tell you about the bastard. 45Babli 8a, Yebamot 9a. In Lev. 4:14, speaking of the Court’s sacrifice, it is said, and the sin became known concerning which (עָלֶיהָ) they had sinned. In Lev. 18:18 one reads: Do not marry a woman in addition to her sister, to make them co-wives, to uncover her nakedness over her (עָלֶיהָ) during her lifetime. Lev.18:29 is a blanket warning that all sexual crimes mentioned in the Chapter are punishable by extirpation. The wife’s sister is not mentioned in the list of punishments in Lev. 20. Therefore this is a reference only to divine extirpation; even with witnesses and due warnings no death penalty is involved (Sanhedrin 7:5, Note 78). Rebbi said over which, over her. Since over her mentioned there refers to something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so over which mentioned here means something for which one is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Why does Rebbi not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? 46Text found only in B. Since the argument of R. Zeˋira is identical to that of R. Mana (student of R. Zeˋira’s student), the text is suspect. In Halakhah 3 it was established that Rebbi requires the High Priest to bring a sacrifice for an erroneous action even without an element of oblivion. If Rebbi would accept transfer of the argument of Halakhah 1:8, Notes 165ff. to the problem here, he would have to hold that the same applies to the Court. But since forgetting is mentioned in the verse speaking of the Court, this would disprove his thesis. Therefore, Rebbi cannot accept the application of the argument of Halakhah 1:8 to the problem of Mishnah 2:4.[Rebbi Zeˋira said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then from the eyes mentioned there for the Anointed refers to action in error; also from the eyes mentioned here would have to refer to action in error. Therefore, Rebbi will not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes.] Rebbi Yose said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here means something that can lead to the death penalty47He accepts the question (Note 43) as valid.. Therefore, Rebbi does not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. (Does Rebbi not have a book) [Will Rebbi not in the end have]48The text in parentheses is from the ms., the one in brackets from B. It seems that the ms. text is a scribal error. to infer from the eyes, from the eyes? 49Text of the ms. Since Rebbi only denies that for the High Priest’s offering an element of oblivion is necessary, for all others he accepts the reasoning of Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 4(6) that from a comparison with the rules for unintentional idolatry it is established that both oblivion and unintentional action are needed. The connection is established by from the eyes, from the eyes. For if it is not so, from where would we have the rules for the individual, the chief, and the Anointed? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? 50Text of B. But in Halakhah 3, there is no reference to inferences from idolatry. For if it is not so, from where would we have “unless they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part”? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have [the difference between] a ruling of the High Court and a ruling of a lower court51The fact that the court mentioned in Lev. 4 is the High Court is proven from Num. 15:24. The connection is established by from the eyes, from the eyes.? Rebbi Ḥanania52This is the correct attribution, not R. Hanina as in B.
53 Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 3(7). The reference is to Lev. 4:5: The Anointed Priest shall take of the bull’s blood and bring it to the Tent of Meeting. “To bring it” could have been expressed as וְהֵבִיאוֹ, but it is given as וְהֵבִיא אֹתוֹ. The choice of a separate word for “it” is read as emphasizing that precisely this blood is brought into the sanctuary, not blood of similar sacrifices. The one sacrifice similar to the bull of the High Priest and the one of the Court which follows the same rule (Lev. 4:16, where the language is: of the bull’s blood) is the bull offered for inadvertent idolatry. The latter is called “the singular commandment” both because it requires a rite of atonement different from all other commandments as also it is the only sin which in one act violates all commandments (cf. Halakhah 1:6, Note 135). said before Rebbi Mana: Would not Rebbi in the end have to infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi? Rebbi follows his own opinion, since Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error. Intentional error is only written for the Court46Text found only in B. Since the argument of R. Zeˋira is identical to that of R. Mana (student of R. Zeˋira’s student), the text is suspect. In Halakhah 3 it was established that Rebbi requires the High Priest to bring a sacrifice for an erroneous action even without an element of oblivion. If Rebbi would accept transfer of the argument of Halakhah 1:8, Notes 165ff. to the problem here, he would have to hold that the same applies to the Court. But since forgetting is mentioned in the verse speaking of the Court, this would disprove his thesis. Therefore, Rebbi cannot accept the application of the argument of Halakhah 1:8 to the problem of Mishnah 2:4.. 53It. It specifies about his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary. Does this follow Rebbi, as Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error; if it would follow the rabbis, there must be an instance of forgetting. (Rav) [Rebbi]54The text in parentheses is from the ms., the (correct) one in brackets from B. Cf. Note 34. Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. Lest you say, because there is extirpation55For idolatry which cannot be prosecuted in court for lack of eye witnesses or due warning. its blood should be brought into the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was necessary to say it, it specifies his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary.
Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot
Why did they say, practice follows Rebbi Simeon from Timna? 219A very shortened version is in Horaiot 2:4; much more truncated in Babli Horaiot 8a. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the father’s wife came out to tell you about the bastard220All incest prohibitions (including adultery) promulgated under one heading, as one set, in Lev. Chapter 18 are punishable by divine extirpation as made clear in Chapter 20. The verses about the connection between the father’s wife and the bastard are in Deut. 23. The father’s wife represents a single element of the set of incest prohibitions. Deut. 23 has no penalties spelled out. It is presumed that the penalty common to all sins mentioned in Lev. 18 is also understood in Deut.23. Cf. Chapter 11, Note 63.. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here221The topic of Horaiot 2:4, for which transgressions a purification sacrifice is due, viz., those under penalty of divine extirpation. [Simple transgressions are expiated either by the punishment imposed by the court or by sincere repentance and the Day of Atonement (Mishnah Yoma 8:7)]. he infers from one of its members. As we have stated: “The commandments of the Eternal,222Lev. 4:2, the introduction to the laws of the purifying sacrifice: “If a person sins inadvertently against any of the Eternal’s commandments about what should not be done, but he did one of these.” I could think that this includes also those who eat abominations and crawling things223Forbidden in Lev. 11; these are simple prohibitions, at most punishable by whipping.. You argue, saying that here it says “from the eyes224“Here” is the purification offering of the congregation due (Lev. 4:13) “if the entire congregation of Israel errs and something is hidden from the eyes of the community and they do one of the actions which by the commandments of the Eternal should not be done, and they do damage.” This is part of a series of 5 different statements on purification offerings. “There” is the isolated statement about the particular purification offering due for the sin of apostasy (i. e., idolatry, Num. 15:22–28). Num. 15:24 reads: “If from the eyes of the congregation it was done in error.” By the hermeneutic rule of גזירה שוה “equal cut”, parallel expressions imply parallel meanings.” and there it says “from the eyes”. Just as “from the eyes” mentioned there means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin, also “from the eyes” mentioned here means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin. But since “from the eyes” mentioned there is a case225Idolatry. involving the death penalty, does “from the eyes” mentioned here involve the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation, there was no mention of anything but extirpation226The only penalty mentioned is extirpation in Num. 15:30 for the blasphemer and idolator, offenses which at other places are classified as capital crimes.. But the death penalty is written elsewhere. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members! There, all incest prohibitions were taken together as to the duty of sacrifice. Idolatry was singled out to teach who is obligated for a sacrifice227Since for idolatry the sacrifices are different from those for all other sins, it is necessary to treat this separately.. What can you say? Here, all incest prohibitions were taken together concerning of bastards. The father’s wife was singled out to teach about the bastard.