Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Deuteronomio 17:8: Jerusalem Talmud Sotah, Jerusalem Talmud Horayot, Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin & Jerusalem Talmud Niddah

HALAKHAH: “The following cannot drink or collect their ketubah: One who says, I am impure for you,” etc. Rebbi Joshia said, Ze‘ira told me in the name of the people of Jerusalem³⁹In the Babli (25a, Sanhedrin88a): Ze‘ira the Jerusalemite.: In three cases, if they want to forgive, they may forgive. These are: The suspect wife⁴⁰The Babli explains: The husband may repeal his declaration of jealousy; then there is no case. However, the Babli (25a) restricts this to the time before the wife had a secret rendez-vous whereas the Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 8:6, fol. 26b) lets the husband rescind his action any time before the scroll was erased., the rebellious son⁴¹Described in Deut. 21:18–21; Sanhedrin Chapter 8., and the rebellious Elder⁴²Deut. 17:8–12. The Babli in the name of “the colleagues in the South” and the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 8:6 in the name of R. Jehudah ben Bathyra of Nisibis disagree in this case since the authority of the Supreme Court has to be upheld., etc.

HALAKHAH: “If he ruled for himself,” etc. The Court ruled, he ruled following them, and then changed. It is obvious that for him it is the equivalent of uprooting the whole¹⁹R. Moses Margolis (Pene Moshe and Mar’eh Happanim), the author of the only complete Commentary to Horaiot, explains that the Court and the High Priest originally issued consistent rulings. Then the High Priest changed his mind, and issued a new ruling on the same subject so that the two inconsistent prohibitions together amount to a complete removal of a biblical prohibition which according to Mishnah 1:3 prevents atonement by a sacrifice. It is difficult to find this in the language of the paragraph since it says clearly that the High Priest changed his mind, i. e., he permits what the Court forbade and the Court forbids what the High Priest forbade; neither of the parties uproots the entire commandment.
Therefore, it seems that at first the High Priest followed the High Court’s ruling, as stated in the text, but then reversed himself and opposed the High Court’s ruling. Then irrespective of the topic of the dispute, the High Court uprooted Deut. 17:8–13. If the Court stays with its pronouncement, the High Priest is barred from rehabilitating himself by a sacrifice.. But if he ruled first, the Court then ruled following him, and afterwards they reversed themselves. Nevertheless is it for him the equivalent of uprooting the whole²⁰If he continues to adhere to his own ruling after the Court reversed itself., or because he ruled first, but his ruling was overturned by their ruling, for him it should not be the equivalent of uprooting the whole²¹Since he first ruled by scriptural authorization. The question remains unanswered.? If the Court ruled and he ruled following them, it is obvious that he is not liable if he ate²²Forbidden fat which the Court had permitted; the standard example of a sin atonable by a sacrifice. according to the ruling of the Court²³Since he follows the public, his action in performing the rites for the Court’s offering also atones for him as noted in the Mishnah.. But after the Court reversed itself, he is liable²⁴Since the Temple is adjacent to the Court’s seat, he will know immediately of the Court’s decision and, therefore, his later actions are not covered by the Court’s offering (Halakhah 1:2). The text in the Babli lacks the last word; this text has to be read as a question: “But after the Court reversed itself? Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah? …”, i. e., the answer to the question is obvious. There is no material difference in the meaning of the two texts.. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah? “If he ruled for himself [and acted for himself]²⁵Addition from B., it is atoned for himself.” Because he ruled for himself and acted for himself. “But if he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public.”²⁶B here has an additional text:
Rebbi Mana said, what you want to prove from the first part [of the Mishnah] is stated in the later part, “if he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public.”
In this text, the quote of the same statement preceding the statement of R. Mana (II, student of R. Yose and R. Jonah) should be omitted. Because he ruled with the public and acted with the public, but “if he ruled for himself [and acted for himself]²⁵Addition from B., it is atoned for himself.”

MISHNAH: The Elder who rebels against the Court, as it is said: If a law case is too difficult for you, whether blood and blood, or case and case, etc. Three courts were there, one at the entrance of the Temple Mount, one at the entrance of the Temple courtyard, and one in the ashlar hall. They come to the one at the entrance to the Temple Mount and he says, so I argued and so my colleagues argued, so I taught and so my colleague taught. If they had heard it, they tell them; otherwise they come to the one at the entrance of the Temple courtyard and he says, so I argued and so my colleagues argued, so I taught and so my colleagues taught. If they had heard it, they tell them; otherwise these and those come to the Supreme Court in the ashlar hall, for from there instruction goes out to all of Israel as it is said, from that place which the Eternal will choose.
If he returned to his town²⁵The representative of the lower court who had been told by the Supreme Court that his opinion was wrong., repeated and taught as was his custom, he cannot be prosecuted. If he instructed to act, he is punishable, as it is said⁴The Supreme Court sitting in the Temple court. Deut. 17:12., but the man who would act criminally etc. He is not punishable unless he instruct to act. A student who instructed to act cannot be prosecuted; it turns out that his severity is his leniency²⁶A person unqualified to judge who nevertheless judges commits a grievous sin, worse than the qualified judge who does not obey the rulings of the Supreme Court. But his punishment is reserved for Heaven, not the human court..