Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day - Daily Torah Study

1When the court inadvertently errs and rules to eliminate one of the Torah’s fundamental laws1 and the entire people acted according to their ruling, the court is exempt and each of the transgressors is obligated to bring a fixed sin-offering,2 as implied by Leviticus 4:13: “And a matter will lapse...,” i.e., a matter, but not an entire fundamental law.3אבֵּית דִּין שֶׁשָּׁגְגוּ וְהוֹרוּ לַעֲקֹר גּוּף מִגּוּפֵי תּוֹרָה, וְעָשׂוּ כָּל הָעָם עַל פִּיהֶם - בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין, וְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִן הָעוֹשִׂים חַיָּב בְּחַטָּאת קְבוּעָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר" (ויקרא ד, יג) - וְלֹא כָּל הַגּוּף.

2The court is never liable for a sacrifice unless they issue a ruling nullifying a certain aspect of a prohibition, but maintaining others regarding matters that are not explicitly stated and elaborated upon in the Torah.4 Only in such a situation will the court be obligated to bring a sacrifice and those who follow their ruling exempt.בלְעוֹלָם אֵין בֵּית דִּין חַיָּבִין עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵּם מִקְצָת, בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן מְפֹרָשִׁין מְבֹאָרִין בַּתּוֹרָה; וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיוּ בֵּית דִּין חַיָּבִין בַּקָּרְבָּן, וְהָעוֹשִׂים עַל פִּיהֶם פְּטוּרִין.

What is implied? They erred and ruled that it is permitted to bow down to a false deity, that it is permitted to transfer an article from one domain to another on the Sabbath, or that it is permitted to be intimate with a woman who is watching day to day is liable because of zivah bleeding.5 This is considered as one who stated that there is no prohibition in the Torah against performing labor on the Sabbath, worshiping false deities, or being intimate with a niddah, eliminating the entire prohibition. This is not considered as an erroneous ruling, but rather as forgetting the matter.כֵּיצַד? שָׁגְגוּ וְהוֹרוּ שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אוֹ שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת בַּשַּׁבָּת, אוֹ שֶׁמֻּתָּר לָבוֹא עַל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּמִי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אֵין שַׁבָּת בַּתּוֹרָה, אוֹ אֵין עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בַּתּוֹרָה, אוֹ אֵין נִדָּה בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁעָקְרוּ כָּל הַגּוּף; וְאֵין זוֹ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ שִׁגְגַת הוֹרָאָה, אֶלָא שִׁכְחָה.

Therefore the court is exempt from bringing a sacrifice6 and anyone who acted upon their ruling is liable for a sin-offering individually.לְפִיכָךְ פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקָּרְבָּן, וְכָל הָעוֹשֶׂה עַל פִּיהֶם חַיָּב חַטָּאת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.

If, however, they erred and issued a ruling, saying that one who transfers an article from one domain to another is liable, as implied by Exodus 16:29: “A man should not depart from his place,”7 but it is permitted for one to throw or pass an article from one domain to another8 — alternatively, they eliminated one of the primary categories of forbidden labor, ruling that it is not considered as forbidden labor9 they are liable.אֲבָל אִם טָעוּ וְהוֹרוּ וְאָמְרוּ 'הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת הוּא שֶׁחַיָּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אַל יֵצֵא אִישׁ מִמְּקֹמוֹ" (שמות טז, כט), אֲבָל הַזּוֹרֵק אוֹ הַמּוֹשִׁיט - מֻתָּר', אוֹ שֶׁעָקְרוּ אָב מֵאֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת, וְהוֹרוּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְלָאכָה - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין.

Similarly, they are liable if they erred and issued a ruling, saying that someone who prostrates himself, spreading out his hands and feet is liable,10 as ibid. 34:14 states: “Do not prostrate yourself to a foreign god,” but it is permitted for one to kneel on the ground without spreading out his hands and feet.11וְכֵן אִם טָעוּ וְאָמְרוּ 'הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּפִשּׁוּט יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם הוּא הַחַיָּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כִּי לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאֵל אַחֵר" (שמות לד, יד), אֲבָל הַכּוֹרֵעַ עַל הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא פָשַׁט יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו, הֲרֵי הוּא מֻתָּר' - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין.

Similarly, they are liable if they erred and issued a ruling, saying that one who is intimate with a woman who is watching day to day because of zivah bleeding, as implied by Leviticus 15:26 “all the days of her flow,” but if she discovered bleeding at night, it is permitted to be intimate with her12 alternatively, they issued a ruling, saying that one whose wife began to experience menstrual bleeding during intimacy is permitted to withdraw from her while erect.13וְכֵן אִם טָעוּ וְאָמְרוּ 'הַבָּא עַל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם בַּיּוֹם הוּא הַחַיָּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "כָּל יְמֵי זוֹבָהּ" (ויקרא טו, כו), אֲבָל אִם רָאֲתָה בַּלַּיְלָה, מֻתָּר לָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ', וְכֵן אִם הוֹרוּ 'שֶׁמִּי שֶׁפֵּרְסָה אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ, מֻתָּר לוֹ לִפְרֹשׁ מִמֶּנָּה לְשָׁעָתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא מִתְקַשֶּׁה' - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין.

Similarly, they are liable if they erred and stated that one is liable for partaking of blood which emerges from an animal at the time of ritual slaughter, but one who partakes of blood that collects in the heart is not liable.14וְכֵן אִם טָעוּ וְאָמְרוּ 'שֶׁהָאוֹכֵל דָּם שֶׁיָּצָא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה הוּא הַחַיָּב, אֲבָל הָאוֹכֵל דַּם הַלֵּב מֻתָּר' - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין.

Similar laws apply with regard to all analogous errors. If they issued such rulings and the majority of the congregation acted because of their ruling, the people are exempt and the court must bring a sacrifice because of their error.וְכֵן כָּל כַּיוֹצֵא בְּטָעֻיּוֹת אֵלּוּ, אִם הוֹרוּ בָּהֶן וְעָשׂוּ רֹב הַקָּהָל עַל פִּיהֶן - בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתָן, וְכָל הָעוֹשִׂין עַל פִּיהֶן פְּטוּרִין.

3If the court ruled that the Sabbath ended because the sun became covered with clouds and it appeared to have set, and then it shined forth again, this is not considered as a mistaken ruling, but as an error. Any individual who performed a forbidden labor as a result is obligated to bring a sin-offering, but the court is exempt.15גהוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁיָּצָא הַשַּׁבָּת לְפִי שֶׁנִּתְכַּסֵּית הַחַמָּה, וְדִמּוּ שֶׁשָּׁקְעָה חַמָּה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ זָרְחָה - אֵין זוֹ הוֹרָאָה, אֶלָא טָעוּת; וְכָל שֶׁעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה חַיָּב, אֲבָל בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין.

Similarly, if the court granted a married woman license to remarry, because testimony was delivered in their presence that her husband had died and then her husband appeared, this is not considered as a mistaken ruling, but as an error. The woman and her second husband are obligated to bring a sin-offering for their inadvertent transgression.16 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.וְכֵן אִם הִתִּירוּ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ לְהִנָּשֵׂא לְפִי שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם שֶׁמֵּת בַּעְלָהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַּעְלָהּ - אֵין זוֹ הוֹרָאָה, אֶלָא טָעוּת; וְהָאִשָּׁה וּבַעְלָהּ הָאַחֲרוֹן, חַיָּבִין חַטָּאת עַל שִׁגְגָתָן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיוֹצֵא בְּזֶה.

4When a court delivers an erroneous ruling and then forgot the nature of the prohibition concerning which they ruled, they are exempt and those who transgressed as a result of their ruling are liable. This applies even if they have definite knowledge that they erroneously caused the violation of a prohibition and even when the people inform them about their ruling,17 telling them: “You ruled concerning this-and-this.” This is derived from Leviticus 4:14: “And the transgression which they caused to be violated became known to them,” i.e., they became aware of it on their own, rather than being informed about it by the transgressors.דבֵּית דִּין שֶׁהוֹרוּ בִּשְׁגָגָה, וְשָׁכְחוּ עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל חֵטְא שֶׁהוֹרוּ בּוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין בְּוַּדַּאי שֶׁחָטְאוּ בִּשְׁגָגָה, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעָם מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתָן וְאוֹמְרִין לָהֶן 'בְּכָּךְ וְכָּךְ הוֹרֵיתֶם לָנוּ' - הֵם פְּטוּרִין, וְהָעוֹשִׂים עַל פִּיהֶם חַיָּבִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְנוֹדְעָה הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר חָטְאוּ עָלֶיהָ" (ויקרא ד, יד) - לֹא שֶׁיֵּדְעוּ הַחוֹטְאִים.

What is implied? The court erred and ruled that the fat on the stomach was permitted and the majority of the people partook of it. Afterwards, they became aware that they had issued an erroneous ruling and permitted an entity for which one would be liable for karet had one partaken of it willfully or a fixed sin-offering if one partook of it inadvertently. They were in doubt, however, if they ruled that some forbidden fat was permitted or that some forbidden blood was permitted. In such a situation, the court is exempt and all those who partook of the forbidden fat must bring a fixed sin-offering.כֵּיצַד? שָׁגְגוּ וְהִתִּירוּ חֵלֶב הַקֵּבָה, וְאָכְלוּ אוֹתוֹ רֹב הָעָם, וְאַחַר שֶׁיָּדְעוּ שֶׁשָּׁגְגוּ בַּהוֹרָאָה וְשֶׁהִתִּירוּ דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה, נִסְתַּפֵּק לָהֶם אִם מִקְצַת הַחֲלָבִים הִתִּירוּ אוֹ מִקְצַת הַדָּמִים הִתִּירוּ - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין, וְכָל מִי שֶׁאָכַל מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה.

5The following rules apply when the court ruled erroneously and then became aware of their error.18 Whether they already brought a sacrifice as atonement or did not yet bring one, whenever one transgresses because of their erroneous ruling that was disseminated throughout the Jewish people after they became aware of their error, the transgressor must bring a provisional guilt-offering.19הבֵּית דִּין שֶׁהוֹרוּ בִּשְׁגָגָה, וְנוֹדְעָה לָהֶם שִׁגְגָתָן - בֵּין שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָתָן, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאוּ - כָּל הָעוֹשֶׂה כְּפִי הוֹרָאָתָן שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה בְּרֹב הַצִּבּוּר מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּדְעוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

The rationale is that since he should have continually inquired about the new developments in the court, but failed to do, he is considered like one who is in doubt whether he transgressed or not.הוֹאִיל וְהָיָה לוֹ לִשְׁאֹל בְּכָל עֵת עַל דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּתְחַדְּשׁוּ בְּבֵית דִּין, וְלֹא שָׁאַל - הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁנִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ אִם חָטָא אוֹ לֹא חָטָא.

To whom does the above apply? To one who is in the same region as the court. If, however, one saw the initial, erroneous ruling and then journeyed to another region, he is exempt even if he transgressed after the court became aware of their error, because he relied upon them and cannot inquire about their rulings in his present place.בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּמִי שֶׁהוּא עִם בֵּית דִּין בַּמְּדִינָה; אֲבָל מִי שֶׁרָאָה הַהוֹרָאָה, וְהָלַךְ לִמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָשָׂה אַחַר שֶׁיָּדְעוּ - פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתָּלָה בָּהֶן, וַהֲרֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לִשְׁאֹל.

Moreover, even if a person who is hurrying to depart, but has not yet set out on his journey, acts on their ruling after they became aware of their error, he is also exempt from bringing a provisional guilt-offering.20וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָא הַנִּבְהָל לָצֵאת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא יָצָא לַדֶּרֶךְ, וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶם מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּדְעוּ - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר.

Footnotes

To refer to the examples used by the Rambam in the previous chapter: There the court did not nullify any of the Torah’s prohibitions entirely. Its error involved a particular aspect of one prohibition. This and the following halachot are speaking of an instance where the court totally lost awareness of one of the Torah’s prohibitions. See Halachah 2 for extended elaboration.

Since the community is not obligated to bring an offering, every person must atone for himself individually.

Horiot 4a explains that, the mem, the final letter of the Hebrew term vene’elam, translated as "lapse,” can be read together with the term devar, translated as “matter,” producing the term meidevar, meaning “from the matter.” I.e., for the court to be liable, the lapse must be “from the matter,” and not the entire matter.

For if the matter is explicitly stated in the Torah, the entire people, even school children will know the error. Horiot 4a refers to such matters as “matters which the Sadducees [who follow only the Written Law, but not the Oral Law] accept.”

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 6:7 for a description of this prohibition.

For the sacrifice was instituted to atone for the court’s unintentional error. When a court makes a gross error of this nature, they are considered to have transgressed voluntarily, for they should have made themselves knowledgeable about such matters (Rashi, Horiot, foe. cit.).

Although the literal meaning - and also, the halachic meaning (see Hilchot Shabbat 27:1) - of the verse is that a person should not leave the place where he is on the Sabbath. Our Sages (Eruvin 17b) interpret the verse as meaning that one should not transfer articles from one domain to another.
Significantly, the passage in Horiot cites another prooftext. The Rambam, however, chooses this one, because it employs an explicit verse.

See Hilchot Shabbat 12:0, 13:18, which describes these prohibitions. With such a ruling, the person will have maintained the fundamental dimension of the prohibition against transferring from one domain to another, but will have eliminated one of its particulars.

As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Shabbat, ch. 7, there are 39 primary categories of labor forbidden on the Sabbath. If the judges rule that one of these categories is permitted, they will have preserved the fundamental dimension of the prohibition against work on the Sabbath, but will have eliminated a particular aspect.

10.

For this is the meaning of the term hishtachavayah, lying flat on the ground in total submission (see Horiot, foe. cit.; see also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 6:8).

11.

Thus the fundamental prohibition is preserved, but a particular dimension, is overlooked.

12.

I.e., erring by thinking that relations with her could become permitted at night, rather than the next day.

13.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 4:11; above, Chapter 5, Halachah 6, of these halachot. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Horiot 2:5). His interpretation of that mishnah differs from that of Rashi.

14.

Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 6:3; above Chapter 13, Halachah 1.

15.

I.e., even when, as a result of their error, the majority of the people, performed forbidden labor on the Sabbath, the court is not obligated to bring a sacrifice. The rationale is that the Torah’s provision for the court to bring a sacrifice applies when they made an error in the interpretation of the law, not when they made an error regarding actual fact.

16.

I.e., their intimacy violated the prohibition against adultery and requires atonement. The commentaries question why the Rambam quotes this ruling here, for the subject of these halachot is the offering brought by the court. Previously, in Chapter 13, Halachah 1, the Rambam ruled that when one person acts on the basis of an erroneous ruling, he - and not the court - must bring a sacrifice.

17.

This refers to a situation when, even after the people inform them, the judges themselves do not remember exactly which ruling they issued. If, however, they recall after being informed, it is as if they recalled on their own initiative.

18.

This is speaking about a situation where the majority of the people acted according to the court’s erroneous ruling.

19.

This offering is brought instead of a sin-offering for the reason the Rambam proceeds to explain.

20.

For such a person’s attention is already diverted and he will not have the presence of mind to inquire about the court’s rulings. It is as if he has already made the distant journey [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Horiot 1:2)].

Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Shegagot - Chapter 14

Shegagot - Chapter 14

Quiz Yourself on Shegagot Chapter 14