1

When the court inadvertently err and rule to eliminate one of the Torah's fundamental laws 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, as implied by Leviticus 4:13: "And a matter will lapse...," i.e., a matter, but not an entire fundamental law.

א

בֵית דִּין שֶׁשָּׁגְגוּ וְהוֹרוּ לַעֲקֹר גּוּף מִגּוּפֵי תּוֹרָה וְעָשׂוּ כָּל הָעָם עַל פִּיהֶם בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין וְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִן הָעוֹשִׂים חַיָּב חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ד יג) "וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר" וְלֹא כָּל הַגּוּף:

2

The 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. Only in such a situation will the court be obligated to bring a sacrifice and those who follow their ruling exempt.

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 because of zivah bleeding. 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. Therefore the court is exempt from bringing a sacrifice and anyone who acted upon their ruling is liable for a sin-offering individually.

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," but it is permitted for one to throw or pass an article from one domain to another - alternatively, they eliminated one of the primary categories of forbidden labor, ruling that it is not considered as forbidden labor - they are liable.

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, 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.

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 her - alternatively, they issued a ruling, saying that one whose wife began to experience menstrual bleeding in the midst of intimacy is permitted to withdraw from her while erect.

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. 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.

ב

לְעוֹלָם אֵין בֵּית דִּין חַיָּבִין עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵּם מִקְצָת בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן מְפֹרָשִׁין בַּתּוֹרָה וּמְבֹאָרִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִהְיוּ בֵּית דִּין חַיָּבִין בְּקָרְבָּן וְהָעוֹשִׂים עַל פִּיהֶם פְּטוּרִין. כֵּיצַד. שָׁגְגוּ וְהוֹרוּ שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהִשְׁתַּחֲווֹת לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אוֹ שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת בְּשַׁבָּת. 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 בָּזֶה שִׁגְגַת הוֹרָאָה אֶלָּא שִׁכְחָה. לְפִיכָךְ פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקָּרְבָּן וְכָל הָעוֹשֶׂה עַל פִּיהֶן חַיָּב חַטָּאת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם טָעוּ וְהוֹרוּ וְאָמְרוּ הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת הוּא שֶׁחָיַּב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות טז כט) "אַל יֵצֵא אִישׁ מִמְּקֹמוֹ" אֲבָל הַזּוֹרֵק אוֹ הַמּוֹשִׁיט מֻתָּר. אוֹ שֶׁעָקְרוּ אָב מֵאֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת וְהוֹרוּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְלָאכָה. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. וְכֵן אִם טָעוּ וְאָמְרוּ הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּפִשּׁוּט יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם הוּא הַחַיָּב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ (שמות לד יד) "לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאֵל אַחֵר" אֲבָל הַכּוֹרֵעַ עַל הָאָרֶץ וְלֹא פָּשַׁט יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו הֲרֵי הוּא מֻתָּר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. וְכֵן אִם טָעוּ וְאָמְרוּ הַבָּא עַל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם שֶׁרָאֲתָה דָּם בַּיּוֹם הוּא חַיָּב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו כו) "כָּל יְמֵי זוֹבָהּ" אֲבָל רָאֲתָה בַּלַּיְלָה מֻתָּר לָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ. וְכֵן אִם הוֹרוּ וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁמִּי שֶׁפֵּרְשָׂה אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ מֻתָּר לִפְרשׁ מִמֶּנָּה כְּשֶׁהוּא מִתְקַשֶּׁה. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. וְכֵן אִם טָעוּ וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁהָאוֹכֵל דָּם שֶׁיָּצָא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה הוּא הַחַיָּב אֲבָל הָאוֹכֵל דַּם הַלֵּב מֻתָּר הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִים. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּטָעֵיּוֹת אֵלּוּ אִם הוֹרוּ בָּהֶן וְעָשׂוּ רֹב הַקָּהָל עַל פִּיהֶן פְּטוּרִין וּבֵית דִּין מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתָן:

3

If 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.

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. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

ג

הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁיָּצָא הַשַּׁבָּת לְפִי שֶׁנִּתְכַּסֵּית הַחַמָּה וְדִמּוּ שֶׁשָּׁקְעָה חַמָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ זָרְחָה אֵין זוֹ הוֹרָאָה אֶלָּא טָעוּת וְכָל שֶׁעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה חַיָּב אֲבָל בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. וְכֵן אִם הִתִּירוּ בֵּית דִּין אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ לְהִנָּשֵׂא לְפִי שֶׁהֵעִידוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם שֶׁמֵּת בַּעְלָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַּעְלָהּ אֵין זוֹ הוֹרָאָה אֶלָּא טָעוּת וְהָאִשָּׁה וּבַעְלָהּ הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיָּבִין חַטָּאת עַל שִׁגְגָתָן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

4

When 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, 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.

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 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.

ד

בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהוֹרוּ בִּשְׁגָגָה וְשָׁכְחוּ עַצְמוֹ שֶׁל חֵטְא שֶׁהוֹרוּ בּוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִים בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁחָטְאוּ בִּשְׁגָגָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָעָם מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתָן וְאוֹמְרִים לָהֶן בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ הוֹרֵיתֶם לָנוּ. הֵם פְּטוּרִין וְהָעוֹשִׂים עַל פִּיהֶם חַיָּבִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ד יד) "וְנוֹדְעָה הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר חָטְאוּ עָלֶיהָ" לֹא שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוּ אוֹתוֹ הַחוֹטְאִים. כֵּיצַד. שָׁגְגוּ וְהִתִּירוּ חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַקֵּבָה וַאֲכָלוּהוּ רֹב הָעָם וְאַחַר שֶׁיָּדְעוּ שֶׁשָּׁגוּ בְּהוֹרָאָה וְשֶׁהִתִּירוּ דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּבִים עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה נִסְתַּפֵּק לָהֶם אִם מִקְצָת הַחֲלָבִים הִתִּירוּ אוֹ מִקְצָת הַדָּמִים הִתִּירוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין וְכָל מִי שֶׁאָכַל מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה:

5

The following rules apply when the court ruled erroneously and then became aware of their error. 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. 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.

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. 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.

ה

בֵּית 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. הוֹאִיל וְהָיָה לוֹ לִשְׁאל בְּכָל עֵת עַל דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּתְחַדְּשׁוּ בְּבֵית דִּין וְלֹא שָׁאַל הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִי שֶׁנִּסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ אִם חָטָא אוֹ לֹא חָטָא. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמִי שֶׁהָיָה 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 לִשְׁאל. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא הַנִּבְהָל לָצֵאת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא יָצָא לַדֶּרֶךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶם מֵאַחַר שֶׁיָּדְעוּ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר: