json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Horayot/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Horayot",
    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
    "status": "locked",
    "license": "CC0",
    "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה הוריות",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Nezikin"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "If the court issued a ruling to violate one of the commandments mentioned in the Torah, and an individual went and accidentally did it on their instructions, whether they did it and he did it with them, whether they did it and he did it after them, whether they did not do it and he did it, he is exempt because he relied on the court. If the court issued [such] a ruling and one of them knew that they erred, or a student who is capable of ruling [knew that they erred], and he went and did it because of their instructions, whether they did it and he did it with them, whether they did it and he did it after them, whether they did not do it and he did it, he is liable because he was not relying on the court. This is the rule: If one relies on himself, he is liable. If one relies on the court, he is exempt.",
            "If the court issued a ruling and then realized that they made a mistake and retracted their [ruling], whether they brought their atonement-offering or whether they did not [yet] bring their atonement-offering, if an individual went and did it because of their instructions, Rabbi Shimon exempts him, and Rabbi Eliezer says it is uncertain. What is the uncertainty? If he was sitting at home, he is liable. If he had traveled across the sea, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiva said, I grant that in this case, he is closer to being exempt than being liable. Ben Azzai said to him, what is the difference between this case and one who is sitting at home? The one who is sitting at home could have heard [that the court reversed its ruling], but for this one [who traveled far away], he could not have heard.",
            "If the court issued a ruling to uproot an entire section [of the law]; [for example] if they said, \"there are no laws of <i>Niddah</i> [a female who has menstrual discharges which render her impure] in the Torah,\" \"there is no Sabbath in the Torah,\" \"there is no [prohibition of] idolatry in the Torah,\" they [i.e. the members of the court] are exempt. If they issued a ruling to nullify part and uphold part, they are liable. What is that case? If they said \"there are laws of <i>Niddah</i> in the Torah, but one who has relations with a woman who is keeping a day [of sexual abstinence] corresponding to the day [she saw blood after her menstrual purification] is exempt,\" \"there is Sabbath in the Torah, but one who carries from private property to public property is exempt,\" \"there is [a prohibition of] idolatry in the Torah, but one who bows [to it] is exempt,\" [in all these cases] they are liable, as it says \"and a matter is hid\" (Leviticus 4:13)--a matter and not an entire section.",
            "If the court issued a ruling, and one of them knew that they erred and said to them \"you are mistaken,\" or if the expert of the court was not there, or one of them was a convert or a bastard or a <i>Netin</i> [Gibonite] or an aged person who has never had children, they are exempt, as it says \"congregation\" here (Leviticus 4:13) and it says \"congregation\" later on (Numbers 35:24-25). Just like the \"congregation\" mentioned later on refers to those who are all capable of issuing a ruling, so too, \"congregation\" here refers to those who are all capable of issuing a ruling. If the court issued a [wrong] ruling by accident, and the whole people did it by accident, they bring a cow [as an offering]. [If the court issued a wrong ruling] on purpose, and [the people] did it by accident, they bring a lamb or a goat. [If the court issued a wrong ruling] by accident, and [the people] did it on purpose, they are exempt.",
            "If a court issued a ruling and the entirety of the congregation or its majority acted accordingly, they bring a cow, and in [a matter of] idol worship, they bring a cow and a sheep: the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: twelve tribes bring twelves cows, and in [a matter of] idol worship, they bring twelve cows and twelve sheep. Rabbi Shimon says: thirteen cows, and in [a matter of] idol worship, thirteen cows and thirteen sheep, a cow and a sheep for each and every tribe and a cow and a sheep for the court. If a court issued a ruling and seven tribes or their majority acted accordingly, they bring a cow, and in [a matter of] idol worship, they bring a cow and a sheep: the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: the seven tribes that sinned bring seven cows, and the remaining tribes that did not sin bring on their behalf a cow, for even those who did not sin bring on behalf of the sinners. Rabbi Shimon says: eight cows, and in [a matter of] idol worship, eight cows and eight sheep, a cow and a sheep for each and every tribe and a cow and a sheep for the court. If a court from one of the tribes issued a ruling and that tribe acted accordingly, that tribe is the one that is obligated and all the remaining tribes are exempt: the words of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Sages say: We are only obligated on account of a ruling issued by the National Court alone, as it says (Leviticus 4:13): \"And if all of the community of Israel errs,\" and not the community of that tribe."
        ],
        [
            "An anointed priest who ruled for himself inadvertently and acted inadvertently brings a cow; inadvertently and acted intentionally, intentionally and acted inadvertently, he is exempt, for the ruling of an anointed priest for himself is like a ruling of a court for the public.",
            "If he ruled on his own and acted on his own, he gains atonement on his own. If he ruled with the community and acted with the community, he gains atonement with the community, for a court is not liable unless they rule to nullify part [of the commandment] and uphold part, and so too with the anointed [priest]. And not [guilty] of idolatry unless they rule to nullify part [of the commandment] and uphold part.",
            "One is not obligated except for a lack of awareness with a mistaken action, and so too with the anointed [priest]. Also by idol worship, one is not obligated except for a lack of awareness with a mistaken action. A court is not obligated until they rule on something that if done purposefully is obligated in excommunication, and accidentally is obligated in a <i>Chatat</i> [sin-offering, offered in a variety of situations, all connect directly to expiation of sin], and so too with the anointed [priest]. And not by idol worship, until they rule on something that if done purposefully is obligated in excommunication, and accidentally is obligated in a <i>Chatat</i>.",
            "One is not obligated on [transgression of] a positive or a negative [precept] in the Temple, and one does not bring an uncertain <i>Asham</i> [guilt-offering offered when one is unsure if he did a sin] on [transgression of] a positive or negative [precept] in the Temple. However one is obligated on [transgression of] a positive or negative [precept] in the [laws of] <i>Niddah</i> [a female who has menstrual discharges which render her impure], and one does bring an uncertain <i>Asham</i> on [transgression of] a positive or negative [precept] in the [laws of] <i>Niddah</i>. What is a positive precept in the [laws of] <i>Niddah</i>, [be] separate from the <i>Niddah</i>. And a negative precept, do not have relations with the <i>Niddah</i>.",
            "[The court] is not obligated for [mistakes regarding] raising a voice [in testimony, see Leviticus 5:1], for a thoughtless oath, or for the impurity of the Temple and its consecrated things. The prince is similar in this, so says Rabbi Yose Haglili. Rabbi Akiva says, The prince is obligated in all of them, except for raising a voice, for a king cannot judge nor be judged, nor [can a king] testify, nor can others testify [against him].",
            "For all commandments in the Torah that if done purposefully is obligated in excommunication, and accidentally is obligated in a <i>Chatat</i>, an individual [who has accidentally transgressed] brings a female sheep and a female goat. The prince brings a male goat. The anointed [priest] or the court bring a bull. With idolatry, an individual, a prince, and an anointed [priest] bring a female goat and the court brings a bull and a male goat-- the bull for an <i>Olah</i> [offering that is entirely burnt] and the goat for a <i>Chatat</i>.",
            "An uncertain <i>Asham</i>, the individual and the prince are obligated [to sacrifice], but the anointed [priest] and the Court are exempt. A definite <i>Asham</i>, the individual, the prince, and the anointed [priest] are obligated, but the Court is exempt. On [mistakes regarding] raising a voice, or thoughtless oaths, or impurity of the Temple and its consecrated things, the Court is exempt, and the individual, the Nasi, and the anointed [priest] are obligated, but the High Priest is not obligated for the impurity of the Temple and its consecrated things, these are the words of Rabbi Shimon. And what would they bring? A sacrifice [whose price] rises and falls [depending on income]. Rabbi Eliezer says, a priest brings a goat."
        ],
        [
            "An anointed priest who sinned and then finished his anointment [term] or a prince who sinned and then finished his position, the anointed priest brings a bull and the prince brings a goat.",
            "An anointed priest who finished his anointment [term] and then sinned or a prince who finished his position and then sinned, the anointed priest brings a bull and the prince as a commoner.",
            "[Leaders] who sinned before they were appointed and afterwards were appointed, these are [treated] like a commoner. Rabbi Shimon says: If it become known to them before the appointment, they are liable. [If it become known] after the appointment, they are exempt. Who is the prince? This is the king, as it says (Leviticus 4:22): \"And he did one of the commandments of Hashem his God,\" [this refers to] a prince, because there is no one above him besides Hashem his God.",
            "Who is the anointed [discussed above]? The one anointed with the oil of anointing, not the one with many clothes. There is no difference between the priest anointed with the oil of anointing and the one with many clothes except for the bull offered for [the violation of] any of the commandments. There is no difference between the acting and retired priest, except for the bull of the Day of Atonement and the [flour sacrifice of] the tenth of an <i>Eifah</i>[specific unit of volume]. They are the same in the service of the Day of Atonement, are commanded to [marry] a virgin, are forbidden to [marry] a widow, do not defile themselves for relatives, do not let their hair grow long, do not tear their clothing, and [when they die] allow the unintentional killer to return [from exile].",
            "A High Priest tears [his garments] from below, and a common [priest tears his garments] from above. A High Priest brings offerings as a mourner but does not eat [the sacrificial meat], while a common [priest] does not bring offerings or eat [the sacrificial meat as a mourner].",
            "Anything that is more common than its peer supersedes its peer. Anything that is holier than its peer supersedes its peer. If the bull of the anointed and the bull of the community are [both] standing [to be sacrificed], the bull of the anointed supersedes the bull of the community in all its processes.",
            "A man supersedes a woman to keep alive and to return a lost object. A woman supersedes a man to clothe and to free from captivity. If they both stand to be disgraced, the man supersedes the woman.",
            "A priest supersedes a Levite, a Levite supersedes an Israelite, an Israelite supersedes a product of a forbidden relation, a productof a forbidden relation supersedes a <i>Natin</i> [member of a caste of Temple servants, historically descended from the Gibeonites], a <i>Natin</i> supersedes a convert, and a convert supersedes a freed slave. When? When they are all equal. But if the product of a forbidden relation is a Sage and the high priest is an <i>Am Ha'Aretz</i> [one who is lax in observing tithes and purity laws], the product of a forbidden relation who is a sage supersedes the high priest who is am <i>Am Ha'Aretz</i>."
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}