POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Horayos 8
HORAYOS 8 (4 Sivan) - Dedicated by Rabbi Kornfeld's father, Mr. David
Kornfeld, in memory of the members of his family who perished at the hands
of the Nazi murderers in the Holocaust and whose Yahrzeit is observed today:
his mother (Mirel bas Yakov Mordechai), brothers (Shraga Feivel, Aryeh Leib
and Yisachar Dov, sons of Mordechai), grandfather (Reb Yakov Mordechai ben
Reb David [Shpira]) and aunt (Charne bas Yakov Mordechai [wife of Reb Moshe
1) A "MASHU'ACH" DOES NOT BRING AN "ASHAM TALUY"
(a) (Beraisa): All agree that he does not bring an Asham
2) THE "HORA'AH" MUST PERMIT "KARES"
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer - part 1 (for Rebbi): "The Kohen will atone for
Shigegaso (his mistake) Asher Shagag" - this applies to
one who brings a Korban *only* on account of Shegagah
(without Hora'ah), not to a Mashu'ach (for Mitzvos other
than idolatry, he brings a Korban for Hora'ah with
1. Question: The verse does not say that his Korban is
*always* due to Shegagah!
(d) Answer - part 2 (for Chachamim): The verse discusses one
whose brings a Korban for Shogeg (without Hora'ah), not
to a Mashu'ach (who is never liable for Shogeg without
2. Answer: Indeed, it does - it could have said just
i. It adds "Asher Shagag" to teach that his sin is
always due to Shegagah.
(a) (Mishnah): Beis Din is liable only for (permitting)
Chayavei Kerisus for which a Chatas is brought (if one
was Shogeg); the same applies to a Mashu'ach;
(b) They are liable for idolatry only for something
punishable by Kares/Chatas (for Mezid/Shogeg).
(c) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of this (regarding
Mitzvos other than idolatry)?
(d) Answer #1 (Beraisa - Rebbi): We learn a Gezerah Shavah
"Aleha-Aleha" from incest with one's wife's sister, which
is punishable by Kares/Chatas.
1. Question: This is the source for Beis Din; what is
the source regarding a Mashu'ach?
(e) (Mishnah): They are liable for idolatry only...
2. Answer: "L'Ashmas ha'Am" - a Mashu'ach is like the
i. We learn that this applies to a Nasi from a
Gezerah Shavah "Mitzvos-Mitzvos".
ii. The same applies to a commoner - "*And* if a
soul" teaches, the law of a commoner is like
the previous law (of a Nasi).
(f) Question: What is the source regarding idolatry?
(g) Answer (Beraisa): Idolatry was written separately to
teach that a different Korban is brought;
1. Suggestion: Perhaps they are liable even for
something not punishable by Kares/Chatas?
(h) Question: This is the source for Beis Din;
2. Rejection: We learn a Gezerah Shavah
"me'Einei-me'Einei" from other Mitzvos. Just as by
other Mitzvos, they are liable only for Chayavei
Kerisus/Chatas, also by idolatry.
1. What is the source for a commoner, Nasi or a
(i) Answer: "And if *one soul*" - this includes a commoner,
Nasi and a Mashu'ach;
1. The 'Vov' ("*And*") teaches that the law of the
previous Parsha (of Beis Din) applies.
(j) Question: Rebbi's starting point to learn all these laws
was Beis Din, which was learned from a Gezerah Shavah
1. Chachamim say that "Aleha" teaches about relatives
and their co-wives that fall to Yibum - how do they
learn all these laws?
(k) Answer (and Answer #2 to Question (c)): They learn like
R. Yehoshua ben Levi.
1. (R. Yehoshua be Levi): Regarding idolatry, it says
"There will be one Torah (law) for you, for one who
sins bi'Shgagah, and for Mezid" - the entire Torah
is equated to idolatry:
(l) Question: What is the source regarding the Tzibur?
i. Just as idolatry is Chayavei Kerisus/Chatas,
also by other Mitzvos, one brings a Chatas only
for such transgressions.
2. The verses before and after this discuss a "Nefesh",
so this teaches about every individual, i.e. a
commoner, Nasi or Mashu'ach, both by idolatry and
(m) Answer: The Torah discusses the Tzibur right before an
individual, we learn the law of the Tzibur from that of
(n) Question: Rebbi learned from "Alehah-Alehah" - how does
he expound R. Yehoshua ben Levi's verse?
(o) Answer: He expounds like the following Beraisa.
1. (Beraisa): The Torah distinguishes between a
majority (of a city that served idolatry b'Mezid)
and a minority - a majority (Ir ha'Nidachas) is
killed by the sword, and their money (and the whole
city) is destroyed; a minority is killed by stoning,
and their money goes to their heirs;
(p) Objection (Rav Chilkiyah of Hegronya): If not for this
verse, they would have brought a different Korban - which
would they bring?! (It should be different than all other
Korbanos, just as Par He'elam Davar for idolatry is
different than all other Korbanos - on the other hand, we
should not innovate a new Korban by ourselves, it should
be a Korban brought for something else!)
2. Suggestion: Perhaps we distinguish between a
majority that serves idolatry b'Shogeg and a
3. Rejection: "There will be one law to you...."
1. It cannot be a Par - (this is not different,) the
Tzibur brings Parim for other Mitzvos!
(q) Answer #1: One might have thought that they bring a Par
*Chatas* and a Sa'ir *Olah*, the opposite of what the
Tzibur brings - the verse teaches, this is not so.
2. It cannot be a Par for an Olah and a Sa'ir for a
Chatas - the Tzibur brings this for idolatry!
3. It cannot be a Sa'ir - a Nasi brings this for other
4. It cannot be a Se'irah - an individual brings this
(r) Answer #2: One might have thought, they need to bring a
different Korban, but they cannot (they do not get
(s) Question: Both Tana'im agree that the verses discuss
idolatry - how do they know this?
(t) Answer #1 (Rava): "All these Mitzvos" - the Mitzvah equal
to all the Mitzvos is idolatry.
(u) Answer #2 (d'vei Rebbi): It says "That Hash-m spoke to
Moshe", and "That Hash-m commanded you through Moshe";
1. The Mitzvah which Yisrael heard Hash-m say and was
explained through Moshe is idolatry.
(v) Answer #3 (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "From the day that
Hash-m commanded" - the first Mitzvah we received was
i. (R. Yishmael): Yisrael heard "I (am Hash-m your
G-d)" and "You will not have (other gods in
front of me)" from Hash-m.
(w) Rejection: We received 10 Mitzvos at Marah!
3) MITZVOS FOR WHICH BEIS DIN IS EXEMPT
1. Rather, we must give one of the first two answers.
(a) (Mishnah): Beis Din is not liable for Hora'ah on a Lav or
Asei in the Mikdash;
4) THE LAWS OF THE "NASI"
1. One does not bring an Asham Taluy for a Lav or Asei
in the Mikdash;
(b) Beis Din is liable for a Lav or Asei regarding Nidah;
1. One brings an Asham Taluy for a Lav or Asei
(c) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of the first two
2. An Asei regarding Nidah - separate from a Nidah
(only after the Kishuy ceases, e.g. if she became
Nidah during relations; Rashi - refrain from
relations before a woman's Veses (her normal period
when she becomes Nidah));
3. A Lav regarding Nidah - do not have relations with a
(d) Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi): It says "V'Ashem (he
transgressed)" regarding Chatas and Asham Taluy; it says
"V'Ashemu" regarding the Tzibur.
1. Just as "V'Ashem" regarding an individual discusses
a fixed Chatas (for which even a poor person must
bring an animal), also regarding a Tzibur (it brings
only for sins for which an individual brings a fixed
(e) Question: If so, the same should apply to Oleh v'Yored (a
varying Chatas, a poor man brings a bird or Minchah
(flour-offering)) - it says, "V'Hayah Ki *Yesham* l'Achas
2. Likewise, Asham Taluy is brought only for such sins.
(f) Answer #1: We learn from "V'Ashem" from "V'Ashemu", for
these are very similar, but we do not learn to "Yesham
(he *will* be guilty)".
1. Question #1: We may learn, even though they are
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): We only learn when it says in both
places "V'Ashem" and "Mitzvos Hash-m".
i. (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "V'Shav ha'Kohen",
"U'va ha'Kohen" - these both mean he will
return, we learn a Gezerah Shavah between them.
2. Question #2: We should learn from "V'Ashem"
regarding Tum'ah of the Mikdash and Kodshim (one
brings Oleh v'Yored for this)!
(h) Objection (Rav Simi bar Ashi): Why not learn between
places where it mentions both "V'Ashem" and "bearing
(i) Answer #3 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): We only learn
between places where it says both "V'Ashem" and "Mitzvos
Hash-m that may not be done".
(a) (Mishnah): Beis Din is not liable for Hora'ah regarding
Shevu'as ha'Edus (the oath that one does not know
testimony), Shevu'as Bituy (that one will or will not do
an action), or Tum'ah of the Mikdash and Kodshim;
(b) R. Yosi ha'Galili says, the Nasi has the same law;
(c) R. Akiva says, the Nasi is liable for all of these except
for the Shevu'as ha'Edus, because he does not judge and
is not judged, he does not testify and we do not testify
(d) (Gemara - Ula) Question: What is R. Yosi ha'Galili's
(e) Answer #1 (Ula): "Ki Yesham *l'Achas* me'Eleh" - anyone
who is liable for (any) one of these is liable for all,
anyone who is exempt for (any) one is exempt for all.
(f) Objection: We should say that he is liable for one, even
though he is not liable for all!