If one separated his Chatas and became a Cheresh (deafmute), lunatic or apostate, or Beis Din ruled that it is permitted to eat Chelev, R. Yochanan says that his Chatas is Nidcheh, and Reish Lakish says that his Chatas is not Nidcheh. (They argue about whether we offer it now, but all permit offering it after they retract, for a living animal is not Nidcheh.)

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun): The opinions in this teaching must be switched, lest R. Yochanan argues with R. Shimon bar Ba in the name of R. Yochanan. A Goses, we throw the blood of his Chatas and Asham. (TZAFNAS PANE'ACH - a Goses who sinned is not Chayav Chatas, for it is valid only if he will live until Zerikah, and most Gosesim die. Therefore, his Korban is like that of a Cheresh or lunatic!)

(Rabanan of Kisarin): R. Chiyah and R. Ami - one of them switches the opinions, and one says that [we need not switch them;] they are like they were taught;

The one who does not switch, he holds that these questions are not difficult. (A Goses is considered alive in every way. There is no reason to reject his Chatas!)

Question: The one who says that his Chatas is not Nidcheh - [when Beis Din permitted Chelev], who will accept from him (to offer his Korban?! We think that he did not sin, so it is Chulin b'Azarah!) He must wait until Beis Din retracts!

Answer: We discuss when [a Chacham like] Shimon ben Azai [transgressed and tells the Kohanim that Beis Din erred].

Question: Who will accept from him?! He must wait until Beis Din retracts!

Answer: Rather, We discuss when a Kohen transgressed and offered it. He atoned. (We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI. Perhaps the Kohen did not ask for what he offers the Korban, or he relied on the Yisrael who said that Beis Din erred, or he himself knew that they erred; perhaps he offered the Korban for himself! - PF)

Question: According to the opinion that it is not Nidcheh, are Toldos of a Hora'ah like a Hora'ah?

What is the case? The Tzibur ate Chelev and separated their Korbanos;

If you will say that Toldos of a Hora'ah are like the Hora'ah, Beis Din are liable (for delaying the Tzibur's Kaparah until they retracted). If you will say that Toldos of a Hora'ah are unlike the Hora'ah, they are exempt.

Note: We explained this like PNEI MOSHE, that if the Korban is not Nidcheh, it can be offered later. According to what we brought from NO'AM YERUSHALMI, the opinion that the Korban is Nidcheh holds that it can be offered [only] later; we could ask this exact question according to that opinion. Indeed, HAGAHOS R. DINAR changed the text to say that we ask according to the opinion that it is Nidcheh. However, if so, I do not know why the Gemara mentioned that they separated their Korbanos - PF.

Answer: Obviously, Toldos of a Hora'ah are like a Hora'ah.

Question: Can a Hora'ah join with another Hora'ah?

What is the case? Beis Din ruled that Chelev of the right kidney is permitted, and of the left and that covers the Kerev (a stomach) is forbidden, and then they retracted and said oppositely, and most of the Tzibur ate [from the right kidney] based on the first, and most ate [from the left] based on the second;

If you will say that Hora'os join, they are liable only once. If you will say that Hora'os do not join, they are liable twice.

Question: Do two Hora'os about one Aveirah join?

What is the case? The majority of the Tzibur ate the first time, and the majority ate the second time (after they retracted to forbid, they retracted and permitted again).

Answer: According to R. Meir, [Beis Din] are liable once. According to R. Shimon, they are liable twice. (R. Meir holds that people who transgressed after Beis Din retracted, they join with people who transgressed beforehand. The Hora'ah is not Batel through retraction, so both are considered one Hora'ah. R. Shimon does not join people who transgressed after retraction; they are considered separate Hora'os - RIDVAZ.)

If the minority of the Tzibur ate the first time, and the minority ate the second time (and together, they are the majority), according to R. Meir, [Beis Din] are liable. According to R. Shimon, they are exempt.

(R. Ze'ira): They argue about delay (how much time after the retraction we say that one relied on Beis Din, so he is exempt). Rebbi gives until he could hear. R. Shimon gives until he actually hears. (We explained this like ALEI TAMAR.)

Support (Beraisa): If Beis Din ruled (i.e. retracted) in the upper market, and an individual was in the lower market (and he relied on the initial Hora'ah), or Beis Din ruled in the house, and an individual was in the Aliyah (upper story), he is exempt (even though there was time to hear, for he did not hear. This is like R. Shimon);

According to R. Akiva, this is still a Safek. (In our Mishnah, R. Akiva agrees that one who goes abroad, it is more reasonable to exempt than to obligate. He is unsure about one who was not abroad, if he is liable because he should have asked whether they retracted - PF.)

(R. Bun bar Chiyah): We discuss one who was between two borders - between the border of Eretz Yisrael and the border of Chutz la'Aretz. (However, if he was in his house, he is liable.)

(R. Ami citing Reish Lakish): For Hora'ah, we follow the residents of Eretz Yisrael. (If most of them sinned, Beis Din brings a bull.) For Tum'ah, we follow the majority of those who enter the Azarah (if most are Tamei, we bring Korban Pesach b'Tum'ah).

Question: Do we follow the majority of every group (Korban Pesach is offered in three groups), or only of the first group?

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): When they are still outside [the Azarah], they count themselves. (If most people there are Tamei, every group brings b'Tum'ah. This is unlike either side of the question.)

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): For Hora'ah, we follow [the residents of Eretz Yisrael, i.e.] from Chamas until the [Nile] river of Mitzrayim.

(R. Tanchuma citing Rav Huna): R. Yehoshua ben Levi learns from "va'Ya'as Shlomo ba'Es ha'Hi Es ha'Chag v'Chol Yisrael Imo [mi'Lavo Chamas Ad Nachal Mitzrayim]."

(Mishnah): If the Hora'ah totally uprooted the matter, e.g. Beis Din said that the Torah does not forbid Nidah, Melachah on Shabbos or idolatry, they are exempt;

If they annulled some and fulfilled some, they are liable. E.g. there is [an Isur of] Nidah in the Torah, but one who has relations with a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom (a woman who saw blood during one of the 11 days of Zivah, she is forbidden like a Nidah) is exempt;

Note: Above (2a), Shmuel said that they are liable only if they ruled "it is permitted", but not if they ruled "one is exempt." He must explain that "exempt" here is not precise. Really, it means "permitted".

Or, there is Shabbos in the Torah, but one who transfers from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim is exempt. Or, there is idolatry in the Torah, but one who bows is exempt.

[Beis Din] are liable for this, for it says "v'Nelam Davar" - a matter, but not the entire [Isur].

(Gemara - R. Chizkiyah): We learn from 'mi'Davar', and not the entire matter.

(R. Heila): We learn from 'mi'Mitzvos', and not the entire Mitzvos.

Question: It is written so?! (The verse says "v'Nelam Davar... mi'Kol Mitzvos"!)

Answer: It is like R. Ami said in the name of R. Yochanan - we detract (remove a letter) to expound from the beginning of the Parshah to its end. (The Mem at the end of "v'Nelam" is read with Davar, to make 'mi'Davar'. The Mem at the beginning of mi'Kol is read with Mitzvos, to make mi'Mitzvos.)

Note: Why did he say 'we detract'? We do not expound "v'Nelam" or "mi'Kol" without the Mem! The Gemara connotes that R. Yochanan said so elsewhere. Perhaps he said so about "mi'Dam ha'Par"; we expound it as if it said 'Dam meha'Par' - Yoma 48a (PF).)

(R. Chananyah citing R. Yirmeyah): We [remove and expound] even in the middle of a Parshah - "v'Yatzakta Aleha Shemen Minchah Hi" (we read this like v'Yatzakta Shemen Minchah to include putting oil on all Menachos. ("Aleha" is removed from the middle of the verse and explained at the end, to exclude Minchas Ma'afe Tanur.)

Implied question: (Why are they liable for permitting Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom?) They totally uproot Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom!

Answer: They said that it is permitted at night and forbidden during the day.

Implied question: (Why are they liable for permitting Hotza'ah?) They totally uproot Hotza'ah!

Answer #1 (R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): They said that it is permitted [to be Motzi the volume of] one fig, but two figs is forbidden.

Answer #2: They said that Hotza'ah is forbidden and entering [from Reshus ha'Rabim to Reshus ha'Yachid] is permitted.

Question: [Answer #2] is like the opinion that Hotza'ah and entering are one matter. However, according to the opinion that Hotza'ah and entering are two matters, he totally uproots entering!

Answer #3 (R. Shimon ben Elazar): They said that [to throw or carry in Reshus ha'Rabim] one Amah is permitted and two Amos are forbidden (NO'AM YERUSHALMI).

Implied question: (Why are they liable for permitted bowing?) They totally uproot bowing!

Answer: They said that one may bow, but one may not fall down.

(R. Yosi): We do not discuss when they ruled to permit eating Chelev [Stam. Rather,] they know that one may not eat Chelev, but [they think that] the Torah gave permission to Beis Din to rule.

Question (R. Bun bar Chiyah): [If they ruled to permit] a k'Zayis today [is this considered permiting part? We infer that they forbid] two k'Zeisim, tomorrow (i.e. all other days).

Question: What was the conclusion? (This is like the latter Perush of BIRKAS YITZCHAK.)

Answer #1 (Beraisa) Suggestion: If false prophets or enticers to idolatry tell you "do not wear Tefilin today; wear tomorrow", perhaps one should heed them?

Rejection: It says "Laleches Bahem" - in the entire [Mitzvos], and not in parts of them.

Culmination of Answer: He uprooted the entire day, and this is not called uprooting the entire matter. Also here (permiting a k'Zayis today), this is not uprooting the entire matter!

Support: R. Mana learned [the answer to R. Bun's question] from this Beraisa.

Answer #2 (Shmuel bar Ba): When they said that one Amah is permitted and two Amos are forbidden, they uprooted the entire Amah, and this is not called uprooting the entire matter. Also here (a k'Zayis today), this is not uprooting the entire matter!

(Mishnah): (In the following cases, they are exempt.) If Beis Din ruled, and one of them knew that they erred and said 'you err, or the Mufla (greatest Chacham) of the Beis Din was not there;

Or, one of them was a convert, Mamzer, Nasin, or old and did not see (have) children, [Beis Din] is exempt;

(We learn from a Gezerah Shavah.) It says here "Edah", and it says there "v'Shaftu Edah" (about capital cases). Just like there, all the judges must be qualified to give Hora'ah, also here all must be qualified for Hora'ah.

(Gemara): Our Mishnah is like Rebbi, who says that only the Mufla is Me'akev.

Source: It says here "v'Hayah Im me'Einei ha'Edah" - the one who is the eyes of the Tzibur (the Mufla).

It says "v'Hisyatzvu Sham Imach" - just like you (Moshe) are not a convert, Nasin or Mamzer, also they (the Sanhedrin) are not converts, Nesinim or Mamzerim. (Seemingly, the text should say "just like you are not... or slave." Perhaps it did not want to say so, for Moshe was the ultimate Eved Hash-m! - PF)

Question: Granted, [it needs to teach about] a convert (who can be on a Sanhedrin to judge even capital cases for a convert - NODA BI'YEHUDAH 2 YD 182, b'Hagahah. Why must it teach) a Mamzer? Does Beis Din appoint Mamzerim [for capital cases]?!

Answer (Rav Huna): The case is, they transgressed and appointed [a Mamzer].

R. Chananyah and R. Mana argued. One said that [each Pasul of our Mishnah] is among the 70, and the other said that he is outside the 70 (just he discusses cases with them).

Implied question: Granted, it is fine for the one who said that he is not among the 70 (we need not say that they transgressed and appointed a Pasul. What is the reason for) the one who said that he is among the 70?

Answer: If he were outside the 70, no (he would not disqualify the Hora'ah). Since he is not proper for Hora'ah, he is like a rock (we ignore him).