Talking Talmud

The sages derive halakhah from a brief phrase in a verse from Leviticus - on an "am ha-aretz," a commoner, or more specifically from a halakhic sense, a person who is not careful regarding certain aspects of Jewish law - and when he would bring a sin-offering to atone. This status excludes a "meshumad," an apostate, who can't atone with a sin-offering for a general intent to act against Torah. Though even the apostate can be selective in when he wants to observe Torah and when he is intent on breaking the given halakhah - for example, one who is willing to eat forbidden fat, but not willing to eat blood. Plus, an apostate vs. a heretic, where the first follows his desire, while the second is antagonistic to Torah. Also, a new mishnah! More on the anointed kohen - namely, one who was made kohen gadol with the anointing oil, and not what happened later, in the Second Temple period, where the kohen gadol was inaugurated by wearing the 8 garments of the kohen gadol, as there was no anointing oil then. Note the differences (or lack thereof) between the kohanim in the different eras. Plus, the anointing of a king, and the anointing in the future...

Chapter 3 - with a new mishnah! (on the bottom of the previous daf) - the anointed kohen who sins unwittingly because of his own erroneous ruling, and then he leaves that standing of anointed kohen before he has brought his atonement offering -- that is, he steps down because of some blemish unrelated to the erroneous ruling... What animal does he bring if he is no longer the anointed kohen? (In fact, there's no change at this time). Note the attention to the structure of the mishnah. And another new mishnah! On the order of stature of the anointed kohen or the king and a sin and sin-offering (is the sin before they achieve the status, for example?). Also, a shift to focus on the king (nasi) and his offering. Plus, a story of Rabban Gamliel traveling with Rabbi Yehoshua, who had brought flour, and using the stars for navigation. Also, a discussion of "asher" and "ashrei," which have dramatically different meanings. With more in the moral/ethical plane - focusing on the intent of the person who sins, but might have intended to fulfill a mitzvah (to wit, see the story of Lot and his daughters).

More on Rabbi Yossi HaGelili's opinion and the king's exemptions from having to bring atonement offerings. Note the privilege and, alternatively, the limitations of having wealth, as a king must. Also, a new mishnah! When various people violate mitzvot unwittingly that would get a "karet" sentence if done with intent, then they each bring specific animals as offerings. And here too, an unusual opinion, this time, Rabbi Shimon.

More on the anointed kohen, in comparison with the court - specifically, the bringing of a sin-offering for a violation that would receive "karet" if done intentionally and entails a sin-offering when done unwittingly. Plus, the significance of these details being biblical in origin, and therefore prompt a hunt for the source text, as compared to a halakhic dispute. Also, a new mishnah: When the court would not be required to bring the offering. Note that the "aseh" and "lo ta'aseh" come together - which likely would have benefited from more specific articulation in the episode. The cases of ritual impurity or contamination in the Temple come front and center - and are contrasted with the same kind of erroneous judgement having a different outcome with regard to the offering if it were about a menstruant woman, as compared to the consecretated foods in the Temple. Thus, limitations on the requirement to bring an offering in the event of an erroneous ruling. Also, another new mishnah! With additional limitations, specifically on the kinds of cases for which the court might have issued an erroneous ruling and then not necessarily been obligated to bring an offering in atonement. For example: false testimony. Plus, what is the liability of a king in these kinds of capacities? (Hint: It's a machloket)

A new chapter! With several mishnayot. 1 - (from the previous daf) - If/when the anointed kohen who makes an erroneous ruling, which he then does unwittingly - he needs to bring a sin-offering in atonement. He is considered akin to the court, as it were, with regard to himself, as the court is, with regard to the public. Note the kohen's authority to determine halakhah as well. 2 - On the court's involvement (or lack thereof) in the kohen's offering, in that they really can't provide the means for his atonement. 3 - If the erroneous ruling pertains to idolatry - with a parallel to a ruling to uproat an area of the Torah - and the contingincy of being unaware of the matter altogether.

When people returned to the land of Israel from Babylonia after that exile, they brought an offering on behalf of the people from the era of Tzedkiyahu. But all of that generation and long died! Normally, a designated sin-offering that isn't offered before the person offering it dies is left alone to get a blemish. But for a public offering, that doesn't work. But an inference can be made from the he-goat of Rosh Chodesh, in terms of it being a communal offering. But maybe the cases aren't comparable, say, if nobody died before the offering was made? Maybe eglah arufah is a good comparison? Some of the returning members of the community were actually still alive at this time - survivors from the time of the First Temple, which was certainly a sad time for them, but they were able to offer the sin-offering. Were they the minority or the majority? Also, the case where one of the public dies - when all the people must bring the offering. Now what? And so a search for parallet categories begins.

A new mishnah! (beginning on 4b) - Who actually brings the offering to atone for the erroneous ruling? What about when the sin is per tribe? Or if the majority of people in less than a majority of tribes?

An indictment of the Sadducees in the context of a court that issues an erroneous ruling that agrees with their understanding of the Torah. With a further investigation into what it would mean to make this kind of "uprooting halakhah" kind of error - how did that come about? And - two new mishnayot: 1 - Ways in which the erroneous judgement came to be issued when it so clearly should not have been. Plus, capital punishment. 2 - What if everyone sins because of the erroneous judgement? That's when the sacrifice or offering becomes essential, for each person.

Given that if the majority of Jewish people sin in following an erroneous ruling and they need to bring an offering to atone - who counts as that majority? It excludes the Jews who live in the Diaspora - with a source for that in the book of Kings. Also, how does this kind of majority obviate the views of the minority? And - a new mishnah! When the court issues an erroneous ruling and they realized they were in error and they correct themselves, but there are those who follow the initial ruling - do those people need to bring an offering or not? It will depend on their circumstances and whether they were in the position to hear about the revision to the ruling. Plus, what if the court wants to cancel an entire section of the Torah's law from practice?

A new tractate! On rulings that the court issues in error, and people then follow those ruling - are they held accountable, and if so, how? Sources are in Leviticus and Numbers. Plus, Eduyot and Avot. Also, a new mishnah: A decision to violate a mitzvah is in error - who would bring an offering to atone? Also, the communal offering for when the court explicitly allows something that is not permitted. Spotlighting Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma.