Horayos Daf 4 הוריו דַף 4

The Mishnah on the previous Daf stated: הורו ב"ד לעקור את כל הגוף – if Beis Din erroneously ruled to uproot an entire [mitzvah] of the Torah, for example, they ruled there is no prohibition of niddah, Shabbos, or idolatry, then there is no פר העלם דבר. A Baraisa derives this: "ונעלם דבר" – and a matter was obscured, teaching ולא שיעקר המצוה כולה – but not that the entire mitzvah will be uprooted (three explanations of this derashah are given below). For example, in the case of Shabbos, they ruled that although there is a prohibition of Shabbos, but one who carries from one רשות to another is פטור. Regarding idolatry, they ruled that one who bows to an idol is exempt. Later, Rav Yosef asks about a ruling that there is no prohibition of plowing on Shabbos. Since he uprooted an entire מלאכה, is that considered uprooting an entire mitzvah? [The Gemara will explain that proof cannot be brought from the above examples, because they are explained somewhat differently in the next Gemara.] Rebbe Zeira asks about a ruling that there is no Shabbos prohibition during the shemittah year, and Ravina proved that since Shabbos will still apply the other years, is it considered קיום מקצת.

Shmuel said: אין ב"ד חייבין עד שיורו בדבר שאין הצדוקין מודין בו – Beis Din is not liable for a פר העלם דבר unless they ruled about something with which the צדוקים do not agree, i.e., it is not taught explicitly in the Torah. If they ruled mistakenly about something with which the צדוקים agree, it is not considered a legitimate ruling because זיל קרי בי רב הוא – it is a situation of “Go and read it in the schoolhouse,” i.e., something they could easily know, and not a justifiable error. In the above example of Shabbos, although carrying is expressly prohibited, the case is where they ruled that only carrying out from a רשות היחיד to a רשות הרבים is prohibited, but bringing in from a רשות הרבים to a רשות היחיד is permitted (which is not explicitly prohibited). Alternatively, they ruled that מושיט וזורק – handing or throwing objects from one רשות to the other is permitted. In the above example of idolatry, although bowing to an idol is explicitly prohibited, they ruled that bowing is only prohibited כדרכה – where it is [that idol’s] normal manner of worship, but permitted bowing to an idol not normally worshipped this way. Alternatively, they permitted bowing without spreading out one’s hands and feet.

The next Mishnah states that if Beis Din issued a mistaken ruling, and one of the judges knew they were mistaken and told them so, או שלא היה מופלא של ב"ד שם – or if the most distinguished member of Beis Din was not there (and a substitute took his place), or one of the judges was a ger, a ממזר, a נתין, or an elder unfit to have children, they are exempt from a פר העלם דבר. These last cases are derived from a gezeirah shavah (עדה עדה) from דיני נפשות, teaching that just as those judges must all be fit for ruling (excluding these cases, as the Gemara derives), so too פר העלם דבר only applies where all members of the Beis Din were fit to rule. Rav Sheishess explained why there is no korban if the מופלא של בי"ד was absent: we learned above that for a ruling בדבר שהצדוקין מודין בו – about something about which the צדוקים agree, there is no korban. The reason is: מפני שהיה להם ללמוד ולא למדו – because they should have learned the correct ruling and did not learn it. Similarly, there is no korban if the most distinguished member of Beis Din was absent, מפני שהיה להם ללמוד ולא למדו (i.e., they should have consulted him).