| 88b. בן סורר ומורה שרצו אביו ואמו למחול לו מוחלין לו,זקן ממרא שרצו בית דינו למחול לו מוחלין לו וכשבאתי אצל חבירי שבדרום על שנים הודו לי על זקן ממרא לא הודו לי כדי שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל תיובתא,תניא אמר רבי יוסי מתחילה לא היו מרבין מחלוקת בישראל אלא בית דין של שבעים ואחד יושבין בלשכת הגזית ושני בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה אחד יושב על פתח הר הבית ואחד יושב על פתח העזרה ושאר בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה יושבין בכל עיירות ישראל,הוצרך הדבר לשאול שואלין מבית דין שבעירן אם שמעו אמרו להן ואם לאו באין לזה שסמוך לעירן אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו באין לזה שעל פתח הר הבית אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו באין לזה שעל פתח העזרה,ואומר כך דרשתי וכך דרשו חבירי כך למדתי וכך למדו חבירי אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו אלו ואלו באין ללשכת הגזית ששם יושבין מתמיד של שחר עד תמיד של בין הערבים,ובשבתות ובימים טובים יושבין בחיל נשאלה שאלה בפניהם אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו עומדין למנין רבו המטמאים טמאו רבו המטהרין טהרו,משרבו תלמידי שמאי והלל שלא שמשו כל צרכן רבו מחלוקת בישראל ונעשית תורה כשתי תורות,משם כותבין ושולחין בכל מקומות כל מי שהוא חכם ושפל ברך ודעת הבריות נוחה הימנו יהא דיין בעירו משם מעלין אותו להר הבית משם לעזרה משם ללשכת הגזית,שלחו מתם איזהו בן העולם הבא ענוותן ושפל ברך שייף עייל שייף ונפיק וגריס באורייתא תדירא ולא מחזיק טיבותא לנפשיה יהבו ביה רבנן עינייהון ברב עולא בר אבא:,חזר לעירו ושנה: ת"ר אינו חייב עד שיעשה כהוראתו או שיורה לאחרים ויעשו כהוראתו,בשלמא יורה לאחרים ויעשו כהוראתו מעיקרא לאו בר קטלא הוא והשתא בר קטלא הוא אלא שיעשה כהוראתו מעיקרא נמי בר קטלא הוא התינח היכא דאורי בחלב ודם דמעיקרא לאו בר קטלא הוא והשתא בר קטלא הוא אלא היכא דאורי בחייבי מיתות ב"ד מעיקרא נמי בר קטלא הוא,מעיקרא בעי התראה השתא לא בעי התראה,מסית דלא בעי התראה מאי איכא למימר מעיקרא אי אמר טעמא מקבלינן מיניה השתא אי אמר טעמא לא מקבלינן מיניה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big חומר בדברי סופרים מבדברי תורה האומר אין תפילין כדי לעבור על ד"ת פטור חמש טוטפות להוסיף על דברי סופרים חייב:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר ר' אלעזר אמר ר' אושעיא אינו חייב אלא על דבר שעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע ואין לנו אלא תפילין אליבא דרבי יהודה,והאיכא לולב דעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע,בלולב מאי סבירא לן אי סבירא לן דלולב אין צריך אגד האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי ואי סבירא לן דצריך אגד גרוע ועומד הוא,והאיכא ציצית דעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע,בציצית מאי סבירא לן אי סבירא לן דקשר העליון לאו דאורייתא האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי ואי סבירא לן | 88b. The second matter is that in the case of b a stubborn and rebellious son whose father and mother sought to forgive him /b for his gluttonous and drunken conduct and decided not to bring him to court, b they /b can b forgive him. /b ,The third is that in the case of b a rebellious elder whom his court sought to forgive /b for his deviation from their ruling, b they /b can b forgive him. And when I came to my colleagues in the South, with regard to two /b of the cases b they agreed with me, /b but b with regard to a rebellious elder they did not agree with me, so that discord /b would b not proliferate in Israel. /b This supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and is b a conclusive refutation /b of the opinion of Rav Kahana., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yosei said: Initially, discord would not proliferate among Israel. Rather, the court of seventy-one /b judges b would sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. And /b there were b two /b additional b courts /b each consisting b of twenty-three /b judges; b one /b would b convene at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and one /b would b convene at the entrance to the /b Temple b courtyard. And all the other courts /b consisting b of twenty-three /b judges would b convene in all cities /b inhabited by the b Jewish people. /b ,If b the matter /b was unclear and it b was necessary to ask /b and clarify it, those uncertain of the i halakha /i would b ask the court that is in their city. If /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they said /b it b to them, and if not, they /b would b come to /b a court b that is adjacent to their city. If /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they said /b it b to them, and if not, they /b would b come to the court at the entrance to the Temple Mount. If /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they said /b it b to them, and if not, they /b would b come to the court at the entrance to the /b Temple b courtyard. /b , b And /b the elder whose ruling deviated from the ruling of his colleagues b says: This /b is what b I interpreted and that /b is what b my colleagues interpreted; this /b is what b I taught and that /b is what b my colleagues taught. If /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they said /b it b to them, and if not, these /b judges b and those /b judges would b come to the Chamber of Hewn Stone, where /b the Sanhedrin would be b convened from /b the time that b the daily morning offering /b is sacrificed b until /b the time that b the daily afternoon offering /b is sacrificed., b And on i Shabbatot /i and Festivals, /b when court is not in session, the members of the court b would sit at the rampart. /b When b a question was asked before them, if /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they would say /b it b to them, and if not they would stand for a vote /b on the matter. If the judges b who deemed /b the item in question b ritually impure outnumbered /b those who deemed it pure, the court b would deem /b the item b impure. /b If the judges b who deemed /b the item in question b ritually pure outnumbered /b those who deemed it impure, the court b would deem /b the item b pure. /b , b From /b the time b that the disciples of Shammai and Hillel grew in number, /b and they were disciples b who did not attend /b to their masters b to the requisite /b degree, b dispute proliferated among the Jewish people and the Torah became like two Torahs. /b Two disparate systems of i halakha /i developed, and there was no longer a halakhic consensus with regard to every matter.,The i baraita /i continues its discussion of the workings of the Sanhedrin: b From there, /b the Sanhedrin b writes and dispatches /b the following statement b to all places: Anyone who is wise and humble and the minds of people are at ease with him shall be a judge in his city. /b If he is successful in his city, b from there, they promote him to the /b court at the entrance to b the Temple Mount /b if there is a vacant seat on the court, and b from there /b they promote him to the court at the entrance b to the /b Temple b courtyard, /b and b from there to the /b court in the b Chamber of Hewn Stone. /b ,Apropos the appointment of judges, the Gemara relates that b they sent /b the following statement b from there, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael: b Who is /b the one b destined /b to receive a place in b the World-to-Come? /b It is one who is b modest and humble, /b who b bows /b and b enters /b and b bows /b and b exits, and /b who b studies Torah regularly, and /b who b does not take credit for himself. The Sages cast their eyes on Rav Ulla bar Abba, /b as they perceived him as the embodiment of all these characteristics.,The mishna teaches: If the rebellious elder b returned to his city and he taught /b in the manner that he was teaching previously, he is exempt from punishment, unless he instructs others to act on the basis of his ruling. b The Sages taught: He is not liable unless he acts in accordance with his ruling, or he instructs others and they act in accordance with his ruling. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b Granted, /b if b he instructs others and they act in accordance with his ruling /b there is a novel element in the fact that he is liable to be executed, as b initially, /b before he was deemed a rebellious elder, he is b not liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty for instructing others to perform the transgression, b and now, /b he is b to /b receive the b death /b penalty. b But /b if b he acts in accordance with his ruling, initially, /b before he was deemed a rebellious elder, he is b also liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty for performing that action. The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: b This works out well /b in a case b where he ruled with regard to /b forbidden b fat and blood, as initially he /b would b not /b have been b liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty; rather, he would have been liable to receive i karet /i , b and now he is liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty. b But /b in a case b where he ruled with regard to /b a transgression for which one is b liable /b to receive b a court /b -imposed b death /b penalty, b initially, /b he b is also liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty.,The Gemara explains: There is a novel element even in a case where he acts in accordance with his ruling, as b initially, /b before he is deemed a rebellious elder, b he requires forewarning /b in order to be executed; b now, he does not require forewarning /b in order to be executed.,The Gemara asks: If the rebellious elder’s ruling was with regard to one who b instigates /b others to engage in idol worship, b who does not require forewarning, what is there to say? /b Both before and after he is deemed a rebellious elder he is executed without forewarning. The Gemara answers: b Initially, /b before the rebellious elder ruled that instigating others to engage in idol worship is permitted, b if /b after he instigated others, he b stated a reason /b why he thought that it is permitted, b we accept /b his explanation b from him /b and exempt him. b Now, /b after he issued the divergent ruling, b if he stated a reason, we do not accept /b the explanation b from him, /b since he already indicated that he holds that instigating others to engage in idol worship incitement is permitted and that is the reason that he engaged in instigation., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to the rulings of the rebellious elder the mishna states: There is greater b stringency with regard to /b traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b of the Torah b than with regard to matters of Torah. /b If b one states: /b There is b no /b mitzva to don b phylacteries, /b and his intention is b in order to /b have others b violate matters of Torah, /b he is b exempt /b from punishment as a rebellious elder. One who disputes matters written explicitly in the Torah is not considered an elder and a Torah scholar, and therefore does not assume the status of a rebellious elder. If, however, he disputed a matter based on rabbinic tradition, e.g., he stated that there should be b five compartments /b in the phylacteries of the head, in order b to add /b an extra compartment b to /b the four established according to traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b of the Torah, he is b liable. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rabbi Elazar says /b that b Rabbi Oshaya says: One is liable only for /b issuing a ruling with regard to b a matter whose essence, /b whose basic obligation, b is from matters of Torah and whose explanation is from /b traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b of the Torah b and which includes /b the possibility b to add /b to it, b and if one added /b to it, b one compromises /b his fulfillment of the mitzva and does not satisfy his obligation. b And we have only /b the mitzva to don b phylacteries /b that meets those criteria. b And /b Rabbi Oshaya’s statement is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda, /b who says: A rebellious elder is liable only for a matter whose essence is from matters of Torah and whose explanation is from traditional rabbinic interpretations of the Torah.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t there /b the mitzva of b i lulav /i /b and the other species that one takes on the festival of i Sukkot /i , b whose essence is from matters of Torah, and whose explanation is from /b traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b that establish the identity and the number of the four species enumerated in the Torah, b and which includes /b the possibility b to add /b other species to it, b and if one added /b to it, b one compromises /b his fulfillment of the mitzva and does not satisfy his obligation?,The Gemara rejects this possibility: That is not the case, as b with regard to /b the mitzva of b i lulav /i , what do we hold? If we hold that /b fundamentally b a i lulav /i does not require binding /b of the species together in order to fulfill the mitzva, then adding an additional species is inconsequential, as b these /b species with which he fulfills the mitzva b stand alone and that /b additional species b stands alone. /b It is as though he were holding the species of the mitzva and an additional unrelated item that does not affect fulfillment of the mitzva. b And if we hold /b that b a i lulav /i requires binding /b of the four species together in order to fulfill the mitzva, fulfillment of the mitzva b is already compromised /b from the outset. The rebellious elder is liable only when the object of the mitzva was as it should be and the addition compromised that object and disqualifies it. In this case, the object was never as it should be.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t there /b the mitzva of b ritual fringes, whose essence is from matters of Torah, and whose explanation is from /b traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b that establish the number of fringes enumerated in the Torah and the number of threads in each fringe, b and which includes /b the possibility b to add /b fringes or threads to it, b and if one added /b to it, b one compromises /b his fulfillment of the mitzva and does not satisfy his obligation?,The Gemara rejects this possibility: That is not the case, as b with regard to ritual fringes, what do we hold? If we hold that the upper knot is not /b mandated b by Torah law, /b and one fulfills his obligation by placing the threads on the corner of the garment, b these /b threads with which he fulfills the mitzva b are independent and that /b additional thread b is independent /b and does not compromise fulfillment of the mitzva. The additional string is not considered as joined to the required strings. b And if we hold /b |
