Every Burning by Fire and the Erring High Court

It is written (Leviticus 21:9) "And the daughter of a priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she shall be burned with fire" -- with a wick of lead, as it is written "she shall be burned with fire," to include any burning that comes by means of fire. And wherever it is written "with fire," it is to include any burning that comes by means of fire. But it is written "and he shall burn it upon wood in the fire," and it was taught "in the fire" and not in boiling lime! There, "she shall be burned with fire" is written at the end -- burning, to include any burning that comes by means of fire. Here it is written "and he shall burn it upon wood in the fire" -- in fire yes, anything else no. There too it is written "upon the place where the ashes are poured it shall be burned" -- that is needed for what was taught: "it shall be burned" even though there are no ashes there, even though one kindled the fire on most of it. "And if" (Leviticus 4:13) -- this adds to the first matter; when you come to say, the anointed-priest's bull and the congregation's bull stand together, the anointed-priest's bull precedes the congregation's bull in all its rites. "The congregation of Israel" -- one might think the verse speaks of the whole congregation; it says here "congregation" and it says further on "congregation" -- just as the "congregation" stated further on is a court, so too the congregation stated here is a court. If so, just as the congregation stated further on is twenty-three, so too the congregation here is twenty-three? The text says "and if the whole congregation of Israel" -- a congregation designated for all Israel, and which is that? The Great Sanhedrin sitting in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Rabbi Yochanan said: a hundred who sat to issue a ruling -- the ruling is not finalized until all of them rule, as it says "and if the whole congregation of Israel errs," until all of them err, until the ruling spreads through all the congregation of Israel. Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: know that throughout the whole Torah we hold that a majority is as the whole, yet here the Merciful One wrote "the whole congregation," until there is the entirety -- therefore even if they are a hundred. Rav Mesharshya objected: a decree is not imposed on the community unless the majority of the community can endure it; what is the verse? (Malachi 3:9) "With a curse you are cursed, yet me you rob, the whole nation" -- here it is written "the whole nation," and a majority is as the whole; the refutation of Rabbi Yochanan is a refutation. Rather, what is "the whole congregation" that the Merciful One said? This is what it means: if the entire Sanhedrin is present it is a ruling, and if not, not. If a court ruled and one of them knew they had erred and said to them "you are mistaken," or the distinguished sage of the court was not present, or one of them was a convert or a mamzer or a Gibeonite or an elder who had no children, this one is exempt. It says here "congregation" and it says further on "congregation" -- just as the congregation stated further on, all of them are fit to rule, so too the congregation stated here, until all of them are fit to rule. From where? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: the verse says (Numbers 11:17) "and they shall bear with you" -- those like you. If one of them said "I do not know," or said to them "you are mistaken," one might think they are liable; the text says "the congregation of Israel errs" -- that all of them err. One might think they are liable for an inadvertent act; the text says "errs and the matter is hidden" -- they are liable only for a hidden matter together with an inadvertent act. Since idolatry came out to be judged on its own, one might think they are liable for the inadvertent act of it; the text says here "from the eyes" and further on it says "from the eyes" -- just as "from the eyes" stated further on means a court, so too "from the eyes" stated here means a court; and just as "from the eyes" stated further on means a hidden matter together with an inadvertent act, so too here. If a court ruled to uproot an entire body of law -- they said there is no menstrual law in the Torah, there is no Sabbath in the Torah, there is no idolatry prohibition in the Torah -- these are exempt. If they ruled to nullify part and uphold part, these are liable. How so? If they said there is a menstrual law in the Torah but one who has relations with a woman observing day-against-day is exempt; there is a Sabbath in the Torah but one who carries from the public domain to the private domain is exempt; there is an idolatry prohibition in the Torah but one who bows to idolatry is exempt -- these are liable, as it says "and the matter is hidden" and not the whole body of law. Our rabbis taught: "and the matter is hidden" -- and not that the entire commandment be hidden. If they ruled to nullify part and uphold part, one might think they are exempt; and if for upholding part they are exempt and for uprooting the whole body they are exempt, for what are they liable? The Tanna found this difficult: say the reverse, for "matter" implies the whole thing. The text says "and the matter is hidden" -- read it as "and part of the matter is hidden." Chizkiyah said: the verse says "and does one of all the commandments" -- "of all," and not all the commandments; "commandments" implies two. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: "commandments" is written. Rav Ashi said: he derives "matter" and "matter" from the rebellious elder, regarding whom it is written (Deuteronomy 17:8) "if a matter be too hard for you... you shall not turn aside from the matter which they tell you" -- just as there "from the matter" and not the whole matter, so too in a ruling, from the matter and not the whole matter. The commandments stated regarding the anointed one are the commandments stated here. "Of all the commandments of the LORD" -- excluding the hearing of a voice [oath], and utterance of the lips, and impurity of the sanctuary and its holy things.