gem bavli gitin 3a
diorayta chatima ok without verification.
as resh lakish said: resh lakish: witnesses signed on a shar are like those whose testimony was nechkera in bet din.

tos: tema, for if so any man can write a shtar with whatever he wants and sign on bottom fake sigs

rashba: refers to another gemara, ok if mekuyam, but if not.

that other gem: bavli ketubot 18b, mishna
(line 14 in handouts)
say: it is our sig, but we were possul, or forced. believed.
but if other p[roof that is their sig, then they are not believed, bec do not have peh sheassar hu peh shehittir.

15: gem: rami bar chama: when do we say in the *sefa*, when say anusim bec of mammon, for they were reshaim, dont beleive. but if anusim machmat nefashot, believed.

16: rava: how can beleive, kevan shehigid, shuv eno chozer umagid. {that is rule by regular evidence. they are coming and want to annul this document?!}

gem: maybe diff bet shtar and al peh?

resh lakish: witnesses signed on a shar are like those whose testimony was nechkera in bet din.

contents of same statement in 2 parallel gems?
rashba: how caan bring proof from resh lakish. resh lakish, taslking about case that once they wrote on shtar, they cannot say later mebudim, (badai), we were liars. and dewaling with verified shtar from other sources. and resh lakish said, kevan shehigid, since shtar
 already verified, like checked in court, can not be retracted a day later. but case in gittin is a shtar which is not yet mekuyam, unsure if edim signed at all, and perhaps it is a ziyuf, so how can you say this.
ritva already conmsidering gem in ketubot.


statement of resh lakish written in two places, which original?
answer, gem here in gittin says *kide*resh lakish.
but on other hand, have in ketubot, veha amar resh lakish.
which is original context of resh lakish?

ritva is continuing his question (did not bring the answer, an check ritva, if wish)
12. cites yerushalmi. have edim, either for letamei or litaher, ... ben lizchut, ben lichova. brayta: before give testimony in bet din, and say  we were liars, they are beleived, if after testimony checked say, not believed. resh lakish says ... and says statement. and gem connects it without ha amar or kedeamar.

one of rishonim brought in mordechai. rav avigdor hakohen: 
line 19: 
more than ritva, he asks and gives solution as well.
gem brings it in gittin, and in ketubot, (and does not bring q at all) there is to say that ikkar is in the yerushalmi. and brings the yerushalmi. ({brought in tosefta in sanhedrin and ketubot as well, so diff langs. } )

line 22: resh lakish says that making edim chatumim al hashtar like those whose testimony checked in bet din. said in terms of backing out. whole chiddush that by edut al peh cannot reverse after chakira, so too by shtar cannot back out, bec chatima is INSTEAD of chakira.

of course acc to him, gittin very difficult. in ketubot, easy. so then tries to understand gittin.

purpose in this case is just to show value in studying parallel sources.
tos did not speak of yerushalmi. some rishonim do not speak. others pay attention to parallel sugyot, and then statement of resh lakish makes sense. only have problem of stama digmara in gittin!

{problem orig was vicious circle. peice of paper without verification, but say since written as if verified.}

on to another sugya.

masechet horayot. just finished 4b. starting to study the mishna. on page, 3 mishnayot. one studied, next going to just read mishna, and then will discuss 3rd mishna.


principles of all of horayot. 
4 diff cases. kohen gadol, adat yisrael yishgu (our case), asher nasi yecheta (king), and the yachid.
kohen gadol=par
tzibur=par
nasi=seir
yachid=kisba or seira


mishna: of course has to be shogeg or else no chatat.
chtat tzibur brings is special case. kohen gadol and eda based on 2 elements. haalem davar and shigegat maaseh. then get par. (and many many other conds)

the mishna: horu bet din shogegim, veasu kol hakahal shoggegim, meviim par. mezidim (courts) and the people did shogeg, bring kisba veseira. (since no haalem davar, only people made the sin. each individual has.
shogegim and the people did mezidim, they are patur (bec no korban for mezid)

next mishna: handout bec mishna is long mishna and want to analyze from diff angles. 4b, mishna 4 or 5.
bet din said and tzibur relies, bring par.
by avoda zara pring par and sair, says Rabbi Meir.

vayikra 4:13. veneelam davar meenei hakahal...
acc to chazal, eda brings korban. who brings? the kahal. who is the kahal. acc to rabbi meir the bet din brings.

where is avoda zara
bemidbasr 15.
beshegaga, have to bring par ben bakar eched le'ola.

in vayikra: par as chatat
in bemidbar: par as OLA, and seir for chatat.

chazal understood speaking about 2 diff mitzvot. shaar mitzvot vs avoda zara.

if rabbi meir speaks about par, shaar mitzvot. but in avoda zara, par and sair.

rabbi yehuda: each of 12 shevet brings par each. avoda zara, each brings both par and sair.

rabbi shimon. 13 parim, vs 13 par and sair (look in line 15 why, 1 for each shevet and 1 for bet din)

so, acc to Rabbi Meir, bet din brings
acc to rabbi yehuda, shevatim
rabbi Shimon, both bet din and shevatim.

which makes most sense? rabbi shimon, bec two parties to the sin, heelem davar and shigegat maaseh.

line #8, mishna:
bet din was horu and 7 tribes did the avera, or ruban (prob most of each shevet in turn) bring 1 par
and by avoda zara, par and sair, says rabbi meir

r yehuda: the 7 bring 7 pars, and rest of shevatim bring 1 for a total of 8.

r shimon: 9 bec add for bet din.

line 16: bet din of shevet rules, that shevet is chayav and others are patur says r yehuda. chachamimL only based on central court of all of israel.

how explain ruban: most of sum of populations of all tribes? r yehuda says 12. ok if 12 tribes, or even 11 (ghetting 12 via gerera). but 7, or less?
ephraim (and I agree suggests could be that special din if most of benei yisrael sin, ignore general tribe by tribe basis)

else,
ruba dishvatim, but then that echoes 7.

magen avraham: majority from each shevet, and therefore have majority, and thats what r shimon says bring 12 parim. (again prob bec shevet is not mentioned in the mishna

dr steinfeld: means ruban shel kahal.

but simplest is rov kahal. but here probl of r yahuda and r shimon.
here would say r yehuda is prob. could be rov made up of 5 tribes. with r shimon, he says also 13. so why need those 12.

perhaps still a poss cannot ask from r yehuda and r shimon to r meir.
only r meir says kol hakahal or rubo.
who is putting together the mishnayot.
in same bet midrash, or editing process. putting together, sopmethimes r meir spoke about ruban (in 1st line), and acc to r meir does not make a diff.
r yehuda and r shimon not relating to formulation of statement of r meir. talk about shevatim,.

look at chilufei girsaot. r yehuda take out in 2 geniza frag mentiuon of avoda zara.
line 10, 11, 12. r yehuda, no mention at all of avoda zara.

is original mishna talking about avoda zara and for some reason is missing. but in line 10, 11, 12, missing entirely in all manuscripts.
maybe only speaking about shear mitzvot and avoda zara added (bec not needed, whole mach about par, to add the "and sair" for each unneccessay)

usually when addition, not complete in all places adding it. so this is hint that is added. but only asking q, not answering it. ;)

in line 3, rid says missing 12 meviim. perhaps better without, since r shimon only says 13. but r yehuda repeats lang in line 10.
seems unneccessary.

ephraim: needs say, otherwise might think bet din brings it.

note 3: yerushalmi has slightly diff style, the style of rabbi yehuda, add in line 3, the 12 shevatim bring ...

note 4: geniza: ditnan and gives reason for r shimon, the breakdown that we have for r shimon, just as have in line 7.

shows that is an uneven mishna. why dont have it in shaar mitzvot. q is this addition or is it original.

note 5: rabenu baruch. missing o ruban.

___ break ____ meet at 7 oclock next week, that is last class?
test dec 3rd

prob of asu kol hakahal o rubam is problematic. not acc to r meir. but acc to r shimon and r yehuda.
we said possibility that not referring to ruban.
another possibility about r yehuda. line # 11
veshear shevatim meveim alehem par.
and big machloket, do we say here par or par par?

that is, acc to par, if 7, bring 7 + 1.
if par par...


milechet shlomo very important perush to the mishna, bec brings diff girsaot. brings par par. and so had r yehosef zal. and also ktav yad kaufman, cambridge, paris, and others. dikdukei sofrim: in venetzia, in rashi, etc.

this is diff statement. would be 12, not 8. 
if this is the case, r yehuda can be explained. (adding acc to Dr Steinfeld's opinon: brayta daf 5a. tno rabanan...read there, shows grera on even one shevet. ??but why then choose 7 in the mishna??
further proof: gem in ktav yad minkin. how could have so many? miktzad chayav for selves and inach with grera.
so acc to idea of grira, r yehuda is OK. then even acc to reservation we had, even 1 shevet would cause 12. r shimon not explained. 
)

which is prob orig girsa? par or par par?
which is correct one? dr steinfeld would not accept par par. bec for r yehuda dont make sense, grira only in sefa, dont make sense in resha to explain rubo. also, par par incorrect, bec checking style of mishna, have nums, exaclty amt of korban have to bring. does not save energy to asy bring 8, or 12. if say each has to bring 1 par in total, consistent with numbering scheme, but if say par par, NaN (not a #). will see all parallel sugyot, brayta daf 5, yerushalmi, etc, have fight bet these 2 girsaot.

only solution is one found in the rabenu baruch. how does he explain ruban. new but diff approach, but understood prob discussing here. on 6a on the bottom, wide lines. 
line 17 in handout. that 7 IS = rov hakahal. resha talks about kol hakahal or ruban, and ruban is explained in the sefa, that it is 7 in number.

prob is very difficult to say use phrase in resha, and then return later to explain it.

more categorically, Dr Stienfeld would say, prob this rubo does nmot originally appear in the mishna at all. later addition. r shimon and r yehuda are relating to kol hakahal.

have for this 2 proofs. bavli and the yerushalmi did not have the o rubo in the resha.

first the bavli.
daf 5b.
in horaa, are we talking rov shevatim or not?
we can say,why have a problem, mishna says 7. do we say explicitly 7, or not?

meyuchas lirashi: near top of r chananel.
source is brayta. bec have tanaim.
someone cut this brayta so do not have context. very difficult to understand what is going on.

gem: talkinging abouit horaah given by bet din hagadol.
who is the tanna kamma? if say r meir, he req majority. (what type of rov? kahal or shevatim? shevatim bec mishna in sefa has rov, rov shevatim.) rather, perhaps r yehuda. (assuming not another tanna, say r shimon)

now brayta said bring 1. so there is not grira.
that was hava amina.
rather it is r shimon ben elazar, who said in his name (r meir his rebbe) 6 who were the majority of kahal or 7 and not ruban shel kahal,

ta shema: r yehuda: in case of shevert doing by own bet din's horaah, only they are chayav, but if following bet din hagadol, all are chayav.
shma mina: that r yehuda holds what attrib to case of bet din hagadol, that even one shevet makes the grira.

strange phenomenon, ask q and brayta says exactly din in same lang.
but goes thru bunch of attempted proofs first.

weiss: each sugya has diff editor and history.
chanoch albeck: proves stama did not know our tosefta. have questions and clear cut answer in tosefta and did not bring it.

here would say the same. they had a problem and sometimes did not have solution, and later they had the solution. 1 poss.
or else, sometimes abaye would ask rava qs to sharpen intellectual abilities.

tanya nami hachi. what is this? didnt he know about it. same thing word for word. very interesting. s/o wrote thesis about it.

reflecting reading without o ruba. from this sugya can prove (would never say 100%, but very probably did not have o rubam in their mishna).
who said, we think, o ruban? but mishna says cannot be r meir, for he needs 7 shevatim ? but the mishna says rov, and pashtuit is means rov kahal?! (if said robo, could even be a single shevet!)so must be mishna did not say o ruban!

on to the next sugya yerushalmi. line #19.
shortened sugya in horayot.
ha ruba baiy.
implies that did not have ruba in mishna.

important for prnicple. we are using manuscripts. we have par. manuscripts haver par par. reading good but not halacha limoshe misinai.
stronger if can prove from talmud, from the sugya, can show had this girsa much stronger. manuscript can say scribe made a mistake.

we will say later someone added this one. and all prblems we had are now solved.

line #27.
based on mishna in pesachim.
that korban pesach, if people are tamai met, majority.
 r yehoshua, can be makriv, even without a mizbeach.


who? 
yerushalmi. 
proof that mishna is r meir, by bringing from brayta.
1/2 of each shevet as long as have rov.
or 1 person more than half.

thus the stam mishna is r meir.
what is the proof? why does it not bring the mishna. so shows if bring brayta did not have the mishna.
ephraim: wants to bring pesachim from pesachim.
dr stienfeld: talking about principle. that can be proved from horayot as well.

yerushalmi horatyot on page 43 in handout.
perek alef halacha 11. last paragraph of column of 43.
brings down this thing from yerushalmi pesachim in context of horayot.

read for the next time the brayta in bavli that we just saw and the brayta in the sifra in mahadurat weiss yud tet yud aleph amud bet. and yes=rushalmi he gave us in horayot.