Playback Rate
Avos 6:11-Horiyos 1:3
Avot6: 11
כָּל מַה שֶּׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בָּעוֹלָמוֹ, לֹא בְרָאוֹ אֶלָּא לִכְבוֹדוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ”כֹּל הַנִּקְרָא בִשְׁמִי וְלִכְבוֹדִי בְּרָאתִיו יְצַרְתִּיו אַף־עֲשִׂיתִיו”; וְאוֹמֵר: ”ה' יִמְלֹךְ לְעֹלָם וָעֶד”.
רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַשְׁיָא אוֹמֵר, רָצָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְזַכּוֹת אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְפִיכָךְ הִרְבָּה לָהֶם תּוֹרָה וּמִצְוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר יְהֹוָה חָפֵץ לְמַעַן צִדְקוֹ יַגְדִּיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאְדִּיר:
All that the Holy One, Blessed is He, created in His world He created only for His honor, as it states: Everyone who is called by My Name and whom I have created for My glory, whom I have fashioned, even perfected. And it states: Hashem shall reign for all eternity.
Horayos1: 1
הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין לַעֲבוֹר עַל אַחַת מִכָּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה, וְהָלַךְ הַיָּחִיד וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג עַל פִּיהֶם, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה אַחֲרֵיהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה — פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתָּלָה בְבֵית דִּין. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ, אוֹ תַלְמִיד וְהוּא רָאוּי לְהוֹרָאָה, וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה עִמָּהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁעָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה אַחֲרֵיהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ וְעָשָׂה — הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָלָה בְבֵית דִּין. זֶה הַכְּלָל: הַתּוֹלֶה בְעַצְמוֹ — חַיָּב. וְהַתּוֹלֶה בְבֵית דִּין — פָּטוּר.
[If] the court ruled to violate one of the commandments stated in the Torah, and an individual went and acted erroneously on their word, [regardless of] whether they acted and he acted along with them, or they acted and he acted after them, or whether they did not act but he did —- he is exempt, because he relied on the court. [If] the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred, or he was a student worthy of ruling, and he went and acted on their word, whether they acted and he acted with them, or they acted and he acted after them, or they did not act but he did —- he (lit., this one) is liable, because he did not rely on the court. This is the rule: One who relies on himself is liable, but one who relies on the court is exempt.
Horayos1: 2
הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין, וְיָדְעוּ שֶׁטָּעוּ, וְחָזְרוּ בָהֶן, בֵּין שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ כַפָּרָתָן וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאוּ כַפָּרָתָן, וְהָלַךְ וְעָשָׂה עַל פִּיהֶן — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: סָפֵק. אֵיזֶהוּ סָפֵק? יָשַׁב לוֹ בְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ — חַיָּב. הָלַךְ לוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם — פָּטוּר. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מוֹדֶה אֲנִי בָזֶה שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לִפְטוּר מִן הַחוֹבָה. אָמַר לוֹ בֶן עַזַּאי: מַה שָּׁנָה זֶה מִן הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ? שֶׁהַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵיתוֹ אֶפְשָׁר הָיָה לוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע, וְזֶה לֹא הָיָה אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע.
[If] the court ruled and realized that they had erred, and retracted [their ruling], whether they had already brought their atonement or whether they did not yet bring their atonement —- and he proceeded to act on their word —- R’ Shimon ex-empts [him]; but R’ Eliezer says [it is] doubtful. Which [case] is doubtful? [If] he remained at home, he is liable. [If] he went overseas, he is exempt. Said R’ Akiva: I agree in this case that he is closer to exemption than to obligation. Ben Azzai said to him: [In] what [way] is he different from one remaining at home? [R’ Akiva replied:] In that it was possible for the one re-maining at home to have heard, [while] for this one it was impossible for him to have heard.
Horayos1: 3
הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין לַעֲקוֹר אֶת כָּל הַגּוּף, אָמְרוּ אֵין נִדָּה בַתּוֹרָה, אֵין שַׁבָּת בַּתּוֹרָה, אֵין עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בַתּוֹרָה — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. הוֹרוּ לְבַטֵּל מִקְצָת וּלְקַיֵּם מִקְצָת — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. כֵּיצַד? אָמְרוּ יֵשׁ נִדָּה בַתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם פָּטוּר; יֵשׁ שַׁבָּת בַּתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פָּטוּר; יֵשׁ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בַתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה פָּטוּר — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ”וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר”, דָּבָר, וְלֹא כָל הַגּוּף.
[If] the court ruled to uproot the entire corpus [of a law] —- [for example] if they said [that] there is no niddah [prohibition] in the Torah, [or that] there is no Sabbath [prohibition] in the Torah, [or that] there is no idol worship [prohibition] in the Torah —- they are exempt. [If] they ruled to abolish part [of a law] and to retain part, they are liable. How so? [If] they said [that] there is a niddah [prohibition] in the Torah, but one who cohabits with a woman observing one day against another is exempt; [or that] there is a Sabbath [prohibition] in the Torah, but one who carries from a private domain to a public domain is exempt; [or that] there is [a prohibition on] idol worship in the Torah, but one who bows is exempt —- they are liable; as it says: and some matter will be forgotten —- some matter, but not the entire corpus.
Suggestions

