Horayot 5B

ורבי שמעון ורבי מאיר, דהוראה תלויה בבית דין ומעשה תלוי בקהל, מנא להו? אמר אביי, דאמר קרא: ״והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה״. רבא אמר: ״מלכל העם בשגגה״.

The Talmud asks: And R' Shimon and R' Meir, from where do they derive the fact that the ruling is dependent on the court and the action is dependent on the congregation? Abaye said that they derive it from a verse, as the verse states in the passive form: “Then it should be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Number 15:24), indicating that the action of the congregation was generated by the ruling of the court. Rava said: It is derived from that which is stated: “For all the people it was performed unwittingly” (Numbers 15:26). The term “all the people” indicates that the unwitting action is common to all, the court through its ruling and the people through their action.

וצריכא, דאי כתב רחמנא ״והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה״, הוה אמינא: אפילו מיעוטא, להכי כתיב ״לכל העם בשגגה״. ואי כתב ״לכל העם בשגגה״, הוה אמינא: עד דעבדי בית דין בהדי רובא, להכי כתיב ״והיה אם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה״.

The Talmud notes: And both of the verses are necessary. As, had God written only: “Then it should be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation” (Number 15:24), I would say: There is liability to bring an offering even if only a minority of the congregation sinned. Therefore, it is written: “For all the people it was performed unwittingly.” And had God written only: “For all the people it was performed unwittingly,” I would say: There is no liability unless the court performs the transgression together with the majority of the congregation, as the verse appears to refer to a single unwitting action. Therefore, it is written: “Then it should be, if it was performed unwittingly, hidden from the eyes of the congregation,” indicating that the unwitting act was performed on the basis of the ruling of the court, and the action of the court is not significant in this regard.