The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi 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 shall 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.

The Gemara notes: And both of the verses are necessary. As, had the Merciful One written only: ''Then it shall 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 the Merciful One 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 shall 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.

The Gemara challenges: But when these verses are written, they are written with regard to an erroneous ruling involving idol worship, not concerning erroneous rulings involving other transgressions. The Gemara explains: We derive it by means of a verbal analogy between ''from the eyes of the congregation'' written with regard to other transgressions, and ''from the eyes of the congregation'' written concerning idol worship.

§ The mishna teaches: If the court of one of the tribes issued a ruling, and the majority of that tribe performed a transgression on the basis of its ruling, that tribe is liable to bring an offering and the rest of all the tribes are exempt; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Yehuda, in the case of one tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, are the other tribes liable to bring an offering or not? The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that it is specifically in a case where seven tribes sinned that other tribes each bring an offering together with them because there is a majority of the tribes that sinned, but in a case where only one tribe sinned, where there is no majority of the tribes that sinned, they do not? Or perhaps it is no different, and the other tribes are drawn after even one tribe.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear resolution of this dilemma from a baraita, which teaches: What do they bring? They bring one bull; Rabbi Shimon says: Two bulls. The Gemara elaborates: What are we dealing with in this baraita? If we say the reference is to a case where seven tribes sinned, Rabbi Shimon requires eight bulls, one for each tribe that sinned and one for the court. Rather, the reference must be to a case where one tribe sinned. The Gemara clarifies: In what circumstances did the tribe sin? If the tribe sinned on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court, Rabbi Shimon does not accept the halakha that an erroneous ruling of the tribal court renders them liable to bring an offering. Rather, is it not so that they sinned on the basis of a ruling of the High Court?

The Gemara asks: And who is the first tanna, who says that they must bring one bull? If we say it is Rabbi Meir, that is difficult: Doesn’t he require that the majority perform a transgression in order for a bull to be brought? A transgression performed by one tribe does not suffice. Rather, is the first tanna not Rabbi Yehuda, and the reference is to a case where one tribe sinned and he deems it liable to bring one bull, and the remaining tribes are not liable to bring an offering.

The Gemara rejects this proof and says there is an alternative explanation of the baraita. What are we dealing with here? With a case where six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, and the first tanna in the baraita is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir: If six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, or if seven tribes, which constitute a majority of the tribes, sinned, even though in terms of population they do not constitute a majority of the congregation, the court brings a bull.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita, which teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of a ruling of its tribal court, that tribe is liable and all the rest of the tribes are exempt. But if it was on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, even the rest of the tribes are liable. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the other tribes are liable in a case where one tribe performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court.

Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise in support of that conclusion, as the tanna teaches: If the court of one of the tribes issued an erroneous ruling and the majority of that tribe performed a transgression on the basis of its ruling, that tribe is liable to bring an offering and all the rest of the tribes are exempt. He explains: Why do I need the tanna to teach: And the rest of the tribes are exempt? Didn’t he already teach: That tribe is liable? And since he teaches: That tribe is liable, we know automatically that the rest of the tribes are exempt. Rather, this tanna is teaching us that it is specifically in a case where the tribe performed an unwitting transgression on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court that the rest of the tribes are exempt; but in a case where the tribe performed an unwitting transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, even the rest of the tribes are liable. The Gemara concludes: Learn from the mishna that this is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where one tribe performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court, according to Rabbi Shimon are they liable to bring an offering or not?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the baraita cited earlier: What do they bring? They bring one bull; Rabbi Shimon says: Two bulls. The Gemara elaborates: What are we dealing with in this baraita? If we say that the reference is to a case where seven tribes sinned, that is difficult. In that case, are two bulls brought? Eight bulls are required according to Rabbi Shimon. Rather, the reference is to a case where one tribe sinned. The Gemara clarifies: And in what circumstances did the tribe sin? If we say that the tribe sinned on the basis of the ruling of its tribal court, Rabbi Shimon does not accept the halakha that an erroneous ruling of the tribal court renders them liable to bring an offering. Rather, the circumstances are that they sinned on the basis of a ruling of the High Court. Apparently, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that in this case one tribe brings an offering.

The Gemara rejects this proof: And how can you understand that this is the reference? Who, then, is the first tanna who says that they must bring one bull? If it is Rabbi Meir, that is difficult. Doesn’t he require that the majority and not just one tribe perform a transgression in order for there to be liability? If it is Rabbi Yehuda, that is also difficult, as in his opinion the rest of the tribes are also liable to bring an offering. Rather, who is the first tanna of this baraita? The first tanna is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and the reference is to a case where six tribes sinned and in terms of population they constitute a majority of the congregation, and this baraita is as it is taught in the baraita cited earlier. In that case, Rabbi Shimon holds that two bulls are brought, one by the congregation and one by the court. No proof may be cited from here with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the case of one tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of a ruling of the High Court.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from the mishna, which teaches: And the Rabbis say: One tribe is never liable, other than for violating a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court. The Gemara clarifies: Who are the Rabbis cited in the mishna? If we say that the Rabbis are Rabbi Meir, he requires that a majority perform a transgression in order to be liable. Rather, is it not that the Rabbis are Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that Rabbi Shimon holds that one tribe that performed a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the High Court is liable to bring a bull.

§ The Gemara elaborates on a matter raised earlier. And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who hold one tribe that performs a transgression liable, from where do they derive that one tribe is characterized as a congregation? The Sages say that it is derived from a verse, as it is written: ''And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem before the new courtyard in the house of the Lord'' (II Chronicles 20:5). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of ''new'' in this verse? Rabbi Yoḥanan says that on that occasion they introduced new matters and said: One who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed may not enter even the Levite camp. From the fact that the verse employs the term ''congregation'' in reference to Judah and Jerusalem, it can be inferred that one tribe is characterized as a congregation.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to this: From where do you draw this conclusion? Perhaps Jerusalem is different, as Jerusalem was also in the tribal land of Benjamin. Accordingly, it was shared by two tribes. Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that proof that a tribe is characterized as a congregation is derived from another verse, as it is written that Jacob recounted what God said to him when he returned from Paddan: ''And said to me: Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a congregation of peoples'' (Genesis 48:4). Who was born to him from that time on? Only Benjamin. Conclude from it that this is what the Merciful One is saying to Jacob: Another congregation shall be now born to you. Apparently, one tribe is characterized as a congregation.

Rav Shabba said to Rav Kahana: Perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying to Jacob: It is when Benjamin is born to you that you will have twelve tribes, who are together characterized as a congregation. Rav Kahana said to him: But is that to say that twelve tribes are characterized as a congregation, and eleven tribes are not characterized as a congregation? It has already been established that even two tribes are characterized as a congregation. Rather, it is apparent from this verse that even one tribe is characterized as a congregation.

§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: What is the meaning when the verse states: ''And a second young bull shall you take as a sin-offering'' (Numbers 8:8), in the context of the purification of the Levites in the aftermath of the sin of the Golden Calf? If this is written to teach that they are two, i.e., that there is an additional bull sacrificed, isn’t it already stated: ''And sacrifice the one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering, unto the Lord'' (Numbers 8:12)? Rather, one might have thought that the sin-offering that is sacrificed for the Levites shall be eaten like other sin-offerings. To counter this, the verse states: ''And a second bull,'' to underscore that it is second to the burnt-offering and similar to it: Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten,