It is hidden from the community and is brought to serve as a kapara (atonement) for the entire community, for what the court did and the mistake he followed. Here we’ll talk about whether, when an action was forbidden and they followed the ruling, there is a matter of doubt as to whether the person should bring his own korban chatat (sin offering). He can’t bring a korban chatat because he doesn’t really know what his status is. But Halach lo leMedinat HaYam, patur (He went overseas and is exempt). But if he went overseas and was obligated, it is also logical to consider someone in that situation. If he is there, he is preparing for a journey; his mind isn’t elsewhere, so he would not already have realized that they were wrong and had retracted their earlier ruling.
That ruling meant that this special korban (sacrifice) had to be brought. But according to the original opinion of the Bet Din (the court), Rabbi Shimon says that person is retracted their opinion. But Rabbi Elazar says it is a matter of doubt whether he is obligated to bring a korban chatat. He brings this, say he has to bring in an asham talui. He was at home and should have found out what was going on, and therefore he would not need to bring a.
Amar lo Ben Azzai: Mah shanah zeh min ha-yoshev beveito? Ben Azzai said to him, “What is different about this one from the one sitting at home?” Ben Azzai asks about the person who was at home and the person who was preparing to bring a korban of the par he'elem davar shel tzibbur, the bull for the matter that was court took back their ruling. An individual later did not hear about it. That sacrifice, that korban, the par he'elem davar shel tzibbur, was brought—or they did; in fact, he did not do that. He did not go and see whether the Bet Din had retracted its opinion. So does the person have to bring the korban chatat or not?
The ruling was retracted while he was preparing to travel. He was still at home, but we are not going to hold him responsible for this aveira (sin). Therefore, he would be obligated to bring an asham talui, just like a person who is asuk, he was busy preparing for his trip, so therefore we chatat even if he followed the ruling of a Bet Din. But in a situation where the Bet Din made a mistake and ruled that something was permitted, even though he did not hear about the Bet Din’s retraction, they went and they did their opinion, so the sin he committed is considered to be from his own asham talui. That clarifies the situation and takes care of the traveling; he would be exempt from any korban whatsoever. In this case, I agree that this person, too—the one who is preparing to leave but hasn’t left yet—should bring an asham talui. We don’t hold him responsible because we say there is an obligation to bring even an asham talui.
Masechet Horayot (Tractate Horayot), Perek Aleph (Chapter One), Mishnah Bet (Mishnah Two): this Mishnah is going to talk about a community. We’ll talk about a situation where most of the community followed the ruling. The following situation applies whether the community had already done so or not. Before he followed the ruling of the Bet Din, he should have done his research asham talui.
Eizehu safek? What’s the case that we say is a matter of doubt? If the Bet Din had ruled, he could possibly be responsible for not finding out what was going on. A person preparing for a journey is also considered exempt, more exempt than someone who should know what is going on with the ruling of the Bet Din, whether or not he is looking to travel. Right now, he is in a certain location. Rebbe Akiva says that the person who is at home has to bring an asham, knowing that the ruling was retracted, and therefore we say he's not. An individual does not have to bring a korban chatat if he followed the ruling of the Bet Din. But then the court realized that they had made a mistake and took back their ruling. It is a matter of safek: should he have researched it or not? Maybe he should; maybe he shouldn’t have to bring a korban chatat. The Bet Din took back its opinion, and therefore we would say he is not held responsible for following and keeping up with the news of his town because he is about to leave. So currently, he is at home.
Rebbe Akiva responds: efshar hayah lo sheyishma? (Was it possible for him to hear?) The person at home was in a situation where the majority of the Jewish people followed that error of the Bet Din. The act was forbidden under the penalty of karet (spiritual excision), and then a majority of korban chatat; here the korban chatat applies even though the Bet Din had already been negligent. Therefore, he is obligated to bring his own korban chatat. Yashav lo betoch beito chayav. If he stayed at home in this place where he responsible in any way whatsoever.
We’ll now bring a similar machloket (dispute), another type of case where a person followed the ruling of the Bet Din after it had been mistaken. The Jewish people followed that ruling and did the action. The person who followed the ruling of a mistaken Bet Din, the person preparing to travel, did not have the ability to hear about the court’s retraction. Vezeh lo hayah efshar lo sheyishma (And this, it was not possible for him to hear). Here we’re going to say he would have to bring a korban asham talui. He is not required in that case to find out what is going on in the Bet Din. He is responsible for finding out what is going on in the Bet Din and for his ability to hear about the court’s retraction.
Horu Bet Din (The court ruled). The court had not brought the korban yet. Then an individual should have seen whether the Bet Din had retracted its opinion or not, whether he was obligated or not. So we say it is a safek, and therefore he brings the. He is traveling, he is in a foreign land; we don’t expect him to know that the matter wasn’t fully settled at home. He was preparing for a trip, for a journey. Consider this person different from the person who stayed at home? Even though shehayoshev beveito (the one sitting at home), efshar hayah lo sheyishma? Since the one sitting at home could have heard? Rebbe Akiva says the difference is that he is not responsible for following and keeping up with the news of the town.
This Mishnah disagrees with the previous Mishnah. In the previous Mishnah, we said that an individual does not have to bring a korban chatat if he followed the ruling of a Bet Din. But then the court realized that they had made a mistake and took back their ruling, so the par he'elem davar shel tzibbur had to be brought as a kapara for the community. The korban being brought also serves as a kapara; he brings an asham talui because he should have known what was going on.