יש ארבעים ושלשה חטאים שבשבילם אדם מביא קורבן חטאת. יש שני מיני שגגה בהרבה מהם, שגגת מציאות ושגגת דין. החברותא שלי רוצה לומר שרק כשיש הנאה יש שגגת מציאות. למשל אדם אכל חלב ולא ידע שהוא חלב ואחר כך אמרו לו. הוא חייב חטאת. אבל אדם הרים ירק בשבת בחשבו שהוא תלוש, והתברר שהיה מחובר, הוא פטור בגלל שהיה מתעסק. לפי זה אפשר להבין אביי בסנהדרין סב:. אביי אמר שאם אדם השתחווה לאנדרטא (ורש''י מוסיף ולא ידע שפעם היתה נעבדת והתברר שהיתה נעבדת), לא כלום הוא.
אני שאלתי על זה מהרמב''ם הלכות שגגות ז:א' וב'. זדון עבודות ושגגת עבודה זרה חייב רק חטאת אחת. אבל החברותא הראה לי שהרמב''ם מסיים שהוא חשב שאינו עבודה זרה בגלל שלא נעשה מכסף או זהב. משמע שטעה בדין.
My learning partner suggested that the only way of doing idolatry by accident is by a mistake in pesak--in the legal decision not is actual material facts of the case.
Just for the general public let me mention that for most kinds of sin by accident there are two way for there to be a mistake. One is in the material facts and the other in the legal decision.
So when we have for example a sin offering in Leviticus 4 we know that can come for either reason.
So this idea of my partner was a bit of a surprise to me.
He is thinking that only in a case like fat where there is some pleasure in eating does the please turn a non liable accident into a שוגג liable accident, but with no pleasure it is מתעסק a non liable accident like picking up a turnip on Shabat and it turns out that it was rooted and still growing.
But it makes sense if you look at the argument between Abyee and Rava in Sanhedrin 62b. Abyee says if one bows down to a statute that he did not know was an idol it is nothing. And Rava has to agree with that according to the logic of the passage over there. But we can ask is not this the classical example of an accident. One eats fat and it tuns out to have been Chelev/ forbidden fat. That is an accident.
So I asked on this from the Rambam הלכות שגגות ז:א וב. There the Rambam says one who knows serving an idol is forbidden but did not know this was an idol brings one sin offering. But my partner showed me that the Rambam continues " because this idol was not made of silver or gold and he thought something not from silver of gold cant be an idol." So he made a mistake in a legal decision.
I know what you are thinking. This would seem to be a mistake in the material facts of the case.
But in any case we can see that idolatry by accident is when one serves an idol but does not think that what he is doing is idolatry. That is he knows idolatry is forbidden but he thinks what he is doing is different.
I would like to go more into this but the basic idea of my friend is that in all of the 43 types of accident where an accident can be in material facts or in the legal status of something, we find pleasure. Pleasure is what turns mistake in material facts into an accident. Without pleasure it is not even an accident. לא כלום הוא
The problem here is that both the Talmud and the Rambam when they are looking for an example of idolatry by accident go to this idea of not knowing at all. In the Talmud in Sanhedrin when it is comparing idolatry with Shabat it makes a point that one was שוגג in Shabat. And Abyee in his search for idolatry by accident goes right away to the example of the statue which one bowed down to and did not know that it was once served to be completely (patur) not liable. And that helps him in his argument to get to service by fear or love to be idolatry by accident. and the Rambam has to come on to some example like a person thinking since it is not gold or silver it can't be an idol. Why can't the Talmud and the Rambam both simply say the case of idolatry by accident is just like Shabat--he forgot it is Shabat, he forgot it is an idol?
What you learn from this is this difference I made at the beginning of this essay only applies to idolatry.
Because on Shabat forgetting it is Shabat is considered a mistake in material facts and still he is liable.
הבעיה כאן היא זאת. כשהרמב''ם רוצה למצוא שגגת עבודה זרה הוא הולך לטעות בדין ואז הבן אדם חייב קרבן. וכשהגמרא רצתה למצוא שגגה שהוא פטור בשבילו היא הלכה לטעות במציאות. איפה הדיון הפשוט? שהוא שכח שהצורה הזאת היא עבודה זרה?
רואים מזה שהגמרא והרמב''ם מדקדקים לומר דווקא טעות בהוראה
לא כמו שבת שבמצב שאדם שכח שהיום שבת כן הוא חייב קרבן.
