Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 1, 2017 | 讟壮 讘讗讘 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sanhedrin 16

What are the sources for the laws in the mishna that require a court of 71? 聽There are a few additional details in the mishna regarding a city that all worship idols. 聽These details are explained and the derivation for these details are brought. 聽The debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the tanna kamma about whether the court is 70 or 71 is discussed.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘谞砖讬讗 砖讘讟 砖讞讟讗 注住拽讬谞谉 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讻诇 讛讚讘专 讛讙讚诇 讬讘讬讗讜 讗诇讬讱 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讗

we are dealing with the Nasi of a tribe who has sinned. Doesn鈥檛 Rav Adda bar Ahava say: The verse states: 鈥淭hey shall bring every great matter to you鈥 (Exodus 18:22), meaning: Matters of a great one, i.e., in any case where a great person is accused of a transgression whose punishment is death, he is tried by the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges. And this Nasi of the tribe is also a great one, so his trial is by seventy-one judges.

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讘讗讬谉 注诇 注住拽讬 谞讞诇讜转 讜讻转讞讬诇转讛 砖诇 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛 转讞讬诇转讛 砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚

Ulla said that Rabbi Elazar said a different explanation: The mishna discusses a case where two tribes came to adjudicate a dispute about matters of inheritance, i.e., territory claimed by each tribe on the border between them, and this dispute is handled by the Great Sanhedrin consisting of seventy-one judges, as was done at the beginning of the settlement in Eretz Yisrael during the time of Joshua. Just as the beginning, the initial division, was performed by seventy-one Elders of the congregation, so too here, when there is a dispute about the borders determined by that initial division, the case is adjudicated by the seventy-one judges of the Great Sanhedrin.

讗讬 诪讛 转讞讬诇转讛 拽诇驻讬 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 拽诇驻讬 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚专讘 诪转谞讛

The Gemara asks: If this logic is employed, then just as the beginning was performed by casting lots [kalpei], with the Urim VeTummim, and with all of the Jewish people present, so too here, in a dispute between tribes, there should be a need for lots, the Urim VeTummim, and the presence of all of the Jewish people. Since this is not required by halakha, it is apparent that a border dispute between tribes need not be adjudicated using the same procedures as the original division of the inheritances. Consequently, there is no reason to require seventy-one judges. Rather, it is clear that this must be explained in accordance with the explanation of Rav Mattana, who says that the mishna is discussing the Nasi of a tribe who has sinned.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讘讟 砖讛讜讚讞 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讘讚讬谞讗 讚专讘讬诐 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讟诇讬谞谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘讬诐 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Ravina said: The mishna is actually discussing a tribe that was subverted and which engaged in idol worship, and with regard to that which poses a difficulty for you, the question of whether we judge such a tribe with the halakha of a multitude, it can be answered: Yes, although we execute them as individuals by stoning, and their money is not confiscated, nevertheless we judge them in a court of the multitude, i.e., each one of them is tried by the Great Sanhedrin.

诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜讛讜爪讗转 讗转 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讗讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讛讛讜讗 讜讙讜壮 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇砖注专讬讱 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讻诇 讛注讬专 讻讜诇讛 诇砖注专讬讱 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇砖注专讬讱 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讻诇 讛砖讘讟 讻讜诇讜 诇砖注专讬讱

Ravina continues: Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi Yosei, say that Rabbi Oshaya says: The verse that discuses an individual who serves idol worship states: 鈥淎nd you shall take out that man or that woman who did that evil thing to your gates, even the man or the woman, and you shall stone them until they die鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:5), and it is inferred: You take out a man or a woman to your gates to judge them in the court that is located at the gates of the city, which is a lesser Sanhedrin, but you do not take out an entire city to your gates; rather they are to be judged by the large court. Here also with regard to a tribe that has sinned: You take out a man or a woman to your gates, but you do not take out the entire tribe to your gates; rather they are judged by a court of seventy-one.

诇讗 讗转 谞讘讬讗 讛砖拽专 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches that a false prophet may be judged only by the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗转讬讗 讛讝讚讛 讛讝讚讛 诪讝拽谉 诪诪专讗 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy, with the meaning of presumptuousness stated in the context of a false prophet learned from presumptuousness stated in the context of a rebellious elder. With regard to a false prophet the verse states: 鈥淏ut the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:20), and with regard to a rebellious elder it states: 鈥淎nd the man that acts presumptuously, by not listening to the priest that stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or to the judge, that man shall die鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:12). Just as there, with regard to a rebellious elder, he is presumptuous against a court of seventy-one judges, so too here, with regard to a false prophet, he is judged by a court of seventy-one judges.

讜讛讗 讛讝讚讛 讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 讘拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘讗 讜拽讟诇讗 讘注砖专讬谉 讜转诇转讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讙诪专 讚讘专 讚讘专 诪讛诪专讗转讜

The Gemara challenges: But when presumptuousness is written with regard to a rebellious elder, it is written with regard to the death penalty, and a death sentence may be issued by a court of twenty-three judges. Rather, Reish Lakish said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy, with the meaning of the term word stated in the context of a false prophet learned from the term word, used when describing the rebellious elder鈥檚 rebellion. The rebellious elder transgresses by violating the mitzva: 鈥淎nd you shall do according to the word that they will tell you鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:10), and with regard to the false prophet the verse states: 鈥淲ho shall speak a word presumptuously in My name鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:20). Just as the rebellious elder rebels against a court of seventy-one judges, so too, a false prophet who speaks a word that is not in the name of God is sentenced to death by a court of seventy-one judges.

讜诇讛讚专 讝拽谉 诪诪专讗 讜诇讙诪专 讛讝讚讛 讛讝讚讛 诪谞讘讬讗 讛砖拽专 讚讘专 讚讘专 讙诪讬专 讛讝讚讛 讛讝讚讛 诇讗 讙诪讬专

The Gemara asks: And let the halakha of a rebellious elder return, and let it be derived by means of a verbal analogy, with the meaning of presumptuousness stated in the context of a rebellious elder learned from presumptuousness stated in the context of a false prophet, to indicate that a rebellious elder is also sentenced by a court of seventy-one judges. The Gemara answers: This tanna derives halakhot through the verbal analogy comparing the terms word and word, but he does not derive halakhot through a verbal analogy between the terms presumptuousness and presumptuousness, as he did not receive it as an authentic tradition.

讜诇讗 讗转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻诇 讛讚讘专 讛讙讚诇 讬讘讬讗讜 讗诇讬讱 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇

搂 The mishna teaches that the High Priest may be judged only by the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Adda bar Ahava says that the verse states: 鈥淭hey shall bring every great matter to you鈥 (Exodus 18:22). This means that Moses, or the Great Sanhedrin with seventy-one judges, which served the parallel role to that of Moses, adjudicates all matters relating to a great one, i.e., the High Priest.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讚讘专 讙讚诇 讚讘专 拽砖讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讚讘专 拽砖讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗转 讛讚讘专 讛拽砖讛 讬讘讬讗讜谉 讗诇 诪砖讛 讛专讬 讚讘专 拽砖讛 讗诪讜专

The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hey shall bring every great matter to you,鈥 which is interpreted to mean that a difficult matter is judged by the Great Sanhedrin. The baraita asks: Do you say that the verse is actually referring to a difficult matter, or is it only referring to the matters relating to a great one? The baraita answers: When it states in a different verse that Moses implemented Yitro鈥檚 advice: 鈥淭hey brought the difficult matter to Moses鈥 (Exodus 18:26), a difficult matter is stated explicitly. As Moses was following the directive of Yitro, it is therefore apparent that the term 鈥済reat matter鈥 is referring to a difficult matter.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讚讘专 讙讚诇 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专 讛拽砖讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讚讘专 讛拽砖讛 讛专讬 讚讘专 拽砖讛 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讚讘专 讙讚诇 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara answers: Rav Adda bar Ahava states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that other tanna, as it is taught in a different baraita: The meaning of 鈥済reat matter鈥 in the verse is matters relating to a great one. The baraita asks: Do you say that it is referring to matters relating to a great one, or is it only referring to a difficult matter? The baraita explains: When it says further on: 鈥淭hey brought the difficult matter to Moses,鈥 a difficult matter is stated, so how do I realize the meaning of 鈥済reat matter鈥? It is referring to matters relating to a great one.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 转专讬 拽专讗讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 诇爪讜讗讛 讘注诇诪讗 讜讞讚 诇注砖讬讬讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 讗讜 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇 讗讜 拽砖讛 拽砖讛 诪讗讬 讙讚讜诇 讜诪讗讬 拽砖讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara asks: And as for this tanna in the first baraita who maintains that 鈥済reat matter鈥 and 鈥渄ifficult matter鈥 are referring to the same halakha, why do I need two verses to express the same idea? The Gemara answers: One is for the command in general, and one is to state that the execution of the matter was carried out correctly. And why does the other tanna not accept this explanation? The Gemara explains: He would claim that if so, if both verses were actually referring to the same thing, let it write either 鈥済reat鈥 in one verse and great in the other, or difficult in one verse and 鈥渄ifficult鈥 in the other. What is the significance of writing 鈥済reat鈥 in one verse and what is the significance of writing 鈥渄ifficult鈥 in the other? Conclude two conclusions from it; one verse is referring to difficult matters and the other to matters relating to a great one.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讜专讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讻诪讛 诇诪讬转转 讘注诇讬诐 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇诪讬转转 讘注诇讬诐 讚注诇诪讗 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讚拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 砖讜专讜 诪讻诇诇 讚诪诪讜谞讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛

Rabbi Elazar asked: If the ox of a High Priest killed a person, by how many judges is it sentenced? Do we compare it to a trial that could result in the death of its owner, the High Priest, which would have to be judged by seventy-one judges, or perhaps we compare it to a trial that could result in the death of owners in general, which could be judged by twenty-three judges? Abaye said: Since he asked the question only with regard to the High Priest鈥檚 ox, where there is a specific reason to say that its judicial proceedings should have the same halakhot as those concerning its owner, by inference it can be derived that it was obvious to him that court hearings related to the High Priest鈥檚 other property may be deliberated by an ordinary court.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讘 讻诇 讛讚讘专 讛讙讚诇 讻诇 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Why should it not be so? The Gemara answers: Abaye needed to clarify this, lest you say that since it writes: 鈥淓very great matter,鈥 one might have thought that the verse is referring to all matters relating to a great one, meaning that any case involving the High Priest is adjudicated by the Great Sanhedrin. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that this is not the halakha.

讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇驻谞讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讛谉 讬注诪讚

搂 The mishna teaches that the king may bring the nation out to an optional war only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges, i.e., the Great Sanhedrin. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Abbahu says: It is as the verse states with regard to the appointment of Joshua: 鈥淎nd he shall stand before Elazar the priest, and he shall ask counsel of the Urim before the Lord; by his word they shall go out, and by his word they shall come in, he and all of the children of Israel with him and all of the congregation鈥 (Numbers 27:21).

讛讜讗 讝讛 诪诇讱 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转讜 讝讛 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讜讻诇 讛注讚讛 讝讛 住谞讛讚专讬

Rabbi Abbahu analyzes the end of the verse. With regard to the word 鈥渉e,鈥 this is the king, referring to Joshua and to any other leader who brings the nation out to war. With regard to the word 鈥渉im鈥 in the verse 鈥淎nd all of the children of Israel with him,鈥 this is the priest anointed for war, who was anointed specially to stand and instruct the people before the war (see Deuteronomy 20:2). 鈥淎nd all of the congregation鈥; this is the Sanhedrin. Consequently, the king can embark on an optional war only if the Great Sanhedrin is present and grants authority to him.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇住谞讛讚专讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 讚诇讬砖讬讬诇讜 讘讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps this mention of the Sanhedrin simply means that the Merciful One says that the Sanhedrin may ask a question of the Urim VeTummim, as may the king or the priest anointed for war, as opposed to an ordinary person; but with regard to the decision to go to war, perhaps the king may do so without the agreement of the Sanhedrin.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讘讬讝谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讞住讬讚讗 讻谞讜专 讛讬讛 转诇讜讬 诇诪注诇讛 诪诪讟转讜 砖诇 讚讜讚 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讞爪讜转 诇讬诇讛 专讜讞 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪谞砖讘转 讘讜 讜讛讬讛 诪谞讙谉 诪讗诇讬讜 诪讬讚 讛讬讛 讚讜讚 注讜诪讚 讜注讜住拽 讘转讜专讛 注讚 砖注诇讛 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 讻讬讜谉 砖注诇讛 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 谞讻谞住讜 讞讻诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗爪诇讜

Rather, the proof is like that which Rav A岣 bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon 岣sida says: A lyre hung above David鈥檚 bed, and once midnight arrived, the northern midnight wind would blow on it and cause the lyre to play on its own. David would immediately rise from his bed and study Torah until the dawn arrived. Once dawn arrived, the Sages of Israel would enter to advise him with regard to the various concerns of the nation and the economy.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讚讜谞讬谞讜 讛诪诇讱 注诪讱 讬砖专讗诇 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诇讻讜 讜讛转驻专谞住讜 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讛拽讜诪抓 诪砖讘讬注 讗转 讛讗专讬 讜讗讬谉 讛讘讜专 诪转诪诇讗 诪讞讜诇讬讬转讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 驻砖讟讜 讬讚讬讻诐 讘讙讚讜讚

One time they said to him: Our master the king, your nation, Israel, requires sustenance. King David said to them: Go and sustain one another, i.e., provide each other with whatever is lacking. The Sages said to him in response, citing a parable: A single handful [hakometz] of food does not satisfy a lion, and a cistern will not be filled merely from the rain that falls directly into its mouth, but other water must be channeled in. So too, the nation cannot sustain itself using its own resources. King David then told them: Go and take up arms with the troops in battle in order to expand our borders and provide our people with the opportunity to earn a livelihood.

诪讬讚 讬讜注爪讬谉 讘讗讞讬转讜驻诇 讜谞诪诇讻讬谉 讘住谞讛讚专讬谉 讜砖讜讗诇讬谉 讘讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽专讗

The Sages immediately sought advice from Ahithophel to determine whether or not it was appropriate to go to war at that time and how they should conduct themselves; and they consulted the Sanhedrin in order to receive the requisite permission to wage a war under those circumstances; and they asked the Urim VeTummim whether or not they should go to war, and whether or not they would be successful. Rav Yosef says: What is the verse from which this aggada is derived?

讜讗讞专讬 讗讞讬转驻诇 讘谞讬讛讜 讘谉 讬讛讜讬讚注 讜讗讘讬转专 讜砖专 爪讘讗 诇诪诇讱 讬讜讗讘 讗讞讬转讜驻诇 讝讛 讬讜注抓 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜注爪转 讗讞讬转驻诇 讗砖专 讬注抓 讜讙讜壮 讜讘谞讬讛讜 讘谉 讬讛讜讬讚注 讝讜 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讗讘讬转专 讗诇讜 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐

It is: And after Ahithophel was Benaiah, son of Jehoiada; and Ebiathar; and the general of the king鈥檚 army, Yoav (see I聽Chronicles 27:34). The individuals named in this verse correspond to the roles in the aggada as follows: Ahithophel is the advisor whose counsel they sought first with regard to going to war, and so it says: 鈥淣ow the advice of Ahithophel, which he counseled in those days, was like that of a man who inquires of the word of God; so was the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom鈥 (II聽Samuel 16:23). And Benaiah, son of Jehoiada corresponds to the Sanhedrin, since he was the head of the Sanhedrin, and Ebiathar corresponds to the Urim VeTummim, as Ebiathar, son of Ahimelech the priest would oversee inquiries directed to the Urim VeTummim (see I聽Samuel 23:9).

讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讘谞讬讛讜 讘谉 讬讛讜讬讚注 注诇 讛讻专转讬 讜注诇 讛驻诇转讬 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪谉 讻专转讬 讜驻诇转讬 讻专转讬 砖讻讜专转讬谉 讚讘专讬讛谉 讜驻诇转讬 砖诪讜驻诇讗讬谉 诪注砖讬讛谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖专 讛爪讘讗 诇诪诇讱 讬讜讗讘

And so it says with regard to the position of Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, as head of the Sanhedrin: 鈥淎nd Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, was over the Kereti and over the Peleti (II聽Samuel 20:23). And why was the Sanhedrin called Kereti and Peleti? It was called Kereti because they were decisive [shekoretin] in their pronouncements. It was called Peleti because their actions and wisdom were wondrous [shemufla鈥檌n], as Peleti and mufla鈥檌n share the same root. According to the order of the verse, upon being instructed by King David to go to war, the Sages first consulted with Ahithophel, then with the Sanhedrin, and then they would ask the Urim VeTummim; and only thereafter was the general of the king鈥檚 army, Yoav, given the command to ready the army for battle.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讜讚讬诪讬 诪讗讬 拽专讗 注讜专讛 讻讘讜讚讬 注讜专讛 讛谞讘诇 讜讻谞讜专 讗注讬专讛 砖讞专

Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rav Adda, and some say Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avudimi, said: What is the verse from which it is derived that David鈥檚 lyre would awaken him at midnight? 鈥淎wake, my glory; awake, harp and lyre; I will awaken the dawn鈥 (Psalms 57:9). This means that the self-playing lyre has already awoken, and now I must engage in Torah study until dawn.

讜讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇 讛注讬专 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讻诇 讗砖专 讗谞讬 诪专讗讛 讗讜转讱 讗转 转讘谞讬转 讛诪砖讻谉 讜讻谉 转注砖讜 诇讚讜专讜转 讛讘讗讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: They may extend the city of Jerusalem or the courtyards of the Temple only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Shimi bar 岣yya says: The verse states: 鈥淎ccording to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its vessels, and so shall you do鈥 (Exodus 25:9). 鈥淎nd so shall you do鈥 means for future generations; just as the Tabernacle was fashioned in all of its details according to Moses鈥 instructions, so too later, the Temple is fashioned according to the instructions of the Great Sanhedrin, whose members stand in place of Moses.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 诪砖讬讞转谉 诪拽讚砖谉 诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 注讘讜讚转谉 诪讞谞讻转谉 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讜讻谉 转注砖讜 诇讚讜专讜转 讛讘讗讬谉

Rava raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to all of the utensils that Moses fashioned, their anointment with the sacred oil is what consecrates them, rendering them fit for service in the Tabernacle. From that point forward, i.e., in future generations, there is no need for anointment, but rather their service in and of itself dedicates them, meaning that when they are used for the first time in sacred service they become consecrated. Rava explains the objection: And why is this so? Let us say instead that since the verse states: 鈥淎nd so shall you do,鈥 this teaches that it must be done for future generations as in the Tabernacle, and therefore anointment with sacred oil should be required in the Temple as in the Tabernacle.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬诪砖讞诐 讜讬拽讚砖 讗转诐 讗讜转诐 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜诇讗 诇讚讜专讜转 讘诪砖讬讞讛

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd it came to pass on the day that Moses completed erecting the Tabernacle that he anointed it and sanctified it and all its vessels, and the altar and all its vessels, and he anointed them and he sanctified them鈥 (Numbers 7:1). The verse emphasizes that he sanctified 鈥渢hem,鈥 and from this it is inferred that only those utensils need sanctification by anointment, but for future generations there is not a requirement of sanctification by anointment.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讜转诐 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讗讬 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 讬砖专转讜 讘诐 讘拽讚砖 讛讻转讜讘 转诇讗谉 讘砖讬专讜转

The Gemara asks: And say instead: Those vessels require sanctification specifically by anointment, but for future generations it could be done either by anointment or by service. Rav Pappa says: The verse states with regard to this: 鈥淎nd they shall take all service vessels with which they shall serve in the sanctuary鈥 (Numbers 4:12). The verse renders it dependent upon service, meaning that the service is what sanctifies them.

讗诇讗 讗转诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讗转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讚讜专讜转 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜讘注讘讜讚讛 讚讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讻谉 转注砖讜 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗转诐 讗讜转诐 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜诇讗 诇讚讜专讜转 讘诪砖讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the extra word 鈥渢hem鈥? This emphasis seems superfluous. The Gemara answers: Had the verse not added the word 鈥渢hem,鈥 I would say: For future generations the sanctification is accomplished by anointment and by service together, as it is written: 鈥淎nd so shall you do.鈥 Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渢hem,鈥 to teach: They alone are consecrated by anointment, but for future generations the vessels are not consecrated by anointment.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 住谞讛讚专讗讜转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 诇谉 讻讚讗砖讻讞谉 讘诪砖讛 讚讗讜拽讬 住谞讛讚专讗讜转 讜诪砖讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讘注讬诐 讜讞讚 拽讗讬

搂 The mishna teaches that they may appoint a lesser Sanhedrin for the tribes only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this matter? The Gemara answers: It is as we find with regard to Moses, who established lesser courts for all of the people (see Exodus 18:25鈥26), and Moses stands in place of the seventy-one judges on the Great Sanhedrin. Consequently, a lesser Sanhedrin that stands at the head of a tribe is appointed by the Great Sanhedrin.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬讬谉 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 砖讜驻讟讬诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮砖驻讟讬诐 转转谉壮 砖讟专讬诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮砖讟专讬诐 转转谉壮 砖讜驻讟讬诐 诇讻诇 砖讘讟 讜砖讘讟 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮砖驻讟讬诐 诇砖讘讟讬讱壮 砖讜讟专讬诐 诇讻诇 砖讘讟 讜砖讘讟 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮砖讟专讬诐 诇砖讘讟讬讱壮

The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that society must establish judges for the Jewish people? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall place judges and officers over you in all of your gates that the Lord your God gives you for your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:18). From where is it derived that society must also establish officers for the Jewish people? The same verse states: 鈥淵ou shall place judges and officers.鈥 From where is it derived that society must also establish judges not only for the entire Jewish people but also for each and every tribe? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall place judges and officers鈥for your tribes.鈥 From where is it derived that society must also establish officers for each and every tribe? The same verse states: 鈥淵ou shall place judges and officersfor your tribes.鈥

砖讜驻讟讬诐 诇讻诇 注讬专 讜注讬专 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮砖驻讟讬诐 诇砖注专讬讱壮 砖讜讟专讬诐 诇讻诇 注讬专 讜注讬专 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮砖讟专讬诐 诇砖注专讬讱壮 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 诪诪讜谞讛 注诇 讻讜诇谉 砖谞讗诪专 壮转转谉 诇讱壮 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 壮诇砖讘讟讬讱 讜砖驻讟讜壮 诪爪讜讛 讘砖讘讟 诇讚讜谉 讗转 砖讘讟讜

From where is it derived that society must also establish judges for each and every city? The verse states: You shall place judges and officers鈥for your gates, as the gate of the city is the seat of the elders of the city and its judges. From where is it derived that society must also establish officers for each and every city? The verse states: You shall place Judges and officersfor your gates. Rabbi Yehuda says: You must also have one court appointed over all of them, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall place over you,鈥 meaning that there must be a single institution that is responsible for all of these appointments. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Another halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淔or your tribes, and they shall judge.鈥 This teaches that it is a mitzva for a tribe to judge the sinners from within its tribe, and not to delegate the responsibility to other tribes.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讜爪讗转 讗转 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讗讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讛讛讬讗 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇砖注专讬讱 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讻诇 讛注讬专 讻讜诇讛 诇砖注专讬讱

搂 The mishna states that a city may be designated as an idolatrous city only in accordance with the ruling of the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef says that Rabbi Oshaya says: As the verse states with regard to one who engages in idol worship: 鈥淎nd you shall take out that man or that woman who did that evil thing to your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:5), and it is inferred: You take out a man or a woman to your gates for the lesser Sanhedrin to judge them, but you do not take out the entire city to your gates; rather, they are to be judged by the Great Sanhedrin.

讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 讘住驻专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪拽专讘讱 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛住驻专

搂 The mishna teaches that the court may not designate a city as an idolatrous city if it is on the frontier. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淐ertain worthless people have gone out from your midst and have led astray the inhabitants of their city鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:14). The Merciful One states that this halakha applies when they come from your midst, meaning from within your country, but not from the frontier.

讜诇讗 砖诇砖 注专讬 讛谞讚讞转 讚讻转讬讘 讗讞转 讗讘诇 注讜砖讬谉 讗讞转 讗讜 砖转讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 注专讬讱 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞转 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖诇砖 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖诇砖 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 壮注专讬讱壮 讛专讬 砖转讬诐 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 壮讗讞转壮 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖诇砖

搂 The mishna teaches: And three adjoining cities may not be designated as idolatrous cities. The source for this ruling is as it is written: 鈥淚f you shall hear concerning one of your cities that the Lord your God has given you鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:13), and not three cities. The mishna continues: But the court may designate one city, or two adjoining cities as idolatrous cities. The source for this is as it is written: 鈥淵our cities,鈥 in the plural. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淥ne,鈥 from which it is inferred: One, but not three. Do you say that the meaning is one, but not three, or rather, is this not the meaning of the verse, that it is one, but not two? The baraita explains that this cannot be. When the verse states: 鈥淵our cities,鈥 two are stated. How do I realize the meaning of: 鈥淥ne鈥? One, but not three.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讛讗 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 诪砖讜诐 拽专讞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 注讜砖讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽专讞讛

At times Rav said: It is in one court that they may not designate more than two adjoining cities as idolatrous cities, but in two or three courts they may designate them. And at times Rav said: Even in two or three courts they may never designate them. What is the reasoning of Rav? It is due to desolation, to ensure there will not be large swaths of uninhabited land in Eretz Yisrael. Reish Lakish says: They taught only that the court may not designate three adjoining cities as idolatrous cities in one region, but in two or three regions they may designate them. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They may not designate them, due to desolation.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 砖诇砖 注讬讬专讜转 诪谞讜讚讞讜转 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转诐 砖转讬诐 讻讙讜谉 讗讞转 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讞转 讘讙诇讬诇 讗讘诇 砖转讬诐 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖转讬诐 讘讙诇讬诇 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讜住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖诪讗 讬砖诪注讜 谞讻专讬诐 讜讬讞专讬讘讜 讗转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 14:1) in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: The court may not designate three adjoining cities as idolatrous cities in Eretz Yisrael, but they may designate two, such as one in Judea and one in the Galilee. But they may not designate two in Judea or two in the Galilee. And if the city is near the frontier, they may not designate even one. What is the reason for this? Perhaps the gentiles will hear that there is a city on the border that is desolate, and they will seize the opportunity to invade and destroy Eretz Yisrael.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚诪拽专讘讱 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛住驻专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讚专讬砖 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗

The Gemara asks: But let him derive this halakha from the fact that the Merciful One states: 鈥淔rom your midst,鈥 from which it is inferred: But not from the frontier. The Gemara answers: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he interprets the reason for the mitzva in the verse and draws halakhic conclusions based on that interpretation.

住谞讛讚专讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬转讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讜诪砖讛 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛转讬爪讘讜 砖诐

搂 The mishna teaches that the Great Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one judges, and that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it was composed of only seventy, as Moses gathered seventy men of the Elders of the Jewish people, and according to Rabbi Yehuda, Moses himself was not counted as part of the group. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who say that when Moses gathered seventy men, he was at the head of the court and is therefore counted among them? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to Moses: Gather Me seventy men from the Elders of Israel, whom you know to be the Elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them to the Tent of Meeting and they shall stand there

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 16

讘谞砖讬讗 砖讘讟 砖讞讟讗 注住拽讬谞谉 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讻诇 讛讚讘专 讛讙讚诇 讬讘讬讗讜 讗诇讬讱 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讗

we are dealing with the Nasi of a tribe who has sinned. Doesn鈥檛 Rav Adda bar Ahava say: The verse states: 鈥淭hey shall bring every great matter to you鈥 (Exodus 18:22), meaning: Matters of a great one, i.e., in any case where a great person is accused of a transgression whose punishment is death, he is tried by the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges. And this Nasi of the tribe is also a great one, so his trial is by seventy-one judges.

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讘讗讬谉 注诇 注住拽讬 谞讞诇讜转 讜讻转讞讬诇转讛 砖诇 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛 转讞讬诇转讛 砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚

Ulla said that Rabbi Elazar said a different explanation: The mishna discusses a case where two tribes came to adjudicate a dispute about matters of inheritance, i.e., territory claimed by each tribe on the border between them, and this dispute is handled by the Great Sanhedrin consisting of seventy-one judges, as was done at the beginning of the settlement in Eretz Yisrael during the time of Joshua. Just as the beginning, the initial division, was performed by seventy-one Elders of the congregation, so too here, when there is a dispute about the borders determined by that initial division, the case is adjudicated by the seventy-one judges of the Great Sanhedrin.

讗讬 诪讛 转讞讬诇转讛 拽诇驻讬 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 拽诇驻讬 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚专讘 诪转谞讛

The Gemara asks: If this logic is employed, then just as the beginning was performed by casting lots [kalpei], with the Urim VeTummim, and with all of the Jewish people present, so too here, in a dispute between tribes, there should be a need for lots, the Urim VeTummim, and the presence of all of the Jewish people. Since this is not required by halakha, it is apparent that a border dispute between tribes need not be adjudicated using the same procedures as the original division of the inheritances. Consequently, there is no reason to require seventy-one judges. Rather, it is clear that this must be explained in accordance with the explanation of Rav Mattana, who says that the mishna is discussing the Nasi of a tribe who has sinned.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讘讟 砖讛讜讚讞 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讘讚讬谞讗 讚专讘讬诐 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讟诇讬谞谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘讬诐 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Ravina said: The mishna is actually discussing a tribe that was subverted and which engaged in idol worship, and with regard to that which poses a difficulty for you, the question of whether we judge such a tribe with the halakha of a multitude, it can be answered: Yes, although we execute them as individuals by stoning, and their money is not confiscated, nevertheless we judge them in a court of the multitude, i.e., each one of them is tried by the Great Sanhedrin.

诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜讛讜爪讗转 讗转 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讗讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讛讛讜讗 讜讙讜壮 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇砖注专讬讱 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讻诇 讛注讬专 讻讜诇讛 诇砖注专讬讱 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇砖注专讬讱 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讻诇 讛砖讘讟 讻讜诇讜 诇砖注专讬讱

Ravina continues: Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣ma, son of Rabbi Yosei, say that Rabbi Oshaya says: The verse that discuses an individual who serves idol worship states: 鈥淎nd you shall take out that man or that woman who did that evil thing to your gates, even the man or the woman, and you shall stone them until they die鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:5), and it is inferred: You take out a man or a woman to your gates to judge them in the court that is located at the gates of the city, which is a lesser Sanhedrin, but you do not take out an entire city to your gates; rather they are to be judged by the large court. Here also with regard to a tribe that has sinned: You take out a man or a woman to your gates, but you do not take out the entire tribe to your gates; rather they are judged by a court of seventy-one.

诇讗 讗转 谞讘讬讗 讛砖拽专 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches that a false prophet may be judged only by the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗转讬讗 讛讝讚讛 讛讝讚讛 诪讝拽谉 诪诪专讗 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy, with the meaning of presumptuousness stated in the context of a false prophet learned from presumptuousness stated in the context of a rebellious elder. With regard to a false prophet the verse states: 鈥淏ut the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:20), and with regard to a rebellious elder it states: 鈥淎nd the man that acts presumptuously, by not listening to the priest that stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or to the judge, that man shall die鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:12). Just as there, with regard to a rebellious elder, he is presumptuous against a court of seventy-one judges, so too here, with regard to a false prophet, he is judged by a court of seventy-one judges.

讜讛讗 讛讝讚讛 讻讬 讻转讬讘讗 讘拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘讗 讜拽讟诇讗 讘注砖专讬谉 讜转诇转讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讙诪专 讚讘专 讚讘专 诪讛诪专讗转讜

The Gemara challenges: But when presumptuousness is written with regard to a rebellious elder, it is written with regard to the death penalty, and a death sentence may be issued by a court of twenty-three judges. Rather, Reish Lakish said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy, with the meaning of the term word stated in the context of a false prophet learned from the term word, used when describing the rebellious elder鈥檚 rebellion. The rebellious elder transgresses by violating the mitzva: 鈥淎nd you shall do according to the word that they will tell you鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:10), and with regard to the false prophet the verse states: 鈥淲ho shall speak a word presumptuously in My name鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:20). Just as the rebellious elder rebels against a court of seventy-one judges, so too, a false prophet who speaks a word that is not in the name of God is sentenced to death by a court of seventy-one judges.

讜诇讛讚专 讝拽谉 诪诪专讗 讜诇讙诪专 讛讝讚讛 讛讝讚讛 诪谞讘讬讗 讛砖拽专 讚讘专 讚讘专 讙诪讬专 讛讝讚讛 讛讝讚讛 诇讗 讙诪讬专

The Gemara asks: And let the halakha of a rebellious elder return, and let it be derived by means of a verbal analogy, with the meaning of presumptuousness stated in the context of a rebellious elder learned from presumptuousness stated in the context of a false prophet, to indicate that a rebellious elder is also sentenced by a court of seventy-one judges. The Gemara answers: This tanna derives halakhot through the verbal analogy comparing the terms word and word, but he does not derive halakhot through a verbal analogy between the terms presumptuousness and presumptuousness, as he did not receive it as an authentic tradition.

讜诇讗 讗转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻诇 讛讚讘专 讛讙讚诇 讬讘讬讗讜 讗诇讬讱 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇

搂 The mishna teaches that the High Priest may be judged only by the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Adda bar Ahava says that the verse states: 鈥淭hey shall bring every great matter to you鈥 (Exodus 18:22). This means that Moses, or the Great Sanhedrin with seventy-one judges, which served the parallel role to that of Moses, adjudicates all matters relating to a great one, i.e., the High Priest.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讚讘专 讙讚诇 讚讘专 拽砖讛 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讚讘专 拽砖讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗转 讛讚讘专 讛拽砖讛 讬讘讬讗讜谉 讗诇 诪砖讛 讛专讬 讚讘专 拽砖讛 讗诪讜专

The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hey shall bring every great matter to you,鈥 which is interpreted to mean that a difficult matter is judged by the Great Sanhedrin. The baraita asks: Do you say that the verse is actually referring to a difficult matter, or is it only referring to the matters relating to a great one? The baraita answers: When it states in a different verse that Moses implemented Yitro鈥檚 advice: 鈥淭hey brought the difficult matter to Moses鈥 (Exodus 18:26), a difficult matter is stated explicitly. As Moses was following the directive of Yitro, it is therefore apparent that the term 鈥済reat matter鈥 is referring to a difficult matter.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讚讘专 讙讚诇 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专 讛拽砖讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛讚讘专 讛拽砖讛 讛专讬 讚讘专 拽砖讛 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讚讘专 讙讚诇 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara answers: Rav Adda bar Ahava states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that other tanna, as it is taught in a different baraita: The meaning of 鈥済reat matter鈥 in the verse is matters relating to a great one. The baraita asks: Do you say that it is referring to matters relating to a great one, or is it only referring to a difficult matter? The baraita explains: When it says further on: 鈥淭hey brought the difficult matter to Moses,鈥 a difficult matter is stated, so how do I realize the meaning of 鈥済reat matter鈥? It is referring to matters relating to a great one.

讜讛讗讬 转谞讗 转专讬 拽专讗讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 诇爪讜讗讛 讘注诇诪讗 讜讞讚 诇注砖讬讬讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 讗讜 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇 讗讜 拽砖讛 拽砖讛 诪讗讬 讙讚讜诇 讜诪讗讬 拽砖讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara asks: And as for this tanna in the first baraita who maintains that 鈥済reat matter鈥 and 鈥渄ifficult matter鈥 are referring to the same halakha, why do I need two verses to express the same idea? The Gemara answers: One is for the command in general, and one is to state that the execution of the matter was carried out correctly. And why does the other tanna not accept this explanation? The Gemara explains: He would claim that if so, if both verses were actually referring to the same thing, let it write either 鈥済reat鈥 in one verse and great in the other, or difficult in one verse and 鈥渄ifficult鈥 in the other. What is the significance of writing 鈥済reat鈥 in one verse and what is the significance of writing 鈥渄ifficult鈥 in the other? Conclude two conclusions from it; one verse is referring to difficult matters and the other to matters relating to a great one.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讜专讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讻诪讛 诇诪讬转转 讘注诇讬诐 讚讬讚讬讛 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇诪讬转转 讘注诇讬诐 讚注诇诪讗 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讚拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 砖讜专讜 诪讻诇诇 讚诪诪讜谞讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛

Rabbi Elazar asked: If the ox of a High Priest killed a person, by how many judges is it sentenced? Do we compare it to a trial that could result in the death of its owner, the High Priest, which would have to be judged by seventy-one judges, or perhaps we compare it to a trial that could result in the death of owners in general, which could be judged by twenty-three judges? Abaye said: Since he asked the question only with regard to the High Priest鈥檚 ox, where there is a specific reason to say that its judicial proceedings should have the same halakhot as those concerning its owner, by inference it can be derived that it was obvious to him that court hearings related to the High Priest鈥檚 other property may be deliberated by an ordinary court.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讘 讻诇 讛讚讘专 讛讙讚诇 讻诇 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讙讚讜诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Why should it not be so? The Gemara answers: Abaye needed to clarify this, lest you say that since it writes: 鈥淓very great matter,鈥 one might have thought that the verse is referring to all matters relating to a great one, meaning that any case involving the High Priest is adjudicated by the Great Sanhedrin. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that this is not the halakha.

讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇驻谞讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讛谉 讬注诪讚

搂 The mishna teaches that the king may bring the nation out to an optional war only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges, i.e., the Great Sanhedrin. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Abbahu says: It is as the verse states with regard to the appointment of Joshua: 鈥淎nd he shall stand before Elazar the priest, and he shall ask counsel of the Urim before the Lord; by his word they shall go out, and by his word they shall come in, he and all of the children of Israel with him and all of the congregation鈥 (Numbers 27:21).

讛讜讗 讝讛 诪诇讱 讜讻诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转讜 讝讛 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 讜讻诇 讛注讚讛 讝讛 住谞讛讚专讬

Rabbi Abbahu analyzes the end of the verse. With regard to the word 鈥渉e,鈥 this is the king, referring to Joshua and to any other leader who brings the nation out to war. With regard to the word 鈥渉im鈥 in the verse 鈥淎nd all of the children of Israel with him,鈥 this is the priest anointed for war, who was anointed specially to stand and instruct the people before the war (see Deuteronomy 20:2). 鈥淎nd all of the congregation鈥; this is the Sanhedrin. Consequently, the king can embark on an optional war only if the Great Sanhedrin is present and grants authority to him.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇住谞讛讚专讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 讚诇讬砖讬讬诇讜 讘讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps this mention of the Sanhedrin simply means that the Merciful One says that the Sanhedrin may ask a question of the Urim VeTummim, as may the king or the priest anointed for war, as opposed to an ordinary person; but with regard to the decision to go to war, perhaps the king may do so without the agreement of the Sanhedrin.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讘讬讝谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讞住讬讚讗 讻谞讜专 讛讬讛 转诇讜讬 诇诪注诇讛 诪诪讟转讜 砖诇 讚讜讚 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讞爪讜转 诇讬诇讛 专讜讞 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪谞砖讘转 讘讜 讜讛讬讛 诪谞讙谉 诪讗诇讬讜 诪讬讚 讛讬讛 讚讜讚 注讜诪讚 讜注讜住拽 讘转讜专讛 注讚 砖注诇讛 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 讻讬讜谉 砖注诇讛 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 谞讻谞住讜 讞讻诪讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗爪诇讜

Rather, the proof is like that which Rav A岣 bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon 岣sida says: A lyre hung above David鈥檚 bed, and once midnight arrived, the northern midnight wind would blow on it and cause the lyre to play on its own. David would immediately rise from his bed and study Torah until the dawn arrived. Once dawn arrived, the Sages of Israel would enter to advise him with regard to the various concerns of the nation and the economy.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讚讜谞讬谞讜 讛诪诇讱 注诪讱 讬砖专讗诇 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇驻专谞住讛 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诇讻讜 讜讛转驻专谞住讜 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讛拽讜诪抓 诪砖讘讬注 讗转 讛讗专讬 讜讗讬谉 讛讘讜专 诪转诪诇讗 诪讞讜诇讬讬转讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诇讻讜 驻砖讟讜 讬讚讬讻诐 讘讙讚讜讚

One time they said to him: Our master the king, your nation, Israel, requires sustenance. King David said to them: Go and sustain one another, i.e., provide each other with whatever is lacking. The Sages said to him in response, citing a parable: A single handful [hakometz] of food does not satisfy a lion, and a cistern will not be filled merely from the rain that falls directly into its mouth, but other water must be channeled in. So too, the nation cannot sustain itself using its own resources. King David then told them: Go and take up arms with the troops in battle in order to expand our borders and provide our people with the opportunity to earn a livelihood.

诪讬讚 讬讜注爪讬谉 讘讗讞讬转讜驻诇 讜谞诪诇讻讬谉 讘住谞讛讚专讬谉 讜砖讜讗诇讬谉 讘讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽专讗

The Sages immediately sought advice from Ahithophel to determine whether or not it was appropriate to go to war at that time and how they should conduct themselves; and they consulted the Sanhedrin in order to receive the requisite permission to wage a war under those circumstances; and they asked the Urim VeTummim whether or not they should go to war, and whether or not they would be successful. Rav Yosef says: What is the verse from which this aggada is derived?

讜讗讞专讬 讗讞讬转驻诇 讘谞讬讛讜 讘谉 讬讛讜讬讚注 讜讗讘讬转专 讜砖专 爪讘讗 诇诪诇讱 讬讜讗讘 讗讞讬转讜驻诇 讝讛 讬讜注抓 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜注爪转 讗讞讬转驻诇 讗砖专 讬注抓 讜讙讜壮 讜讘谞讬讛讜 讘谉 讬讛讜讬讚注 讝讜 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讗讘讬转专 讗诇讜 讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐

It is: And after Ahithophel was Benaiah, son of Jehoiada; and Ebiathar; and the general of the king鈥檚 army, Yoav (see I聽Chronicles 27:34). The individuals named in this verse correspond to the roles in the aggada as follows: Ahithophel is the advisor whose counsel they sought first with regard to going to war, and so it says: 鈥淣ow the advice of Ahithophel, which he counseled in those days, was like that of a man who inquires of the word of God; so was the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom鈥 (II聽Samuel 16:23). And Benaiah, son of Jehoiada corresponds to the Sanhedrin, since he was the head of the Sanhedrin, and Ebiathar corresponds to the Urim VeTummim, as Ebiathar, son of Ahimelech the priest would oversee inquiries directed to the Urim VeTummim (see I聽Samuel 23:9).

讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讘谞讬讛讜 讘谉 讬讛讜讬讚注 注诇 讛讻专转讬 讜注诇 讛驻诇转讬 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪谉 讻专转讬 讜驻诇转讬 讻专转讬 砖讻讜专转讬谉 讚讘专讬讛谉 讜驻诇转讬 砖诪讜驻诇讗讬谉 诪注砖讬讛谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖专 讛爪讘讗 诇诪诇讱 讬讜讗讘

And so it says with regard to the position of Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, as head of the Sanhedrin: 鈥淎nd Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, was over the Kereti and over the Peleti (II聽Samuel 20:23). And why was the Sanhedrin called Kereti and Peleti? It was called Kereti because they were decisive [shekoretin] in their pronouncements. It was called Peleti because their actions and wisdom were wondrous [shemufla鈥檌n], as Peleti and mufla鈥檌n share the same root. According to the order of the verse, upon being instructed by King David to go to war, the Sages first consulted with Ahithophel, then with the Sanhedrin, and then they would ask the Urim VeTummim; and only thereafter was the general of the king鈥檚 army, Yoav, given the command to ready the army for battle.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讜讚讬诪讬 诪讗讬 拽专讗 注讜专讛 讻讘讜讚讬 注讜专讛 讛谞讘诇 讜讻谞讜专 讗注讬专讛 砖讞专

Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rav Adda, and some say Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avudimi, said: What is the verse from which it is derived that David鈥檚 lyre would awaken him at midnight? 鈥淎wake, my glory; awake, harp and lyre; I will awaken the dawn鈥 (Psalms 57:9). This means that the self-playing lyre has already awoken, and now I must engage in Torah study until dawn.

讜讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇 讛注讬专 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讻诇 讗砖专 讗谞讬 诪专讗讛 讗讜转讱 讗转 转讘谞讬转 讛诪砖讻谉 讜讻谉 转注砖讜 诇讚讜专讜转 讛讘讗讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: They may extend the city of Jerusalem or the courtyards of the Temple only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Shimi bar 岣yya says: The verse states: 鈥淎ccording to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its vessels, and so shall you do鈥 (Exodus 25:9). 鈥淎nd so shall you do鈥 means for future generations; just as the Tabernacle was fashioned in all of its details according to Moses鈥 instructions, so too later, the Temple is fashioned according to the instructions of the Great Sanhedrin, whose members stand in place of Moses.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 诪砖讬讞转谉 诪拽讚砖谉 诪讬讻谉 讜讗讬诇讱 注讘讜讚转谉 诪讞谞讻转谉 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讜讻谉 转注砖讜 诇讚讜专讜转 讛讘讗讬谉

Rava raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to all of the utensils that Moses fashioned, their anointment with the sacred oil is what consecrates them, rendering them fit for service in the Tabernacle. From that point forward, i.e., in future generations, there is no need for anointment, but rather their service in and of itself dedicates them, meaning that when they are used for the first time in sacred service they become consecrated. Rava explains the objection: And why is this so? Let us say instead that since the verse states: 鈥淎nd so shall you do,鈥 this teaches that it must be done for future generations as in the Tabernacle, and therefore anointment with sacred oil should be required in the Temple as in the Tabernacle.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬诪砖讞诐 讜讬拽讚砖 讗转诐 讗讜转诐 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜诇讗 诇讚讜专讜转 讘诪砖讬讞讛

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd it came to pass on the day that Moses completed erecting the Tabernacle that he anointed it and sanctified it and all its vessels, and the altar and all its vessels, and he anointed them and he sanctified them鈥 (Numbers 7:1). The verse emphasizes that he sanctified 鈥渢hem,鈥 and from this it is inferred that only those utensils need sanctification by anointment, but for future generations there is not a requirement of sanctification by anointment.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讜转诐 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讗讬 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 讬砖专转讜 讘诐 讘拽讚砖 讛讻转讜讘 转诇讗谉 讘砖讬专讜转

The Gemara asks: And say instead: Those vessels require sanctification specifically by anointment, but for future generations it could be done either by anointment or by service. Rav Pappa says: The verse states with regard to this: 鈥淎nd they shall take all service vessels with which they shall serve in the sanctuary鈥 (Numbers 4:12). The verse renders it dependent upon service, meaning that the service is what sanctifies them.

讗诇讗 讗转诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬 诇讗讜 讗转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讚讜专讜转 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜讘注讘讜讚讛 讚讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讻谉 转注砖讜 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗转诐 讗讜转诐 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讜诇讗 诇讚讜专讜转 讘诪砖讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the extra word 鈥渢hem鈥? This emphasis seems superfluous. The Gemara answers: Had the verse not added the word 鈥渢hem,鈥 I would say: For future generations the sanctification is accomplished by anointment and by service together, as it is written: 鈥淎nd so shall you do.鈥 Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渢hem,鈥 to teach: They alone are consecrated by anointment, but for future generations the vessels are not consecrated by anointment.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 住谞讛讚专讗讜转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 诇谉 讻讚讗砖讻讞谉 讘诪砖讛 讚讗讜拽讬 住谞讛讚专讗讜转 讜诪砖讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讘注讬诐 讜讞讚 拽讗讬

搂 The mishna teaches that they may appoint a lesser Sanhedrin for the tribes only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this matter? The Gemara answers: It is as we find with regard to Moses, who established lesser courts for all of the people (see Exodus 18:25鈥26), and Moses stands in place of the seventy-one judges on the Great Sanhedrin. Consequently, a lesser Sanhedrin that stands at the head of a tribe is appointed by the Great Sanhedrin.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬讬谉 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 砖讜驻讟讬诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮砖驻讟讬诐 转转谉壮 砖讟专讬诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮砖讟专讬诐 转转谉壮 砖讜驻讟讬诐 诇讻诇 砖讘讟 讜砖讘讟 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮砖驻讟讬诐 诇砖讘讟讬讱壮 砖讜讟专讬诐 诇讻诇 砖讘讟 讜砖讘讟 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮砖讟专讬诐 诇砖讘讟讬讱壮

The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that society must establish judges for the Jewish people? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall place judges and officers over you in all of your gates that the Lord your God gives you for your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:18). From where is it derived that society must also establish officers for the Jewish people? The same verse states: 鈥淵ou shall place judges and officers.鈥 From where is it derived that society must also establish judges not only for the entire Jewish people but also for each and every tribe? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall place judges and officers鈥for your tribes.鈥 From where is it derived that society must also establish officers for each and every tribe? The same verse states: 鈥淵ou shall place judges and officersfor your tribes.鈥

砖讜驻讟讬诐 诇讻诇 注讬专 讜注讬专 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮砖驻讟讬诐 诇砖注专讬讱壮 砖讜讟专讬诐 诇讻诇 注讬专 讜注讬专 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮砖讟专讬诐 诇砖注专讬讱壮 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 诪诪讜谞讛 注诇 讻讜诇谉 砖谞讗诪专 壮转转谉 诇讱壮 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 壮诇砖讘讟讬讱 讜砖驻讟讜壮 诪爪讜讛 讘砖讘讟 诇讚讜谉 讗转 砖讘讟讜

From where is it derived that society must also establish judges for each and every city? The verse states: You shall place judges and officers鈥for your gates, as the gate of the city is the seat of the elders of the city and its judges. From where is it derived that society must also establish officers for each and every city? The verse states: You shall place Judges and officersfor your gates. Rabbi Yehuda says: You must also have one court appointed over all of them, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall place over you,鈥 meaning that there must be a single institution that is responsible for all of these appointments. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Another halakha is derived from the verse: 鈥淔or your tribes, and they shall judge.鈥 This teaches that it is a mitzva for a tribe to judge the sinners from within its tribe, and not to delegate the responsibility to other tribes.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讜爪讗转 讗转 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗 讗讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讛讛讬讗 讗讬砖 讜讗砖讛 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 诇砖注专讬讱 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讬讗 讻诇 讛注讬专 讻讜诇讛 诇砖注专讬讱

搂 The mishna states that a city may be designated as an idolatrous city only in accordance with the ruling of the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef says that Rabbi Oshaya says: As the verse states with regard to one who engages in idol worship: 鈥淎nd you shall take out that man or that woman who did that evil thing to your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:5), and it is inferred: You take out a man or a woman to your gates for the lesser Sanhedrin to judge them, but you do not take out the entire city to your gates; rather, they are to be judged by the Great Sanhedrin.

讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 讘住驻专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪拽专讘讱 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛住驻专

搂 The mishna teaches that the court may not designate a city as an idolatrous city if it is on the frontier. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淐ertain worthless people have gone out from your midst and have led astray the inhabitants of their city鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:14). The Merciful One states that this halakha applies when they come from your midst, meaning from within your country, but not from the frontier.

讜诇讗 砖诇砖 注专讬 讛谞讚讞转 讚讻转讬讘 讗讞转 讗讘诇 注讜砖讬谉 讗讞转 讗讜 砖转讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 注专讬讱 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞转 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖诇砖 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖诇砖 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖转讬诐 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 壮注专讬讱壮 讛专讬 砖转讬诐 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 壮讗讞转壮 讗讞转 讜诇讗 砖诇砖

搂 The mishna teaches: And three adjoining cities may not be designated as idolatrous cities. The source for this ruling is as it is written: 鈥淚f you shall hear concerning one of your cities that the Lord your God has given you鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:13), and not three cities. The mishna continues: But the court may designate one city, or two adjoining cities as idolatrous cities. The source for this is as it is written: 鈥淵our cities,鈥 in the plural. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淥ne,鈥 from which it is inferred: One, but not three. Do you say that the meaning is one, but not three, or rather, is this not the meaning of the verse, that it is one, but not two? The baraita explains that this cannot be. When the verse states: 鈥淵our cities,鈥 two are stated. How do I realize the meaning of: 鈥淥ne鈥? One, but not three.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讛讗 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 诪砖讜诐 拽专讞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 注讜砖讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 拽专讞讛

At times Rav said: It is in one court that they may not designate more than two adjoining cities as idolatrous cities, but in two or three courts they may designate them. And at times Rav said: Even in two or three courts they may never designate them. What is the reasoning of Rav? It is due to desolation, to ensure there will not be large swaths of uninhabited land in Eretz Yisrael. Reish Lakish says: They taught only that the court may not designate three adjoining cities as idolatrous cities in one region, but in two or three regions they may designate them. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They may not designate them, due to desolation.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 砖诇砖 注讬讬专讜转 诪谞讜讚讞讜转 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗讘诇 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转诐 砖转讬诐 讻讙讜谉 讗讞转 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讞转 讘讙诇讬诇 讗讘诇 砖转讬诐 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖转讬诐 讘讙诇讬诇 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讜住诪讜讻讛 诇住驻专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖诪讗 讬砖诪注讜 谞讻专讬诐 讜讬讞专讬讘讜 讗转 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 14:1) in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: The court may not designate three adjoining cities as idolatrous cities in Eretz Yisrael, but they may designate two, such as one in Judea and one in the Galilee. But they may not designate two in Judea or two in the Galilee. And if the city is near the frontier, they may not designate even one. What is the reason for this? Perhaps the gentiles will hear that there is a city on the border that is desolate, and they will seize the opportunity to invade and destroy Eretz Yisrael.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚诪拽专讘讱 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛住驻专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讚专讬砖 讟注诪讗 讚拽专讗

The Gemara asks: But let him derive this halakha from the fact that the Merciful One states: 鈥淔rom your midst,鈥 from which it is inferred: But not from the frontier. The Gemara answers: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he interprets the reason for the mitzva in the verse and draws halakhic conclusions based on that interpretation.

住谞讛讚专讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讬转讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讜诪砖讛 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛转讬爪讘讜 砖诐

搂 The mishna teaches that the Great Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one judges, and that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it was composed of only seventy, as Moses gathered seventy men of the Elders of the Jewish people, and according to Rabbi Yehuda, Moses himself was not counted as part of the group. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who say that when Moses gathered seventy men, he was at the head of the court and is therefore counted among them? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the Lord said to Moses: Gather Me seventy men from the Elders of Israel, whom you know to be the Elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them to the Tent of Meeting and they shall stand there

Scroll To Top