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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 20, 2017 | 讻状讞 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 35

Why must capital cases only be judged during the day? 聽If the court wants to convict in a capital case, they need to wait until the following day. 聽Where is that law derived from? 聽Based on that law, cases can’t begin on a Friday – the gemara explains why. 聽In the context of that discussion the gemara explains that capital punishment doesn’t override Shabbat. 聽Several kal vachomers are suggested regarding what types of things could possibly override Shabbat, and whether or not they do is clarified.


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

讜讻转讬讘 讜转拽讞 专爪驻讛 讘转 讗讬讛 讗转 讛砖拽 讜转讟讛讜 诇讛 讗诇 讛爪讜专 讘转讞诇转 拽爪讬专

And it is written: 鈥淎nd Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, took sackcloth and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water was poured upon them from heaven; and she suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night鈥 (II聽Samuel 21:10). It is clear from this verse that the bodies of the children of Saul remained exposed outdoors; presumably, they were hung.

讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 拽讞 讗转 讻诇 专讗砖讬 讛注诐 讗诐 讛注诐 讞讟讗讜 专讗砖讬 讛注诐 诪讛 讞讟讗讜

The Gemara discusses the incident of the Israelites who worshipped the idol of Peor in the wilderness. And it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord said unto Moses: Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them unto the Lord facing the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel鈥 (Numbers 25:4). The Gemara asks: If the nation transgressed, in what manner did the chiefs of the people transgress? The verse does not record a transgression of the chiefs, so why were they punished?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 讞诇拽 诇讛诐 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖转讬 诪讬转讜转 讗讘诇 讘诪讬转讛 讗讞转 讚谞讬谉

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The reason for selecting the chiefs of the tribes was not to punish them. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Apportion courts for the chiefs of the tribes, and each court will judge and punish the transgressors of its tribe. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that multiple courts were needed for this? If we say that it is due to the principle that a court does not judge two cases of capital law in one day, and there were many cases to be judged, that cannot be the reason. But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say: This principle was taught only with regard to two different types of death imposed by a court, as each case needs sufficient time to be fully investigated on its own merits. But the court does judge multiple cases of one type of death, i.e., one transgression, on the same day.

讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬砖讜讘 讞专讜谉 讗祝 诪讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara explains: Rather, the reason for the appointment of multiple courts was in order that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel. The fierce anger of God would remain until those who engaged in idol worship were punished. Therefore, it was necessary to try them in due haste.

讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讙讜诪专讬谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches: In cases of monetary law, the court may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even on that same day, whether to exempt the accused or to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even on that same day to acquit the accused, but must wait until the following day to find him liable. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诇讗转讬 诪砖驻讟 爪讚拽 讬诇讬谉 讘讛 讜注转讛 诪专爪讞讬诐 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讗砖专讜 讞诪讜抓 讗砖专讜 讚讬讬谉 砖诪讞诪抓 讗转 讚讬谞讜

Rabbi 岣nina said: The verse states prophetically concerning Jerusalem after the destruction of the First Temple: 鈥淪he that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers鈥 (Isaiah 1:21). The verse associates lodging, or waiting overnight, with justice. And Rava says that these matters are derived from here: 鈥淟earn to do well; seek judgment, relieve [ashru] the oppressed [岣motz]鈥 (Isaiah 1:17). This is interpreted: Praise [ashru] the judge who delays [me岣metz] his verdict before he pronounces it.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗砖专讜 讞诪讜抓 讜诇讗 讞讜诪抓 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗讬 诪诇讗转讬 诪砖驻讟 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

And the other amora, Rabbi 岣nina, who did not derive this halakha from this verse, interprets it as meaning: Relieve the robbery victim [岣motz], but not the robber [岣metz], as do the wicked judges. The Gemara asks: And the other amora, Rava, what does he do with this verse: 鈥淪he that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers鈥?

讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻诇 转注谞讬转 砖诪诇讬谞讬谉 讘讜 讗转 讛爪讚拽讛 讻讗讬诇讜 砖讜驻讱 讚诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 诪诇讗转讬 诪砖驻讟 爪讚拽 讜讙讜壮 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘专讬驻转讗 讜转诪专讬 讗讘诇 讘讝讜讝讬 讞讬讟讬 讜砖注专讬 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

The Gemara answers: Rava interprets it in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says, as Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: Every fast day on which the distribution of charity [tzedaka] is left overnight, this is considered as if one spilled the blood of the poor people, as they fasted all day in the expectation that they would receive charity before the day was over in order to purchase food with which to break their fasts. As it is stated: 鈥淪he that was full of justice [tzedek], righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.鈥 The Gemara clarifies: And this statement applies with regard to the delaying of the distribution of bread and dates, which are ready to be consumed; but with regard to the delaying of the distribution of money, wheat, and barley, we have no problem with it.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

搂 After teaching that in cases of capital law, the verdict may not be issued on the same day as the deliberations, the mishna states: Therefore, the court does not judge cases of capital law on certain days, neither on the eve of Shabbat nor on the eve of a Festival. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? What does the halakha that the verdict may not be issued on the same day as the deliberations have to do with not judging cases on those days?

诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讚 诇讬讚讬讬谞讬讛 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讜诇讬讙诪专讬讛 诇讚讬谞讬讛 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讝讜 讟注诐 诇讞讜讘讛 讜讘注讜 诇诪讬注讘讚 讛诇谞转 讚讬谉 诇讚讬讬谞讬讛 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讜诇讬讙诪专讬讛 讘砖讘转讗 讜诇讬拽讟诇讬讛 讘砖讘转讗 讗讬谉 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 砖讘转 讜诇讬拽讟诇讬讛 诇讗讜专转讗 谞讙讚 讛砖诪砖 讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara explains: It is because it is not possible to conduct the trial on the eve of Shabbat or the eve of a Festival. As, how should we act? If we say that we should judge him on Shabbat eve and conclude his verdict on Shabbat eve, perhaps we would see a reason to find the accused liable, and in this situation the court is required to perform a suspension of the trial until the following day, as the court may not issue a verdict in cases of capital law on the same day as the deliberations. If we say: We should judge him on Shabbat eve and conclude the verdict on Shabbat, and, if he is found liable, kill him on Shabbat, that cannot be done, as the murder of one liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment does not override Shabbat. And if we say: We should kill him at night, after the conclusion of Shabbat, that cannot be done, as we require that the capital punishment be administered facing the sun, during the daytime.

讜诇讬讙诪专讬讛 诇讚讬谞讬讛 讘砖讘转讗 讜诇讬拽讟诇讬讛 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 谞诪爪讗 讗转讛 诪注谞讛 讗转 讚讬谞讜 谞讬讚讬讬谞讬讛 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讜谞讙诪专讬讛 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 诪讬谞砖讜 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖谞讬 住讜驻专讬 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 注讜诪讚讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛诪讝讻讬谉 讜讚讘专讬 讛诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 谞讛讬 讚讘驻讜诪讗 讻转讘讬谉 诇讬讘讗 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专

And if we say: We should judge him on Shabbat eve, conclude his verdict on Shabbat, and kill him on Sunday, you are found to have caused a delay in his verdict, as the accused will have to wait overnight knowing he is condemned to death. And if we say: We should judge him on Shabbat eve and conclude his verdict on Sunday, the judges will forget their reasons for their positions in the interim. And even though two judges鈥 scribes are standing before them, and they write the statements of those who acquit the accused and the statements of those who find him liable, and they write that which emerged from the mouths of the judges, i.e., their tentative verdict, the hearts of people [enashei] are forgetful [inshei], and they will forget the reasons. Therefore, it is not possible to begin deliberations in cases of capital law on a Shabbat eve or a Festival eve.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜转讛讗 拽讘讜专转 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 注讘讜讚讛 砖讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 拽讘讜专转 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛 诪讜诇讗讞转讜

搂 The Gemara discusses a related matter: Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: And the burial of a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva] should override Shabbat by means of an a fortiori inference: If with regard to the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, yet the burial of a met mitzva overrides it, based on the interpretation of the term written with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淥r for his sister鈥 (Numbers 6:7); the Gemara pauses its recounting of the question of Reish Lakish and cites a baraita that teaches this halakha.

讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗讞讬讜 讜诇讗讞转讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 诇砖讞讜讟 讗转 驻住讞讜 讜诇诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讜

As it is taught in a baraita: The verses state with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淎ll the days that he consecrates himself unto the Lord he shall not come near to a dead body. He shall not make himself impure for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die鈥 (Numbers 6:6鈥7). Why must the verse state all of these relatives? It teaches that if a nazirite was going to slaughter his Paschal offering or to circumcise his son

讜砖诪注 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讬讻讜诇 讬讟诪讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讟诪讗

and he heard that a relative of his died, one might have thought that he should return and become ritually impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse to bury his relative. You said: 鈥淗e shall not make himself impure鈥; the death of his relative will not override so significant a mitzva from the Torah.

讬讻讜诇 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诇讗讞讜转讜 讻讱 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗讞转讜 诇讗讞讜转讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

One might have thought: Just as he may not become impure to bury his sister, so he may not become impure to bury a met mitzva. Therefore, the verse states specifically: 鈥淥r for his sister鈥; teaching that he may not become impure only to bury his sister, as others can attend to her burial, but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva.

砖讘转 砖谞讬讚讞转 诪驻谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转讛讗 拽讘讜专转 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛

Having cited the baraita proving that the burial of a met mitzva overrides the Temple service, Reish Lakish continues his suggestion: With regard to Shabbat, which is overridden due to the Temple service, is it not logical that the burial of a met mitzva overrides it?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专爪讬讞讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛注讘讜讚讛 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: The halakha of murder, i.e., the obligation to kill one found liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, proves that this is not the case, as it overrides the Temple service, e.g., if the only priest present is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, he is taken to be killed despite this resulting in the negation of the Temple service, but it does not override Shabbat.

专爪讬讞讛 讙讜驻讛 转讚讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛 注讘讜讚讛 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 转拽讞谞讜 诇诪讜转 砖讘转 砖谞讬讚讞转 诪驻谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转讛讗 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛

The Gemara asks: Murder itself should override Shabbat based on this a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, nevertheless murder overrides it, and the source for this is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; you shall take him from My altar, that he may die鈥 (Exodus 21:14); then with regard to Shabbat, which is overridden due to the Temple service, is it not logical that murder should override it?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讘专 驻住拽讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 转讘注专讜 讗砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

Rava said in response: It has already been ruled by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day鈥 (Exodus 35:3)? All labor is forbidden on Shabbat, based on the verse: 鈥淚n it you shall not do any manner of work鈥 (Exodus 20:10). Why is kindling fire singled out?

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诇讗讜 讬爪讗转 讗讬 诇专讘讬 谞转谉 诇讞诇拽 讬爪讗转 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讘注专讛 诇诇讗讜 讬爪讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讞诇拽 讬爪讗转

The Gemara interjects: What is the meaning when the verse states this? If this question is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, this transgression was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat violates an ordinary prohibition, as opposed to the performance of other types of labor on Shabbat, for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. If this question is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, this transgression was singled out to divide the various labors and to establish liability to receive court-imposed capital punishment for performance of any one of them. The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita: Kindling of fire was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat violates an ordinary prohibition, this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Natan says: It was singled out to divide the various labors. Either way, it is clear what the meaning of the verse is.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讗 诪砖讘讜转 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讘讜转 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讻讚讬 砖讘转 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 讛讬讗 讜讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜抓 诇讗专抓 诪砖讘讜转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara clarifies: Rather, Rava said: The term 鈥渉abitations鈥 in the verse poses a difficulty for the tanna: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day鈥? After all, Shabbat is an obligation on the person himself, not an obligation bound to any specific location. And the halakha is that an obligation on the person himself is practiced whether in Eretz Yisrael or outside of Eretz Yisrael. Why do I need the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 that the Merciful One writes in the Torah?

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讬砖 讞讟讗 诪砖驻讟 诪讜转 讜讛讜诪转 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘砖讗专 诪诇讗讻讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讛讜诪转 讘讞讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

Rava continues: One student said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that since it is stated: 鈥淎nd if there is in a man a sin deserving of death and he is put to death鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:22), I would derive that the court administers capital punishment both during the week and on Shabbat. And accordingly, how do I realize the meaning of what the verse states concerning Shabbat: 鈥淓veryone that desecrates it shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 31:14)? One possibility is that the term: Desecration of Shabbat, applies only to other cases in which labor is performed, and excludes instances of the death penalty administered by a court, which is not a desecration of Shabbat. Or rather, derive that even the death penalty administered by a court is prohibited as desecration of Shabbat. And how do I realize the meaning of: 鈥淎nd he is put to death鈥? One possibility is that the mitzva of executing transgressors applies on weekdays, but not on Shabbat. Or rather, the other possibility is that it applies even on Shabbat.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讘注专讜 讗砖 讘讻诇 诪砖讘转讬讻诐 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讜 讗诇讛 诇讻诐 诇讞拽转 诪砖驻讟 诇讚专转讬讻诐 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 诪讛 诪砖讘讜转 讛讗诪讜专 诇讛诇谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗祝 诪砖讘讜转 讛讗诪讜专 讻讗谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讘注专讜 讗砖 讘讻诇 诪砖讘转讬讻诐

As these verses can be interpreted in either manner, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day,鈥 and there, with regard to the punishment administered to a murderer, the verse states: 鈥淎nd these shall be for you a statute of judgment throughout your generations in all your habitations鈥 (Numbers 35:29). Just as the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 that is stated there is referring to the act of a court, so too the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 that is stated here concerning Shabbat is referring to the act of a court. And the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations.鈥 This teaches that the court does not administer capital punishment on Shabbat.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讗讬谉 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讬谉 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛注讘讜讚讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 砖讘转 砖谞讬讚讞讬转 诪驻谞讬 讛注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谉 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛 注讘讜讚讛 砖讛讬讗 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛

Abaye says: Now that you have said that murder of one condemned by the court does not override Shabbat, one should say that murder does not override the performance of the Temple service either, based on an a fortiori inference: And just as with regard to Shabbat, which is overridden for the performance of the Temple service, murder does not override it, then with regard to performance of the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that murder should not override it?

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 转拽讞谞讜 诇诪讜转 讛讛讜讗 诇拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讚诇讗 讚讞讬 砖讘转

The Gemara questions this inference: But if so, how would one explain that which is written in the verse concerning one liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment: 鈥淵ou shall take him from My altar, that he may die鈥 (Exodus 21:14)? This verse indicates that the court administering capital punishment does override the performance of the Temple service. The Gemara explains: That verse serves to teach the halakha concerning an offering of an individual, which does not override Shabbat. The verse is teaching that the court takes the priest to execute him even if this will result in the offering of an individual not being sacrificed.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 转讛讗 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

Rava says: If that is so, one should say that murder should not override even an offering of an individual based on an a fortiori inference:

  • 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 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 35

讜讻转讬讘 讜转拽讞 专爪驻讛 讘转 讗讬讛 讗转 讛砖拽 讜转讟讛讜 诇讛 讗诇 讛爪讜专 讘转讞诇转 拽爪讬专

And it is written: 鈥淎nd Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, took sackcloth and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water was poured upon them from heaven; and she suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night鈥 (II聽Samuel 21:10). It is clear from this verse that the bodies of the children of Saul remained exposed outdoors; presumably, they were hung.

讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 拽讞 讗转 讻诇 专讗砖讬 讛注诐 讗诐 讛注诐 讞讟讗讜 专讗砖讬 讛注诐 诪讛 讞讟讗讜

The Gemara discusses the incident of the Israelites who worshipped the idol of Peor in the wilderness. And it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord said unto Moses: Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them unto the Lord facing the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel鈥 (Numbers 25:4). The Gemara asks: If the nation transgressed, in what manner did the chiefs of the people transgress? The verse does not record a transgression of the chiefs, so why were they punished?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 诇讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 讞诇拽 诇讛诐 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖转讬 诪讬转讜转 讗讘诇 讘诪讬转讛 讗讞转 讚谞讬谉

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The reason for selecting the chiefs of the tribes was not to punish them. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Apportion courts for the chiefs of the tribes, and each court will judge and punish the transgressors of its tribe. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that multiple courts were needed for this? If we say that it is due to the principle that a court does not judge two cases of capital law in one day, and there were many cases to be judged, that cannot be the reason. But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say: This principle was taught only with regard to two different types of death imposed by a court, as each case needs sufficient time to be fully investigated on its own merits. But the court does judge multiple cases of one type of death, i.e., one transgression, on the same day.

讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬砖讜讘 讞专讜谉 讗祝 诪讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara explains: Rather, the reason for the appointment of multiple courts was in order that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel. The fierce anger of God would remain until those who engaged in idol worship were punished. Therefore, it was necessary to try them in due haste.

讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讙讜诪专讬谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches: In cases of monetary law, the court may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even on that same day, whether to exempt the accused or to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court may conclude the deliberations and issue the ruling even on that same day to acquit the accused, but must wait until the following day to find him liable. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪诇讗转讬 诪砖驻讟 爪讚拽 讬诇讬谉 讘讛 讜注转讛 诪专爪讞讬诐 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讗砖专讜 讞诪讜抓 讗砖专讜 讚讬讬谉 砖诪讞诪抓 讗转 讚讬谞讜

Rabbi 岣nina said: The verse states prophetically concerning Jerusalem after the destruction of the First Temple: 鈥淪he that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers鈥 (Isaiah 1:21). The verse associates lodging, or waiting overnight, with justice. And Rava says that these matters are derived from here: 鈥淟earn to do well; seek judgment, relieve [ashru] the oppressed [岣motz]鈥 (Isaiah 1:17). This is interpreted: Praise [ashru] the judge who delays [me岣metz] his verdict before he pronounces it.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗砖专讜 讞诪讜抓 讜诇讗 讞讜诪抓 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗讬 诪诇讗转讬 诪砖驻讟 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

And the other amora, Rabbi 岣nina, who did not derive this halakha from this verse, interprets it as meaning: Relieve the robbery victim [岣motz], but not the robber [岣metz], as do the wicked judges. The Gemara asks: And the other amora, Rava, what does he do with this verse: 鈥淪he that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers鈥?

讻讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻诇 转注谞讬转 砖诪诇讬谞讬谉 讘讜 讗转 讛爪讚拽讛 讻讗讬诇讜 砖讜驻讱 讚诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 诪诇讗转讬 诪砖驻讟 爪讚拽 讜讙讜壮 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘专讬驻转讗 讜转诪专讬 讗讘诇 讘讝讜讝讬 讞讬讟讬 讜砖注专讬 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

The Gemara answers: Rava interprets it in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says, as Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: Every fast day on which the distribution of charity [tzedaka] is left overnight, this is considered as if one spilled the blood of the poor people, as they fasted all day in the expectation that they would receive charity before the day was over in order to purchase food with which to break their fasts. As it is stated: 鈥淪he that was full of justice [tzedek], righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.鈥 The Gemara clarifies: And this statement applies with regard to the delaying of the distribution of bread and dates, which are ready to be consumed; but with regard to the delaying of the distribution of money, wheat, and barley, we have no problem with it.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

搂 After teaching that in cases of capital law, the verdict may not be issued on the same day as the deliberations, the mishna states: Therefore, the court does not judge cases of capital law on certain days, neither on the eve of Shabbat nor on the eve of a Festival. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? What does the halakha that the verdict may not be issued on the same day as the deliberations have to do with not judging cases on those days?

诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讚 诇讬讚讬讬谞讬讛 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讜诇讬讙诪专讬讛 诇讚讬谞讬讛 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讝讜 讟注诐 诇讞讜讘讛 讜讘注讜 诇诪讬注讘讚 讛诇谞转 讚讬谉 诇讚讬讬谞讬讛 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讜诇讬讙诪专讬讛 讘砖讘转讗 讜诇讬拽讟诇讬讛 讘砖讘转讗 讗讬谉 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 砖讘转 讜诇讬拽讟诇讬讛 诇讗讜专转讗 谞讙讚 讛砖诪砖 讘注讬谞谉

The Gemara explains: It is because it is not possible to conduct the trial on the eve of Shabbat or the eve of a Festival. As, how should we act? If we say that we should judge him on Shabbat eve and conclude his verdict on Shabbat eve, perhaps we would see a reason to find the accused liable, and in this situation the court is required to perform a suspension of the trial until the following day, as the court may not issue a verdict in cases of capital law on the same day as the deliberations. If we say: We should judge him on Shabbat eve and conclude the verdict on Shabbat, and, if he is found liable, kill him on Shabbat, that cannot be done, as the murder of one liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment does not override Shabbat. And if we say: We should kill him at night, after the conclusion of Shabbat, that cannot be done, as we require that the capital punishment be administered facing the sun, during the daytime.

讜诇讬讙诪专讬讛 诇讚讬谞讬讛 讘砖讘转讗 讜诇讬拽讟诇讬讛 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 谞诪爪讗 讗转讛 诪注谞讛 讗转 讚讬谞讜 谞讬讚讬讬谞讬讛 讘诪注诇讬 砖讘转讗 讜谞讙诪专讬讛 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 诪讬谞砖讜 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖谞讬 住讜驻专讬 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 注讜诪讚讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛诪讝讻讬谉 讜讚讘专讬 讛诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 谞讛讬 讚讘驻讜诪讗 讻转讘讬谉 诇讬讘讗 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专

And if we say: We should judge him on Shabbat eve, conclude his verdict on Shabbat, and kill him on Sunday, you are found to have caused a delay in his verdict, as the accused will have to wait overnight knowing he is condemned to death. And if we say: We should judge him on Shabbat eve and conclude his verdict on Sunday, the judges will forget their reasons for their positions in the interim. And even though two judges鈥 scribes are standing before them, and they write the statements of those who acquit the accused and the statements of those who find him liable, and they write that which emerged from the mouths of the judges, i.e., their tentative verdict, the hearts of people [enashei] are forgetful [inshei], and they will forget the reasons. Therefore, it is not possible to begin deliberations in cases of capital law on a Shabbat eve or a Festival eve.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜转讛讗 拽讘讜专转 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 注讘讜讚讛 砖讚讜讞讛 砖讘转 拽讘讜专转 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛 诪讜诇讗讞转讜

搂 The Gemara discusses a related matter: Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: And the burial of a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva] should override Shabbat by means of an a fortiori inference: If with regard to the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, yet the burial of a met mitzva overrides it, based on the interpretation of the term written with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淥r for his sister鈥 (Numbers 6:7); the Gemara pauses its recounting of the question of Reish Lakish and cites a baraita that teaches this halakha.

讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗诪讜 诇讗讞讬讜 讜诇讗讞转讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讛讜诇讱 诇砖讞讜讟 讗转 驻住讞讜 讜诇诪讜诇 讗转 讘谞讜

As it is taught in a baraita: The verses state with regard to a nazirite: 鈥淎ll the days that he consecrates himself unto the Lord he shall not come near to a dead body. He shall not make himself impure for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die鈥 (Numbers 6:6鈥7). Why must the verse state all of these relatives? It teaches that if a nazirite was going to slaughter his Paschal offering or to circumcise his son

讜砖诪注 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讬讻讜诇 讬讟诪讗 讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讟诪讗

and he heard that a relative of his died, one might have thought that he should return and become ritually impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse to bury his relative. You said: 鈥淗e shall not make himself impure鈥; the death of his relative will not override so significant a mitzva from the Torah.

讬讻讜诇 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诇讗讞讜转讜 讻讱 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗讞转讜 诇讗讞讜转讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗 诇诪转 诪爪讜讛

One might have thought: Just as he may not become impure to bury his sister, so he may not become impure to bury a met mitzva. Therefore, the verse states specifically: 鈥淥r for his sister鈥; teaching that he may not become impure only to bury his sister, as others can attend to her burial, but he may become impure to bury a met mitzva.

砖讘转 砖谞讬讚讞转 诪驻谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转讛讗 拽讘讜专转 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛

Having cited the baraita proving that the burial of a met mitzva overrides the Temple service, Reish Lakish continues his suggestion: With regard to Shabbat, which is overridden due to the Temple service, is it not logical that the burial of a met mitzva overrides it?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专爪讬讞讛 转讜讻讬讞 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛注讘讜讚讛 讜讗讬谞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: The halakha of murder, i.e., the obligation to kill one found liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, proves that this is not the case, as it overrides the Temple service, e.g., if the only priest present is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, he is taken to be killed despite this resulting in the negation of the Temple service, but it does not override Shabbat.

专爪讬讞讛 讙讜驻讛 转讚讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛 注讘讜讚讛 砖讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 转拽讞谞讜 诇诪讜转 砖讘转 砖谞讬讚讞转 诪驻谞讬 注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转讛讗 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛

The Gemara asks: Murder itself should override Shabbat based on this a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, nevertheless murder overrides it, and the source for this is as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; you shall take him from My altar, that he may die鈥 (Exodus 21:14); then with regard to Shabbat, which is overridden due to the Temple service, is it not logical that murder should override it?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讘专 驻住拽讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 转讘注专讜 讗砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

Rava said in response: It has already been ruled by a tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day鈥 (Exodus 35:3)? All labor is forbidden on Shabbat, based on the verse: 鈥淚n it you shall not do any manner of work鈥 (Exodus 20:10). Why is kindling fire singled out?

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诇讗讜 讬爪讗转 讗讬 诇专讘讬 谞转谉 诇讞诇拽 讬爪讗转 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讘注专讛 诇诇讗讜 讬爪讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讞诇拽 讬爪讗转

The Gemara interjects: What is the meaning when the verse states this? If this question is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, this transgression was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat violates an ordinary prohibition, as opposed to the performance of other types of labor on Shabbat, for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. If this question is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, this transgression was singled out to divide the various labors and to establish liability to receive court-imposed capital punishment for performance of any one of them. The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita: Kindling of fire was singled out to teach that one who lights a fire on Shabbat violates an ordinary prohibition, this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Natan says: It was singled out to divide the various labors. Either way, it is clear what the meaning of the verse is.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讗 诪砖讘讜转 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪砖讘讜转 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讻讚讬 砖讘转 讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 讛讬讗 讜讞讜讘转 讛讙讜祝 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讗专抓 讘讬谉 讘讞讜抓 诇讗专抓 诪砖讘讜转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara clarifies: Rather, Rava said: The term 鈥渉abitations鈥 in the verse poses a difficulty for the tanna: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day鈥? After all, Shabbat is an obligation on the person himself, not an obligation bound to any specific location. And the halakha is that an obligation on the person himself is practiced whether in Eretz Yisrael or outside of Eretz Yisrael. Why do I need the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 that the Merciful One writes in the Torah?

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讬砖 讞讟讗 诪砖驻讟 诪讜转 讜讛讜诪转 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬讛 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讘砖讗专 诪诇讗讻讜转 讞讜抓 诪诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬转转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讛讜诪转 讘讞讜诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

Rava continues: One student said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that since it is stated: 鈥淎nd if there is in a man a sin deserving of death and he is put to death鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:22), I would derive that the court administers capital punishment both during the week and on Shabbat. And accordingly, how do I realize the meaning of what the verse states concerning Shabbat: 鈥淓veryone that desecrates it shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 31:14)? One possibility is that the term: Desecration of Shabbat, applies only to other cases in which labor is performed, and excludes instances of the death penalty administered by a court, which is not a desecration of Shabbat. Or rather, derive that even the death penalty administered by a court is prohibited as desecration of Shabbat. And how do I realize the meaning of: 鈥淎nd he is put to death鈥? One possibility is that the mitzva of executing transgressors applies on weekdays, but not on Shabbat. Or rather, the other possibility is that it applies even on Shabbat.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讘注专讜 讗砖 讘讻诇 诪砖讘转讬讻诐 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛讬讜 讗诇讛 诇讻诐 诇讞拽转 诪砖驻讟 诇讚专转讬讻诐 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 诪讛 诪砖讘讜转 讛讗诪讜专 诇讛诇谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗祝 诪砖讘讜转 讛讗诪讜专 讻讗谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讘注专讜 讗砖 讘讻诇 诪砖讘转讬讻诐

As these verses can be interpreted in either manner, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on Shabbat day,鈥 and there, with regard to the punishment administered to a murderer, the verse states: 鈥淎nd these shall be for you a statute of judgment throughout your generations in all your habitations鈥 (Numbers 35:29). Just as the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 that is stated there is referring to the act of a court, so too the term 鈥渉abitations鈥 that is stated here concerning Shabbat is referring to the act of a court. And the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations.鈥 This teaches that the court does not administer capital punishment on Shabbat.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讗讬谉 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讬谉 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛注讘讜讚讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 砖讘转 砖谞讬讚讞讬转 诪驻谞讬 讛注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谉 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛 注讘讜讚讛 砖讛讬讗 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讛

Abaye says: Now that you have said that murder of one condemned by the court does not override Shabbat, one should say that murder does not override the performance of the Temple service either, based on an a fortiori inference: And just as with regard to Shabbat, which is overridden for the performance of the Temple service, murder does not override it, then with regard to performance of the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat, is it not logical that murder should not override it?

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 转拽讞谞讜 诇诪讜转 讛讛讜讗 诇拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讚诇讗 讚讞讬 砖讘转

The Gemara questions this inference: But if so, how would one explain that which is written in the verse concerning one liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment: 鈥淵ou shall take him from My altar, that he may die鈥 (Exodus 21:14)? This verse indicates that the court administering capital punishment does override the performance of the Temple service. The Gemara explains: That verse serves to teach the halakha concerning an offering of an individual, which does not override Shabbat. The verse is teaching that the court takes the priest to execute him even if this will result in the offering of an individual not being sacrificed.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 转讛讗 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

Rava says: If that is so, one should say that murder should not override even an offering of an individual based on an a fortiori inference:

Scroll To Top