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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 21, 2017 | 讻状讟 讘讗讘 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sanhedrin 36

Further differences between monetary and capital cases that were mentioned in the mishna are discussed and derivations are brought.


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

诪讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讚讞讛 诪驻谞讬 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谉 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讜 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 砖讛讜讗 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讜

Just as with regard to a Festival, which is overridden due to an offering of an individual, as voluntary offerings of individuals are sacrificed on Festivals, and nevertheless murder does not override it, as the court does not execute one liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment on a Festival, with regard to an offering of an individual, which overrides a Festival, is it not logical that murder should not override it? Therefore, unlike the explanation of Abaye, the court should not take a priest to him in the event he liable to receive capital punishment if this will result in the offering of an individual not being sacrificed.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rava clarifies: This works out well according to the one who says that vow offerings and gift offerings of individuals are not sacrificed on a Festival. Since the offerings of an individual do not override a Festival, there is no place for this a fortiori inference. But according to the one who says that vow offerings and gift offerings of individuals are sacrificed on a Festival, what is there to say? Why would one not make the above a fortiori inference?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讛讗 诇讗 诪转拽讬讬诐 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 讻诇诇

Rather, Rava says that Abaye鈥檚 explanation of the verse is incorrect according to all opinions. It is not necessary to say that the inference is incorrect according to the one who says that vow offerings and gift offerings of individuals are sacrificed on a Festival, as according to that opinion one cannot justify the verse of 鈥渇rom My altar鈥 at all, as there is no distinction between the offering of an individual and a communal offering, as both override a Festival. Accordingly, court-imposed capital punishment should not override either type of offering.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗讬谉 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讻转讬讘 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 诪讝讘讞讬 讛诪讬讜讞讚 诇讬 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 转诪讬讚 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 转拽讞谞讜 诇诪讜转

But even according to the one who says that vow offerings and gift offerings of individuals are not sacrificed on a Festival, in which case Abaye鈥檚 explanation is possible, this is difficult. But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔rom My altar鈥? The term 鈥淢y altar鈥 indicates: My altar, the offering that is designated to Me. And what offering is this? It is the daily offering. And yet, the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall take him from My altar, that he may die.鈥 Accordingly, the verse is not stated specifically with regard to an offering of an individual.

讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讛讟诪讗讜转 讜讛讟讛专讜转 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗谞讗 讛讜讗讬 讘诪谞讬谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讜诪讬谞讗讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讜 诪转讞诇讬 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 诪谉 讛讙讚讜诇 转谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches that in cases of monetary law, and likewise in the cases of ritual impurity and purity, the judges commence expressing their opinions from the greatest of the judges. Rav says: I was among the quorum of judges in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and they would commence from me, i.e., I was first when ascertaining the opinions of the judges. The Gemara questions this statement: But we learned in the mishna that the judges commence expressing their opinions from the greatest of the judges, and Rav was one of the junior judges of that court.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛诇诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讜诇住 砖讗谞讬 诪谞讬讬谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讚讻讜诇讛讜 诪谞讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪谉 讛爪讚 讛讜讜 诪转讞诇讬

Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say that it was Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Valles, who says: The counting of the vote in the court in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is different, as all of their deliberations and the counting of the vote would commence from the side benches, where the least significant judges sit. This was because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was held in such high esteem that once he expressed his opinion, no one would be so brazen as to contradict him.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛诇诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讜诇住 诪讬诪讜转 诪砖讛 讜注讚 专讘讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 转讜专讛 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚

And with regard to the greatness of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say that it was Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Valles, who says: From the days of Moses and until the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi we do not find unparalleled greatness in Torah knowledge and unparalleled greatness in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined in one place, i.e., in a single individual.

讜诇讗 讛讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讜砖注 讛讜讛 讗诇注讝专 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 驻谞讞住 讛讜讜 讝拽谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? Wasn鈥檛 there Joshua, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his time there was Elazar, who was Joshua鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 there Pinehas, who outlived Elazar? The Gemara answers: There were the Elders, who were equal to Pinehas in Torah knowledge.

讜讛讗 讛讜讛 砖讗讜诇 讛讜讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara further objects: But wasn鈥檛 there Saul, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: There was Samuel, who was Saul鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Samuel die in Saul鈥檚 lifetime, leaving Saul the leading figure in both domains? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that from the days of Moses until the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people.

讜讛讗 讛讜讛 讚讜讚 讛讜讛 注讬专讗 讛讬讗讬专讬 讜讛讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 there David, who was both the greatest Torah authority and the most powerful temporal authority of his day? The Gemara answers: There was Ira the Yairite, who was David鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 Ira the Yairite die in David鈥檚 lifetime? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people.

讜讛讗 讛讜讛 砖诇诪讛 讛讜讛 砖诪注讬 讘谉 讙专讗 讜讛讗 拽讟诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 砖谞讬讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 there Solomon, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Shimi ben Gera, who was Solomon鈥檚 master in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 Solomon kill him at the beginning of his reign (see I聽Kings, chapter 2)? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people.

讛讗 讛讜讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讜讛 砖讘谞讗 讜讛讗 讗讬拽讟讬诇 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 注讝专讗 讛讜讛 谞讞诪讬讛 讘谉 讞讻诇讬讛

The Gemara further objects: Wasn鈥檛 there Hezekiah, who was both the leading Torah scholar of his age and also the king of his people? The Gemara answers: There was Shebnah in that generation, who was Hezekiah鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 he killed in the war against Sennacherib? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 there Ezra, who was the greatest Torah Sage of his day and the leader of the Jewish people? The Gemara answers: There was Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah, who was his equal.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 诪讬诪讜转 专讘讬 注讚 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 转讜专讛 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 诪讬讻祝 讛讜讛 讻讬讬祝 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗砖讬

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: I also say a similar statement, that from the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and until the days of Rav Ashi we do not find unparalleled greatness in Torah knowledge and unparalleled greatness in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined in one place, i.e., in a single individual. The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? But wasn鈥檛 there Huna bar Natan, who lived during the time of Rav Ashi and enjoyed both great Torah scholarship and great wealth? The Gemara answers: Huna bar Natan was subordinate to Rav Ashi, who was his superior in both domains.

讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转注谞讛 注诇 专讘 诇讗 转注谞讛 注诇 专讘

搂 The mishna teaches that in cases of capital law, the judges commence issuing their opinions from the side benches, where the least significant judges sit. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav A岣 bar Pappa says: The verse states: 鈥淣either shall you answer in a cause [al riv]鈥 (Exodus 23:2), and the Sages interpret: Neither shall you answer after the Master [al rav], i.e., do not dispute the opinion of the greatest among the judges. Therefore, were the judges to commence issuing their opinions from the greatest of them, and he would say that the accused is liable, no judge would acquit him.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讗诪专 讚讜讚 诇讗谞砖讬讜 讞讙专讜 讗讬砖 [讗转] 讞专讘讜 讜讬讞讙专讜 讗讬砖 [讗转] 讞专讘讜 讜讬讞讙专 讙诐 讚讜讚 讗转 讞专讘讜

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The source of this practice is from here: When David decided to punish Nabal the Carmelite, the verse states: 鈥淎nd David said to his men: Every man gird his sword. And every man girded his sword, and David also girded his sword鈥 (I聽Samuel 25:13). That was a case of capital law, and David, the greatest among them, was last.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讜谞讛 讗讚诐 诇转诇诪讬讚讜 讜讚谉 注诪讜 讘讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讟讛专讜转 讜讛讟诪讗讜转 讛讗讘 讜讘谞讜 讛专讘 讜转诇诪讬讚讜 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讛诐 砖谞讬诐 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜讚讬谞讬 诪讻讜转 拽讬讚讜砖 讛讞讚砖 讜注讬讘讜专 砖谞讛 讗讘 讜讘谞讜 讛专讘 讜转诇诪讬讚讜 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 讗讞讚

Rav says: A person may teach his student the relevant material and then judge cases of capital law with him, and this student can participate in the deliberations and serve as one of the judges. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta 7:2): In cases of ritual purity and impurity, if two of the judges are a father and his son, or a teacher and his student, the court counts them as two opinions. By inference, in cases of monetary law and cases of capital law, and cases of laws involving the punishment of lashes, as well as court proceedings concerning sanctification of the month and the intercalation of the year, if two of the judges are a father and his son, or a teacher and his student, the court counts them as only one opinion, as it is assumed the son or student will merely echo the opinion of his father or teacher. This contradicts the ruling of Rav.

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 讚诇讙诪专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜讜 爪专讬讻讬 讜诇住讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 讛讜讜 爪专讬讻讬

The Gemara answers: When Rav says his statement, he is referring to not every student, but only those such as Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, who needed to learn the halakhic traditions of Rav, but they did not need to learn the reasoning of Rav, as they were capable of conducting their own analysis.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 注砖专讛 讚讘专讬诐 讬砖 讘讬谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 诇讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讞讜抓 诪注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛

Rabbi Abbahu says: There are ten ways in which cases of monetary law are different from cases of capital law, as was taught in the beginning of the chapter, and none of them is practiced with regard to a court hearing concerning an ox that is to be stoned, as it is treated as a case of monetary law, except for the requirement that the animal be judged by twenty-three judges, like in cases of capital law.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转讟讛 诪砖驻讟 讗讘讬谞讱 讘专讬讘讜 诪砖驻讟 讗讘讬讜谞讱 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讟讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪讟讛 诪砖驻讟 砖诇 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav A岣 bar Pappa says: As the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not incline the judgment of your poor in his cause鈥 (Exodus 23:6). He explains: You may not incline the judgment of, i.e., exert effort to find liable, your poor, but you may incline the judgment of an ox that is to be stoned. The reason for the procedural differences between cases of monetary law and cases of capital law is to render it more likely that one accused of a capital transgression will be acquitted. This is not a factor when judging the ox.

注砖专讛 讛讗 转砖注讛 讛讜讜 讛讗 注砖专讛 拽转谞讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 讜注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讞讚讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: Are there really ten ways in which cases of monetary law are different from cases of capital law? There are only nine differences recorded in the mishna. The Gemara questions this: But the mishna teaches ten differences, not nine. The Gemara clarifies: Although there appear to be ten, there are in fact nine, because the halakha that not all are fit to judge cases of capital law and the halakha that twenty-three judges are required for cases of capital law are one. The reason not all are fit to judge cases of capital law is that the court of twenty-three is derived from the command to Moses: 鈥淎nd they shall bear the burden of the people with you鈥 (Numbers 11:17), which indicates that only those 鈥渨ith you,鈥 i.e., similar in lineage to Moses, can serve on that court (see 17a).

讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讜砖讬讘讬谉 讘住谞讛讚专讬谉 讝拽谉 讜住专讬住 讜诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 讗讻讝专讬 讜讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讘诪住讬转 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讞诪诇 讜诇讗 转讻住讛 注诇讬讜

The Gemara answers: But there is another difference, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:5): The court does not seat on the Sanhedrin a very old person or one who is castrated or one who has no children, as those who did not recently raise children may lack compassion. Rabbi Yehuda adds: Even a cruel person is not eligible. The Gemara comments: And the opposite of this is the halakha with regard to one who entices others to engage in idol worship, as the Merciful One states concerning him: 鈥淣either shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:9).

讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讛讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专

搂 The mishna teaches that all are fit to judge cases of monetary law. The Gemara asks: What is added by the mishna鈥檚 employing the expansive term all? Rav Yehuda says: It serves to include a child born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer] in the category of those qualified to judge cases of monetary law.

讛讗 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讬砖 专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专 讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙专 讜讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专

The Gemara questions this explanation: But we already learn this halakha one time, as it is taught in a baraita: All who are fit to judge cases of capital law are fit to judge cases of monetary law, but there are those who are fit to judge cases of monetary law and are not fit to judge cases of capital law. And we discussed it: What is included in the expansive term all employed by the baraita? And Rav Yehuda says: It serves to include a mamzer. The Gemara responds: One of the two sources serves to include a convert, who is qualified to judge only in cases of monetary law, and one of the two sources serves to include a mamzer.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙专 讚专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讗讘诇 诪诪讝专 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪诪讝专 讚讘讗 诪讟讬驻讛 讻砖专讛 讗讘诇 讙专 讚诇讗 讘讗 诪讟讬驻讛 讻砖专讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara comments: And both the mishna and baraita are necessary, as the halakha taught by one source cannot be derived from the halakha taught by the other source. As, if the tanna taught us the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to a convert, one could say that a convert is like a born Jew concerning this, since he is fit to enter into the congregation, i.e., marry a Jew of fit lineage, but with regard to a mamzer, who is not fit to enter into the congregation, say that he cannot serve as a judge. And if the tanna taught us the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to a mamzer, one could say that a mamzer is fit to judge, as he came from seed of unflawed lineage, but with regard to a convert, who does not come from seed of unflawed lineage, say that he cannot serve as a judge. Therefore, both sources are necessary.

讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻砖诐 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪谞讜拽讬谉 讘爪讚拽 讻讱 诪谞讜拽讬谉 诪讻诇 诪讜诐 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讻诇讱 讬驻讛 专注讬转讬 讜诪讜诐 讗讬谉 讘讱

搂 The mishna teaches: But not all are fit to judge cases of capital law; the judges may be only priests, Levites, or Israelites who are of sufficiently fit lineage to marry their daughters to members of the priesthood. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains: As Rav Yosef taught: Just as the court is clean in justice, so too, it is clean of any blemish, i.e., it does not include anyone of flawed lineage. Ameimar says: What is the verse from which it is derived? It states: 鈥淵ou are all fair, my love; and there is no blemish in you鈥 (Song of Songs 4:7).

讜讚讬诇诪讗 诪讜诐 诪诪砖 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛转讬爪讘讜 砖诐 注诪讱 注诪讱 讘讚讜诪讬谉 诇讱

The Gemara asks: But perhaps you should say that this is referring to an actual blemish, and is teaching that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says: It is not necessary to learn from this verse the halakha that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin, as the verse states in connection with the transfer of the Divine Spirit from Moses to the Elders: 鈥淭hat they may stand there with you鈥 (Numbers 11:16). The term 鈥渨ith you鈥 is explained to mean: With similarity to you, teaching that the members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, like Moses.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 砖讻讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞砖讗讜 讗转讱 讗转讱 讘讚讜诪讬谉 诇讱 诇讬讛讜讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps there, those who were with Moses had to be free of any blemish due to the Divine Presence, which was going to rest upon them, but this is not a requirement for judges to serve on the Sanhedrin. Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: The verse states: 鈥淪o shall they make it easier for you and bear the burden with you鈥 (Exodus 18:22). The term 鈥渨ith you鈥 is explained to mean: They shall be similar to you, without blemish. This verse is referring to the appointment of regular judges, upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest, and teaches that all members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, and the verse from Song of Songs teaches that they must have unflawed lineage as well.

诪转谞讬壮 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讛讬转讛 讻讞爪讬 讙讜专谉 注讙讜诇讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讜 专讜讗讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜砖谞讬 住讜驻专讬 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 注讜诪讚讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讗讞讚 诪讬诪讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪砖诪讗诇 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 讚讘专讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讚讘专讬 诪讝讻讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 讚讘专讬 讛诪讝讻讬谉 讜讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 讚讘专讬 讛诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬 讻讜转讘 讚讘专讬 讛诪讝讻讬谉 讜讚讘专讬 讛诪讞讬讬讘讬谉

MISHNA: A Sanhedrin of twenty-three was arranged in the same layout as half of a circular threshing floor, in order that all the judges will see one another and the witnesses. And two judges鈥 scribes stand before the court, one on the right and one on the left, and they write the statements of those who find the accused liable and the statements of those who acquit the accused. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were three scribes. One writes only the statements of those who acquit the accused, one writes only the statements of those who find him liable, and the third writes both the statements of those who acquit the accused and the statements of those who find him liable, so that if there is uncertainty concerning the precise wording that one of the scribes writes, it can be compared to the words of the third scribe.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 36

诪讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讚讞讛 诪驻谞讬 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谉 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讜 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 砖讛讜讗 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 专爪讬讞讛 讚讜讞讛 讗讜转讜

Just as with regard to a Festival, which is overridden due to an offering of an individual, as voluntary offerings of individuals are sacrificed on Festivals, and nevertheless murder does not override it, as the court does not execute one liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment on a Festival, with regard to an offering of an individual, which overrides a Festival, is it not logical that murder should not override it? Therefore, unlike the explanation of Abaye, the court should not take a priest to him in the event he liable to receive capital punishment if this will result in the offering of an individual not being sacrificed.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rava clarifies: This works out well according to the one who says that vow offerings and gift offerings of individuals are not sacrificed on a Festival. Since the offerings of an individual do not override a Festival, there is no place for this a fortiori inference. But according to the one who says that vow offerings and gift offerings of individuals are sacrificed on a Festival, what is there to say? Why would one not make the above a fortiori inference?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讛讗 诇讗 诪转拽讬讬诐 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 讻诇诇

Rather, Rava says that Abaye鈥檚 explanation of the verse is incorrect according to all opinions. It is not necessary to say that the inference is incorrect according to the one who says that vow offerings and gift offerings of individuals are sacrificed on a Festival, as according to that opinion one cannot justify the verse of 鈥渇rom My altar鈥 at all, as there is no distinction between the offering of an individual and a communal offering, as both override a Festival. Accordingly, court-imposed capital punishment should not override either type of offering.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗讬谉 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讻转讬讘 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 诪讝讘讞讬 讛诪讬讜讞讚 诇讬 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 转诪讬讚 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪注诐 诪讝讘讞讬 转拽讞谞讜 诇诪讜转

But even according to the one who says that vow offerings and gift offerings of individuals are not sacrificed on a Festival, in which case Abaye鈥檚 explanation is possible, this is difficult. But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔rom My altar鈥? The term 鈥淢y altar鈥 indicates: My altar, the offering that is designated to Me. And what offering is this? It is the daily offering. And yet, the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall take him from My altar, that he may die.鈥 Accordingly, the verse is not stated specifically with regard to an offering of an individual.

讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讛讟诪讗讜转 讜讛讟讛专讜转 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗谞讗 讛讜讗讬 讘诪谞讬谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讜诪讬谞讗讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讜 诪转讞诇讬 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 诪谉 讛讙讚讜诇 转谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches that in cases of monetary law, and likewise in the cases of ritual impurity and purity, the judges commence expressing their opinions from the greatest of the judges. Rav says: I was among the quorum of judges in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and they would commence from me, i.e., I was first when ascertaining the opinions of the judges. The Gemara questions this statement: But we learned in the mishna that the judges commence expressing their opinions from the greatest of the judges, and Rav was one of the junior judges of that court.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛诇诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讜诇住 砖讗谞讬 诪谞讬讬谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讚讻讜诇讛讜 诪谞讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪谉 讛爪讚 讛讜讜 诪转讞诇讬

Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say that it was Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Valles, who says: The counting of the vote in the court in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is different, as all of their deliberations and the counting of the vote would commence from the side benches, where the least significant judges sit. This was because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was held in such high esteem that once he expressed his opinion, no one would be so brazen as to contradict him.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛诇诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讜诇住 诪讬诪讜转 诪砖讛 讜注讚 专讘讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 转讜专讛 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚

And with regard to the greatness of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say that it was Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Valles, who says: From the days of Moses and until the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi we do not find unparalleled greatness in Torah knowledge and unparalleled greatness in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined in one place, i.e., in a single individual.

讜诇讗 讛讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讜砖注 讛讜讛 讗诇注讝专 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 驻谞讞住 讛讜讜 讝拽谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? Wasn鈥檛 there Joshua, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his time there was Elazar, who was Joshua鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 there Pinehas, who outlived Elazar? The Gemara answers: There were the Elders, who were equal to Pinehas in Torah knowledge.

讜讛讗 讛讜讛 砖讗讜诇 讛讜讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara further objects: But wasn鈥檛 there Saul, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: There was Samuel, who was Saul鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Samuel die in Saul鈥檚 lifetime, leaving Saul the leading figure in both domains? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that from the days of Moses until the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people.

讜讛讗 讛讜讛 讚讜讚 讛讜讛 注讬专讗 讛讬讗讬专讬 讜讛讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 there David, who was both the greatest Torah authority and the most powerful temporal authority of his day? The Gemara answers: There was Ira the Yairite, who was David鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 Ira the Yairite die in David鈥檚 lifetime? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people.

讜讛讗 讛讜讛 砖诇诪讛 讛讜讛 砖诪注讬 讘谉 讙专讗 讜讛讗 拽讟诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 砖谞讬讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 there Solomon, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Shimi ben Gera, who was Solomon鈥檚 master in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 Solomon kill him at the beginning of his reign (see I聽Kings, chapter 2)? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people.

讛讗 讛讜讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讜讛 砖讘谞讗 讜讛讗 讗讬拽讟讬诇 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 注讝专讗 讛讜讛 谞讞诪讬讛 讘谉 讞讻诇讬讛

The Gemara further objects: Wasn鈥檛 there Hezekiah, who was both the leading Torah scholar of his age and also the king of his people? The Gemara answers: There was Shebnah in that generation, who was Hezekiah鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 he killed in the war against Sennacherib? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: But wasn鈥檛 there Ezra, who was the greatest Torah Sage of his day and the leader of the Jewish people? The Gemara answers: There was Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah, who was his equal.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 诪讬诪讜转 专讘讬 注讚 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 转讜专讛 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 诪讬讻祝 讛讜讛 讻讬讬祝 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗砖讬

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: I also say a similar statement, that from the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and until the days of Rav Ashi we do not find unparalleled greatness in Torah knowledge and unparalleled greatness in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined in one place, i.e., in a single individual. The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? But wasn鈥檛 there Huna bar Natan, who lived during the time of Rav Ashi and enjoyed both great Torah scholarship and great wealth? The Gemara answers: Huna bar Natan was subordinate to Rav Ashi, who was his superior in both domains.

讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转注谞讛 注诇 专讘 诇讗 转注谞讛 注诇 专讘

搂 The mishna teaches that in cases of capital law, the judges commence issuing their opinions from the side benches, where the least significant judges sit. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav A岣 bar Pappa says: The verse states: 鈥淣either shall you answer in a cause [al riv]鈥 (Exodus 23:2), and the Sages interpret: Neither shall you answer after the Master [al rav], i.e., do not dispute the opinion of the greatest among the judges. Therefore, were the judges to commence issuing their opinions from the greatest of them, and he would say that the accused is liable, no judge would acquit him.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛讻讗 讜讬讗诪专 讚讜讚 诇讗谞砖讬讜 讞讙专讜 讗讬砖 [讗转] 讞专讘讜 讜讬讞讙专讜 讗讬砖 [讗转] 讞专讘讜 讜讬讞讙专 讙诐 讚讜讚 讗转 讞专讘讜

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The source of this practice is from here: When David decided to punish Nabal the Carmelite, the verse states: 鈥淎nd David said to his men: Every man gird his sword. And every man girded his sword, and David also girded his sword鈥 (I聽Samuel 25:13). That was a case of capital law, and David, the greatest among them, was last.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讜谞讛 讗讚诐 诇转诇诪讬讚讜 讜讚谉 注诪讜 讘讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讟讛专讜转 讜讛讟诪讗讜转 讛讗讘 讜讘谞讜 讛专讘 讜转诇诪讬讚讜 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讛诐 砖谞讬诐 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜讚讬谞讬 诪讻讜转 拽讬讚讜砖 讛讞讚砖 讜注讬讘讜专 砖谞讛 讗讘 讜讘谞讜 讛专讘 讜转诇诪讬讚讜 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讛谉 讗诇讗 讗讞讚

Rav says: A person may teach his student the relevant material and then judge cases of capital law with him, and this student can participate in the deliberations and serve as one of the judges. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta 7:2): In cases of ritual purity and impurity, if two of the judges are a father and his son, or a teacher and his student, the court counts them as two opinions. By inference, in cases of monetary law and cases of capital law, and cases of laws involving the punishment of lashes, as well as court proceedings concerning sanctification of the month and the intercalation of the year, if two of the judges are a father and his son, or a teacher and his student, the court counts them as only one opinion, as it is assumed the son or student will merely echo the opinion of his father or teacher. This contradicts the ruling of Rav.

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 讚诇讙诪专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜讜 爪专讬讻讬 讜诇住讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诇讗 讛讜讜 爪专讬讻讬

The Gemara answers: When Rav says his statement, he is referring to not every student, but only those such as Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, who needed to learn the halakhic traditions of Rav, but they did not need to learn the reasoning of Rav, as they were capable of conducting their own analysis.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 注砖专讛 讚讘专讬诐 讬砖 讘讬谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 诇讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讞讜抓 诪注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛

Rabbi Abbahu says: There are ten ways in which cases of monetary law are different from cases of capital law, as was taught in the beginning of the chapter, and none of them is practiced with regard to a court hearing concerning an ox that is to be stoned, as it is treated as a case of monetary law, except for the requirement that the animal be judged by twenty-three judges, like in cases of capital law.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转讟讛 诪砖驻讟 讗讘讬谞讱 讘专讬讘讜 诪砖驻讟 讗讘讬讜谞讱 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讟讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪讟讛 诪砖驻讟 砖诇 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav A岣 bar Pappa says: As the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not incline the judgment of your poor in his cause鈥 (Exodus 23:6). He explains: You may not incline the judgment of, i.e., exert effort to find liable, your poor, but you may incline the judgment of an ox that is to be stoned. The reason for the procedural differences between cases of monetary law and cases of capital law is to render it more likely that one accused of a capital transgression will be acquitted. This is not a factor when judging the ox.

注砖专讛 讛讗 转砖注讛 讛讜讜 讛讗 注砖专讛 拽转谞讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 讜注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 讞讚讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: Are there really ten ways in which cases of monetary law are different from cases of capital law? There are only nine differences recorded in the mishna. The Gemara questions this: But the mishna teaches ten differences, not nine. The Gemara clarifies: Although there appear to be ten, there are in fact nine, because the halakha that not all are fit to judge cases of capital law and the halakha that twenty-three judges are required for cases of capital law are one. The reason not all are fit to judge cases of capital law is that the court of twenty-three is derived from the command to Moses: 鈥淎nd they shall bear the burden of the people with you鈥 (Numbers 11:17), which indicates that only those 鈥渨ith you,鈥 i.e., similar in lineage to Moses, can serve on that court (see 17a).

讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讜砖讬讘讬谉 讘住谞讛讚专讬谉 讝拽谉 讜住专讬住 讜诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜住讬祝 讗祝 讗讻讝专讬 讜讞讬诇讜驻讬讛谉 讘诪住讬转 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讞诪诇 讜诇讗 转讻住讛 注诇讬讜

The Gemara answers: But there is another difference, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:5): The court does not seat on the Sanhedrin a very old person or one who is castrated or one who has no children, as those who did not recently raise children may lack compassion. Rabbi Yehuda adds: Even a cruel person is not eligible. The Gemara comments: And the opposite of this is the halakha with regard to one who entices others to engage in idol worship, as the Merciful One states concerning him: 鈥淣either shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:9).

讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讛讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专

搂 The mishna teaches that all are fit to judge cases of monetary law. The Gemara asks: What is added by the mishna鈥檚 employing the expansive term all? Rav Yehuda says: It serves to include a child born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer] in the category of those qualified to judge cases of monetary law.

讛讗 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讬砖 专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专 讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讙专 讜讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪诪讝专

The Gemara questions this explanation: But we already learn this halakha one time, as it is taught in a baraita: All who are fit to judge cases of capital law are fit to judge cases of monetary law, but there are those who are fit to judge cases of monetary law and are not fit to judge cases of capital law. And we discussed it: What is included in the expansive term all employed by the baraita? And Rav Yehuda says: It serves to include a mamzer. The Gemara responds: One of the two sources serves to include a convert, who is qualified to judge only in cases of monetary law, and one of the two sources serves to include a mamzer.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙专 讚专讗讜讬 诇讘讗 讘拽讛诇 讗讘诇 诪诪讝专 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 诪诪讝专 讚讘讗 诪讟讬驻讛 讻砖专讛 讗讘诇 讙专 讚诇讗 讘讗 诪讟讬驻讛 讻砖专讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara comments: And both the mishna and baraita are necessary, as the halakha taught by one source cannot be derived from the halakha taught by the other source. As, if the tanna taught us the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to a convert, one could say that a convert is like a born Jew concerning this, since he is fit to enter into the congregation, i.e., marry a Jew of fit lineage, but with regard to a mamzer, who is not fit to enter into the congregation, say that he cannot serve as a judge. And if the tanna taught us the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to a mamzer, one could say that a mamzer is fit to judge, as he came from seed of unflawed lineage, but with regard to a convert, who does not come from seed of unflawed lineage, say that he cannot serve as a judge. Therefore, both sources are necessary.

讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇讚讜谉 讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻砖诐 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪谞讜拽讬谉 讘爪讚拽 讻讱 诪谞讜拽讬谉 诪讻诇 诪讜诐 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讻诇讱 讬驻讛 专注讬转讬 讜诪讜诐 讗讬谉 讘讱

搂 The mishna teaches: But not all are fit to judge cases of capital law; the judges may be only priests, Levites, or Israelites who are of sufficiently fit lineage to marry their daughters to members of the priesthood. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains: As Rav Yosef taught: Just as the court is clean in justice, so too, it is clean of any blemish, i.e., it does not include anyone of flawed lineage. Ameimar says: What is the verse from which it is derived? It states: 鈥淵ou are all fair, my love; and there is no blemish in you鈥 (Song of Songs 4:7).

讜讚讬诇诪讗 诪讜诐 诪诪砖 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛转讬爪讘讜 砖诐 注诪讱 注诪讱 讘讚讜诪讬谉 诇讱

The Gemara asks: But perhaps you should say that this is referring to an actual blemish, and is teaching that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says: It is not necessary to learn from this verse the halakha that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin, as the verse states in connection with the transfer of the Divine Spirit from Moses to the Elders: 鈥淭hat they may stand there with you鈥 (Numbers 11:16). The term 鈥渨ith you鈥 is explained to mean: With similarity to you, teaching that the members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, like Moses.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 砖讻讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜谞砖讗讜 讗转讱 讗转讱 讘讚讜诪讬谉 诇讱 诇讬讛讜讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps there, those who were with Moses had to be free of any blemish due to the Divine Presence, which was going to rest upon them, but this is not a requirement for judges to serve on the Sanhedrin. Rather, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: The verse states: 鈥淪o shall they make it easier for you and bear the burden with you鈥 (Exodus 18:22). The term 鈥渨ith you鈥 is explained to mean: They shall be similar to you, without blemish. This verse is referring to the appointment of regular judges, upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest, and teaches that all members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, and the verse from Song of Songs teaches that they must have unflawed lineage as well.

诪转谞讬壮 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讛讬转讛 讻讞爪讬 讙讜专谉 注讙讜诇讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讜 专讜讗讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜砖谞讬 住讜驻专讬 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 注讜诪讚讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讗讞讚 诪讬诪讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪砖诪讗诇 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 讚讘专讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讚讘专讬 诪讝讻讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 讚讘专讬 讛诪讝讻讬谉 讜讗讞讚 讻讜转讘 讚讘专讬 讛诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬 讻讜转讘 讚讘专讬 讛诪讝讻讬谉 讜讚讘专讬 讛诪讞讬讬讘讬谉

MISHNA: A Sanhedrin of twenty-three was arranged in the same layout as half of a circular threshing floor, in order that all the judges will see one another and the witnesses. And two judges鈥 scribes stand before the court, one on the right and one on the left, and they write the statements of those who find the accused liable and the statements of those who acquit the accused. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were three scribes. One writes only the statements of those who acquit the accused, one writes only the statements of those who find him liable, and the third writes both the statements of those who acquit the accused and the statements of those who find him liable, so that if there is uncertainty concerning the precise wording that one of the scribes writes, it can be compared to the words of the third scribe.

Scroll To Top