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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 21, 2017 | ื›ืดื˜ ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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"

ืžื” ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืฉื ื“ื—ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืื™ืŸ ืจืฆื™ื—ื” ื“ื•ื—ื” ืื•ืชื• ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉื”ื•ื ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืจืฆื™ื—ื” ื“ื•ื—ื” ืื•ืชื•

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.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื ื“ื‘ื•ืช ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื ื“ื‘ื•ืช ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

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?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื ื“ื‘ื•ืช ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ื“ื”ื ืœื ืžืชืงื™ื™ื ืžืขื ืžื–ื‘ื—ื™ ื›ืœืœ

Rather, Rava says that Abayeโ€™s 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 โ€œfrom My altarโ€ 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.

ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื ื“ื‘ื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืขื ืžื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื—ื™ ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืœื™ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืชืžื™ื“ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžืขื ืžื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืชืงื—ื ื• ืœืžื•ืช

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 Abayeโ€™s explanation is possible, this is difficult. But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œFrom My altarโ€? The term โ€œMy altarโ€ 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: โ€œYou shall take him from My altar, that he may die.โ€ Accordingly, the verse is not stated specifically with regard to an offering of an individual.

ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ื”ื˜ืžืื•ืช ื•ื”ื˜ื”ืจื•ืช ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื ื ื”ื•ืื™ ื‘ืžื ื™ื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื•ืžื™ื ืื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื•ื• ืžืชื—ืœื™ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ื ืื ืŸ ืžืชื—ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืชื ืŸ

ยง 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื”ืœืœ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื•ื•ืœืก ืฉืื ื™ ืžื ื™ื™ื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื“ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืžื ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื• ืžืชื—ืœื™

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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื”ืœืœ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื•ื•ืœืก ืžื™ืžื•ืช ืžืฉื” ื•ืขื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื—ื“

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.

ื•ืœื ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ื•ื” ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ืคื ื—ืก ื”ื•ื• ื–ืงื ื™ื

The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? Wasnโ€™t there Joshua, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his time there was Elazar, who was Joshuaโ€™s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t there Pinehas, who outlived Elazar? The Gemara answers: There were the Elders, who were equal to Pinehas in Torah knowledge.

ื•ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ืฉืื•ืœ ื”ื•ื” ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื”ื ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื” ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara further objects: But wasnโ€™t there Saul, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: There was Samuel, who was Saulโ€™s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t Samuel die in Saulโ€™s 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.

ื•ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ื“ื•ื“ ื”ื•ื” ืขื™ืจื ื”ื™ืื™ืจื™ ื•ื”ื ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื” ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t 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 Davidโ€™s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didnโ€™t Ira the Yairite die in Davidโ€™s 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.

ื•ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ืฉืœืžื” ื”ื•ื” ืฉืžืขื™ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื ื•ื”ื ืงื˜ืœื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืฉื ื™ื” ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t there Solomon, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Shimi ben Gera, who was Solomonโ€™s master in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didnโ€™t Solomon kill him at the beginning of his reign (see Iย 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.

ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื”ื•ื” ืฉื‘ื ื ื•ื”ื ืื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื” ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ืขื–ืจื ื”ื•ื” ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ื—ื›ืœื™ื”

The Gemara further objects: Wasnโ€™t 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 Hezekiahโ€™s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t 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 wasnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื™ืžื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืขื“ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ืœื ื•ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื ืชืŸ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื ืชืŸ ืžื™ื›ืฃ ื”ื•ื” ื›ื™ื™ืฃ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™

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 wasnโ€™t 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.

ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืžืชื—ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœื ืชืขื ื” ืขืœ ืจื‘ ืœื ืชืขื ื” ืขืœ ืจื‘

ยง 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 Aแธฅa bar Pappa says: The verse states: โ€œNeither shall you answer in a cause [al riv]โ€ (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.

ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžื”ื›ื ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ืœืื ืฉื™ื• ื—ื’ืจื• ืื™ืฉ [ืืช] ื—ืจื‘ื• ื•ื™ื—ื’ืจื• ืื™ืฉ [ืืช] ื—ืจื‘ื• ื•ื™ื—ื’ืจ ื’ื ื“ื•ื“ ืืช ื—ืจื‘ื•

Rabba bar bar แธคana says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The source of this practice is from here: When David decided to punish Nabal the Carmelite, the verse states: โ€œAnd David said to his men: Every man gird his sword. And every man girded his sword, and David also girded his swordโ€ (Iย Samuel 25:13). That was a case of capital law, and David, the greatest among them, was last.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื•ื ื” ืื“ื ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ื• ื•ื“ืŸ ืขืžื• ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื˜ื”ืจื•ืช ื•ื”ื˜ืžืื•ืช ื”ืื‘ ื•ื‘ื ื• ื”ืจื‘ ื•ืชืœืžื™ื“ื• ืžื•ื ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืฉื ื™ื ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ื•ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื•ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžื›ื•ืช ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ืขื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉื ื” ืื‘ ื•ื‘ื ื• ื”ืจื‘ ื•ืชืœืžื™ื“ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืืœื ืื—ื“

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.

ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ื“ืœื’ืžืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื•ืœืกื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื™

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืขืฉืจื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ืœื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื ื•ื”ื’ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื ืกืงืœ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื”

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.

ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืคืคื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœื ืชื˜ื” ืžืฉืคื˜ ืื‘ื™ื ืš ื‘ืจื™ื‘ื• ืžืฉืคื˜ ืื‘ื™ื•ื ืš ืื™ ืืชื” ืžื˜ื” ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืžื˜ื” ืžืฉืคื˜ ืฉืœ ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื ืกืงืœ

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Aแธฅa bar Pappa says: As the verse states: โ€œYou shall not incline the judgment of your poor in his causeโ€ (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.

ืขืฉืจื” ื”ื ืชืฉืขื” ื”ื•ื• ื”ื ืขืฉืจื” ืงืชื ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ ื›ืฉืจื™ืŸ ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื” ื—ื“ื ื”ื™ื

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: โ€œAnd they shall bear the burden of the people with youโ€ (Numbers 11:17), which indicates that only those โ€œwith you,โ€ i.e., similar in lineage to Moses, can serve on that court (see 17a).

ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฉื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ ื–ืงืŸ ื•ืกืจื™ืก ื•ืžื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื‘ื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืืฃ ืื›ื–ืจื™ ื•ื—ื™ืœื•ืคื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ืžืกื™ืช ื“ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ืœื ืชื—ืžืœ ื•ืœื ืชื›ืกื” ืขืœื™ื•

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: โ€œNeither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal himโ€ (Deuteronomy 13:9).

ื”ื›ืœ ื›ืฉืจื™ืŸ ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ื”ื›ืœ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ

ยง The mishna teaches that all are fit to judge cases of monetary law. The Gemara asks: What is added by the mishnaโ€™s 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.

ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ื›ืœ ื”ืจืื•ื™ ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืจืื•ื™ ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ื•ื™ืฉ ืจืื•ื™ ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืจืื•ื™ ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื•ื”ื•ื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื” ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ ื—ื“ื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื’ืจ ื•ื—ื“ื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ

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.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื’ืจ ื“ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืื‘ืœ ืžืžื–ืจ ืื™ืžื ืœื ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืžืžื–ืจ ื“ื‘ื ืžื˜ื™ืคื” ื›ืฉืจื” ืื‘ืœ ื’ืจ ื“ืœื ื‘ื ืžื˜ื™ืคื” ื›ืฉืจื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

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.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ ื›ืฉืจื™ืŸ ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ืฉื ืฉื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืžื ื•ืงื™ืŸ ื‘ืฆื“ืง ื›ืš ืžื ื•ืงื™ืŸ ืžื›ืœ ืžื•ื ืืžืจ ืืžื™ืžืจ ืžืื™ ืงืจื ื›ืœืš ื™ืคื” ืจืขื™ืชื™ ื•ืžื•ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืš

ยง 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: โ€œYou are all fair, my love; and there is no blemish in youโ€ (Song of Songs 4:7).

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ืžื•ื ืžืžืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ืชื™ืฆื‘ื• ืฉื ืขืžืš ืขืžืš ื‘ื“ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืœืš

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 Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov 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: โ€œThat they may stand there with youโ€ (Numbers 11:16). The term โ€œwith youโ€ is explained to mean: With similarity to you, teaching that the members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, like Moses.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื›ื™ื ื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื ืฉืื• ืืชืš ืืชืš ื‘ื“ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืœืš ืœื™ื”ื•ื™

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 Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak says: The verse states: โ€œSo shall they make it easier for you and bear the burden with youโ€ (Exodus 18:22). The term โ€œwith youโ€ 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ ื”ื™ืชื” ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื’ื•ืจืŸ ืขื’ื•ืœื” ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ ืกื•ืคืจื™ ื”ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืขื•ืžื“ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ื”ื ืื—ื“ ืžื™ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžืฉืžืืœ ื•ื›ื•ืชื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื” ืื—ื“ ื›ื•ืชื‘ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ื•ืชื‘ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื›ื•ืชื‘ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

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 judgesโ€™ 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 sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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

ืžื” ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืฉื ื“ื—ื” ืžืคื ื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืื™ืŸ ืจืฆื™ื—ื” ื“ื•ื—ื” ืื•ืชื• ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉื”ื•ื ื“ื•ื—ื” ืืช ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืจืฆื™ื—ื” ื“ื•ื—ื” ืื•ืชื•

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.

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื ื“ื‘ื•ืช ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื ื“ื‘ื•ืช ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

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?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื ื“ื‘ื•ืช ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ื“ื”ื ืœื ืžืชืงื™ื™ื ืžืขื ืžื–ื‘ื—ื™ ื›ืœืœ

Rather, Rava says that Abayeโ€™s 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 โ€œfrom My altarโ€ 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.

ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื ื“ื‘ื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืขื ืžื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื—ื™ ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืœื™ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืชืžื™ื“ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžืขื ืžื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืชืงื—ื ื• ืœืžื•ืช

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 Abayeโ€™s explanation is possible, this is difficult. But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œFrom My altarโ€? The term โ€œMy altarโ€ 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: โ€œYou shall take him from My altar, that he may die.โ€ Accordingly, the verse is not stated specifically with regard to an offering of an individual.

ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ื”ื˜ืžืื•ืช ื•ื”ื˜ื”ืจื•ืช ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื ื ื”ื•ืื™ ื‘ืžื ื™ื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื•ืžื™ื ืื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื•ื• ืžืชื—ืœื™ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ื ืื ืŸ ืžืชื—ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืชื ืŸ

ยง 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื”ืœืœ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื•ื•ืœืก ืฉืื ื™ ืžื ื™ื™ื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื“ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืžื ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื• ืžืชื—ืœื™

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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื”ืœืœ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื•ื•ืœืก ืžื™ืžื•ืช ืžืฉื” ื•ืขื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื—ื“

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.

ื•ืœื ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื”ื•ื” ืืœืขื–ืจ ื•ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ืคื ื—ืก ื”ื•ื• ื–ืงื ื™ื

The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? Wasnโ€™t there Joshua, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his time there was Elazar, who was Joshuaโ€™s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t there Pinehas, who outlived Elazar? The Gemara answers: There were the Elders, who were equal to Pinehas in Torah knowledge.

ื•ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ืฉืื•ืœ ื”ื•ื” ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื”ื ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื” ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara further objects: But wasnโ€™t there Saul, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: There was Samuel, who was Saulโ€™s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t Samuel die in Saulโ€™s 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.

ื•ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ื“ื•ื“ ื”ื•ื” ืขื™ืจื ื”ื™ืื™ืจื™ ื•ื”ื ื ื— ื ืคืฉื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื” ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t 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 Davidโ€™s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didnโ€™t Ira the Yairite die in Davidโ€™s 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.

ื•ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ืฉืœืžื” ื”ื•ื” ืฉืžืขื™ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื ื•ื”ื ืงื˜ืœื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ืฉื ื™ื” ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t there Solomon, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Shimi ben Gera, who was Solomonโ€™s master in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didnโ€™t Solomon kill him at the beginning of his reign (see Iย 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.

ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื”ื•ื” ืฉื‘ื ื ื•ื”ื ืื™ืงื˜ื™ืœ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื” ืงืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ืขื–ืจื ื”ื•ื” ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ื—ื›ืœื™ื”

The Gemara further objects: Wasnโ€™t 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 Hezekiahโ€™s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But wasnโ€™t 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 wasnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื™ืžื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืขื“ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ืœื ื•ื”ื ื”ื•ื” ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื ืชืŸ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื ืชืŸ ืžื™ื›ืฃ ื”ื•ื” ื›ื™ื™ืฃ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™

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 wasnโ€™t 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.

ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืžืชื—ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื“ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœื ืชืขื ื” ืขืœ ืจื‘ ืœื ืชืขื ื” ืขืœ ืจื‘

ยง 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 Aแธฅa bar Pappa says: The verse states: โ€œNeither shall you answer in a cause [al riv]โ€ (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.

ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžื”ื›ื ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ืœืื ืฉื™ื• ื—ื’ืจื• ืื™ืฉ [ืืช] ื—ืจื‘ื• ื•ื™ื—ื’ืจื• ืื™ืฉ [ืืช] ื—ืจื‘ื• ื•ื™ื—ื’ืจ ื’ื ื“ื•ื“ ืืช ื—ืจื‘ื•

Rabba bar bar แธคana says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The source of this practice is from here: When David decided to punish Nabal the Carmelite, the verse states: โ€œAnd David said to his men: Every man gird his sword. And every man girded his sword, and David also girded his swordโ€ (Iย Samuel 25:13). That was a case of capital law, and David, the greatest among them, was last.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื•ื ื” ืื“ื ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ื• ื•ื“ืŸ ืขืžื• ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื˜ื”ืจื•ืช ื•ื”ื˜ืžืื•ืช ื”ืื‘ ื•ื‘ื ื• ื”ืจื‘ ื•ืชืœืžื™ื“ื• ืžื•ื ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืฉื ื™ื ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ื•ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื•ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžื›ื•ืช ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ืขื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉื ื” ืื‘ ื•ื‘ื ื• ื”ืจื‘ ื•ืชืœืžื™ื“ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืืœื ืื—ื“

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.

ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ื“ืœื’ืžืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื•ืœืกื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืœื ื”ื•ื• ืฆืจื™ื›ื™

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืขืฉืจื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ืœื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื ื•ื”ื’ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื ืกืงืœ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื”

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.

ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืคืคื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœื ืชื˜ื” ืžืฉืคื˜ ืื‘ื™ื ืš ื‘ืจื™ื‘ื• ืžืฉืคื˜ ืื‘ื™ื•ื ืš ืื™ ืืชื” ืžื˜ื” ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืžื˜ื” ืžืฉืคื˜ ืฉืœ ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื ืกืงืœ

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Aแธฅa bar Pappa says: As the verse states: โ€œYou shall not incline the judgment of your poor in his causeโ€ (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.

ืขืฉืจื” ื”ื ืชืฉืขื” ื”ื•ื• ื”ื ืขืฉืจื” ืงืชื ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ ื›ืฉืจื™ืŸ ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื” ื—ื“ื ื”ื™ื

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: โ€œAnd they shall bear the burden of the people with youโ€ (Numbers 11:17), which indicates that only those โ€œwith you,โ€ i.e., similar in lineage to Moses, can serve on that court (see 17a).

ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฉื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ ื–ืงืŸ ื•ืกืจื™ืก ื•ืžื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื‘ื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืืฃ ืื›ื–ืจื™ ื•ื—ื™ืœื•ืคื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ืžืกื™ืช ื“ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ืœื ืชื—ืžืœ ื•ืœื ืชื›ืกื” ืขืœื™ื•

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: โ€œNeither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal himโ€ (Deuteronomy 13:9).

ื”ื›ืœ ื›ืฉืจื™ืŸ ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ื”ื›ืœ ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ

ยง The mishna teaches that all are fit to judge cases of monetary law. The Gemara asks: What is added by the mishnaโ€™s 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.

ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื ื—ื“ื ื–ื™ืžื ื ื›ืœ ื”ืจืื•ื™ ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืจืื•ื™ ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ื•ื™ืฉ ืจืื•ื™ ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืจืื•ื™ ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื•ื”ื•ื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื” ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ ื—ื“ื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื’ืจ ื•ื—ื“ื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ืžืžื–ืจ

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.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื’ืจ ื“ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื ื‘ืงื”ืœ ืื‘ืœ ืžืžื–ืจ ืื™ืžื ืœื ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืžืžื–ืจ ื“ื‘ื ืžื˜ื™ืคื” ื›ืฉืจื” ืื‘ืœ ื’ืจ ื“ืœื ื‘ื ืžื˜ื™ืคื” ื›ืฉืจื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

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.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืœ ื›ืฉืจื™ืŸ ืœื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ืฉื ืฉื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืžื ื•ืงื™ืŸ ื‘ืฆื“ืง ื›ืš ืžื ื•ืงื™ืŸ ืžื›ืœ ืžื•ื ืืžืจ ืืžื™ืžืจ ืžืื™ ืงืจื ื›ืœืš ื™ืคื” ืจืขื™ืชื™ ื•ืžื•ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืš

ยง 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: โ€œYou are all fair, my love; and there is no blemish in youโ€ (Song of Songs 4:7).

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ืžื•ื ืžืžืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ืชื™ืฆื‘ื• ืฉื ืขืžืš ืขืžืš ื‘ื“ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืœืš

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 Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov 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: โ€œThat they may stand there with youโ€ (Numbers 11:16). The term โ€œwith youโ€ is explained to mean: With similarity to you, teaching that the members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, like Moses.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื›ื™ื ื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื ืฉืื• ืืชืš ืืชืš ื‘ื“ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืœืš ืœื™ื”ื•ื™

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 Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak says: The verse states: โ€œSo shall they make it easier for you and bear the burden with youโ€ (Exodus 18:22). The term โ€œwith youโ€ 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ ื”ื™ืชื” ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื’ื•ืจืŸ ืขื’ื•ืœื” ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ื”ื• ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ ืกื•ืคืจื™ ื”ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืขื•ืžื“ื™ื ืœืคื ื™ื”ื ืื—ื“ ืžื™ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžืฉืžืืœ ื•ื›ื•ืชื‘ื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื” ืื—ื“ ื›ื•ืชื‘ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ื•ืชื‘ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื›ื•ืชื‘ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

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 judgesโ€™ 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