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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 28, 2017 | 讜壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 42

Once convicted of stoning, there were a number of processes instituted in order to allow for a chance that new evidence may be brought forward to acquit. 聽A whole section of the gemara about Yeshu the Nazarene was censored and does not appear in the standard printed edition of the gemara. 聽 The missing text can be found on the attached sheet.


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

讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 诇诪讬讛讜讬 讻讬 讬转专讗 讛讗 诇诪讬讛讜讬 讻讬 谞驻讬讗

The Gemara comments: And they both hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan that one can recite the blessing until the flaw of the moon is filled. The dispute is that this one, i.e., Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi, who holds one can recite the blessing until seven days have passed, understands Rabbi Yo岣nan to be referring to the day when the moon will be like the string of a bow. Before that point the moon appeared merely as a bow, and after seven days it appears like a half-circle, like a bow that has a string. That one, i.e., the Sages of Neharde鈥檃, who holds one can recite the blessing until sixteen days have passed, understands Rabbi Yo岣nan to be referring to the day when the moon will be like a sieve, i.e., a full circle.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讬讘专讬讱 讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 讻讬 讞住专 诪讬 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 讚讬讬谉 讛讗诪转 讚诇讘专讬讱 讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘 讜诇讬讘专讻讬谞讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 诇讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: And they should bless the blessing of: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who is good and Who does good, for the benefit that people derive from the light of moon. Ravina said to him: Is that to say that when the moon is shrinking we bless, as we do for other disasters: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, the true Judge, so that we should conversely bless: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who is good and Who does good, when the moon is growing? Rav A岣 of Difti said to him: You are correct, and we should say them both: The blessing of the true Judge, when the moon is waning, and the blessing of Who is good and Who does good, when the moon is waxing. Ravina answered him: Since this is its nature, we do not bless the moon. The waxing and waning of the moon is not an unexpected occurrence that requires these blessings.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讞讚砖 讘讝诪谞讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诪拽讘诇 驻谞讬 砖讻讬谞讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讛讞讚砖 讛讝讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬诇诪诇讗 诇讗 讝讻讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 诇讛拽讘讬诇 驻谞讬 讗讘讬讛谉 砖讘砖诪讬诐 讻诇 讞讚砖 讜讞讚砖 讚讬讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讱 谞讬诪专讬谞讛讜 诪注讜诪讚

And Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to anyone who blesses the new month in its proper time, it is as if he greets the Face of the Divine Presence. Alluding to this, it is written here concerning the sanctification of the new month: 鈥淭his month shall be for you the beginning of months鈥 (Exodus 12:2), and it is written there, where the Jewish people encountered the Divine Presence at the splitting of the sea: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him鈥 (Exodus 15:2). The term 鈥渢his鈥 is employed in both verses. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: If the Jewish people merited to greet the Face of their Father in Heaven only one time each and every month, it would suffice for them, since in the blessing of the moon there is an aspect of greeting the Divine Presence. Abaye said: Therefore, we will say the blessing while standing, in honor of the Divine Presence.

诪专讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讻转驻讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讜诪讘专讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诪讘专讻讬 讘专讜讱 诪讞讚砖 讞讚砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 谞砖讬 讚讬讚谉 谞诪讬 诪讘专讻讬

The Gemara relates: Mareimar and Mar Zutra would lean on one another鈥檚 shoulders and recite the blessing. Rav A岣 said to Rav Ashi: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they recite the following blessing on the moon: Blessed is He Who renews the months. Rav Ashi said to him: Our women also recite that blessing, meaning that this is an abridged version for the unlettered.

讗诇讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讜讱 [讜讻讜壮] 讗砖专 讘诪讗诪专讜 讘专讗 砖讞拽讬诐 讜讘专讜讞 驻讬讜 讻诇 爪讘讗诐 讞拽 讜讝诪谉 谞转谉 诇讛诐 砖诇讗 讬砖谞讜 讗转 转驻拽讬讚诐 砖砖讬诐 讜砖诪讞讬诐 诇注砖讜转 专爪讜谉 拽讜谞诐 驻讜注诇讬 讗诪转 砖驻注讜诇转谉 讗诪转 讜诇诇讘谞讛 讗诪专 砖转转讞讚砖 注讟专转 转驻讗专转 诇注诪讜住讬 讘讟谉 砖讛谉 注转讬讚讬谉 诇讛转讞讚砖 讻诪讜转讛 讜诇驻讗专 诇讬讜爪专诐 注诇 砖诐 讻讘讜讚 诪诇讻讜转讜 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 讛壮 诪讞讚砖 讞讚砖讬诐

Rather, the full version of the blessing is the version of Rav Yehuda. As Rav Yehuda says: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who by His word created the heavens, and by the breath of his mouth all their hosts. He set for them a law and a time, that they should not deviate from their task. And they are joyous and glad to perform the will of their Owner; they are workers of truth whose work is truth. And to the moon He said that it should renew itself as a crown of beauty for those He carried from the womb, as they are destined to be renewed like it, and to praise their Creator for the name of His glorious kingdom. Blessed are You the Lord, Who renews the months.

讻讬 讘转讞讘诇讜转 转注砖讛 诇讱 诪诇讞诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 诪诇讞诪转讛 砖诇 转讜专讛 讘诪讬 砖讬砖 讘讬讚讜 讞讘讬诇讜转 砖诇 诪砖谞讛 拽专讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讜专讘 转讘讜讗讜转 讘讻讞 砖讜专

The Gemara presents another statement, citing Rabbi A岣, citing Rabbi Asi, citing Rabbi Yo岣nan. The verse states: 鈥淔or by wise advice you shall make your war鈥 (Proverbs 24:6). Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In whom do you find the war, i.e., the ability to engage in disputes, of Torah? In one who has in his possession bundles, i.e., vast knowledge, of Mishna. One must first learn the primary sources before engaging in disputes of Torah. Rav Yosef would read concerning himself the verse: 鈥淎nd much produce comes by the strength of the ox鈥 (Proverbs 14:4), i.e., one with great strength can bring a large yield. Rav Yosef was known to be particularly well-versed in tannaitic statements.

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖转讬 砖注讜转 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖注讜转 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 拽讜讚诐 讛谞抓 讛讞诪讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诇讗讞专 讛谞抓 讛讞诪讛 注讚讜转谉 讘讟讬诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches that if one witness says that the event occurred at two hours, i.e., the second hour of the day from sunrise, and one witness says that the event occurred at three hours, their testimony stands. Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: This was taught only when there was a difference in the hours, but if one witness says that the event occurred before the sunrise, and one says that the event occurred after the sunrise, their testimony is void. Although this may be a smaller discrepancy in terms of time, the difference between before and after sunrise cannot be ascribed to an error.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 拽讜讚诐 讛谞抓 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘转讜讱 讛谞抓 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗 讘讙讬诇讜讬讗 拽讗讬 讜讝讛专讜专讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? There is a clear difference between darkness and light. Rather, Rav Shimi bar Ashi said as follows: If one witness says that the event occurred before the sunrise, and one says that the event occurred during the sunrise, their testimony is void. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this also obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this one who says: During the sunrise, was standing in an exposed place and saw a mere shine and thought he saw the sunrise, Rav Shimi bar Ashi teaches us the court does not assume this occurred, and deems the testimony incongruent.

讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讻讜壮 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 讬砖 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜专讚 诪砖诐 诇注讜诇诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜 讗讬谉 讬讜专讚 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 注诇讬讬转讜 讬专讬讚讛 诇讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讙讜诪讛 讗讗诐 讗讬谉 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches: And afterward they bring in the second witness and examine him. Later, the mishna states: But if one of the students said: I can teach a reason to acquit him, they raise him to the seat of the court and seat him among them, and he would not descend from there all day. The Gemara asks: That day and no more? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:3): If the statement of that student has substance he would never descend from there, as his statement demonstrates that he is capable of deliberating with the other judges. But if the statement of that student does not have substance, he would not descend from there the entire day, in order that his ascent should not be a descent for him, i.e., to avoid humiliating him. Abaye said: Interpret the mishna to be with regard to a case when the statement of that student does not have substance.

诪爪讗讜 诇讜 讝讻讜转 讻讜壮 讬讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇专讜讝谞讬诐 讗讬 砖讻专 讛注讜住拽讬谉 讘专讝讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬砖转讻专讜

The mishna teaches that if the court found it fit to acquit the defendant during the deliberations, as all or a majority of them agree to acquit him, they excuse him. The mishna further teaches that the judges would not drink wine all day. The Gemara asks: What is the reason they did not drink wine? Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina says that it is because the verse states: 鈥淚t is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes [rozenim] to say: Where is strong drink鈥 (Proverbs 31:4). Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina explains: This is a directive to those who deal with the secret of the world [berazo shel olam], i.e., such stringent matters: Do not become drunk.

诪爪讗讜 诇讜 讝讻讜转 讻讜壮 诇讗 专讗讜 诪讗讬

搂 The mishna teaches: If the court found it fit to acquit him during the deliberations, as all or a majority of them agree to acquit him, they release him. It was further taught in the mishna that when the court cannot arrive at a verdict they add judges in pairs of two and deliberate until there is a clear verdict. If they added the maximum number of judges and still cannot reach a clear verdict, they discuss the matter until one of those who deems him liable sees the validity of the statements of those who acquit, and changes his position. The Gemara asks: If the judges do not change their position, as they do not see the validity of the position of those who acquit him, what is done?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诇讬驻讟专讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬爪讗讜 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪注讜专讘讘讬谉

Rabbi A岣 says: They release him, as he was not found liable. And likewise Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They release him. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But if they ultimately release him if the court is deadlocked, why do they attempt to convince each other at all when they should release him from the outset? Abaye said to him: This is what Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The reason is so that they not leave the court confounded, without reaching some definite conclusion, as this would tarnish the reputation of the court.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 讬讜住讬驻讜 诇讬驻讟专讬讛 诪讘讬 讚讬谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讱 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛

Some say that this is what Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But why do I need them to add judges at all when they should release him from the first court? Once the first court did not find him liable, they should release him. Why add judges? Abaye said to him: Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with your opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Just as the court does not add judges to a court of seventy-one, so too, the court does not add judges to a court of twenty-three. If the court of twenty-three cannot arrive at a verdict, they release him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜诪专 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 壮谞讝讚拽谉 讛讚讬谉壮 讜讗讬谉 讗讜诪专 讘讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 壮谞讝讚拽谉 讛讚讬谉壮

The Sages taught: In cases of monetary law one says: The judgment has grown aged, i.e., this matter is very difficult and requires scrutiny, but in cases of capital law one does not say: The judgment has grown aged.

诪讗讬 谞讝讚拽谉 讛讚讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 拽砖 讚讬谞讗 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗讬驻讜讱 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜诪讗讬 谞讝讚拽谉 讛讚讬谉 讞讻诐 讚讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The judgment has grown aged? If we say that the intention is: The judgment has aged, i.e., taken an extended amount of time but requires additional deliberations, if so, he should say the reverse, as it is more critical to extend deliberations in cases of capital law than in cases of monetary law. Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 said in the name of Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika: Reverse the statement, and say that in cases of monetary law one does not say: The judgment has grown aged, but in cases of capital law one does say it. Rav Ashi said: Actually, do not reverse it. And what is the meaning of: The judgment has grown aged? It means that the judgment has grown wise, like an elder who has acquired wisdom. In other words, the deliberations have been exhausted, and it is time to vote on a verdict.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讙讚讜诇 砖讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗讜诪专 壮谞讝讚拽谉 讛讚讬谉壮 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞讻诐 讚讬谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 讙讚讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 拽砖 讚讬谞讗 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讙讚讜诇 讻住讜驻讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讻住讬祝 谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the first explanation from a baraita: In a situation where they did not reach a decision, the greatest among the judges says: The judgment has grown aged. The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, if you say this means: The judgment has grown wise, this would be why the baraita states that the greatest judge says this statement, as arriving at a verdict is an honor for the court, and consequently the greatest of the court should be the one to announce it. But if you say this means: The judgment has aged, is it not enough that the greatest among the judges in particular not say so? Must he humiliate himself by stating that they cannot reach a verdict?

讗讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诪转讘讬讬砖 诪注爪诪讜 诇诪转讘讬讬砖 诪讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara answers: Yes, the greatest of the judges must also announce that the court cannot reach a verdict. Being shamed by oneself is not comparable to being shamed by others. Therefore, it is preferable that the greatest of the judges state this conclusion, rather than having one of the more junior judges state it.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 拽砖 讚讬谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诪转讘讬讬砖 诪注爪诪讜 诇诪转讘讬讬砖 诪讗讞专讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讻诐 讚讬谞讗 讙讚讜诇 讗砖讘讜讞讬 诪砖讘讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讬讛诇诇讱 讝专 讜诇讗 驻讬讱

Some say they raised an objection to the second explanation: Granted, if you say this means: The judgment has aged, this would be the reason that the greatest one states it, because being shamed by oneself is not comparable to being shamed by others. But if you say this means: The judgment has grown wise, should the greatest judge praise himself? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淟et another man praise you, and not your own mouth, a stranger and not your own lips鈥 (Proverbs 27:2)?

砖讗谞讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚讗讙讚讜诇 专诪讬讗 讻讚转谞谉 讙诪专讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 讛讬讜 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗讜转谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗讜诪专 壮讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讛 讝讻讗讬 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讛 讞讬讬讘壮

The Gemara answers: A matter of the court is different, as its administration is incumbent upon the greatest judge. As we learned in a mishna (29a): When they finished deliberating the matter, they would bring in the litigants. The greatest of the judges would say: So-and-so, you are exempt from paying; or: So-and-so, you are liable to pay.

讛讚专谉 注诇讬讱 讛讬讜 讘讜讚拽讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 谞讙诪专 讛讚讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇住讜拽诇讜 讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讛 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讛讜爪讗 讗转 讛诪拽诇诇

MISHNA: When the trial has ended in a guilty verdict and the condemned man has been sentenced to be stoned, he is taken out to be stoned. The place of stoning was outside the court and a little beyond it, as it is stated with regard to a blasphemer: 鈥淭ake out him who has cursed to outside the camp, and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him鈥 (Leviticus 24:14).

讗讞讚 注讜诪讚 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛住讜讚专讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讜住讜住 专讞讜拽 诪诪谞讜 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 专讜讗讛讜 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讬砖 诇诇诪讚 注诇讬讜 讝讻讜转 讛诇讛 诪谞讬祝 讘住讜讚专讬谉 讜讛住讜住 专抓 讜诪注诪讬讚谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讬 诇诇诪讚 注诇 注爪诪讬 讝讻讜转 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 驻注诪讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬砖 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜

One man stands at the entrance to the court, with cloths [vehasudarin] in his hand, and another man sits on a horse at a distance from him but where he can still see him. If one of the judges says: I can teach a reason to acquit him, the other, i.e., the man with the cloths, waves the cloths as a signal to the man on the horse, and the horse races off after the court agents who are leading the condemned man to his execution, and he stops them, and they wait until the court determines whether or not the argument has substance. And even if he, the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse, even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words.

讙诪壮 讜讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讛 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讛 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And was the place of stoning just outside the court and nothing more? Does it suffice that the place of execution is only a short distance from the court and no further? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The place of stoning was outside the distance that is equivalent to the length of the three camps in the wilderness: The camp of the Divine Presence, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of the Israelites. In Jerusalem there were three corresponding camps: The Temple with its courtyard, the Temple Mount, and the rest of the city. The distance in the wilderness outside of the three camps corresponds to a place outside the city walls and limits.

讗讬谉 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 谞驻讬拽 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 注讘讚讬谞谉 讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诪讬转讞讝讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 专讜爪讞讬谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讛爪诇讛

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is as you said, that the place of stoning was outside the three camps. And the practical difference from the fact that the mishna teaches the halakha in this manner is that if it happened that the court went out and convened outside the three camps, even then the place of stoning is set up at a certain distance from the court, and not immediately adjacent to it, so that the court should not appear to be a court of killers. Alternatively, the reason the place of stoning must be distanced from the court is so that the condemned man might have a chance to be saved, i.e., so that during the time it takes for him to be taken from the court to the place of stoning someone will devise a claim in his favor.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讜爪讗 讗转 讛诪拽诇诇 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讜谞讗诪专 讘驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转

The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived that the stoning is carried out outside the three camps? As the Sages taught a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淭ake out him who has cursed to outside the camp鈥 (Leviticus 24:14). This means: Outside the three camps, i.e., even outside the camp of the Israelites. Do you say that he is taken outside the three camps, or is he perhaps taken outside only one camp? Proof is brought that he must be taken outside the three camps: It is stated here that the condemned man is taken 鈥渙utside the camp鈥 and it is stated with regard to the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned that they must be burned 鈥渙utside the camp鈥 (Leviticus 4:12). Just as there, the bulls brought as sin-offerings are burned when outside the three camps, so too here, the condemned man is taken outside the three camps.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讻诇 讛驻专 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned, from where do we derive that they must be burned when outside all three camps? As the Sages taught in a baraita: It is stated about the bull brought as a sin-offering of the High Priest: 鈥淓ven the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it鈥 (Leviticus 4:12), meaning that he should take it outside the three camps. Do you say that he takes it outside the three camps, or is he required to take it outside only one camp?

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讘驻专 讛注讚讛 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜砖专祝 讗转讜 讻讗砖专 砖专祝 讗转 讛驻专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讬转谉 诇讜 诪讞谞讛 砖谞讬讛

When the verse states with regard to the bull brought as a communal sin-offering: 鈥淗e shall carry the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:21), it requires explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state 鈥渙utside the camp,鈥 since it is already stated at the end of that same verse: 鈥淎nd burn it as he burned the first bull,鈥 which indicates that all the halakhot of the bull brought as a sin-offering of a High Priest apply to the bull brought as a communal sin-offering. What then does the verse mean when it states 鈥渙utside the camp鈥? To give it a second camp, i.e., it indicates that it must be removed not only from the camp of the Divine Presence, corresponding to the Temple, but also from the Levite camp, corresponding to the Temple Mount.

讜讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讘讚砖谉 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 注诇 砖驻讱 讛讚砖谉 讬砖专祝 诇讬转谉 诇讜 诪讞谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转

And when another verse states with regard to the removal of the ash: 鈥淎nd he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes outside the camp to a clean place鈥 (Leviticus 6:4), that verse also requires an explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state this, since it is already stated with regard to the bull brought as a sin-offering of a High Priest: 鈥淓ven the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out shall it be burned鈥 (Leviticus 4:12). The repetition of 鈥渙utside the camp鈥 indicates that he is required to give it a third camp, i.e., teaching that it is burned when outside the Israelite camp, corresponding to the land outside Jerusalem鈥檚 walls.

讜诇讬诇祝 诪砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转

The Gemara challenges this derivation of the halakha governing one who is sentenced to be stoned from the halakha governing the burning of bulls brought as sin-offerings. Perhaps the place of stoning should be learned from the halakha governing offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, about which the verse also uses the expression 鈥渙utside the camp鈥 (see Leviticus 17:3). Just as there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, these words mean: Outside only one camp, the camp of the Divine Presence, corresponding to the Temple, as the next verse states: 鈥淎nd he did not bring it to the door of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 17:4), i.e., the camp of the Divine Presence, so too here, the condemned man should be stoned outside one camp.

诪住转讘专讗 诪驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝

The Gemara answers: For three reasons it is reasonable to derive the halakha governing one who is sentenced to be stoned from the halakha governing bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned.

砖讻谉 讛讜爪讗 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专

The Gemara explains: As with regard to the man to be stoned for blasphemy it states: 鈥淭ake out [hotze] him who has cursed to outside the camp,鈥 which is similar to what is stated about the sin bull-offerings: 鈥淓ven the whole bull shall he carry [vehotzi] outside the camp,鈥 whereas with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard it merely says: 鈥淥utside the camp.鈥 Additionally, both in the case of stoning and in the case of the bulls brought as sin-offerings, going outside the camp renders the act fit, as the blasphemer may not be stoned and the bulls may not be burned inside the camp, in contrast to the case of the offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, where slaughtering them outside the camp renders the act forbidden. And additionally, both in the case of stoning and in the case of the bulls brought as sin-offerings, being outside the camp achieves atonement, as both capital punishment and sin-offerings atone for sin.

讗讚专讘讛 诪砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: On the contrary, the halakha governing one who is sentenced to be stoned should be derived from the halakha governing offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, for four reasons.

砖讻谉 讗讚诐 讞讜讟讗 讘谞砖诪讛 驻讬讙讜诇

The Gemara explains the four reasons: As in both cases it is a person who is outside, either the one who is taken outside for stoning, or the one who slaughters the offerings outside the Temple courtyard, whereas in the case of the bulls brought as sin-offerings, it is the bulls that are carried outside the camp. Additionally, both the blasphemer and the one who slaughters offerings outside the Temple courtyard have committed a sin, while the bull has not. Additionally, both the blasphemer and the one who slaughters offerings outside the Temple courtyard pay with their souls, as slaughtering an offering outside the Temple is punishable with karet. And lastly, both in the case of the blasphemer and in the case of offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, the halakha of disqualification of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul] is not applicable, whereas this halakha is applicable to the bulls brought as sin-offerings.

诪讻砖讬专 诪诪讻砖讬专 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains: Nevertheless, the baraita prefers to compare one case requiring going outside the camp to render an act fit and another case requiring going outside the camp to render an act fit, rather than comparing one case requiring going outside the camp to render an act fit and another case of going outside the camp that renders the act forbidden, as this is the most notable of the factors mentioned.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪砖讛 讛讬讻讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讛讜爪讗 讗转 讛诪拽诇诇 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讬讛 讜讬讜爪讬讗讜 讗转 讛诪拽诇诇 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讬砖专讗诇

Rav Pappa said: The matter of the location of the place of stoning can be derived from the verses themselves: Where was Moses sitting when the matter of the blasphemer was brought before him? In the Levite camp, as he was a Levite, and it was there that the blasphemer was brought for trial. And the Merciful One said to Moses: 鈥淭ake out him who has cursed to outside the camp,鈥 indicating that he should be taken outside the Levite camp into the Israelite camp. And later it says: 鈥淎nd Moses spoke to the children of Israel, and they brought him that had cursed out of the camp, and they stoned him with a stone. And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses鈥 (Leviticus 24:23), teaching that he was taken outside the Israelite camp as well.

讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注砖讬讬讛 注砖讬讬讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘讗

The Gemara raises an objection: This additional verse is necessary to teach us about the implementation of God鈥檚 instructions, i.e., that the Jewish people did in fact carry out God鈥檚 command, but this verse should not be understood as referring to an additional camp. The Gemara answers: The implementation of God鈥檚 instructions is written explicitly, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 42

讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讛讗 诇诪讬讛讜讬 讻讬 讬转专讗 讛讗 诇诪讬讛讜讬 讻讬 谞驻讬讗

The Gemara comments: And they both hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan that one can recite the blessing until the flaw of the moon is filled. The dispute is that this one, i.e., Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi, who holds one can recite the blessing until seven days have passed, understands Rabbi Yo岣nan to be referring to the day when the moon will be like the string of a bow. Before that point the moon appeared merely as a bow, and after seven days it appears like a half-circle, like a bow that has a string. That one, i.e., the Sages of Neharde鈥檃, who holds one can recite the blessing until sixteen days have passed, understands Rabbi Yo岣nan to be referring to the day when the moon will be like a sieve, i.e., a full circle.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讬讘专讬讱 讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 讻讬 讞住专 诪讬 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 讚讬讬谉 讛讗诪转 讚诇讘专讬讱 讛讟讜讘 讜讛诪讟讬讘 讜诇讬讘专讻讬谞讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 诇讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉

Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: And they should bless the blessing of: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who is good and Who does good, for the benefit that people derive from the light of moon. Ravina said to him: Is that to say that when the moon is shrinking we bless, as we do for other disasters: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, the true Judge, so that we should conversely bless: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who is good and Who does good, when the moon is growing? Rav A岣 of Difti said to him: You are correct, and we should say them both: The blessing of the true Judge, when the moon is waning, and the blessing of Who is good and Who does good, when the moon is waxing. Ravina answered him: Since this is its nature, we do not bless the moon. The waxing and waning of the moon is not an unexpected occurrence that requires these blessings.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讘专讱 注诇 讛讞讚砖 讘讝诪谞讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诪拽讘诇 驻谞讬 砖讻讬谞讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讛讞讚砖 讛讝讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬诇诪诇讗 诇讗 讝讻讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 诇讛拽讘讬诇 驻谞讬 讗讘讬讛谉 砖讘砖诪讬诐 讻诇 讞讚砖 讜讞讚砖 讚讬讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讱 谞讬诪专讬谞讛讜 诪注讜诪讚

And Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to anyone who blesses the new month in its proper time, it is as if he greets the Face of the Divine Presence. Alluding to this, it is written here concerning the sanctification of the new month: 鈥淭his month shall be for you the beginning of months鈥 (Exodus 12:2), and it is written there, where the Jewish people encountered the Divine Presence at the splitting of the sea: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him鈥 (Exodus 15:2). The term 鈥渢his鈥 is employed in both verses. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: If the Jewish people merited to greet the Face of their Father in Heaven only one time each and every month, it would suffice for them, since in the blessing of the moon there is an aspect of greeting the Divine Presence. Abaye said: Therefore, we will say the blessing while standing, in honor of the Divine Presence.

诪专讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪讻转驻讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讜诪讘专讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诪讘专讻讬 讘专讜讱 诪讞讚砖 讞讚砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 谞砖讬 讚讬讚谉 谞诪讬 诪讘专讻讬

The Gemara relates: Mareimar and Mar Zutra would lean on one another鈥檚 shoulders and recite the blessing. Rav A岣 said to Rav Ashi: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they recite the following blessing on the moon: Blessed is He Who renews the months. Rav Ashi said to him: Our women also recite that blessing, meaning that this is an abridged version for the unlettered.

讗诇讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讜讱 [讜讻讜壮] 讗砖专 讘诪讗诪专讜 讘专讗 砖讞拽讬诐 讜讘专讜讞 驻讬讜 讻诇 爪讘讗诐 讞拽 讜讝诪谉 谞转谉 诇讛诐 砖诇讗 讬砖谞讜 讗转 转驻拽讬讚诐 砖砖讬诐 讜砖诪讞讬诐 诇注砖讜转 专爪讜谉 拽讜谞诐 驻讜注诇讬 讗诪转 砖驻注讜诇转谉 讗诪转 讜诇诇讘谞讛 讗诪专 砖转转讞讚砖 注讟专转 转驻讗专转 诇注诪讜住讬 讘讟谉 砖讛谉 注转讬讚讬谉 诇讛转讞讚砖 讻诪讜转讛 讜诇驻讗专 诇讬讜爪专诐 注诇 砖诐 讻讘讜讚 诪诇讻讜转讜 讘专讜讱 讗转讛 讛壮 诪讞讚砖 讞讚砖讬诐

Rather, the full version of the blessing is the version of Rav Yehuda. As Rav Yehuda says: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who by His word created the heavens, and by the breath of his mouth all their hosts. He set for them a law and a time, that they should not deviate from their task. And they are joyous and glad to perform the will of their Owner; they are workers of truth whose work is truth. And to the moon He said that it should renew itself as a crown of beauty for those He carried from the womb, as they are destined to be renewed like it, and to praise their Creator for the name of His glorious kingdom. Blessed are You the Lord, Who renews the months.

讻讬 讘转讞讘诇讜转 转注砖讛 诇讱 诪诇讞诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘诪讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 诪诇讞诪转讛 砖诇 转讜专讛 讘诪讬 砖讬砖 讘讬讚讜 讞讘讬诇讜转 砖诇 诪砖谞讛 拽专讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讜专讘 转讘讜讗讜转 讘讻讞 砖讜专

The Gemara presents another statement, citing Rabbi A岣, citing Rabbi Asi, citing Rabbi Yo岣nan. The verse states: 鈥淔or by wise advice you shall make your war鈥 (Proverbs 24:6). Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In whom do you find the war, i.e., the ability to engage in disputes, of Torah? In one who has in his possession bundles, i.e., vast knowledge, of Mishna. One must first learn the primary sources before engaging in disputes of Torah. Rav Yosef would read concerning himself the verse: 鈥淎nd much produce comes by the strength of the ox鈥 (Proverbs 14:4), i.e., one with great strength can bring a large yield. Rav Yosef was known to be particularly well-versed in tannaitic statements.

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘砖转讬 砖注讜转 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖注讜转 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 拽讜讚诐 讛谞抓 讛讞诪讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诇讗讞专 讛谞抓 讛讞诪讛 注讚讜转谉 讘讟讬诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches that if one witness says that the event occurred at two hours, i.e., the second hour of the day from sunrise, and one witness says that the event occurred at three hours, their testimony stands. Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: This was taught only when there was a difference in the hours, but if one witness says that the event occurred before the sunrise, and one says that the event occurred after the sunrise, their testimony is void. Although this may be a smaller discrepancy in terms of time, the difference between before and after sunrise cannot be ascribed to an error.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 拽讜讚诐 讛谞抓 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘转讜讱 讛谞抓 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讗 讘讙讬诇讜讬讗 拽讗讬 讜讝讛专讜专讬 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讞讝讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? There is a clear difference between darkness and light. Rather, Rav Shimi bar Ashi said as follows: If one witness says that the event occurred before the sunrise, and one says that the event occurred during the sunrise, their testimony is void. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this also obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this one who says: During the sunrise, was standing in an exposed place and saw a mere shine and thought he saw the sunrise, Rav Shimi bar Ashi teaches us the court does not assume this occurred, and deems the testimony incongruent.

讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讻讜壮 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 讬砖 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜专讚 诪砖诐 诇注讜诇诐 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜 讗讬谉 讬讜专讚 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 注诇讬讬转讜 讬专讬讚讛 诇讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转专讙讜诪讛 讗讗诐 讗讬谉 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches: And afterward they bring in the second witness and examine him. Later, the mishna states: But if one of the students said: I can teach a reason to acquit him, they raise him to the seat of the court and seat him among them, and he would not descend from there all day. The Gemara asks: That day and no more? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:3): If the statement of that student has substance he would never descend from there, as his statement demonstrates that he is capable of deliberating with the other judges. But if the statement of that student does not have substance, he would not descend from there the entire day, in order that his ascent should not be a descent for him, i.e., to avoid humiliating him. Abaye said: Interpret the mishna to be with regard to a case when the statement of that student does not have substance.

诪爪讗讜 诇讜 讝讻讜转 讻讜壮 讬讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇专讜讝谞讬诐 讗讬 砖讻专 讛注讜住拽讬谉 讘专讝讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬砖转讻专讜

The mishna teaches that if the court found it fit to acquit the defendant during the deliberations, as all or a majority of them agree to acquit him, they excuse him. The mishna further teaches that the judges would not drink wine all day. The Gemara asks: What is the reason they did not drink wine? Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina says that it is because the verse states: 鈥淚t is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes [rozenim] to say: Where is strong drink鈥 (Proverbs 31:4). Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina explains: This is a directive to those who deal with the secret of the world [berazo shel olam], i.e., such stringent matters: Do not become drunk.

诪爪讗讜 诇讜 讝讻讜转 讻讜壮 诇讗 专讗讜 诪讗讬

搂 The mishna teaches: If the court found it fit to acquit him during the deliberations, as all or a majority of them agree to acquit him, they release him. It was further taught in the mishna that when the court cannot arrive at a verdict they add judges in pairs of two and deliberate until there is a clear verdict. If they added the maximum number of judges and still cannot reach a clear verdict, they discuss the matter until one of those who deems him liable sees the validity of the statements of those who acquit, and changes his position. The Gemara asks: If the judges do not change their position, as they do not see the validity of the position of those who acquit him, what is done?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讜讟专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诇讬驻讟专讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬爪讗讜 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪注讜专讘讘讬谉

Rabbi A岣 says: They release him, as he was not found liable. And likewise Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They release him. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But if they ultimately release him if the court is deadlocked, why do they attempt to convince each other at all when they should release him from the outset? Abaye said to him: This is what Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The reason is so that they not leave the court confounded, without reaching some definite conclusion, as this would tarnish the reputation of the court.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诇诪讛 诇讬 讬讜住讬驻讜 诇讬驻讟专讬讛 诪讘讬 讚讬谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讱 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 砖讘注讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 注砖专讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛

Some say that this is what Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But why do I need them to add judges at all when they should release him from the first court? Once the first court did not find him liable, they should release him. Why add judges? Abaye said to him: Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with your opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Just as the court does not add judges to a court of seventy-one, so too, the court does not add judges to a court of twenty-three. If the court of twenty-three cannot arrive at a verdict, they release him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜诪专 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 壮谞讝讚拽谉 讛讚讬谉壮 讜讗讬谉 讗讜诪专 讘讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 壮谞讝讚拽谉 讛讚讬谉壮

The Sages taught: In cases of monetary law one says: The judgment has grown aged, i.e., this matter is very difficult and requires scrutiny, but in cases of capital law one does not say: The judgment has grown aged.

诪讗讬 谞讝讚拽谉 讛讚讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 拽砖 讚讬谞讗 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讗讬驻讜讱 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讜诪讗讬 谞讝讚拽谉 讛讚讬谉 讞讻诐 讚讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The judgment has grown aged? If we say that the intention is: The judgment has aged, i.e., taken an extended amount of time but requires additional deliberations, if so, he should say the reverse, as it is more critical to extend deliberations in cases of capital law than in cases of monetary law. Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 said in the name of Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika: Reverse the statement, and say that in cases of monetary law one does not say: The judgment has grown aged, but in cases of capital law one does say it. Rav Ashi said: Actually, do not reverse it. And what is the meaning of: The judgment has grown aged? It means that the judgment has grown wise, like an elder who has acquired wisdom. In other words, the deliberations have been exhausted, and it is time to vote on a verdict.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讙讚讜诇 砖讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗讜诪专 壮谞讝讚拽谉 讛讚讬谉壮 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讞讻诐 讚讬谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 讙讚讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 拽砖 讚讬谞讗 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 讙讚讜诇 讻住讜驻讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讻住讬祝 谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the first explanation from a baraita: In a situation where they did not reach a decision, the greatest among the judges says: The judgment has grown aged. The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, if you say this means: The judgment has grown wise, this would be why the baraita states that the greatest judge says this statement, as arriving at a verdict is an honor for the court, and consequently the greatest of the court should be the one to announce it. But if you say this means: The judgment has aged, is it not enough that the greatest among the judges in particular not say so? Must he humiliate himself by stating that they cannot reach a verdict?

讗讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诪转讘讬讬砖 诪注爪诪讜 诇诪转讘讬讬砖 诪讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara answers: Yes, the greatest of the judges must also announce that the court cannot reach a verdict. Being shamed by oneself is not comparable to being shamed by others. Therefore, it is preferable that the greatest of the judges state this conclusion, rather than having one of the more junior judges state it.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 拽砖 讚讬谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 诪转讘讬讬砖 诪注爪诪讜 诇诪转讘讬讬砖 诪讗讞专讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讞讻诐 讚讬谞讗 讙讚讜诇 讗砖讘讜讞讬 诪砖讘讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讬讛诇诇讱 讝专 讜诇讗 驻讬讱

Some say they raised an objection to the second explanation: Granted, if you say this means: The judgment has aged, this would be the reason that the greatest one states it, because being shamed by oneself is not comparable to being shamed by others. But if you say this means: The judgment has grown wise, should the greatest judge praise himself? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淟et another man praise you, and not your own mouth, a stranger and not your own lips鈥 (Proverbs 27:2)?

砖讗谞讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚讗讙讚讜诇 专诪讬讗 讻讚转谞谉 讙诪专讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 讛讬讜 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗讜转谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 讗讜诪专 壮讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讛 讝讻讗讬 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转讛 讞讬讬讘壮

The Gemara answers: A matter of the court is different, as its administration is incumbent upon the greatest judge. As we learned in a mishna (29a): When they finished deliberating the matter, they would bring in the litigants. The greatest of the judges would say: So-and-so, you are exempt from paying; or: So-and-so, you are liable to pay.

讛讚专谉 注诇讬讱 讛讬讜 讘讜讚拽讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 谞讙诪专 讛讚讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇住讜拽诇讜 讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讛 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讛讜爪讗 讗转 讛诪拽诇诇

MISHNA: When the trial has ended in a guilty verdict and the condemned man has been sentenced to be stoned, he is taken out to be stoned. The place of stoning was outside the court and a little beyond it, as it is stated with regard to a blasphemer: 鈥淭ake out him who has cursed to outside the camp, and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him鈥 (Leviticus 24:14).

讗讞讚 注讜诪讚 注诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛住讜讚专讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讜住讜住 专讞讜拽 诪诪谞讜 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 专讜讗讛讜 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讬砖 诇诇诪讚 注诇讬讜 讝讻讜转 讛诇讛 诪谞讬祝 讘住讜讚专讬谉 讜讛住讜住 专抓 讜诪注诪讬讚谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讬 诇诇诪讚 注诇 注爪诪讬 讝讻讜转 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讗专讘注 讜讞诪砖 驻注诪讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬砖 诪诪砖 讘讚讘专讬讜

One man stands at the entrance to the court, with cloths [vehasudarin] in his hand, and another man sits on a horse at a distance from him but where he can still see him. If one of the judges says: I can teach a reason to acquit him, the other, i.e., the man with the cloths, waves the cloths as a signal to the man on the horse, and the horse races off after the court agents who are leading the condemned man to his execution, and he stops them, and they wait until the court determines whether or not the argument has substance. And even if he, the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse, even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words.

讙诪壮 讜讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讛 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讛讬讛 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And was the place of stoning just outside the court and nothing more? Does it suffice that the place of execution is only a short distance from the court and no further? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The place of stoning was outside the distance that is equivalent to the length of the three camps in the wilderness: The camp of the Divine Presence, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of the Israelites. In Jerusalem there were three corresponding camps: The Temple with its courtyard, the Temple Mount, and the rest of the city. The distance in the wilderness outside of the three camps corresponds to a place outside the city walls and limits.

讗讬谉 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 谞驻讬拽 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 注讘讚讬谞谉 讘讬转 讛住拽讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诪讬转讞讝讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 专讜爪讞讬谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讛爪诇讛

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is as you said, that the place of stoning was outside the three camps. And the practical difference from the fact that the mishna teaches the halakha in this manner is that if it happened that the court went out and convened outside the three camps, even then the place of stoning is set up at a certain distance from the court, and not immediately adjacent to it, so that the court should not appear to be a court of killers. Alternatively, the reason the place of stoning must be distanced from the court is so that the condemned man might have a chance to be saved, i.e., so that during the time it takes for him to be taken from the court to the place of stoning someone will devise a claim in his favor.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讜爪讗 讗转 讛诪拽诇诇 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讜谞讗诪专 讘驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转

The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived that the stoning is carried out outside the three camps? As the Sages taught a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淭ake out him who has cursed to outside the camp鈥 (Leviticus 24:14). This means: Outside the three camps, i.e., even outside the camp of the Israelites. Do you say that he is taken outside the three camps, or is he perhaps taken outside only one camp? Proof is brought that he must be taken outside the three camps: It is stated here that the condemned man is taken 鈥渙utside the camp鈥 and it is stated with regard to the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned that they must be burned 鈥渙utside the camp鈥 (Leviticus 4:12). Just as there, the bulls brought as sin-offerings are burned when outside the three camps, so too here, the condemned man is taken outside the three camps.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讻诇 讛驻专 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讞讜抓 诇砖诇砖 诪讞谞讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned, from where do we derive that they must be burned when outside all three camps? As the Sages taught in a baraita: It is stated about the bull brought as a sin-offering of the High Priest: 鈥淓ven the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it鈥 (Leviticus 4:12), meaning that he should take it outside the three camps. Do you say that he takes it outside the three camps, or is he required to take it outside only one camp?

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讘驻专 讛注讚讛 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜砖专祝 讗转讜 讻讗砖专 砖专祝 讗转 讛驻专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讬转谉 诇讜 诪讞谞讛 砖谞讬讛

When the verse states with regard to the bull brought as a communal sin-offering: 鈥淗e shall carry the bull outside the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:21), it requires explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state 鈥渙utside the camp,鈥 since it is already stated at the end of that same verse: 鈥淎nd burn it as he burned the first bull,鈥 which indicates that all the halakhot of the bull brought as a sin-offering of a High Priest apply to the bull brought as a communal sin-offering. What then does the verse mean when it states 鈥渙utside the camp鈥? To give it a second camp, i.e., it indicates that it must be removed not only from the camp of the Divine Presence, corresponding to the Temple, but also from the Levite camp, corresponding to the Temple Mount.

讜讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讘讚砖谉 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 注诇 砖驻讱 讛讚砖谉 讬砖专祝 诇讬转谉 诇讜 诪讞谞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转

And when another verse states with regard to the removal of the ash: 鈥淎nd he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes outside the camp to a clean place鈥 (Leviticus 6:4), that verse also requires an explanation, as there is no need for the verse to state this, since it is already stated with regard to the bull brought as a sin-offering of a High Priest: 鈥淓ven the whole bull shall he carry outside the camp to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out shall it be burned鈥 (Leviticus 4:12). The repetition of 鈥渙utside the camp鈥 indicates that he is required to give it a third camp, i.e., teaching that it is burned when outside the Israelite camp, corresponding to the land outside Jerusalem鈥檚 walls.

讜诇讬诇祝 诪砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讗讞转

The Gemara challenges this derivation of the halakha governing one who is sentenced to be stoned from the halakha governing the burning of bulls brought as sin-offerings. Perhaps the place of stoning should be learned from the halakha governing offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, about which the verse also uses the expression 鈥渙utside the camp鈥 (see Leviticus 17:3). Just as there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, these words mean: Outside only one camp, the camp of the Divine Presence, corresponding to the Temple, as the next verse states: 鈥淎nd he did not bring it to the door of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 17:4), i.e., the camp of the Divine Presence, so too here, the condemned man should be stoned outside one camp.

诪住转讘专讗 诪驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬谉 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝

The Gemara answers: For three reasons it is reasonable to derive the halakha governing one who is sentenced to be stoned from the halakha governing bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned.

砖讻谉 讛讜爪讗 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讻驻专

The Gemara explains: As with regard to the man to be stoned for blasphemy it states: 鈥淭ake out [hotze] him who has cursed to outside the camp,鈥 which is similar to what is stated about the sin bull-offerings: 鈥淓ven the whole bull shall he carry [vehotzi] outside the camp,鈥 whereas with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard it merely says: 鈥淥utside the camp.鈥 Additionally, both in the case of stoning and in the case of the bulls brought as sin-offerings, going outside the camp renders the act fit, as the blasphemer may not be stoned and the bulls may not be burned inside the camp, in contrast to the case of the offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, where slaughtering them outside the camp renders the act forbidden. And additionally, both in the case of stoning and in the case of the bulls brought as sin-offerings, being outside the camp achieves atonement, as both capital punishment and sin-offerings atone for sin.

讗讚专讘讛 诪砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: On the contrary, the halakha governing one who is sentenced to be stoned should be derived from the halakha governing offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, for four reasons.

砖讻谉 讗讚诐 讞讜讟讗 讘谞砖诪讛 驻讬讙讜诇

The Gemara explains the four reasons: As in both cases it is a person who is outside, either the one who is taken outside for stoning, or the one who slaughters the offerings outside the Temple courtyard, whereas in the case of the bulls brought as sin-offerings, it is the bulls that are carried outside the camp. Additionally, both the blasphemer and the one who slaughters offerings outside the Temple courtyard have committed a sin, while the bull has not. Additionally, both the blasphemer and the one who slaughters offerings outside the Temple courtyard pay with their souls, as slaughtering an offering outside the Temple is punishable with karet. And lastly, both in the case of the blasphemer and in the case of offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, the halakha of disqualification of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul] is not applicable, whereas this halakha is applicable to the bulls brought as sin-offerings.

诪讻砖讬专 诪诪讻砖讬专 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains: Nevertheless, the baraita prefers to compare one case requiring going outside the camp to render an act fit and another case requiring going outside the camp to render an act fit, rather than comparing one case requiring going outside the camp to render an act fit and another case of going outside the camp that renders the act forbidden, as this is the most notable of the factors mentioned.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 诪砖讛 讛讬讻讗 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讛讜爪讗 讗转 讛诪拽诇诇 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 诇讜讬讬讛 讜讬讜爪讬讗讜 讗转 讛诪拽诇诇 讗诇 诪讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讞讜抓 诇诪讞谞讛 讬砖专讗诇

Rav Pappa said: The matter of the location of the place of stoning can be derived from the verses themselves: Where was Moses sitting when the matter of the blasphemer was brought before him? In the Levite camp, as he was a Levite, and it was there that the blasphemer was brought for trial. And the Merciful One said to Moses: 鈥淭ake out him who has cursed to outside the camp,鈥 indicating that he should be taken outside the Levite camp into the Israelite camp. And later it says: 鈥淎nd Moses spoke to the children of Israel, and they brought him that had cursed out of the camp, and they stoned him with a stone. And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses鈥 (Leviticus 24:23), teaching that he was taken outside the Israelite camp as well.

讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注砖讬讬讛 注砖讬讬讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘讗

The Gemara raises an objection: This additional verse is necessary to teach us about the implementation of God鈥檚 instructions, i.e., that the Jewish people did in fact carry out God鈥檚 command, but this verse should not be understood as referring to an additional camp. The Gemara answers: The implementation of God鈥檚 instructions is written explicitly, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse:

Scroll To Top