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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 21, 2017 | 讻状讝 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Sanhedrin 5

Even though it says in the mishna聽that a court is made up of three judges, exceptions are made. 聽An expert can judge on one’s own. 聽Rabbi Abahu and Shmuel debate if 2 judges ruled in a case, would their judgment be effective? 聽in what cases does a judge who makes a mistake, need to pay out of pocket to fix the mistake? 聽When mediation is done, how many people are needed to mediate? 聽Is mediation looked upon as a favorable solution or not?

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讜诪讞讛 诇专讘讬诐 讚谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讞讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讚谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讘讬讞讬讚讬 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讚谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讘讬讞讬讚讬

But if one was a judge accepted as an expert for the public, then he may judge cases even as the lone judge. Rav Na岣an said: One such as I may judge cases of monetary law as the lone judge. And similarly, Rabbi 岣yya said: One such as I may judge cases of monetary law as the lone judge.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讚讙诪讬专谞讗 讜住讘讬专谞讗 讜谞拽讬讟谞讗 专砖讜转讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞拽讬讟 专砖讜转讗 讚讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讚讬谞讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞拽讬讟 专砖讜转讗 讚讬谞讬讛 讚讬谞讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the meaning of: Such as I, in the statements of these Rabbis? Did they intend to say: Such as I, in that I have studied and have the skills to extrapolate and derive new rulings on the basis of earlier decisions, and have also received permission to judge as the lone judge? But accordingly, if one has not received permission to judge as the lone judge, his judgment is not a valid judgment? Or perhaps this is not the correct reading of the statements, and the halakha is that even though he did not receive permission to judge as the lone judge, his judgment is nevertheless a valid judgment?

转讗 砖诪注 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚谉 讚讬谞讗 讜讟注讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 拽讬讘诇讜讱 注诇讬讬讛讜 诇讗 转砖诇诐 讜讗讬 诇讗 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 诇讗 谞拽讬讟 专砖讜转讗 讚讬谞讬讛 讚讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from the following case: Mar Zutra, son of Rav Na岣an, once adjudicated a certain case and erred in his ruling. Upon recognizing his error, he came before Rav Yosef to ask what he should do. Rav Yosef said to him: If the litigants accepted you upon themselves as the lone judge, and both had agreed that they would accept your ruling, you are not liable to pay restitution to the party who lost the case due to your erroneous ruling. But if they did not accept you on themselves, but were rather compelled to be judged before you, you must go and pay restitution. And learn from it that even in a case where one did not receive permission to judge as the lone judge, his ruling is a valid judgment. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讚谉 讚讬谞讗 讜讗讬 讟注讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇诪讬驻讟专讗 诇讬砖拽讜诇 专砖讜转讗 诪讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇砖拽讜诇 专砖讜转讗 诪讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗

Rav says: One who wants to adjudicate a case and wants to be exempt from payment of restitution if he errs in his judgment must receive permission from the Exilarch to judge cases. And similarly, Shmuel says: In such a case he must receive permission from the Exilarch. Once he receives permission, even an erroneous decision carries halakhic force and therefore it is as if he did not err.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讻讗 诇讛讻讗 讜诪讛转诐 诇讛转诐 诪讛谞讬 讜诪讛讻讗 诇讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪讛谞讬 讚讛讻讗 砖讘讟 讜讛转诐 诪讞讜拽拽

Since the Gemara mentioned the importance of a judge receiving authorization from the Exilarch, it now discusses the scope of this authority. It is obvious that from here to here, meaning relying on permission granted by the Exilarch in Babylonia in order to adjudicate cases within Babylonia, and from there to there, relying on permission granted by the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael in order to adjudicate cases within Eretz Yisrael, the authorization is effective. And it is also obvious that from here to there, relying on permission granted by the Exilarch to adjudicate cases within Eretz Yisrael, it is also effective, as the authority of the Exilarch is greater than that of the Nasi. This is so since the Exilarch here in Babylonia may be termed a scepter, i.e., a ruler with actual power of governance, and the Nasi there in Eretz Yisrael is only a staff, i.e., a legislator with limited power.

讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬住讜专 砖讘讟 诪讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讜 专讗砖讬 讙诇讬讜转 砖讘讘讘诇 砖专讜讚讬谉 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 讘砖讘讟 讜诪讞拽拽 诪讘讬谉 专讙诇讬讜 讗诇讜 讘谞讬 讘谞讬讜 砖诇 讛诇诇 砖诪诇诪讚讬谉 转讜专讛 讘专讘讬诐

This is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭he scepter shall not depart from Judah nor the ruler鈥檚 staff from between his feet until Shiloh comes鈥 (Genesis 49:10). The term 鈥淪hiloh鈥 is understood as a reference to the Messiah, and therefore the verse is interpreted as delineating the authority of Jewish rulers during the exile, before the Messiah comes. 鈥淭he scepter shall not depart from Judah鈥; these are the Exilarchs in Babylonia, who are empowered by the government and consequently subjugate the Jewish people as with a scepter. 鈥淣or the ruler鈥檚 staff from between his feet鈥; These are the grandchildren of Hillel the Elder who hold the position of Nasi and teach Torah in public, but do not have authority to actually enforce their judgments.

诪讛转诐 诇讛讻讗 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讛 讚谉 讚讬谞讗 讜讟注讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 拽讬讘诇讜讱 注诇讬讬讛讜 诇讗 转砖诇诐 讜讗讬 诇讗 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讛 专砖讜转讗 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讛转诐 诇讛讻讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

If one has permission from there, from the Nasi, and wants to adjudicate cases here in Babylonia, what is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an incident that occurred: Rabba bar 岣na adjudicated a case in Babylonia and erred. He came before Rabbi 岣yya to ask what he should do. Rabbi 岣yya said to him: If the litigants accepted you upon themselves, you are not liable to pay restitution to the party who unjustly lost the case, but if not, go and pay. But Rabba bar 岣na received permission from the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael; therefore, learn from this incident that permission from there to adjudicate cases here is not effective. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case.

讜诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪讬谞爪讬 讘讛讚讬 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 谞拽讬讟谞讗 专砖讜转讗 谞拽讬讟谞讗 专砖讜转讗 诪讗讘讗 诪专讬 讜讗讘讗 诪专讬 诪专讘 讜专讘 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪专讘讬 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讜拽讬诐 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And is this permission not effective? But when Rabba bar Rav Huna was involved in a dispute with the members of the house of the Exilarch he said: It is not from you that I received permission to judge cases. I received permission from my father, my master, i.e., Rav Huna, and my father, my master, received permission from Rav, and Rav from Rabbi 岣yya, and Rabbi 岣yya from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, it seems that permission received in Eretz Yisrael is in fact effective in Babylonia. The Gemara rejects this proof: He was merely standing up to them with words alone, but there was no halakhic validity to his statement.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚诇讗 诪讛谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讛 专砖讜转讗 讚谞拽讟 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇注讬讬专讜转 讛注讜诪讚讬诐 注诇 讛讙讘讜诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: But since permission to judge received in Eretz Yisrael is not effective in Babylonia, why did Rabba bar 岣na need to receive permission when he left for Babylonia? What was the value of that permission? The Gemara answers: The permission is effective for the cities that stand on the borders of Babylonia, which are not entirely in the jurisdiction of Babylonia, so permission from Eretz Yisrael is effective there.

诪讗讬 专砖讜转讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 谞讞讬转 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讘讘诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘讬 讘谉 讗讞讬 讬讜专讚 诇讘讘诇 讬讜专讛 讬讜专讛 讬讚讬谉 讬讚讬谉 讬转讬专 讘讻讜专讜转 讬转讬专

What is the specific nature of this permission? The Gemara relates: When Rabba bar 岣na descended to Babylonia, his uncle Rabbi 岣yya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: My brother鈥檚 son is descending to Babylonia. May he teach people and issue rulings with regard to what is prohibited and what is permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may teach. Rabbi 岣yya then asked: May he also adjudicate cases of monetary law, and be absolved from payment if he errs? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may adjudicate. Rabbi 岣yya continued: May he declare a firstborn animal permitted? The male firstborn of a kosher animal may not be eaten, as it is supposed to be offered in the Temple. But if it acquires a permanent blemish it is unfit for an offering, and it may be eaten. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may declare such an animal permitted.

讻讬 讛讜讛 谞讞讬转 专讘 诇讘讘诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘讬 讘谉 讗讞讜转讬 讬讜专讚 诇讘讘诇 讬讜专讛 讬讜专讛 讬讚讬谉 讬讚讬谉 讬转讬专 讘讻讜专讜转 讗诇 讬转讬专

Similarly, when Rav, who was also Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 nephew, descended to Babylonia, Rabbi 岣yya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: My sister鈥檚 son is descending to Babylonia. May he teach people and issue rulings with regard to what is prohibited and what is permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may teach. Rabbi 岣yya then asked: May he also adjudicate cases of monetary law, and be absolved from payment if he errs? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded: He may adjudicate. Rabbi 岣yya continued: May he declare a firstborn animal permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may not declare such an animal permitted.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇诪专 讚拽讗 拽专讬 讘谉 讗讞讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇诪专 讚拽讗 拽专讬 讘谉 讗讞讜转讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讗讬讘讜 讜讞谞讛 讜砖讬诇讗 讜诪专转讗 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讘谞讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讗讞讗 讻专住诇讗 诪讻驻专讬 讛讜讜 专讘 讘专 讗讞讜讛 讚讛讜讛 讘专 讗讞转讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讛 讘专 讗讞讜讛 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讗讞转讬讛

This incident raises several questions, which the Gemara asks in sequence. What is different concerning this Sage, Rabba bar 岣na, that Rabbi 岣yya called him: My brother鈥檚 son, and what is different concerning that Sage, Rav, that Rabbi 岣yya called him: My sister鈥檚 son? And if you would say that this was the situation: Rabba bar 岣na was his brother鈥檚 son and Rav was his sister鈥檚 son, but doesn鈥檛 the Master say: Aivu, Rav鈥檚 father, and 岣na, the father of Rabba bar 岣na, and Sheila, and Marta, and Rabbi 岣yya, were all sons of Abba bar A岣 Karsala from Kafrei? Consequently, Rav would also be Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 brother鈥檚 son. The Gemara answers: Rav was his brother鈥檚 son who was also his sister鈥檚 son, as Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 half-brother married Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 half-sister; while Rabba bar 岣na was his brother鈥檚 son who was not his sister鈥檚 son. Therefore, he referred to Rav in a manner that emphasized the additional relationship.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗

And if you wish, say instead that he called him: My sister鈥檚 son, for a different reason:

注诇 砖诐 讞讻诪转讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗诪专 诇讞讻诪讛 讗讞转讬 讗转

It was due to his extraordinary wisdom, as it is written: 鈥淪ay to wisdom: You are my sister鈥 (Proverbs 7:4). Therefore, calling him: My sister鈥檚 son, was an indication of his great wisdom.

讬转讬专 讘讻讜专讜转 讗诇 讬转讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讞讻讬诐 讛讗 拽讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讞讻讬诐 讟讜讘讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讘拽讬注 讘诪讜诪讬

The Gemara had related that Rabbi 岣yya asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: May Rav declare a firstborn animal permitted, and that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had responded: He may not declare such an animal permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he denied him this permission? If we say that it was because Rav was not sufficiently wise and learned, but that is difficult, as we already said that he was exceedingly wise. Rather, it must be that it was because, although he was quite knowledgeable about the halakha, he was not an expert with regard to blemishes, meaning that he lacked the practical expertise to apply the halakha to actual cases.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 讞讚砖讬诐 讙讚诇转讬 讗爪诇 专讜注讛 讘讛诪讛 诇讬讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 讜讗讬讝讛 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 讗诇讗 诇讞诇拽 诇讜 讻讘讜讚 诇专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讛

The Gemara rejects this answer. But didn鈥檛 Rav say: I apprenticed with a shepherd for eighteen months in order to be able to know which blemish is a permanent blemish, and which is a temporary blemish? Evidently, he had a high level of practical expertise in this matter. The Gemara explains: Rather, it was in order to bestow honor upon Rabba bar 岣na. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wanted to ensure that Rabba bar 岣na would be treated with respect, so he made sure that there was an area of halakha with regard to which the people would not be able to consult with Rav and would need to consult with Rabba bar 岣na instead.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讚专讘 讘拽讬注 讘诪讜诪讬 讟驻讬 讜砖专讬 诪讜诪讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讜讗诪专讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 砖专讗 专讘 讜讗转讜 诇诪砖专讬 诪讜诐 注讜讘专

And if you wish, say instead: It is due to this fact itself: Since Rav was a great expert with regard to blemishes, he would permit blemishes that average people do not know about. And as a result, they would erroneously say with regard to a different blemish: In a case like this Rav declared the animal permitted, and in this way they would come to erroneously permit an animal with a temporary blemish, believing it to be identical to the blemish that Rav had declared permitted. Due to this concern, Rav was denied the authority to declare firstborn animals permitted on the basis of a blemish.

讬讜专讛 讬讜专讛 讗讬 讙诪讬专 专砖讜转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬砖拽诇 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

With regard to the permission granted to Rabba bar 岣na and Rav, the Gemara had related that Rabbi 岣yya asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: May he teach people and issue rulings concerning what is prohibited and what is permitted? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded: He may teach. The Gemara asks: If he had studied and mastered the relevant halakhot, why do I need him to receive permission? The need for formal authority is understandable when it comes to serving on a court to judge cases of monetary law, but any knowledgeable person should be qualified to answer questions about ritual law. The Gemara explains: The need for such permission is due to an incident that took place.

讚转谞讬讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讱 专讘讬 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜专讗讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖诪讙讘诇讬谉 注讬住讜转讬讛诐 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗转诐 诪讙讘诇讬谉 注讬住讜转讬讻诐 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 讘讗 诇讻讗谉 讜讛讜专讛 诇谞讜 诪讬 讘爪注讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讛讜讗 诪讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讚专砖 诇讛讜 讜讗讬谞讛讜 住讘讜专 诪讬 讘爪注讬诐 拽讗诪专

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once went to a certain place, and he saw people there kneading dough while they were in a state of ritual impurity, and they believed that nevertheless, the dough remained ritually pure. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: For what reason are you kneading your dough in a state of ritual impurity? They said to him: A certain Torah scholar came here and taught us that water from swamps [mei betza鈥檌m] does not render food susceptible to contract ritual impurity. Therefore, they would take water from swamps and knead dough with it, in the mistaken belief that such dough would not be susceptible to ritual impurity. But in reality, what he taught them was that water of eggs [mei beitzim], i.e., the albumin of eggs, does not render food susceptible to impurity, as it is not considered water. But they thought he said: Water from swamps.

讜讟注讜 谞诪讬 讘讛讗 诪讬 拽专诪讬讜谉 讜诪讬 驻讬讙讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讬 讘爪注讬诐 讜讗讬谞讛讜 住讘讜专 诪讚诇讙讘讬 讞讟讗转 驻住讬诇讬 讗讻砖讜专讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讻砖专讬 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 诇注谞讬谉 讞讟讗转 讘注讬谞谉 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讛讻讗 讗讻砖讜专讬 讻诇 讚讛讜 诪讻砖专讬

And the residents of that same place erred also with regard to this: It was taught in a mishna (Para 8:10): The waters of the Keramiyyon River and the waters of the Piga River are not fit for mixing with ashes of the red heifer to use as water of purification, since they are water from swamps. And they erroneously thought: Since this water is not fit for use as water of purification, this means it is not considered water, and therefore it also does not render food susceptible to contracting impurity. But it is not so, as there, with regard to water of purification, we need: 鈥淩unning water鈥 (see Numbers 19:17), and water from swamps is not running water. But here, with regard to rendering food susceptible to impurity, any water renders food susceptible.

转谞讗 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讙讝专讜 转诇诪讬讚 讗诇 讬讜专讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讜讟诇 专砖讜转 诪专讘讜

It was taught: At that time, when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi discovered the consequences resulting from a Torah scholar who was not precise with his terminology, the Sages decreed: A Torah scholar may not teach halakha unless he receives permission from his teacher to do so. The teacher should not grant him this permission if he does not know how to express himself in a clear manner.

转谞讞讜诐 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗讬拽诇注 诇讞转专 讚专砖 诇讛讜 诪讜转专 诇诇转讜转 讞讬讟讬谉 讘驻住讞 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗讜 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讚诪谉 爪讜专 讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讜转谞讬讗 转诇诪讬讚 讗诇 讬讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 专讞讜拽 诪诪谞讜 砖诇砖 驻专住讗讜转 讻谞讙讚 诪讞谞讛 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗讬

Concerning a similar matter, the Gemara relates: Tan岣m, son of Rabbi Ami, arrived at a place called 岣tar, and he taught them: It is permitted to wash wheat in a small amount of water in order to make it easier to peel during the grinding process on Passover, and there is no concern that perhaps it will become leavened. They said to him: Isn鈥檛 Rabbi Mani from Tyre here i.e., near our location? And it is taught in a baraita: A Torah scholar may not teach halakha in the vicinity of his teacher, unless he is distant from the teacher by at least three parasangs [parsaot], corresponding to the size of the camp of Israel. In the encampment in the wilderness no one else judged cases, as all the Jewish people brought their cases to Moses (see Exodus 33:7). Tan岣m, son of Rabbi Ami, said to them: It did not enter my mind that Rabbi Mani was in the vicinity.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讞讝讬讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讘谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讛谉 讗转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讘讜讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讙讘讛 注讬谞讬诐 讛讜讛 谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 讘讙专讜砖讛 讜讞讬诇诇讜

The Gemara relates: Rabbi 岣yya saw a certain man standing in a cemetery. He said to him: Are you not the son of so-and-so the priest? As it is prohibited for priests to come into contact with the dead (see Leviticus 21:1鈥4), Rabbi 岣yya was surprised to see a priest standing in a cemetery. The man said to him: Yes, but that man鈥檚, meaning his own, father was a man with raised eyes who would desire things that he saw, even if they were forbidden. He set his eyes upon a divorc茅e and married her despite the Torah prohibition against such a union (see Leviticus 21:7), and thereby disqualified the offspring of that union from the sanctity of priesthood. As the son of a priest and a divorc茅e, the man had the status of a 岣lal and was therefore not obligated to abide by the restrictions specific to priests.

驻砖讬讟讗 诇驻诇讙讗 讛讗 拽讗诪专 讚诪讛谞讬 注诇 转谞讗讬 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘 砖诪谉 讛专讬 讗转讛 讘专砖讜转谞讜 注讚 砖转讘讗 讗爪诇谞讜

Continuing the discussion about receiving permission to teach halakha, the Gemara discusses the extent of this authority. It is obvious that one鈥檚 teacher can grant partial permission, meaning permission to rule on certain types of cases but not others, as it has been said above that doing so is effective. But what is the halakha with regard to granting such permission conditionally? Is it possible to grant permission limited to a certain period of time, or limited to a certain location? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the solution to this matter from what Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rav Shemen: You have our permission to instruct and to adjudicate until you return to us. This statement proves that it is possible to grant permission limited to a specific period of time.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬诐 砖讚谞讜 讚讬谞讬讛诐 讚讬谉 讗诇讗 砖谞拽专讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞爪讜祝 讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬诐 诪讝讻讬谉 讗讜 砖谞讬诐 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 壮讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注壮 讬讜住讬驻讜 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 诇讛讜讜 讻砖谞讬诐 砖讚谞讜

搂 Earlier, the Gemara discussed the possibility of a court consisting of only two judges adjudicating a case. Concerning the matter itself, Shmuel says: With regard to two judges who adjudicated a case, their judgment is a valid judgment, but they are called an impudent court. Rav Na岣an sat and said this halakha. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from a mishna (29a): In a case where three judges are adjudicating a case, even if two judges deem the defendant exempt from payment or two judges deem him liable to pay, and one says: I do not know, the judges must add another judge, since the one who abstained has removed himself from the court, and there are not enough judges. And if it is so as Shmuel says, they should be viewed as two judges who adjudicated the case, and there would be no need to add another judge, as a judgment passed by two judges is valid.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讚注转讗 讚转诇转讗 讬转讬讘讬 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗 讚转诇转讗 讬转讬讘讬

Rav Na岣an answered him: It is different there, as they convened from the outset with the knowledge that they are three and intended to judge the case with three judges. Therefore, if one abstains, they must add another to complete the quorum. But here they did not convene with the knowledge that they are three, but rather intended to adjudicate the case as a court of two judges.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讚讬谉 讘砖诇砖讛 讜驻砖专讛 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讬驻讛 讻讞 驻砖专讛 诪讻讞 讛讚讬谉 砖砖谞讬诐 砖讚谞讜 讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛谉 讜砖谞讬诐 砖注砖讜 驻砖专讛 讗讬谉 讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛谉

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Cases of monetary law are adjudicated by three judges, and mediation leading to compromise can be performed by two mediators. And the power of compromise is greater than the power of adjudication, as if two judges adjudicated a case, the litigants are able to withdraw from the case and demand a court with a complete quorum. But if two mediated a compromise, the litigants may not withdraw.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 5

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讜诪讞讛 诇专讘讬诐 讚谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讬讞讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讚谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讘讬讞讬讚讬 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讚谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讘讬讞讬讚讬

But if one was a judge accepted as an expert for the public, then he may judge cases even as the lone judge. Rav Na岣an said: One such as I may judge cases of monetary law as the lone judge. And similarly, Rabbi 岣yya said: One such as I may judge cases of monetary law as the lone judge.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讗 讚讙诪讬专谞讗 讜住讘讬专谞讗 讜谞拽讬讟谞讗 专砖讜转讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞拽讬讟 专砖讜转讗 讚讬谞讬讛 诇讗 讚讬谞讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞拽讬讟 专砖讜转讗 讚讬谞讬讛 讚讬谞讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the meaning of: Such as I, in the statements of these Rabbis? Did they intend to say: Such as I, in that I have studied and have the skills to extrapolate and derive new rulings on the basis of earlier decisions, and have also received permission to judge as the lone judge? But accordingly, if one has not received permission to judge as the lone judge, his judgment is not a valid judgment? Or perhaps this is not the correct reading of the statements, and the halakha is that even though he did not receive permission to judge as the lone judge, his judgment is nevertheless a valid judgment?

转讗 砖诪注 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚谉 讚讬谞讗 讜讟注讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 拽讬讘诇讜讱 注诇讬讬讛讜 诇讗 转砖诇诐 讜讗讬 诇讗 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 诇讗 谞拽讬讟 专砖讜转讗 讚讬谞讬讛 讚讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from the following case: Mar Zutra, son of Rav Na岣an, once adjudicated a certain case and erred in his ruling. Upon recognizing his error, he came before Rav Yosef to ask what he should do. Rav Yosef said to him: If the litigants accepted you upon themselves as the lone judge, and both had agreed that they would accept your ruling, you are not liable to pay restitution to the party who lost the case due to your erroneous ruling. But if they did not accept you on themselves, but were rather compelled to be judged before you, you must go and pay restitution. And learn from it that even in a case where one did not receive permission to judge as the lone judge, his ruling is a valid judgment. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬讚谉 讚讬谞讗 讜讗讬 讟注讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇诪讬驻讟专讗 诇讬砖拽讜诇 专砖讜转讗 诪讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇砖拽讜诇 专砖讜转讗 诪讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗

Rav says: One who wants to adjudicate a case and wants to be exempt from payment of restitution if he errs in his judgment must receive permission from the Exilarch to judge cases. And similarly, Shmuel says: In such a case he must receive permission from the Exilarch. Once he receives permission, even an erroneous decision carries halakhic force and therefore it is as if he did not err.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讻讗 诇讛讻讗 讜诪讛转诐 诇讛转诐 诪讛谞讬 讜诪讛讻讗 诇讛转诐 谞诪讬 诪讛谞讬 讚讛讻讗 砖讘讟 讜讛转诐 诪讞讜拽拽

Since the Gemara mentioned the importance of a judge receiving authorization from the Exilarch, it now discusses the scope of this authority. It is obvious that from here to here, meaning relying on permission granted by the Exilarch in Babylonia in order to adjudicate cases within Babylonia, and from there to there, relying on permission granted by the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael in order to adjudicate cases within Eretz Yisrael, the authorization is effective. And it is also obvious that from here to there, relying on permission granted by the Exilarch to adjudicate cases within Eretz Yisrael, it is also effective, as the authority of the Exilarch is greater than that of the Nasi. This is so since the Exilarch here in Babylonia may be termed a scepter, i.e., a ruler with actual power of governance, and the Nasi there in Eretz Yisrael is only a staff, i.e., a legislator with limited power.

讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬住讜专 砖讘讟 诪讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讜 专讗砖讬 讙诇讬讜转 砖讘讘讘诇 砖专讜讚讬谉 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 讘砖讘讟 讜诪讞拽拽 诪讘讬谉 专讙诇讬讜 讗诇讜 讘谞讬 讘谞讬讜 砖诇 讛诇诇 砖诪诇诪讚讬谉 转讜专讛 讘专讘讬诐

This is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭he scepter shall not depart from Judah nor the ruler鈥檚 staff from between his feet until Shiloh comes鈥 (Genesis 49:10). The term 鈥淪hiloh鈥 is understood as a reference to the Messiah, and therefore the verse is interpreted as delineating the authority of Jewish rulers during the exile, before the Messiah comes. 鈥淭he scepter shall not depart from Judah鈥; these are the Exilarchs in Babylonia, who are empowered by the government and consequently subjugate the Jewish people as with a scepter. 鈥淣or the ruler鈥檚 staff from between his feet鈥; These are the grandchildren of Hillel the Elder who hold the position of Nasi and teach Torah in public, but do not have authority to actually enforce their judgments.

诪讛转诐 诇讛讻讗 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讛 讚谉 讚讬谞讗 讜讟注讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 拽讬讘诇讜讱 注诇讬讬讛讜 诇讗 转砖诇诐 讜讗讬 诇讗 讝讬诇 砖诇讬诐 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讛 专砖讜转讗 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讛转诐 诇讛讻讗 诇讗 诪讛谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

If one has permission from there, from the Nasi, and wants to adjudicate cases here in Babylonia, what is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an incident that occurred: Rabba bar 岣na adjudicated a case in Babylonia and erred. He came before Rabbi 岣yya to ask what he should do. Rabbi 岣yya said to him: If the litigants accepted you upon themselves, you are not liable to pay restitution to the party who unjustly lost the case, but if not, go and pay. But Rabba bar 岣na received permission from the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael; therefore, learn from this incident that permission from there to adjudicate cases here is not effective. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case.

讜诇讗 诪讛谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪讬谞爪讬 讘讛讚讬 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讬讻讜 谞拽讬讟谞讗 专砖讜转讗 谞拽讬讟谞讗 专砖讜转讗 诪讗讘讗 诪专讬 讜讗讘讗 诪专讬 诪专讘 讜专讘 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪专讘讬 讘诪讬诇转讗 讚注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讜拽讬诐 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And is this permission not effective? But when Rabba bar Rav Huna was involved in a dispute with the members of the house of the Exilarch he said: It is not from you that I received permission to judge cases. I received permission from my father, my master, i.e., Rav Huna, and my father, my master, received permission from Rav, and Rav from Rabbi 岣yya, and Rabbi 岣yya from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, it seems that permission received in Eretz Yisrael is in fact effective in Babylonia. The Gemara rejects this proof: He was merely standing up to them with words alone, but there was no halakhic validity to his statement.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚诇讗 诪讛谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讛 专砖讜转讗 讚谞拽讟 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇注讬讬专讜转 讛注讜诪讚讬诐 注诇 讛讙讘讜诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: But since permission to judge received in Eretz Yisrael is not effective in Babylonia, why did Rabba bar 岣na need to receive permission when he left for Babylonia? What was the value of that permission? The Gemara answers: The permission is effective for the cities that stand on the borders of Babylonia, which are not entirely in the jurisdiction of Babylonia, so permission from Eretz Yisrael is effective there.

诪讗讬 专砖讜转讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 谞讞讬转 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讛 诇讘讘诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘讬 讘谉 讗讞讬 讬讜专讚 诇讘讘诇 讬讜专讛 讬讜专讛 讬讚讬谉 讬讚讬谉 讬转讬专 讘讻讜专讜转 讬转讬专

What is the specific nature of this permission? The Gemara relates: When Rabba bar 岣na descended to Babylonia, his uncle Rabbi 岣yya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: My brother鈥檚 son is descending to Babylonia. May he teach people and issue rulings with regard to what is prohibited and what is permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may teach. Rabbi 岣yya then asked: May he also adjudicate cases of monetary law, and be absolved from payment if he errs? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may adjudicate. Rabbi 岣yya continued: May he declare a firstborn animal permitted? The male firstborn of a kosher animal may not be eaten, as it is supposed to be offered in the Temple. But if it acquires a permanent blemish it is unfit for an offering, and it may be eaten. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may declare such an animal permitted.

讻讬 讛讜讛 谞讞讬转 专讘 诇讘讘诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘讬 讘谉 讗讞讜转讬 讬讜专讚 诇讘讘诇 讬讜专讛 讬讜专讛 讬讚讬谉 讬讚讬谉 讬转讬专 讘讻讜专讜转 讗诇 讬转讬专

Similarly, when Rav, who was also Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 nephew, descended to Babylonia, Rabbi 岣yya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: My sister鈥檚 son is descending to Babylonia. May he teach people and issue rulings with regard to what is prohibited and what is permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may teach. Rabbi 岣yya then asked: May he also adjudicate cases of monetary law, and be absolved from payment if he errs? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded: He may adjudicate. Rabbi 岣yya continued: May he declare a firstborn animal permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may not declare such an animal permitted.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇诪专 讚拽讗 拽专讬 讘谉 讗讞讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇诪专 讚拽讗 拽专讬 讘谉 讗讞讜转讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诪注砖讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讗讬讘讜 讜讞谞讛 讜砖讬诇讗 讜诪专转讗 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讘谞讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讗讞讗 讻专住诇讗 诪讻驻专讬 讛讜讜 专讘 讘专 讗讞讜讛 讚讛讜讛 讘专 讗讞转讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讛 讘专 讗讞讜讛 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讗讞转讬讛

This incident raises several questions, which the Gemara asks in sequence. What is different concerning this Sage, Rabba bar 岣na, that Rabbi 岣yya called him: My brother鈥檚 son, and what is different concerning that Sage, Rav, that Rabbi 岣yya called him: My sister鈥檚 son? And if you would say that this was the situation: Rabba bar 岣na was his brother鈥檚 son and Rav was his sister鈥檚 son, but doesn鈥檛 the Master say: Aivu, Rav鈥檚 father, and 岣na, the father of Rabba bar 岣na, and Sheila, and Marta, and Rabbi 岣yya, were all sons of Abba bar A岣 Karsala from Kafrei? Consequently, Rav would also be Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 brother鈥檚 son. The Gemara answers: Rav was his brother鈥檚 son who was also his sister鈥檚 son, as Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 half-brother married Rabbi 岣yya鈥檚 half-sister; while Rabba bar 岣na was his brother鈥檚 son who was not his sister鈥檚 son. Therefore, he referred to Rav in a manner that emphasized the additional relationship.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗

And if you wish, say instead that he called him: My sister鈥檚 son, for a different reason:

注诇 砖诐 讞讻诪转讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗诪专 诇讞讻诪讛 讗讞转讬 讗转

It was due to his extraordinary wisdom, as it is written: 鈥淪ay to wisdom: You are my sister鈥 (Proverbs 7:4). Therefore, calling him: My sister鈥檚 son, was an indication of his great wisdom.

讬转讬专 讘讻讜专讜转 讗诇 讬转讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讞讻讬诐 讛讗 拽讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讞讻讬诐 讟讜讘讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讘拽讬注 讘诪讜诪讬

The Gemara had related that Rabbi 岣yya asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: May Rav declare a firstborn animal permitted, and that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had responded: He may not declare such an animal permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he denied him this permission? If we say that it was because Rav was not sufficiently wise and learned, but that is difficult, as we already said that he was exceedingly wise. Rather, it must be that it was because, although he was quite knowledgeable about the halakha, he was not an expert with regard to blemishes, meaning that he lacked the practical expertise to apply the halakha to actual cases.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专 讞讚砖讬诐 讙讚诇转讬 讗爪诇 专讜注讛 讘讛诪讛 诇讬讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注 讜讗讬讝讛 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 讗诇讗 诇讞诇拽 诇讜 讻讘讜讚 诇专讘讛 讘专 讞谞讛

The Gemara rejects this answer. But didn鈥檛 Rav say: I apprenticed with a shepherd for eighteen months in order to be able to know which blemish is a permanent blemish, and which is a temporary blemish? Evidently, he had a high level of practical expertise in this matter. The Gemara explains: Rather, it was in order to bestow honor upon Rabba bar 岣na. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wanted to ensure that Rabba bar 岣na would be treated with respect, so he made sure that there was an area of halakha with regard to which the people would not be able to consult with Rav and would need to consult with Rabba bar 岣na instead.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讚专讘 讘拽讬注 讘诪讜诪讬 讟驻讬 讜砖专讬 诪讜诪讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讜讗诪专讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 砖专讗 专讘 讜讗转讜 诇诪砖专讬 诪讜诐 注讜讘专

And if you wish, say instead: It is due to this fact itself: Since Rav was a great expert with regard to blemishes, he would permit blemishes that average people do not know about. And as a result, they would erroneously say with regard to a different blemish: In a case like this Rav declared the animal permitted, and in this way they would come to erroneously permit an animal with a temporary blemish, believing it to be identical to the blemish that Rav had declared permitted. Due to this concern, Rav was denied the authority to declare firstborn animals permitted on the basis of a blemish.

讬讜专讛 讬讜专讛 讗讬 讙诪讬专 专砖讜转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬砖拽诇 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

With regard to the permission granted to Rabba bar 岣na and Rav, the Gemara had related that Rabbi 岣yya asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: May he teach people and issue rulings concerning what is prohibited and what is permitted? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded: He may teach. The Gemara asks: If he had studied and mastered the relevant halakhot, why do I need him to receive permission? The need for formal authority is understandable when it comes to serving on a court to judge cases of monetary law, but any knowledgeable person should be qualified to answer questions about ritual law. The Gemara explains: The need for such permission is due to an incident that took place.

讚转谞讬讗 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛诇讱 专讘讬 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜专讗讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖诪讙讘诇讬谉 注讬住讜转讬讛诐 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗转诐 诪讙讘诇讬谉 注讬住讜转讬讻诐 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 讘讗 诇讻讗谉 讜讛讜专讛 诇谞讜 诪讬 讘爪注讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讛讜讗 诪讬 讘讬爪讬诐 讚专砖 诇讛讜 讜讗讬谞讛讜 住讘讜专 诪讬 讘爪注讬诐 拽讗诪专

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once went to a certain place, and he saw people there kneading dough while they were in a state of ritual impurity, and they believed that nevertheless, the dough remained ritually pure. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: For what reason are you kneading your dough in a state of ritual impurity? They said to him: A certain Torah scholar came here and taught us that water from swamps [mei betza鈥檌m] does not render food susceptible to contract ritual impurity. Therefore, they would take water from swamps and knead dough with it, in the mistaken belief that such dough would not be susceptible to ritual impurity. But in reality, what he taught them was that water of eggs [mei beitzim], i.e., the albumin of eggs, does not render food susceptible to impurity, as it is not considered water. But they thought he said: Water from swamps.

讜讟注讜 谞诪讬 讘讛讗 诪讬 拽专诪讬讜谉 讜诪讬 驻讬讙讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讬 讘爪注讬诐 讜讗讬谞讛讜 住讘讜专 诪讚诇讙讘讬 讞讟讗转 驻住讬诇讬 讗讻砖讜专讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讻砖专讬 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 诇注谞讬谉 讞讟讗转 讘注讬谞谉 诪讬诐 讞讬讬诐 讛讻讗 讗讻砖讜专讬 讻诇 讚讛讜 诪讻砖专讬

And the residents of that same place erred also with regard to this: It was taught in a mishna (Para 8:10): The waters of the Keramiyyon River and the waters of the Piga River are not fit for mixing with ashes of the red heifer to use as water of purification, since they are water from swamps. And they erroneously thought: Since this water is not fit for use as water of purification, this means it is not considered water, and therefore it also does not render food susceptible to contracting impurity. But it is not so, as there, with regard to water of purification, we need: 鈥淩unning water鈥 (see Numbers 19:17), and water from swamps is not running water. But here, with regard to rendering food susceptible to impurity, any water renders food susceptible.

转谞讗 讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 讙讝专讜 转诇诪讬讚 讗诇 讬讜专讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讜讟诇 专砖讜转 诪专讘讜

It was taught: At that time, when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi discovered the consequences resulting from a Torah scholar who was not precise with his terminology, the Sages decreed: A Torah scholar may not teach halakha unless he receives permission from his teacher to do so. The teacher should not grant him this permission if he does not know how to express himself in a clear manner.

转谞讞讜诐 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗讬拽诇注 诇讞转专 讚专砖 诇讛讜 诪讜转专 诇诇转讜转 讞讬讟讬谉 讘驻住讞 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗讜 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讚诪谉 爪讜专 讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讜转谞讬讗 转诇诪讬讚 讗诇 讬讜专讛 讛诇讻讛 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 专讞讜拽 诪诪谞讜 砖诇砖 驻专住讗讜转 讻谞讙讚 诪讞谞讛 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗讬

Concerning a similar matter, the Gemara relates: Tan岣m, son of Rabbi Ami, arrived at a place called 岣tar, and he taught them: It is permitted to wash wheat in a small amount of water in order to make it easier to peel during the grinding process on Passover, and there is no concern that perhaps it will become leavened. They said to him: Isn鈥檛 Rabbi Mani from Tyre here i.e., near our location? And it is taught in a baraita: A Torah scholar may not teach halakha in the vicinity of his teacher, unless he is distant from the teacher by at least three parasangs [parsaot], corresponding to the size of the camp of Israel. In the encampment in the wilderness no one else judged cases, as all the Jewish people brought their cases to Moses (see Exodus 33:7). Tan岣m, son of Rabbi Ami, said to them: It did not enter my mind that Rabbi Mani was in the vicinity.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讞讝讬讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讘谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讛谉 讗转讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗讘讜讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讙讘讛 注讬谞讬诐 讛讜讛 谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 讘讙专讜砖讛 讜讞讬诇诇讜

The Gemara relates: Rabbi 岣yya saw a certain man standing in a cemetery. He said to him: Are you not the son of so-and-so the priest? As it is prohibited for priests to come into contact with the dead (see Leviticus 21:1鈥4), Rabbi 岣yya was surprised to see a priest standing in a cemetery. The man said to him: Yes, but that man鈥檚, meaning his own, father was a man with raised eyes who would desire things that he saw, even if they were forbidden. He set his eyes upon a divorc茅e and married her despite the Torah prohibition against such a union (see Leviticus 21:7), and thereby disqualified the offspring of that union from the sanctity of priesthood. As the son of a priest and a divorc茅e, the man had the status of a 岣lal and was therefore not obligated to abide by the restrictions specific to priests.

驻砖讬讟讗 诇驻诇讙讗 讛讗 拽讗诪专 讚诪讛谞讬 注诇 转谞讗讬 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘 砖诪谉 讛专讬 讗转讛 讘专砖讜转谞讜 注讚 砖转讘讗 讗爪诇谞讜

Continuing the discussion about receiving permission to teach halakha, the Gemara discusses the extent of this authority. It is obvious that one鈥檚 teacher can grant partial permission, meaning permission to rule on certain types of cases but not others, as it has been said above that doing so is effective. But what is the halakha with regard to granting such permission conditionally? Is it possible to grant permission limited to a certain period of time, or limited to a certain location? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the solution to this matter from what Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rav Shemen: You have our permission to instruct and to adjudicate until you return to us. This statement proves that it is possible to grant permission limited to a specific period of time.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬诐 砖讚谞讜 讚讬谞讬讛诐 讚讬谉 讗诇讗 砖谞拽专讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞爪讜祝 讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬诐 诪讝讻讬谉 讗讜 砖谞讬诐 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 壮讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注壮 讬讜住讬驻讜 讛讚讬讬谞讬谉 讜讗讬 讗讬转讗 诇讛讜讜 讻砖谞讬诐 砖讚谞讜

搂 Earlier, the Gemara discussed the possibility of a court consisting of only two judges adjudicating a case. Concerning the matter itself, Shmuel says: With regard to two judges who adjudicated a case, their judgment is a valid judgment, but they are called an impudent court. Rav Na岣an sat and said this halakha. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from a mishna (29a): In a case where three judges are adjudicating a case, even if two judges deem the defendant exempt from payment or two judges deem him liable to pay, and one says: I do not know, the judges must add another judge, since the one who abstained has removed himself from the court, and there are not enough judges. And if it is so as Shmuel says, they should be viewed as two judges who adjudicated the case, and there would be no need to add another judge, as a judgment passed by two judges is valid.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讚注转讗 讚转诇转讗 讬转讬讘讬 讛讻讗 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗 讚转诇转讗 讬转讬讘讬

Rav Na岣an answered him: It is different there, as they convened from the outset with the knowledge that they are three and intended to judge the case with three judges. Therefore, if one abstains, they must add another to complete the quorum. But here they did not convene with the knowledge that they are three, but rather intended to adjudicate the case as a court of two judges.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讚讬谉 讘砖诇砖讛 讜驻砖专讛 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讬驻讛 讻讞 驻砖专讛 诪讻讞 讛讚讬谉 砖砖谞讬诐 砖讚谞讜 讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛谉 讜砖谞讬诐 砖注砖讜 驻砖专讛 讗讬谉 讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讞讝讜专 讘讛谉

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Cases of monetary law are adjudicated by three judges, and mediation leading to compromise can be performed by two mediators. And the power of compromise is greater than the power of adjudication, as if two judges adjudicated a case, the litigants are able to withdraw from the case and demand a court with a complete quorum. But if two mediated a compromise, the litigants may not withdraw.

Scroll To Top