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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 24, 2017 | ืืณ ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sanhedrin 8

The gemaraย extrapolates the verses at the beginning of sefer devarim when Moshe discusses setting up the court system. ย The gemara learns from here all sorts of laws relating to judges to ensure fair judgments (not showing favoritism, etc. ย and that the people listen to the courts (implements used by judges for enforcement purposes). ย The gemara now goes back to the mishna. ย double payment is in a court of three. ย Since it is a payment of a fine, can it be judged by one specialist as in theft and injuries? ย The debate regarding one who accuses his wife about not being a virgin is disucssed – what is at the root of the debate? ย A number of explanations are given, most of them narrowing the focus of the debate to more specific cases.


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

ืคืกื™ืœื ื ืœืš ืœื“ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืœืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืคื•ืง ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ื” ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงื ื’ืื™ืก ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืฆื™ื™ืชื ืฆื™ื™ืชื ื•ืื™ ืœื ืžืคื™ืงื ื ืœืš ืจื‘ ืžืื•ื ืš

I am disqualified to judge for you, because I may be partial to you due to what youโ€™ve done for me. Rav said to Rav Kahana: Go out and judge the case. Rav Kahana saw that Ravโ€™s host was acting haughtily due to his relationship with Rav, as he presumed that Rav Kahana was predisposed to favor him. Rav Kahana said to the host: If you are prepared to listen, then listen to me and follow my instructions. And if not, I will take Rav out of your ears. I will treat you harshly, and you will understand that your relationship with Rav will not help you at all.

ื›ืงื˜ืŸ ื›ื’ื“ืœ ืชืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืฉื™ื”ื ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ืš ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืื” ืžื ื” ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืขื™ื•ื ื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืžื™ืคืกืงื™ื” ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืืœื ืœืืงื“ื•ืžื™ื”

ยง The Gemara continues to interpret clauses from the verse cited above. โ€œYou shall hear the small and the great alikeโ€ (Deuteronomy 1:17). Reish Lakish says: This teaches that the judgment of one peruta should be as dear, i.e., important, to you as the judgment of one hundred maneh, i.e., ten thousand dinars. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this said? If we say it is with regard to the need to study it carefully and to decide the case justly, it is obvious that even cases relating to small sums must be judged thoroughly. Rather, Reish Lakish was speaking with regard to giving it precedence: The small claims case may not be deferred in favor of the larger claim merely because the disputed sum is smaller.

ืœื ืชื’ื•ืจื• ืžืคื ื™ ืื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ืŸ ืืœ ืชื›ื ื™ืก ื“ื‘ืจื™ืš ืžืคื ื™ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื”ืžืฉืคื˜ ืœืืœื”ื™ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืœื ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืจืฉืขื™ื ืฉื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืžื–ื” ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ื ื•ืชื ื™ื ืœื–ื” ืฉืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืžื˜ืจื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื™ ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื•

The Gemara continues the interpretation of the verse: โ€œYou shall not be afraid before any man.โ€ Rabbi แธคanan says: Do not suppress your statement of opinion due to any person. The verse continues: โ€œFor the judgment is Godโ€™s.โ€ Rabbi แธคama, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: It is not enough for the wicked judges, that they take money from this person and they give it to that person unlawfully, but they even trouble Me to return the money to its rightful owners. As proper justice is ultimately in the hands of God, He takes responsibility to bring about the rectification of the errors of unfit judges.

ื•ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ืงืฉื” ืžื›ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื” ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื” ื ืขื ืฉ ืžืฉื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืงืจื‘ ืžืฉื” ืืช ืžืฉืคื˜ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืžื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืฉืžื™ืขื›ื ื•ืฉืžืขืชื™ื• ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ ื’ืžื™ืจื ื ื’ืžื™ืจื ื ื•ืื™ ืœื ืื–ืœื™ื ื ื•ื’ืžื™ืจื ื

The verse continues: โ€œAnd the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.โ€ Rabbi แธคanina, and some say Rabbi Yoshiya, says: On account of this matter, which displayed a degree of presumptuousness, Moses was punished, as it is stated: โ€œAnd Moses brought their cause before the Lordโ€ (Numbers 27:5). In this instance, when Zelophehadโ€™s daughters presented their case to Moses, he did not know the answer himself and was compelled to ask God. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak objects to this critique of Moses: Is it written: โ€œAnd I will tell you,โ€ which would indicate that Moses assumed the authority for himself? No, it is written: โ€œAnd I will hear it,โ€ meaning: If I have learned the halakha, I have learned it. And if not, I will go and learn it. Consequently, there was no presumptuousness in Mosesโ€™ statement.

ืืœื ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจืื•ื™ื” ืคืจืฉืช ื ื—ืœื•ืช ืฉืชื™ื›ืชื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืืœื ืฉื–ื›ื• ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืœืคื—ื“ ื•ื ื›ืชื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื“ืŸ ืจืื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ืชื” ืคืจืฉืช ืžืงื•ืฉืฉ ืฉืชื™ื›ืชื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืืœื ืฉื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืงื•ืฉืฉ ื•ื ื›ืชื‘ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื• ืœืœืžื“ืš ืฉืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื‘ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื–ื›ื•ืช ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื–ื›ืื™

Rather, the unusual manner in which the halakha of womenโ€™s inheritance (see Numbers, chapter 27) was revealed may be understood as it is taught in a baraita: It would have been fitting for the Torah portion about inheritances to have been written by attributing it to Moses, our teacher, i.e., to introduce the halakha with the standard formulation: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying. But the daughters of Zelophehad achieved merit as a result of their initiative in pursuing a portion in Eretz Yisrael, and therefore the halakha was written by attributing it to them. Similarly, it would have been fitting for the Torah portion concerning the punishment of the wood gatherer (see Numbers 15:32โ€“36) to have been written by attributing it to Moses, our teacher. But the wood gatherer was found guilty, and the halakha was written by attributing it to him. This serves to teach you that guilt is engendered by means of the guilty and merit by means of the innocent.

ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืฆื•ื” ืืช ืฉืคื˜ื™ื›ื ื‘ืขืช ื”ื”ื™ื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืฆื•ื” ืืชื›ื ื‘ืขืช ื”ื”ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืœืื™ ืื–ื”ืจื” ืœืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืชื”ื ืื™ืžืช ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืื–ื”ืจื” ืœื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืกื‘ื•ืœ ืืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉื‘ืชืื™ ื›ืืฉืจ ื™ืฉื ื”ืืžืŸ ืืช ื”ื™ื ืง

The Gemara continues to interpret verses pertaining to judges and judgment. It is written: โ€œAnd I charged your judges at that timeโ€ (Deuteronomy 1:16), and it is written soon thereafter: โ€œAnd I commanded you at that time all the things that you should doโ€ (Deuteronomy 1:18). There is an apparent contradiction between these verses, as one indicates God commanded the judges and the other indicates He commanded the people. Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Simlai says: Moses issued a warning to the community that the awe of the judge must be upon them, and Moses issued a warning to the judge that he must bear the burden of the community. Up to what degree must the judge bear this burden? Rabbi แธคanan, and some say Rabbi Shabbtai, says: It is as Moses said, that he carried Israel โ€œas a nursing father carries the sucking childโ€ (Numbers 11:12).

ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืืชื” ืชื‘ื•ื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืืชื” ืชื‘ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืžืฉื” ืœื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืชื” ื•ื”ื–ืงื ื™ื ืฉื‘ื“ื•ืจ ืขืžื”ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงืœ ื•ื”ืš ืขืœ ืงื“ืงื“ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ื“ ืœื“ื•ืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ืœื“ื•ืจ

Similarly, a distinction is drawn between two verses where Moses commanded Joshua concerning his impending leadership: It is written: โ€œFor you shall go with these people into the landโ€ (Deuteronomy 31:7), and it is written: โ€œFor you shall bring the children of Israel into the landโ€ (Deuteronomy 31:23). Rabbi Yoแธฅanan reconciled the difference between these two charges and said: Moses said to Joshua, in the first verse: You and the elders of the generation will enter into Eretz Yisrael together with the people, i.e., the elders will assist you in the leadership. Subsequently, in the second verse, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Joshua: You yourself must bring the people: Take a rod and strike the people upon their skulls. There must be one clear and authoritative leader for the generation, and there may not be two or more leaders for the generation.

ืชื ื ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืื™ ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืจื›ืช ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ืจื›ืช ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืคืจื•ืฉื™ ืงืžืคืจืฉ ืžืื™ ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื›ืช ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื‘ืจื›ืช ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื”

ยง The Gemara returns to the discussion of halakhic matters related to the mishna. The Sages taught in a baraita: A zimmun is to be issued with three people. The Gemara analyzes: What is meant by the term zimmun in the baraita? If we say it is referring to the invitation to recite Grace after Meals jointly, which is called the zimmun blessing, that is difficult. But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Zimmun and the zimmun blessing are to be issued with three people? As the baraita lists these halakhot separately, it indicates that the term zimmun is referring to a different matter. And if you would say that the baraita explains itself, by clarifying: What is meant by the term zimmun? It is the zimmun blessing, another source indicates even more clearly that these terms are referring to two different procedures. But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Zimmun is performed with three people, and the zimmun blessing is performed with three people? Evidently, therefore, zimmun is not referring to the zimmun blessing.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ืื–ืžื•ื ื™ ืœื“ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื ื™ ื‘ื™ ืชืœืชื ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ ื“ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ืฉืœื™ื—ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืืžืจ ืžืคื•ืžื ื“ื—ื“ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ืขื“ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ืœื ื™ื•ืžื ื“ื“ื™ื ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ื•ืžื ื“ื“ื™ื ื ืœื™ืช ืœืŸ ื‘ื”

Rather, what is zimmun? It is a summons to appear in court for judgment. The Gemara notes that this is similar to that which Rava said: With regard to this court of three judges who are sitting and waiting to adjudicate a case, and the agent of the court went and said to one of the litigants that he is summoned in the name of only one of the judges, the summons is insufficient. It is as if the agent did not say anything, unless he said it in the name of all of them. That is what is meant when it is taught that zimmun is issued by three. The Gemara clarifies: That statement applies only when it is not the day set for judgment. But on the day set for judgment, when it is understood that a summons in the name of only one judge actually indicates a summons from an assembled court, we have no problem with it. Someone who ignores such a summons is subject to the full censure of the court.

ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื›ื•ืณ ืฉืœื— ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื™ืœืžื“ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื“ื™ื ื™ ืงื ืกื•ืช ื‘ื›ืžื” ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืื ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืืœื ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืžื•ืžื—ื” ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ืงื ืกื•ืช ืื• ืœื

ยง The mishna teaches: Cases involving payment of double the principal must be adjudicated by a court of three judges. Rav Naแธฅman bar Rav แธคisda sent an inquiry to Rav Naแธฅman bar Yaโ€™akov: Let our teacher instruct us: With regard to cases involving laws of fines, by how many judges must such cases be adjudicated? The Gemara asks: What is the dilemma he is raising? Didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna that such cases are judged by three judges? Rather, Rav Naแธฅman bar Rav แธคisda is raising a dilemma with regard to a single expert judge: May he adjudicate cases involving laws of fines by himself or not?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืฉืœืฉื” ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช ื”ืืžืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืื‘ื•ืš ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืคื™ืœื• ืขืฉืจื” ื•ื”ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื“ื™ื ื™ ืงื ืกื•ืช ืืœื ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื”

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yaโ€™akov said to him: You already learned this in the mishna: Cases involving payment of double the principal and payment of four or five times the principal must be adjudicated by three judges. What is meant by three? If we say it means three non-ordained lay judges, didnโ€™t your fatherโ€™s father say in the name of Rav: Even if there are ten judges, if they are lay judges they are unfit for adjudicating cases involving laws of fines? Rather, the mishna is discussing expert judges, and it says that three are necessary. Therefore, a single expert judge may not adjudicate such cases.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืฉื ืจืข ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื”

ยง The mishna records a dispute concerning the number of judges required to judge the case of a defamer (see Deuteronomy 22:13โ€“19), which generally involves a man defaming his wife by falsely accusing her of having committed adultery while she was betrothed. Rabbi Meir says the case must be tried by three judges, and the Rabbis say: An accused defamer is judged by a court of twenty-three judges. It is obvious that in a case in which the husbandโ€™s accusation has the potential to result in the womanโ€™s execution, Rabbi Meir agrees that as this is a case of capital law, it must be tried by twenty-three judges. Therefore, the dispute in the mishna must involve a lesser claim, such as a case where there are no witnesses to the alleged adultery, but the husband claims she was not a virgin when they married and is suing for monetary compensation.

ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™

The Gemara asks: But although the halakha of a defamer contains the potential to qualify as a case of capital law, what of it? As long as this particular case has no such potential, why do the Rabbis require twenty-three judges?

ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ื‘ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœืœืขื– ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœืœืขื– ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœืœืขื–

Ulla said: Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the question of whether one needs to be concerned with the possibility of rumors, meaning that if the husband raises the claim that his wife committed adultery, although he has no witnesses and there is no potential for a capital conviction, should the court be concerned with the possibility that the publicity generated by the proceedings may lead to the emergence of witnesses, which would make it a capital case? Rabbi Meir holds that one need not be concerned with the possibility of rumors. And the Rabbis hold that one does need to be concerned with the possibility of rumors.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœืœืขื– ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ืŸ ืฉืœ ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื™ืฃ ื‘ื™ ืขืฉืจื™ืŸ ื•ืชืœืชื ืœืžื™ื“ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื•ืื™ื‘ื“ื•ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื“ื™ื™ื ื• ืœื™ ืžื™ื”ื ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช

Rava says: Everyone agrees that one need not be concerned with the possibility of rumors. And here they disagree about whether one need be concerned for the honor of the first judges. And with what are we dealing here? We are dealing, for example, with a case where a court of twenty-three judges was convened to judge a case of capital law, because the husband accused his wife of committing adultery. As there were no witnesses to the alleged adultery, the court of twenty-three judges was disbanded, and then the husband said to them: At least adjudicate for me the aspect of monetary law, to reduce the sum in her marriage contract to the amount for a non-virgin. At that point, it became strictly a case of monetary law, which would normally be tried by three judges. Nevertheless, the Rabbis hold that the court of twenty-three judges must be reconvened, out of concern for their honor, since they had already begun to hear the case. Rabbi Meir disagrees, as he does not view this as an affront to the honor of the judges.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืชื‘ืขื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืชื‘ืขื• ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื” ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื ืชื‘ืขื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืชื—ืœื” ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืชื‘ืขื• ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืชื—ืœื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื” ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta 1:2): And the Rabbis say: If he took her to court and claimed money, the case is to be adjudicated by three judges. But if he took her to court and claimed that she was liable to receive the death penalty, the case must be judged by twenty-three judges. Granted, according to Rava, the baraita can be read as referring to the terms of the beginning of the trial: If he claimed money at the outset, the case must be judged by three judges. Since the case concerns a financial claim, three are sufficient. But if he initially claimed she should be subject to the death penalty, even if the case becomes transformed into a financial case, it must be judged by twenty-three judges out of concern for their honor. But according to Ulla, who says the requirement for twenty-three judges is based on concern about rumors, it is difficult.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื ื™ ื•ืืจื™ ืฉื‘ื—ื‘ื•ืจื” ืชืจื’ื™ืžื ื ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืฉื”ื‘ื™ื ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ื”ืื‘ ืขื“ื™ื ื•ื”ื–ื™ืžื•ื ืœืขื“ื™ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžืžื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืขืœ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื•ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื”

Rava said: I and the lion of the group both explained this. The Gemara asks: And who is the lion of the group? It is Rav แธคiyya bar Avin. He and Rava explained: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the husband brought witnesses to testify that the wife committed adultery, and the wifeโ€™s father brought witnesses, and through their testimony that they were with the first witnesses in some other place at the time of the alleged transgression, they classified the husbandโ€™s witnesses as conspiring witnesses. In that case, if the father comes to collect monetary restitution from the husband for defamation, the case may be adjudicated by three judges. And in a case of capital punishment, such as the trial of the husbandโ€™s witnesses, the case must be judged by twenty-three judges. In this way, Ullaโ€™s interpretation may be reconciled with the Tosefta.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœืœืขื– ื•ืžืฉื•ื ื›ื‘ื•ื“ืŸ ืฉืœ ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืชืจื• ื‘ื” ืกืชื

Abaye said: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis can be explained in another manner. According to everyone, one need be concerned for rumors, and also for the honor of the first judges. And with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, here we are dealing with a case where the witnesses to the adultery warned her that adultery is a capital transgression without specification as to the exact manner of death penalty she would receive.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืฉืืจ ื›ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืชื•ืช ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืชื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื ืืœื ื‘ืขื“ื” ื•ืขื“ื™ื ื•ื”ืชืจืื” ื•ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ื“ื™ืขื•ื”ื• ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื™ืชื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

And the matter is in accordance with this tanna, whose statement follows: As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all the others, those who are liable for the various death penalties stated in the Torah other than the inciter to idol worship, the court executes them only when the following elements are present: The congregation, represented by the court; and witnesses; and forewarning just before the defendant commits the transgression. And the court does not execute him unless the witnesses had informed the defendant that he is liable to receive the death penalty from the court.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ื“ื™ืขื•ื”ื• ื‘ืื™ื–ื” ืžื™ืชื” ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืจื’

Rabbi Yehuda says: The defendant is not executed unless the witnesses had informed the defendant by which form of the death penalty he is to be killed. According to the opinion of Abaye, the dispute in the mishna involves a case in which it was known that the witnesses forewarned the woman, but they did not specify the specific death penalty she would be liable to receive. In this case, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Meir holds there can be no death penalty, and therefore the case may be tried by three judges.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืืฉื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื” ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื•ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ืชืจืื” ืœืคื™ ืฉืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ื”ืชืจืื” ืืœื ืœื”ื‘ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืœืžื–ื™ื“

Rav Pappa said a similar explanation: Here we are dealing with a woman who is a แธฅaveira, meaning that she is knowledgeable with regard to Torah matters. And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: A แธฅaver, as he is knowledgeable in Torah, does not need to be issued a forewarning by the witnesses, because forewarning is given only to distinguish between unintentional sin and intentional sin, and in the case of a แธฅaver it is clear that he is aware of the halakha. The Rabbis maintain that even a แธฅaver may not be punished unless he has been forewarned. Rav Pappa suggests that Rabbi Meir holds that a แธฅaveira must be forewarned, and the mishna discussed a case where this forewarning did not take place, and consequently the trial of her alleged defamer could not lead to capital punishment.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ

Rav Ashi says a different explanation: The dispute in the mishna concerns a case where

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 8

ืคืกื™ืœื ื ืœืš ืœื“ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืœืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืคื•ืง ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ื” ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงื ื’ืื™ืก ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืฆื™ื™ืชื ืฆื™ื™ืชื ื•ืื™ ืœื ืžืคื™ืงื ื ืœืš ืจื‘ ืžืื•ื ืš

I am disqualified to judge for you, because I may be partial to you due to what youโ€™ve done for me. Rav said to Rav Kahana: Go out and judge the case. Rav Kahana saw that Ravโ€™s host was acting haughtily due to his relationship with Rav, as he presumed that Rav Kahana was predisposed to favor him. Rav Kahana said to the host: If you are prepared to listen, then listen to me and follow my instructions. And if not, I will take Rav out of your ears. I will treat you harshly, and you will understand that your relationship with Rav will not help you at all.

ื›ืงื˜ืŸ ื›ื’ื“ืœ ืชืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืฉื™ื”ื ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ ืขืœื™ืš ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืื” ืžื ื” ืœืžืื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืขื™ื•ื ื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืžื™ืคืกืงื™ื” ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืืœื ืœืืงื“ื•ืžื™ื”

ยง The Gemara continues to interpret clauses from the verse cited above. โ€œYou shall hear the small and the great alikeโ€ (Deuteronomy 1:17). Reish Lakish says: This teaches that the judgment of one peruta should be as dear, i.e., important, to you as the judgment of one hundred maneh, i.e., ten thousand dinars. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this said? If we say it is with regard to the need to study it carefully and to decide the case justly, it is obvious that even cases relating to small sums must be judged thoroughly. Rather, Reish Lakish was speaking with regard to giving it precedence: The small claims case may not be deferred in favor of the larger claim merely because the disputed sum is smaller.

ืœื ืชื’ื•ืจื• ืžืคื ื™ ืื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ืŸ ืืœ ืชื›ื ื™ืก ื“ื‘ืจื™ืš ืžืคื ื™ ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื”ืžืฉืคื˜ ืœืืœื”ื™ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ืžื ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืœื ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืจืฉืขื™ื ืฉื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืžื–ื” ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ื ื•ืชื ื™ื ืœื–ื” ืฉืœื ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉืžื˜ืจื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื™ ืœื”ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื•

The Gemara continues the interpretation of the verse: โ€œYou shall not be afraid before any man.โ€ Rabbi แธคanan says: Do not suppress your statement of opinion due to any person. The verse continues: โ€œFor the judgment is Godโ€™s.โ€ Rabbi แธคama, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: It is not enough for the wicked judges, that they take money from this person and they give it to that person unlawfully, but they even trouble Me to return the money to its rightful owners. As proper justice is ultimately in the hands of God, He takes responsibility to bring about the rectification of the errors of unfit judges.

ื•ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ืงืฉื” ืžื›ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื” ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื” ื ืขื ืฉ ืžืฉื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืงืจื‘ ืžืฉื” ืืช ืžืฉืคื˜ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื”ืณ ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืžื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืฉืžื™ืขื›ื ื•ืฉืžืขืชื™ื• ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ ื’ืžื™ืจื ื ื’ืžื™ืจื ื ื•ืื™ ืœื ืื–ืœื™ื ื ื•ื’ืžื™ืจื ื

The verse continues: โ€œAnd the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.โ€ Rabbi แธคanina, and some say Rabbi Yoshiya, says: On account of this matter, which displayed a degree of presumptuousness, Moses was punished, as it is stated: โ€œAnd Moses brought their cause before the Lordโ€ (Numbers 27:5). In this instance, when Zelophehadโ€™s daughters presented their case to Moses, he did not know the answer himself and was compelled to ask God. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak objects to this critique of Moses: Is it written: โ€œAnd I will tell you,โ€ which would indicate that Moses assumed the authority for himself? No, it is written: โ€œAnd I will hear it,โ€ meaning: If I have learned the halakha, I have learned it. And if not, I will go and learn it. Consequently, there was no presumptuousness in Mosesโ€™ statement.

ืืœื ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจืื•ื™ื” ืคืจืฉืช ื ื—ืœื•ืช ืฉืชื™ื›ืชื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืืœื ืฉื–ื›ื• ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืœืคื—ื“ ื•ื ื›ืชื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื“ืŸ ืจืื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ืชื” ืคืจืฉืช ืžืงื•ืฉืฉ ืฉืชื™ื›ืชื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืฉื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ืืœื ืฉื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืงื•ืฉืฉ ื•ื ื›ืชื‘ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื• ืœืœืžื“ืš ืฉืžื’ืœื’ืœื™ืŸ ื—ื•ื‘ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื–ื›ื•ืช ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื–ื›ืื™

Rather, the unusual manner in which the halakha of womenโ€™s inheritance (see Numbers, chapter 27) was revealed may be understood as it is taught in a baraita: It would have been fitting for the Torah portion about inheritances to have been written by attributing it to Moses, our teacher, i.e., to introduce the halakha with the standard formulation: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying. But the daughters of Zelophehad achieved merit as a result of their initiative in pursuing a portion in Eretz Yisrael, and therefore the halakha was written by attributing it to them. Similarly, it would have been fitting for the Torah portion concerning the punishment of the wood gatherer (see Numbers 15:32โ€“36) to have been written by attributing it to Moses, our teacher. But the wood gatherer was found guilty, and the halakha was written by attributing it to him. This serves to teach you that guilt is engendered by means of the guilty and merit by means of the innocent.

ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืฆื•ื” ืืช ืฉืคื˜ื™ื›ื ื‘ืขืช ื”ื”ื™ื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืฆื•ื” ืืชื›ื ื‘ืขืช ื”ื”ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืœืื™ ืื–ื”ืจื” ืœืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืชื”ื ืื™ืžืช ื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืื–ื”ืจื” ืœื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืกื‘ื•ืœ ืืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉื‘ืชืื™ ื›ืืฉืจ ื™ืฉื ื”ืืžืŸ ืืช ื”ื™ื ืง

The Gemara continues to interpret verses pertaining to judges and judgment. It is written: โ€œAnd I charged your judges at that timeโ€ (Deuteronomy 1:16), and it is written soon thereafter: โ€œAnd I commanded you at that time all the things that you should doโ€ (Deuteronomy 1:18). There is an apparent contradiction between these verses, as one indicates God commanded the judges and the other indicates He commanded the people. Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Simlai says: Moses issued a warning to the community that the awe of the judge must be upon them, and Moses issued a warning to the judge that he must bear the burden of the community. Up to what degree must the judge bear this burden? Rabbi แธคanan, and some say Rabbi Shabbtai, says: It is as Moses said, that he carried Israel โ€œas a nursing father carries the sucking childโ€ (Numbers 11:12).

ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืืชื” ืชื‘ื•ื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืืชื” ืชื‘ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืžืฉื” ืœื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืชื” ื•ื”ื–ืงื ื™ื ืฉื‘ื“ื•ืจ ืขืžื”ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ืœ ืžืงืœ ื•ื”ืš ืขืœ ืงื“ืงื“ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ื“ ืœื“ื•ืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ืŸ ืœื“ื•ืจ

Similarly, a distinction is drawn between two verses where Moses commanded Joshua concerning his impending leadership: It is written: โ€œFor you shall go with these people into the landโ€ (Deuteronomy 31:7), and it is written: โ€œFor you shall bring the children of Israel into the landโ€ (Deuteronomy 31:23). Rabbi Yoแธฅanan reconciled the difference between these two charges and said: Moses said to Joshua, in the first verse: You and the elders of the generation will enter into Eretz Yisrael together with the people, i.e., the elders will assist you in the leadership. Subsequently, in the second verse, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Joshua: You yourself must bring the people: Take a rod and strike the people upon their skulls. There must be one clear and authoritative leader for the generation, and there may not be two or more leaders for the generation.

ืชื ื ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืื™ ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืจื›ืช ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื‘ืจื›ืช ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืคืจื•ืฉื™ ืงืžืคืจืฉ ืžืื™ ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืจื›ืช ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื‘ืจื›ืช ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื”

ยง The Gemara returns to the discussion of halakhic matters related to the mishna. The Sages taught in a baraita: A zimmun is to be issued with three people. The Gemara analyzes: What is meant by the term zimmun in the baraita? If we say it is referring to the invitation to recite Grace after Meals jointly, which is called the zimmun blessing, that is difficult. But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Zimmun and the zimmun blessing are to be issued with three people? As the baraita lists these halakhot separately, it indicates that the term zimmun is referring to a different matter. And if you would say that the baraita explains itself, by clarifying: What is meant by the term zimmun? It is the zimmun blessing, another source indicates even more clearly that these terms are referring to two different procedures. But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Zimmun is performed with three people, and the zimmun blessing is performed with three people? Evidently, therefore, zimmun is not referring to the zimmun blessing.

ืืœื ืžืื™ ื–ื™ืžื•ืŸ ืื–ืžื•ื ื™ ืœื“ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื ื™ ื‘ื™ ืชืœืชื ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ ื“ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ืฉืœื™ื—ื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืืžืจ ืžืคื•ืžื ื“ื—ื“ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ืขื“ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ืœื ื™ื•ืžื ื“ื“ื™ื ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ื•ืžื ื“ื“ื™ื ื ืœื™ืช ืœืŸ ื‘ื”

Rather, what is zimmun? It is a summons to appear in court for judgment. The Gemara notes that this is similar to that which Rava said: With regard to this court of three judges who are sitting and waiting to adjudicate a case, and the agent of the court went and said to one of the litigants that he is summoned in the name of only one of the judges, the summons is insufficient. It is as if the agent did not say anything, unless he said it in the name of all of them. That is what is meant when it is taught that zimmun is issued by three. The Gemara clarifies: That statement applies only when it is not the day set for judgment. But on the day set for judgment, when it is understood that a summons in the name of only one judge actually indicates a summons from an assembled court, we have no problem with it. Someone who ignores such a summons is subject to the full censure of the court.

ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื›ื•ืณ ืฉืœื— ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื™ืœืžื“ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ื ื• ื“ื™ื ื™ ืงื ืกื•ืช ื‘ื›ืžื” ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืื ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืืœื ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืžื•ืžื—ื” ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ืงื ืกื•ืช ืื• ืœื

ยง The mishna teaches: Cases involving payment of double the principal must be adjudicated by a court of three judges. Rav Naแธฅman bar Rav แธคisda sent an inquiry to Rav Naแธฅman bar Yaโ€™akov: Let our teacher instruct us: With regard to cases involving laws of fines, by how many judges must such cases be adjudicated? The Gemara asks: What is the dilemma he is raising? Didnโ€™t we learn in the mishna that such cases are judged by three judges? Rather, Rav Naแธฅman bar Rav แธคisda is raising a dilemma with regard to a single expert judge: May he adjudicate cases involving laws of fines by himself or not?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ื›ืคืœ ื•ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืฉืœืฉื” ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช ื”ืืžืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืื‘ื•ืš ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืคื™ืœื• ืขืฉืจื” ื•ื”ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื“ื™ื ื™ ืงื ืกื•ืช ืืœื ืžื•ืžื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื”

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yaโ€™akov said to him: You already learned this in the mishna: Cases involving payment of double the principal and payment of four or five times the principal must be adjudicated by three judges. What is meant by three? If we say it means three non-ordained lay judges, didnโ€™t your fatherโ€™s father say in the name of Rav: Even if there are ten judges, if they are lay judges they are unfit for adjudicating cases involving laws of fines? Rather, the mishna is discussing expert judges, and it says that three are necessary. Therefore, a single expert judge may not adjudicate such cases.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืฉื ืจืข ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื”

ยง The mishna records a dispute concerning the number of judges required to judge the case of a defamer (see Deuteronomy 22:13โ€“19), which generally involves a man defaming his wife by falsely accusing her of having committed adultery while she was betrothed. Rabbi Meir says the case must be tried by three judges, and the Rabbis say: An accused defamer is judged by a court of twenty-three judges. It is obvious that in a case in which the husbandโ€™s accusation has the potential to result in the womanโ€™s execution, Rabbi Meir agrees that as this is a case of capital law, it must be tried by twenty-three judges. Therefore, the dispute in the mishna must involve a lesser claim, such as a case where there are no witnesses to the alleged adultery, but the husband claims she was not a virgin when they married and is suing for monetary compensation.

ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™

The Gemara asks: But although the halakha of a defamer contains the potential to qualify as a case of capital law, what of it? As long as this particular case has no such potential, why do the Rabbis require twenty-three judges?

ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ื‘ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœืœืขื– ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœืœืขื– ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœืœืขื–

Ulla said: Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the question of whether one needs to be concerned with the possibility of rumors, meaning that if the husband raises the claim that his wife committed adultery, although he has no witnesses and there is no potential for a capital conviction, should the court be concerned with the possibility that the publicity generated by the proceedings may lead to the emergence of witnesses, which would make it a capital case? Rabbi Meir holds that one need not be concerned with the possibility of rumors. And the Rabbis hold that one does need to be concerned with the possibility of rumors.

ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœืœืขื– ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฉืฉื™ืŸ ืœื›ื‘ื•ื“ืŸ ืฉืœ ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื™ืฃ ื‘ื™ ืขืฉืจื™ืŸ ื•ืชืœืชื ืœืžื™ื“ืŸ ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื•ืื™ื‘ื“ื•ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื“ื™ื™ื ื• ืœื™ ืžื™ื”ื ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช

Rava says: Everyone agrees that one need not be concerned with the possibility of rumors. And here they disagree about whether one need be concerned for the honor of the first judges. And with what are we dealing here? We are dealing, for example, with a case where a court of twenty-three judges was convened to judge a case of capital law, because the husband accused his wife of committing adultery. As there were no witnesses to the alleged adultery, the court of twenty-three judges was disbanded, and then the husband said to them: At least adjudicate for me the aspect of monetary law, to reduce the sum in her marriage contract to the amount for a non-virgin. At that point, it became strictly a case of monetary law, which would normally be tried by three judges. Nevertheless, the Rabbis hold that the court of twenty-three judges must be reconvened, out of concern for their honor, since they had already begun to hear the case. Rabbi Meir disagrees, as he does not view this as an affront to the honor of the judges.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืชื‘ืขื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืชื‘ืขื• ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื” ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื ืชื‘ืขื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ืชื—ืœื” ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืชื‘ืขื• ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืชื—ืœื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื” ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta 1:2): And the Rabbis say: If he took her to court and claimed money, the case is to be adjudicated by three judges. But if he took her to court and claimed that she was liable to receive the death penalty, the case must be judged by twenty-three judges. Granted, according to Rava, the baraita can be read as referring to the terms of the beginning of the trial: If he claimed money at the outset, the case must be judged by three judges. Since the case concerns a financial claim, three are sufficient. But if he initially claimed she should be subject to the death penalty, even if the case becomes transformed into a financial case, it must be judged by twenty-three judges out of concern for their honor. But according to Ulla, who says the requirement for twenty-three judges is based on concern about rumors, it is difficult.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื ื™ ื•ืืจื™ ืฉื‘ื—ื‘ื•ืจื” ืชืจื’ื™ืžื ื ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืฉื”ื‘ื™ื ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ื”ืื‘ ืขื“ื™ื ื•ื”ื–ื™ืžื•ื ืœืขื“ื™ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืžืžื•ืŸ ืžื‘ืขืœ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ื•ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื‘ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืฉืœืฉื”

Rava said: I and the lion of the group both explained this. The Gemara asks: And who is the lion of the group? It is Rav แธคiyya bar Avin. He and Rava explained: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the husband brought witnesses to testify that the wife committed adultery, and the wifeโ€™s father brought witnesses, and through their testimony that they were with the first witnesses in some other place at the time of the alleged transgression, they classified the husbandโ€™s witnesses as conspiring witnesses. In that case, if the father comes to collect monetary restitution from the husband for defamation, the case may be adjudicated by three judges. And in a case of capital punishment, such as the trial of the husbandโ€™s witnesses, the case must be judged by twenty-three judges. In this way, Ullaโ€™s interpretation may be reconciled with the Tosefta.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœืœืขื– ื•ืžืฉื•ื ื›ื‘ื•ื“ืŸ ืฉืœ ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืชืจื• ื‘ื” ืกืชื

Abaye said: The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis can be explained in another manner. According to everyone, one need be concerned for rumors, and also for the honor of the first judges. And with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, here we are dealing with a case where the witnesses to the adultery warned her that adultery is a capital transgression without specification as to the exact manner of death penalty she would receive.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืฉืืจ ื›ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืชื•ืช ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืื™ืŸ ืžืžื™ืชื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื ืืœื ื‘ืขื“ื” ื•ืขื“ื™ื ื•ื”ืชืจืื” ื•ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ื“ื™ืขื•ื”ื• ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื™ืชื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

And the matter is in accordance with this tanna, whose statement follows: As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all the others, those who are liable for the various death penalties stated in the Torah other than the inciter to idol worship, the court executes them only when the following elements are present: The congregation, represented by the court; and witnesses; and forewarning just before the defendant commits the transgression. And the court does not execute him unless the witnesses had informed the defendant that he is liable to receive the death penalty from the court.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื•ื“ื™ืขื•ื”ื• ื‘ืื™ื–ื” ืžื™ืชื” ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืจื’

Rabbi Yehuda says: The defendant is not executed unless the witnesses had informed the defendant by which form of the death penalty he is to be killed. According to the opinion of Abaye, the dispute in the mishna involves a case in which it was known that the witnesses forewarned the woman, but they did not specify the specific death penalty she would be liable to receive. In this case, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Meir holds there can be no death penalty, and therefore the case may be tried by three judges.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืืฉื” ื—ื‘ื™ืจื” ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื•ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ืชืจืื” ืœืคื™ ืฉืœื ื ื™ืชื ื” ื”ืชืจืื” ืืœื ืœื”ื‘ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื’ื’ ืœืžื–ื™ื“

Rav Pappa said a similar explanation: Here we are dealing with a woman who is a แธฅaveira, meaning that she is knowledgeable with regard to Torah matters. And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: A แธฅaver, as he is knowledgeable in Torah, does not need to be issued a forewarning by the witnesses, because forewarning is given only to distinguish between unintentional sin and intentional sin, and in the case of a แธฅaver it is clear that he is aware of the halakha. The Rabbis maintain that even a แธฅaver may not be punished unless he has been forewarned. Rav Pappa suggests that Rabbi Meir holds that a แธฅaveira must be forewarned, and the mishna discussed a case where this forewarning did not take place, and consequently the trial of her alleged defamer could not lead to capital punishment.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ

Rav Ashi says a different explanation: The dispute in the mishna concerns a case where

Scroll To Top