POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Sanhedrin 6
1) TWO THAT JUDGED A MONETARY CASE (cont.)
(a) (R. Avahu): All agree that if two judged a monetary case,
this is not a judgment!
(b) Question (R. Aba - Mishnah): A judge judged and acquitted
the guilty or obligated the innocent, he declared Tamei
what is Tahor or declared Tahor what is Tamei, what he
did stands, he must pay for the loss he caused.
(c) Answer: The case is, the parties accepted him to judge
(d) Question: If so, why must he pay?
(e) Answer: They accepted him to give the law of the Torah,
and he did not.
(f) Question (Rav Safra): How did he err?
1. Suggestion: He erred in a clearcut matter.
(g) Answer: He erred in Shikul ha'Da'as.
2. Rejection: R. Asi taught, if one erred in a clearcut
matter, we retract the judgment!
(h) Question: What does this mean?
(i) Answer (Rav Papa): Two Tana'im or Amora'im argue with
each other, the Halachah was not decided as either, but
the discussion on it (Gemara) appears to follow one
opinion; the judge ruled like the other opinion.
(a) Suggestion: Shmuel and R. Avahu argue as the following
1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): Compromise requires three
(b) Rejection: No, all agree that judgment require three
2. Chachamim say, one judge suffices.
3. We are thinking that both of these Tana'im equate
compromise and judgment.
4. Suggestion: R. Meir says that judgment requires
three judges, Chachamim say that two (Ran - or even
1. R. Meir equates compromise and judgment, Chachamim
(c) Suggestion: There is a three-way argument among the
Tana'im about compromise: R. Meir requires three judges,
R. Shimon ben Gamliel requires two, Chachamim require
(d) Rejection (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): No, R. Shimon ben
Gamliel said two, but he holds that even one suffices;
1. He said two in order that there will be witnesses to
(e) Inference (Rav Ashi): We learn from this that compromise
does not need an acquisition;
1. If it did, why would R. Meir require three, two
would suffice, they will make an acquisition, the
parties agree to whatever the judges decide!
(Rather, three judges are needed to empower the
decision even though no acquisition was made.)
(f) The Halachah is, compromise needs an acquisition.
(g) (Beraisa): Compromise requires three judges, just like
1. Once judgment was passed (Rashi; Tosfos - once the
judges know the verdict), they may not suggest
(h) R. Eliezer son of R. Yosi ha'Galili says, (if the parties
came for judgment) it is forbidden to give a compromise;
if one gives a compromise, he transgresses;
1. One who praises one who compromises, he angers
Hash-m - "U'Votze'a Berech Ni'etz Hash-m";
(i) R. Meir says "Botze'a" refers to Yehudah - "...Mah Betza
Ki Naharog Es Achinu".
2. Rather, the law pierces the mountain (we follow it,
no matter what it is).
3. This was Moshe's approach; Aharon loved Shal-m,
pursued Shal-m, and made Shal-m between people -
"...B'Shal-m uv'Mishor Halach Iti v'Rabim Heshiv
4. R. Eliezer says, if a person stole wheat, made
bread, separated Chalah and blessed, this only
angers Hash-m - "U'Votze'a Berech Ni'etz Hash-m".
1. One who praises what Yehudah said, he angers Hash-m
- "U'Votze'a Berech Ni'etz Hash-m".
(j) R. Yehoshua ben Korchah says, it is a Mitzvah to
compromise - "Emes u'Mishpat Shal-m Shiftu
1. Question: If there is Mishpat, there is not Shal-m;
if there is Shal-m, there is not Mishpat!
(k) The first Tana expounds the verse as follows:
2. Answer: The Mishpat that brings Shal-m is
3. Similarly - Question: "Vayhi David Oseh Mishpat
u'Tzedakah" - Mishpat and Tzedakah do not go
4. Answer: The Mishpat that has Tzedakah is compromise.
1. David acquitted the innocent (Levi) and obligated
the liable party (Reuven); David saw that Reuven was
poor, so he paid on behalf of him - this is Mishpat
(l) Question (Rebbi): Why does it say "Vayhi David Oseh
Mishpat u'Tzedakah *l'Chol Amo*"? Tzedakah is only for
i. It is Mishpat for Levi - he receives what he
ii. It is Tzedakah for Reuven - David paid for him.
(m) Answer: Rather, even though David did not pay on behalf
of Reuven, he did Mishpat and Tzedakah:
i. It is Mishpat for Levi - he receives what he
(n) R. Shimon ben Menasiya says, if two people come for
judgment, until you sense what the verdict will be, you
may suggest that they compromise;
ii. It is Tzedakah for Reuven - David stopped
Reuven from stealing.
1. Once you sense what the verdict will be, you may not
suggest that they compromise - "Poter Mayim Reishis
Madon v'Lifne Hisgala ha'Riv Netosh" - before the
(verdict) of the dispute is known, you may abandon
the dispute (and pursue Shalom, i.e. compromise).
(o) R. Yehoshua ben Lakish says, if two people come for
judgment, one is tough and the other is not, you may
withdraw from the case (lest you will obligate the tough
one and be in danger of reprisal) as long as you do not
know the verdict;
1. Once you know the verdict, you may not withdraw -
"Lo Saguru Mipenei Ish".
(p) (R. Yehoshua ben Korchah): If a Talmid in front of his
Rebbi sees that the poor person is innocent and the rich
person is guilty, he may not be silent - "Lo Saguru
Mipenei Ish", do not withhold your words on account of a
(q) (R. Chanin): The witnesses should know Whom they testify
about (i.e. if they testify falsely, they force Hash-m to
fix things), in front of Whom they testify, and Who will
punish false witnesses - "V'Omedu...Lifne Hash-m".
1. The judges should know Whom they judge (i.e. wrong
judgment will force Hash-m to fix things), in front
of Whom they judge, and Who will punish improper
judges - "Elokim Nitzav ba'Adas Kel", "Ki Lo l'Adam
Tishpetu Ki la'Shem".
2. Suggestion: Perhaps a judge will say, I should not
judge, lest I err and be punished!
3. Answer: "V'Imachem bi'Dvar Mishpat" - a judge judges
according to what he sees (if he does so, he will
not be punished).