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 10
1) SPLITTING TESTIMONY
(a) (Rav Yosef): If Shimon says 'Levi had relations with me
against my will', Shimon can join with a second witness
to kill Levi;
2) CASES OF LASHES
(b) If he says 'Levi had relations with me, I consented", he
admits that he transgressed, he cannot testify - "Al
Tesht Rasha Ed".
(c) (Rava): A person is considered a relative with respect to
himself, he cannot disqualify himself by saying that he
is a Rasha. (Therefore, we split his testimony - we
ignore his admission that he consented, he is still a
valid witness, he joins with a second witness to kill
(d) (Rava): If Shimon says 'Levi had relations with my wife',
Shimon can join with a second witness to kill Levi, but
not to kill his wife.
(e) Question: What is the Chidush, that we split his
testimony? We learned this from Rava's previous teaching!
(f) Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: One might have thought, a
person is a relative with respect to himself, but not
with respect to his wife, he is a valid witness, he joins
with a second witness to kill her. (Ran - because we
believe his testimony about Levi, we believe it about her
(g) Version #2 (Ra'avad, brought in Ran) Answer: One might
have thought, a person is so close to himself that we
*totally ignore* what he says about himself, it is not
even considered invalid testimony, therefore his
testimony about Levi remains;
1. But with respect to his wife, he is an invalid
witness (a relative), his testimony about her is
invalid, therefore all his testimony (even about
Levi) is disqualified - Rava teaches, this is not
(h) (Rava): Two witnesses testified that Ploni had relations
with a Mekudeshes Na'arah (without specifying her name)
and they were Huzmu, they are killed, they do not pay
1. If they testified that he had relations with
Almoni's daughter, and they were Huzmu, they are
killed, and they pay money;
(i) (Rava): Two witnesses testified that Ploni had relations
with an ox and they were Huzmu, they are killed, they do
not pay money;
i. They pay her (they sought to reduce her
Kesuvah), they are killed for trying to kill
1. If they testified that he had relations with
Almoni's ox, and they were Huzmu, they are killed,
and they pay money;
(j) Question: We learn this from his previous teaching!
i. They pay Almoni (they sought to kill his ox),
they are killed for trying to kill Ploni.
(k) Answer: He taught this because he had a question.
(l) Question (Rava): If Reuven and David testified 'Ploni had
relations with Reuven's ox' (surely, we kill Ploni,) what
is the law of the ox?
1. We know that a person is like a relative with
respect to himself, i.e. if he testifies about
himself and another, we split his testimony, we
ignore what he says about himself, and accept his
testimony about another;
(m) Answer (Rava): He is a relative with respect to himself,
not with respect to his money.
2. Is a person like a relative with respect to his
money (and we ignore what he says about his money),
or, do we accept his testimony about his money as
(a) (Mishnah): Cases of lashes require three judges...
(b) Question: How do we know that
(c) Answer (Rav Huna): "U'Shfatum" - this teaches two judges;
1. We do not make a Beis Din with an even number of
judges, therefore three judges are required.
(d) Question: If so, we should say "V'Hitzdiku" teaches
another two judges, "V'Hirshi'u" teaches another two,
making seven in all!
(e) Answer: We expound those as Ula did.
1. Question (Ula): Where does the Torah hint about
(f) (Mishnah): R. Yishmael says, 23 judges are needed (for
2. Objection: The Torah explicitly discusses them -
3. Correction: Rather, where does the Torah hint that
Zomemim witnesses are lashed (when we cannot apply
to them what they plotted to do to the subject of
their testimony, e.g. if they testified that he is a
4. Answer: "V'Hitzdiku Es ha'Tzadik v'Hirshi'u Es
i. Question: Acquitting the innocent is not a
condition for (lashing the Rasha, the
continuation of the verse) "V'Hayah Im Bin
5. Question: We should already know that they are
lashed for "Lo Sa'aneh" (testifying falsely)!
ii. Answer: Rather, the case is that (Zomemim)
witnesses caused a Tzadik to be convicted, and
other witnesses (Mezimim) showed that he was
truly a Tzadik and that the first witnesses
were Resha'im, "V'Hayah Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha".
6. Answer: They are not lashed for that, it is a Lav
without an action, one is not lashed for such a Lav.
(g) Question: What is his reason?
(h) Answer #1 (Abaye): He learns a Gezerah Shavah
"Rasha-Rasha" from Chayavei Misah;
1. Regarding lashes it says "V'Hayah Im Bin Hakos
ha'Rasha"; regarding Chayavei Misah it says "Asher
Hu Rasha Lamus";
(i) Answer #2 (Rava): Lashes are in place of death (it is
like a death penalty).
2. Just as 23 judges are needed for capital cases, also
(j) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): If so, why must we
estimate how many lashes he can bear - we should lash the
full 39, without concern lest he dies!
(k) Answer (Rav Ashi): "V'Niklah Achicha l'Einecha" - you
must strike him when he is your brother (i.e. alive).
(l) Question (Beraisa): If they estimated that he can survive
20 lashes, we only lash him divisible by three, i.e. 18.
3) IBUR CHODESH
1. We should give 21 lashes, even if he dies on the
last, we gave the required number when he was alive!
(m) Answer: "V'Niklah Achicha l'Einecha" - even after you
strike him, he must still be your brother.
(a) (Mishnah): R. Meir says, three judges are needed for Ibur
(b) Question: The Mishnah does not say to *consider* whether
to Me'aber (add a day to) the month, nor to Mekadesh
(accept testimony of the new moon and declare the 30th
day to be the first of the coming) month, rather, *Ibur*
(adding a day);
1. If we do not Mekadesh on the 30th day, the month is
automatically Me'ubar (what requires three judges?)!
(c) Answer #1 (Abaye): The Mishnah refers to Kidush
1. Support (Beraisa - R. Meir): Three judges are needed
for Kidush ha'Chodesh and Ibur Shanah.
(d) Objection (Rava): But the Mishnah says *Ibur* Chodesh!
(e) Answer #2 (Rava): Three judges are required to Mekadesh
the new month on the day (that was fit to be) Ibur
(added) to the old month (the 30th);
1. If it was not Mekudash on this day, no Kidush is
required (is it automatically Mekudash the next
(f) Answer #3 (Rav Nachman): Three judges are required to
Mekadesh the new month after the day (fit to be) Ibur
(i.e. Kidush on the 31st);
2. The Mishnah is like R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok.
i. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok): If the
new moon was not seen in its proper time (the
30th), we do not Mekadesh the new month, Hash-m
caused the 31st day to be Mekudash.
1. We do not Mekadesh on the 30th.
(g) Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): Really, the Mishnah teaches about
considering whether to Me'aber the month;
2. The Mishnah is like Flimo.
i. (Beraisa - Flimo): If the new moon begins on
the proper day (i.e. first possible day, the
30th), we do not Mekadesh it; if it begins on
the 31st, we Mekadesh it.
1. Even though it says Ibur Chodesh, this means
considering whether to Me'aber it.
(h) Question: Three judges are required to consider whether
or not to Me'aber the month, not for Kidush - as whom is
2. It says Ibur Chodesh for parallel structure to the
next topic, Ibur Shanah (adding a month to the
(i) Answer: It is like R. Eliezer.
1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Whether the new month begins
on the 30th or 31st, we do not Mekadesh it;
(j) (Mishnah): R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, we begin with
i. "V'Kidashtem Es Shenas ha'Chamishim Shanah" -
we Mekadesh years, not months.
(k) (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): We begin with three,
we deliberate with five, and the verdict is with seven;
(l) If one (of the first three) says to sit to deliberate and
the other two disagree (for surely, we need not Me'aber
the year), we ignore the lone opinion.
(m) If two say to sit and one disagrees, we add two more
1. If two (of these five) say to Me'aber the year and
three disagree, we do not Me'aber;
(n) Question: Why do we make Batei Din of three, five and
seven for Ibur Shanah?
2. If three say to Me'aber the year and two disagree,
we add two more judges and Me'aber the year, for at
least seven are needed for this.
(o) Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak bar Nachmani or R. Shimon ben
Pazi): This corresponds to the numbers of words in the
three verses of Birkas Kohanim.
(p) Answer #2 (The other of R. Yitzchak bar Nachmani or R.
Shimon ben Pazi): Three correspond to those that guard
the king's gates (or vessels), five correspond to the
five (mentioned in Megilas Esther) *of* those who get an
audience with the king, seven correspond to those who get
an audience with the king.
(q) Abaye (to Rav Yosef): Why didn't you explain thusly
(r) Rav Yosef: I thought you knew (since you did not ask);
1. Did you ever ask something I didn't answer?