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 15
SANHEDRIN 15 (20 Tishrei) - Dedicated by Al, Sophia and Jared Ziegler (of
Har Nof, Jerusalem) in loving memory of Al's mother, Chaya bas Berel Dov
(a) (Mishnah): Erchin ha'Metaltelim.
2) REDEMPTION OF LAND AND PEOPLE
(b) Question: What does this mean?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Gidal): Someone said 'It is (encumbent) on
me to give (to Hekdesh) the Erech of this vessel.'
1. (Rav Gidal): If someone said 'It is on me to give
the Erech of this vessel', he must give its value.
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Chisda): The Mishnah discusses one who
designates a vessel as payment of Erchin.
2. Question: What is the reason?
3. Answer: A person knows that Erchin does not apply to
vessels, surely he meant to give its value.
4. Question: Why does the Mishnah say 'Erchin
ha'Metaltelim' - it should say 'Erchin *of*
5. Answer: Indeed, the proper text is Erchin of
1. Question: Why does the Mishnah say 'Erchin
ha'Metaltelim' - it should say 'Metaltelim of
(e) Answer #3 (R. Avahu): The case is, he said 'It is on me
to give my Erech';
2. Answer: Indeed, the proper text is Metaltelim of
1. If the Kohen comes to collect it from Metaltelim,
three judges are required; if he comes to collect it
from land, 10 are required.
(f) Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): We understand why three
judges are required to *take* from Hekdesh - why are
three needed to *give* to Hekdesh?
(g) Answer (Ravina): Reasoning teaches that the same applies
to taking and giving;
1. Taking requires three because we are concerned for
an error - the same applies to giving!
(a) (Mishnah): R. Yehudah says (one of them must be a Kohen).
3) KILLING AN ANIMAL
(b) Question (Rav Papa): According to R. Yehudah, we
understand why it says 'Kohen';
1. According to Chachamim, why does it say 'Kohen'?
(c) This is left difficult.
(d) (Mishnah): Redemption of land needs nine people and a
(e) Question: What is the source of this?
(f) Answer (Shmuel): There are 10 mentions of Kohanim in the
Parshiyos (of Erchin and redemption of Hekdesh);
1. The first teaches that a Kohen is required, the rest
are exclusions following an exclusion;
(g) Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Noson): We should require
five Kohanim and five (that can even be) Yisraelim!
(True, the second 'Kohen' includes even a Yisrael - but
the third is therefore an exclusion after an *inclusion*,
which is an exclusion, it mandates a Kohen! Likewise, the
fifth, seventh and ninth are exclusions.)
2. An exclusion following an exclusion always comes to
include (i.e. the other nine occurrences of 'Kohen'
teach that Yisraelim are acceptable).
(h) This is left difficult.
(i) (Mishnah): Man has the same law (as land).
(j) Question: Is man Kodesh, that he must be redeemed?!
(k) Answer (R. Avahu): The case is, he said 'It is on me to
give my value (to Hekdesh)'.
1. (Beraisa): If one said 'It is on me to give my
value', we estimate what one would pay to buy him to
be a Kana'ani slave;
(l) Question (R. Avin): How many are required to estimate the
value of hair that should be cut?
2. Slaves are equated to land (therefore, their laws of
redemption are the same).
1. If we consider it as if it was already cut, (it is
Metaltelim,) three are required;
(m) Answer (Beraisa): If one makes his slave Hekdesh, Me'ilah
does not apply;
2. If we consider it as if it attached, 10 are required
(like for people).
(n) R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, Me'ilah applies to his hair.
1. They argue about hair that should be cut (R. Shimon
ben Gamliel considers it as if it was already cut,
the first Tana does not).
(o) Suggestion: They argue as the following Tana'im argue.
1. (Mishnah - R. Meir): Some things are like land, but
their law is not like land: if Reuven says 'I
entrusted you with 10 laden vines', and Shimon
admits to five, he must swear (like one who
partially admits to a claim of Metaltelim);
(p) Rejection: Chachamim (of the Beraisa) can hold like R.
Meir - he considers grapes as if they were harvested,
because they get worse if left attached too long (so
surely they will be harvested soon);
2. Chachamim (exempt, because) anything attached is
3. (R. Yosi bar Chanina): They argue about grapes that
are ready to be harvested: R. Meir considers them as
if they were already harvested, Chachamim do not.
1. Hair increases in value the longer it is attached,
he can consider it to be attached!
(a) (Mishnah): Capital cases (require 23 judges; if an animal
was Rove'a (put its Ever into) a person, 23 judges are
required to kill it).
(b) We do not distinguish whether it was Rove'a a man or
(c) Question: We know why 23 judges are required to kill an
animal that was Rove'a a woman - "V'Haragta Es ha'Ishah
v'Es ha'Behemah" (this equates killing the animal to
1. Why are 23 required to kill an animal that was
Rove'a a man?
(d) Answer: "Kol Shochev Im Behemah Mos Yumas" - since we do
not need this to teach about a man that was Rove'a an
animal ("V'Ish Asher Yiten Shechavto biVhemah Mos Yumas
v'Es ha'Behemah Taharogu" equates killing him to killing
it), we use it to teach about an animal that was Rove'a a
1. The Torah wrote as if the man was Rove'a to teach
that the law is the same when he is Rove'a or it is
Rove'a, i.e. 23 judges are required to kill him and
to kill it.
(e) (Mishnah): An animal that is stoned (for killing a
Yisrael) requires 23 judges - "Ha'Shor Yisakel v'Gam
Ba'alav Yumas" - the animal is killed like its owner (a
(f) Question (Abaye): How do we know that "V'Gam Ba'alav
Yumas" teaches that the animal is killed like a person -
perhaps it teaches that we kill the owner!
(g) Answer #1 (Rava): If the owner should be killed, it
should have said only "(Ha'Shor Yisakel) v'Gam Ba'alav";
4) KILLING WILD ANIMALS
1. We must say that "Yumas" comes to equate the
animal's judgment to that of a person.
(h) Answer #2 (Chizkiyah): "Mos Yumas ha'Makeh Rotze'ach Hu"
- a man is killed if he killed, not if his ox killed.
2. Question: Perhaps the Torah did not say only
'Ha'Shor Yisakel v'Gam Ba'alav', for this would
imply that the owner is stoned - "Yumas" teaches
that he is killed differently (by choking).
3. Answer: We would never have thought that the owner
is stoned - a man who kills is killed by the sword,
he cannot be stoned (a harsher Misah) for not
stopping his animal from killing!
4. Question: Perhaps 'Ha'Shor Yisakel v'Gam Ba'alav'
would imply that the owner is killed by the sword,
"Yumas" teaches that he is killed by choking!
i. This is not difficult according to the opinion
that choking is harsher than the sword (he
cannot receive a harsher death for his ox's
goring than if he himself murdered);
5. Answer: "Im Kofer Yushas Alav" teaches that he pays
ii. According to the opinion that the sword is
harsher than choking, how can we answer?
i. If he was liable to be killed, he could not pay
ransom - "V'Lo Tikchu Kofer l'Nefesh
6. Rejection: The verse teaches that a *murderer*
cannot redeem himself, but perhaps ransom can save
one who is Chayav Misah because his ox killed!
(i) Question: How many judges would have been required to
kill an animal that alighted on Har Sinai (at the time
the Torah was given)?
1. Do we learn from this law, which only applied once,
from the law that applies to all generations (that
23 judges are required to kill an animal)?
(j) Answer: We learn from Rami bar Yechezkeil.
1. (Rami bar Yechezkeil): "Im Behemah Im Ish Lo
Yichyeh" - just as 23 judges would be required to
kill a person who alighted on Har Sinai, also to
kill an animal.
(a) (Mishnah): Twenty-three judges are needed to kill a wolf,
5) JUDGING A SHEVET
(b) (Reish Lakish): This is only if they killed - if not, we
do not kill them.
(c) Inference: He holds that these animals can be
domesticated, a person can own them.
(d) (R. Yochanan): We kill them even if they did not kill.
(e) Inference: He holds that they cannot be domesticated, a
person cannot own them.
(f) (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): Anyone who kills one of these
(without Beis Din) merited.
(g) Question: We understand according to R. Yochanan - he
merits to keep the hide.
1. But according to Reish Lakish, what does he merit -
the animal will be stoned, it is forbidden to
benefit from it!
(h) Answer: He will be rewarded from Hash-m (for doing a
(i) Support (for Reish Lakish - Beraisa): The same applies to
an ox, Behemah or Chayah that killed, 23 judges are
required to kill it;
(j) R. Eliezer says, 23 judges are needed to kill an ox that
killed; any other Behemah or Chayah that killed, whoever
kills it will be rewarded from Hash-m.
(k) (Mishnah): R. Akiva says, 23 judges are needed.
(l) Question: This is like the first Tana!
(m) Answer: They argue about killing a snake (the first Tana
requires 23 to kill it, R. Akiva does not).
(a) Seventy-one judges are needed to judge a Shevet.
(b) Question: What did it transgress?
1. Suggestion: It desecrated Shabbos.
(c) Answer #1: It was enticed to serve idolatry.
2. Rejection: The Torah only distinguishes between
individual transgressors and a multitude regarding
1. Inference: If a Shevet seved idolatry, it is judged
like a multitude (I.e. an Ir ha'Nidachas, the
transgressors are killed by the sword instead of
(d) Objection: This is not like R. Yoshiyah, nor like R.
1. (Beraisa) Question: What size city can become an Ir
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Masnah): The Mishnah discusses judging
*the Nasi* of a Shevet (in capital cases).
2. Answer #1: R. Yoshiyah says, between 10 and 100.
3. Answer #2: R. Yonason says, between 100 and the
majority of the Shevet.
4. Even R. Yonason only says *until* the majority of
the Shevet, not an entire Shevet!
1. (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): "Kol ha'Davar ha'Gadol Yavi'u
Elecha" - this refers to matters of a Gadol
(important person; Moshe is like 71 judges).