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 41
1) THE SOURCE FOR WARNING BEFORE KILLING (HASRA'AH)
(a) Question (Ula) What is the source that warning is
2) KILLING WITHOUT WARNING
(b) Answer #1 (Ula): "V'Ish Asher Yikach Es Achoso...v'Ra'ah
1. Question: Is he liable for seeing her Ervah?!
(c) Answer #2 (d'vei Chizkiyah): "V'Chi Yazid...Lehorego
b'Armah" - even after he was warned, he is still Mezid.
2. Answer: Rather, he is not liable unless they
explained to him the prohibition.
3. Surely, this is not needed for Kares (at the hands
of Heaven, Hash-m knows whether he was Mezid or
Shogeg), we use it to teach about lashes.
(d) Answer #3 (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "Ha'Motze'im Oso
Mekoshesh Etzim" - even after they warned him, he
(e) Answer #4 (dvei Rebbi): "Al Davar Asher Inah" - on
account of the Dibur (he was told not to).
(f) The Torah must teach all these verses.
1. If it only taught regarding a sister, one might have
thought that warning is needed for lashes, but not
for death penalties;
(g) Question: Why do we need two verses about (Shabbos and
stoning, which are both punishable by) stoning?
2. If it only taught regarding a murderer, one might
have thought that warning is needed for death by the
sword, but not for stoning;
(h) Answer - part 1: According to R. Shimon, who says that
burning is more severe, the extra verse teaches about
(i) Answer - part 2: According to Chachamim, who say that
stoning is the most severe, even though we knew burning
from a Kal va'Chomer, the Torah wrote a word enabling us
to expound it.
(j) Question: Why wouldn't it suffice to write regarding
stoning, everything else follows from a Kal va'Chomer?
(k) Answer: Here also, even though we knew burning from a Kal
va'Chomer, the Torah wrote a word enabling us to expound
(l) (Beraisa): He agreed to be killed for his transgression.
(m) Question: What is the source that he must do so?
(n) Answer (Rava): "Yumas ha'Mes" - he is already dead, i.e.
he agreed to be killed.
(a) (Rav Chanan): Witnesses testified that a Na'arah
Me'orasah was Mezanah, then they were Huzmu - they are
not killed, because they can say that they did not intend
to kill her, only to forbid her to her husband.
3) CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONIES
(b) Question: But they had to warn her!
(c) Answer: The case is, they did not warn her.
(d) Question: If so, she cannot be killed!
(e) Answer: The case is, she is a Chaverah (Chachamah), she
does not need to be warned, according to R. Yosi b'Rebbi
1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): A Chaver does
not need to be warned, because warning is merely to
distinguish between Shogeg and Mezid.
(f) Question: If they cannot be killed, how can she be killed
- we cannot apply the law of Hazamah (to do to the
witnesses what they sought to do), such testimony is
(g) Answer: Indeed, Rav Chanan meant, because the witnesses
cannot be killed (because they can say that they did not
intend to kill her), she is not killed either (because we
cannot apply the law of Hazamah)..
(h) Question: What is the case of a Chaverah that is killed
without warning according to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah?
(i) Answer: She was Mezanah twice (she was already forbidden
to her husband after the first time, surely the second
testimony was to kill her).
(j) Question: The witnesses can say that they did not intend
to kill her, only to forbid her to the second adulterer!
(k) Answer #1: She was Mezanah with the same man both times
(she was already forbidden to him).
(l) Answer #2: She was Mezanah (the second time) with a
relative (who is forbidden to her in any case).
(m) Question: Why did Rav Chanan teach about a Na'arah
Me'orasah - the same applies after Nisu'in!
(n) Answer: Yes - it is a bigger Chidush that the witnesses
can say that they only intended to forbid her to her
husband even though he she never lived with him yet.
(a) (Rav Chisda): If one witness says that he killed with a
sword, the other says that he used an ax, the testimonies
do not match;
1. If one says that his clothes were black, the other
says that they were white, the testimonies join.
(b) Question (Beraisa): "Nachon" - the testimonies must
1. If one witness says that he killed with a sword, the
other say that he used an ax; one says that his
clothes were black, the other says that they were
white, these do not match.
(c) Answer (Rav Chisda): The Beraisa discusses when he choked
him with his garment, this is crucial to the testimony,
just like the sword or ax.
(d) Question (Beraisa): If one witness says that his shoes
were black, the other says that they were white, these do
(e) Answer: The case is, he killed him by kicking him with
(f) Question (Mishnah): A case occurred, Ben Zakai asked them
if the figs on the tree had large or small stems (and
disqualified the testimony because the witnesses
(g) Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama): The case was, he was Chayav
Misah for picking a fig on Shabbos.
(h) Rejection: But a Beraisa teaches, Chachamim said 'He
killed him under a fig tree (the figs are not crucial to
(i) Answer #2 (Rami bar Chama): The case was, he killed him
with a fig branch.
(j) Question (Beraisa): (Ben Zakai) asked the witnesses 'The
fig tree - did its figs have small or big stems, were
they white or black?' (Even though this is not crucial to
(k) Answer (Rav Yosef): We cannot refute Rav Chisda from Ben
Zakai, he treats Bedikos like Chakiros (but Chachamim
(l) Question: Who is this Ben Zakai?
1. Suggestion: R. Yochanan Ben Zakai.
(m) Answer #1: He was someone else whose father was named
2. Rejection: He never sat on a Sanhedrin (that judged
i. (Beraisa): R. Yochanan Ben Zakai lived 120
years; he engaged in business for 40 years, he
learned for 40 years, he taught for 40 years.
ii. (Beraisa): Forty years before the Churban, the
Sanhedrin was exiled to Chanus (a place).
iii. (R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi): After they exiled
themselves, they did not judge fines.
iv. Objection: That is unreasonable (fines do not
depend on the Great Sanhedrin sitting in
v. Correction: Rather, afterwards they did not
judge capital cases.
vi. (Mishnah): After the Churban R. Yochanan Ben
vii. (Summation: Since he lived after the Churban,
the Sanhedrin was exiled *more than* 40 years
before he died, i.e. before he taught (was on
1. Support: R. Yochanan Ben Zakai would not be called
Ben Zakai (without any title).
(n) Rejection (Beraisa): A case occurred, R. Yochanan Ben
Zakai asked them if the figs on the tree had large or
(o) Answer #2: It was Yochanan Ben Zakai when he was a
1. He suggested asking about the figs, Chachamim
approved, it was recorded in his name.
4) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHAKIROS AND BEDIKOS
2. Our Mishnah calls him Ben Zakai, for he was still
learning at the time (he was not yet called Raban,
or even Rebbi);
3. The Beraisa calls him R. Yochanan Ben Zakai, for he
later became the teacher of Yisrael.
(a) (Mishnah): The difference between Chakiros and
Bedikos...( if a witness, or even both witnesses cannot
answer Bedikos, their testimony is valid).
5) A MISTAKE IN THE DAY OF THE MONTH
(b) Question: Why does it say *even* if both witnesses cannot
answer - since one witness need not answer, surely the
other need not know either!
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): This refers to the Chakiros,
e.g. when there are three witnesses;
1. The Mishnah teaches that even if two witnesses can
answer and one cannot, the testimony is
(d) Rejection (Rava): But it says 'even...their testimony
2. This is like R. Akiva, who equates three witnesses
to two (just as if one of two witnesses cannot
answer a Chakirah, their testimony is disqualified,
also if one of three cannot answer).
(e) Answer #2 (Rava): The Mishnah means, even regarding
Chakiros, if two of three witnesses can answer a Chakirah
and one cannot, the testimony (of the two) stands.
1. This is unlike R. Akiva.
(f) Question (Rami bar Chama - Mishnah): If a witness cannot
answer a Bedikah, his testimony is disqualified; if a
witness, or even both witnesses cannot answer Bedikos,
their testimony is valid.
1. Bedikos are also mid'Oraisa, why is their law
(g) Answer (Rav Kahana and Rav Safra): If a witness cannot
answer a Chakirah, he cannot be Huzam (since he did not
specify when or where he saw the testimony), therefore
his testimony is disqualified;
1. Even if he cannot answer Bedikos, he can be Huzam.
(a) (Mishnah): If one witness...(we assume that one of them
did not hear that the month was Me'ubar).
(b) Question: How far into the month will we assume this?
(c) Answer (Rav Acha bar Chanina): Until the majority of the
month has passed.
(d) Support (Rava - Mishnah) If one witness says 'It was the
third', the other says 'It was the fifth', their
testimony is disqualified.
1. We do not say that the latter did not hear about two
Ibur months - we must say, after the majority of the
month, everyone knows about the Ibur.
(e) Rejection: Perhaps even after the majority, not everyone
knows, but people (usually) hear the Shofar used to
announce Rosh Chodesh;
1. We can say that a person did not hear one month, we
do not assume he did not hear two consecutive