ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 5
SANHEDRIN 5 (Yom Kipur) - sponsored by Hillel Yakov and Elisheva Tzipora
Kagan. May they be blessed with a year of Berachah and joy, and may Hashem
answer all of their prayers!
(a) The Beraisa requires three judges for Diynei Mamonos. A single judge is
permitted however - provided he is an expert.
(b) The Tana ignored the triple "Elohim" written in the Parshah - because he
does not hold of 'Eiruv Parshiyos' (like Rava in the Sugya above [see also
Tosfos DH ve'Im').
(a) Rav Nachman and Rebbi Chiya declared Rosh - that they were good examples
of experts who had the authority to issue rulings on their own.
(b) We think that, besides expertise, Rav Nachman and Rebbi Chiya might
also have required - permission from the Resh Galusa or from the Nasi (known
as Semichah) to act as individual judges.
(c) If they did not receive permission to rule (assuming that the litigants
did not accept them), they would be obligated to pay?
(d) We resolve the She'eilah from Mar Zutra B'rei de'Rav Nachman - whom Rav
Yosef instructed to pay, when he erred in one of his rulings (assuming that
the litigants did not accept him), a proof that his ruling was at least,
valid (so we see that an expert's rulings are valid, even without express
permission from the ruling power (otherwise, Rav Yosef would have instructed
him to simply negate his initial ruling, rather than pay from his own
(a) Both Rav and Shmuel advise someone who wants to issue rulings and be
Patur from paying (should he err in one of his rulings) - to obtain
permission from the Resh Galusa.
(b) In the Pasuk "Lo Yasur Sheivet mi'Yehudah ... ", the difference between
Sheivet and Mechokek - is that the former refers to the Resh Galusa (the
head of the community in Bavel), the latter, to the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael.
(c) What gave the Resh Galusa in Bavel more authority than the Nasi in Eretz
Yisrael - was the fact that he had the backing of the King of Persia.
(d) The ramifications of this distinction are - that whereas Reshus helps
from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, it does not help the other way round.
(a) We learn the seniority of the Resh Galusa over the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael
from an episode with Rabah bar Chanah, to whom Rebbi Chiya once told when he
erred in a case concerning with money-matters that, unless the litigants
initially accepted him, he would have to pay.
(b) Rabah bar Rav Huna claim that he received permission from his father ...
who received permission from Rebbi - when he was once arguing with the Resh
(c) The names of the two men missing from the list (between Rav Huna and
Rebbi) are - Rav and Rebbi Chiya.
(d) There is no proof from Rabah bar Rav Huna's statement that it does help
to receive permission from Eretz Yisrael to rule in Bavel - because Rabah
bar Rav Huna's statement was meant to show how great his Rebbes were, even
though it had no legal ramifications.
(a) Despite the fact that permission does not help from Eretz Yisrael to
Bavel, they gave Rabah bar Chana Semichah when he left Eretz Yisrael to go
to Bavel - to issue rulings in the areas surrounding Bavel that belonged to
(b) When Rebbi Chiya informed Rebbi that his brother's son was going to
Bavel, adding 'Yoreh?', 'Yadin'? and 'Yatir Bechoros', he responded -
'Yoreh', Yadin' and 'Yatir Bechoros', respectively.
(c) When he gave him the same information concerning his sister's son, he
replied - 'Yoreh', 'Yadin' but 'Al Yatir Bechoros'.
(d) The significance of 'Yatir Bechoros' is - to permit a Bechor to be
Shechted by the Kohen without having to bring it as a Korban by means of a
permanent blemish that the Kohen had not performed deliberately.
(a) Rebbi Chiya's ...
1. ... brother's son was - Rabah bar Chanah.
(b) Ayvu, Chanah Shiylo, Marsa and Rebbi Chiya - were all brothers.
2. ... sister's son was - Rav.
(c) Rav's father was - Ayvu.
(d) Aba bar Acha Karsela from Kafri - was their father.
(a) The biological reason that Rebbi Chiya had for referring to Rabah as his
brother's son, and Rav as his sister's was - because Rav's father happened
to have married the half-sister of his half-brother (Rebbi Chiya), in which
case Rav was the son of both his half-brother and his half sister.
(b) Another reason for referring to Rav as his sister's son is based on the
Pasuk in Mishlei - "Emor la'Chochmah Achosi At" ([see Agados Maharsha] with
reference to Rav's vast knowledge).
(c) The reason that Rebbi did not agree to grant him permission to rule in
matters to do with Bechor could not have been because he was ...
1. ... not very smart - because he was exceedingly smart, as we just
(d) The reason that we initially give for this is - in deference to his half
brother Rabah bar Chanah, who was perhaps not as brilliant as him, but
deserving of the limelight nonetheless.
2. ... not conversant with the Halachos of a Bechor - because, after Rav had
spent one and a half years studying the laws of Bechor, Rebbi could hardly
have meant that.
(a) It may well be that Rebbi did not agree to give Rav Semichah to permit
Bechoros, precisely because of his phenomenal expertise. He was afraid that
he would permit Bechoros on the basis of blemishes that were unknown to the
people, and they, in their ignorance, would extend his rulings to permit
animals with temporary blemishes.
(b) We query the concept of receiving permission to issue rulings - on the
grounds that if the applicant is an expert, no permission is necessary.
(c) We attribute it to a decree of Rebbi, who once discovered the people in
a certain town preparing their dough be'Tum'ah.
(d) The people of the town explained to him that a certain Talmid-Chacham
had taught them that 'Mei Betza'im' - water from marshland, is not Machshir
(a) What the Talmid-Chacham had really said - was that 'Mei Beitzim', the
white of eggs, that was used to knead eggs, is not Machshir.
(b) This caused Rebbi to react the way he did - to encourage Rabbanan to be
more meticulous when teaching Halachos.
(c) They also erred with regard to a Mishnah in Parah, where the Tana says -
that the water of the Rivers Karmiyon and Pigah are Pasul (to be used for
the ashes of the Parah Adumah).
(d) The basis of their mistake was - that the reason of the Tana there is
because the water of those two rivers is not considered Mayim Chayim (spring
water), which does not mean that it is not water as far as Machshir
le'Kabeil Tum'ah is concerned.
(a) 'Lesisah' is - soaking wheat for a short while in water, before grinding
it. It is permitted on Pesach, since one grinds it immediately, and it
doesn't have a chance to rise.
(b) Rebbi Tanchum B'rei de'Rebbi Ami should not have Darshened this Heter in
Chatar - since his Rebbe, Rebbi Mani from Tzur lived there, and a Talmid is
not permitted to issue rulings within three Parsah (twelve Mil) of his
(c) When the people queried him about this, his response was - that he had
not realized that Rebbi Mani lived there.
(a) When Rebbi asked the son of a Kohen what he was doing in a
Beis-Hakevaros, he replied - that his father had brazenly taken a fancy to a
divorcee, whom he had subsequently married, and that he was the product of
that marriage, and was therefore a Challal, who is allowed to become Tamei
We already learned that it is possible to give partial Semichah, as we saw
with Rav. We learn from Rebbi Yochanan, who told Rav Sh'man that he was in
his Reshus until his return (meaning that he had permission to issue rulings
until he returned to Yerushalayim) - that a Semichah on condition is valid
until the condition is fulfilled.
(b) The reason that this story is inserted here is - to teach us, that when
it comes to preventing someone from sinning, the previous Halachah of not
ruling in the vicinity of one's Rebbe, falls away (because Kavod Shamayim
takes priority over Kavod ha'Rav, and), Rebbi Chiya had rebuked the man in
he vicinity of Rebbi.
(c) We could also explain the connection between this story and that of
Rebbi regarding the people who kneaded their dough be'Tum'ah, according to
the Yerushalmi, who reads - a. Rebbi instead of Rebbi Chiya, and b. that
Rebbi discovered the Kohen in Acco (which is considered Chutz la'Aretz, and
therefore has a Din of Tum'as Meis).
(d) That will help us to understand why the story is brought here - because
the first story of Rebbi and this story both took place in Acco, and the
Tana is telling us about two things that occurred to Rebbi when he went to
(a) Earlier, we cited the opinion of Shmuel, who learned earlier that if two
judges judged, even though they have earned the title 'Beis-Din Chatzuf,
their rulings are valid. Rava asked Rav Nachman on Shmuel from a Mishnah in
'Zeh Borer'. The Tana there says in a case where two Dayanim rule Patur or
Chayav, but the third one does not know - that they are required to add
(b) This poses a Kashya on Shmuel - according to whom the initial judges
should be able to conclude the case on their own.
(c) We conclude however, that this case is different than Shmuel's - since
they began with three judges, they must conclude with at least three, unlike
Shmuel's case, where two judges opened the proceedings.
(a) The Halachic distinction that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel makes between Din
and Pesharah is - that whereas the former requires three judges, the latter
requires only two.
(b) And he then presents the advantage that Pesharah has over Din - as
whereas the litigants are permitted to retract from a Din that is ruled by
two judges, they cannot retract from a Pesharah that is issued by them.
(c) We try to refute the suggestion that the Rabbanan dispute Raban Shimon
ben Gamliel's ruling with a statement by Rebbi Avahu who says - that if two
judges issue a ruling, everyone agrees that their ruling is void.
(d) We counter that argument however, with the principle 'Gavra a'Gavra
ka'Ramis?' How can you ask from Rebbi Avahu on to Shmuel? The former holds
there is no Machlokes Tana'im, the latter holds there is (and he holds like