(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Sanhedrin 8



(a) When Rav's innkeeper asked Rav to litigate, he declined - because he had reminded him of the good service he had rendered (and this is akin to bribery).

(b) So Rav sent him to - Rav Kahana.

(c) Rav Kahana reprimanded him - because he indicated that, due his connections with Rav, he would not accept Rav Kahana's ruling.

(d) So the latter warned him that unless he did, he would make it clear that Rav could not help him, by placing him in Cherem.

(a) Resh Lakish establishes the Pasuk in Devarim "ka'Katon ka'Gadol Tishma'un" in connection with attaching as much importance to a case involving a P'rutah as to one of a hundred Manah. This cannot be taken literally - because it is obvious.

(b) What Resh Lakish means is - that cases must be taken on a strictly 'first-come first-served' basis, and not in accordance with the sums involved.

(c) And Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina explains the Pasuk "Ki ha'Mishpat l'Elokim Hu" - by quoting Ha'kadosh Baruch Hu, who says that not only do the Resha'im transfer money from the rightful owner to his disputant, but they also place the judgment on His Shoulders (Kevayachol, forcing Him to return the money to its rightful owner.

(a) Rebbi Chanina (or Rebbi Yashiyah) connects the Pasuk "ve'ha'Davar Asher Yiksheh Mikem" with the Pasuk "va'Yakreiv Moshe es Mishpatan Lifnei Hashem" - by explaining that, as a punishment for the former (vain) statement, Moshe was forced to admit that he was unable to answer the B'nos Tz'lofchad's She'eilah, and had to take it before Hashem.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects this explanation however, on the basis of the continuation of the Pasuk "Tikrevun Elai *u'Shema'ativ*", which implies (not that he would be able to answer all problems, but) - that he would hear them out, ruling on what he did know, and asking Hashem what he did not (which has not the least connotations of vanity).

(c) And the reason that the Parshah ...

1. ... of Nachalos was said through the query of the daughters of Tz'lofchad (and not directly at the hand of Moshe) is - due to their merit.
2. ... of Chilul Shabbos was said through the actions of the Mekoshesh (the man who gathered wood on Shabbos [who some say was Tz'lofchad]) - due to his guilt.
(d) We learn from these two Pesukim - that Hashem brings about merits through righteous people and punishments through people who are guilty.
(a) According to Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Simla'i, the Pasuk ...
1. ... "va'Atzaveh es Shofteichem ba'Eis ha'Hi" comes to teach us - that the judges should be patient with the people.
2. ... "va'Atzaveh eschem ba'Eis ha'Hi" - that the people, for their part, should hold the judges in awe.
(b) The Pasuk "Ka'asher Yisa ha'Omen es ha'Yonek" (like a nurse carries an infant) - teaches us the expected extent of the judge's patience towards the people.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan explains the apparent discrepancy between the two Pesukim, where Yehoshua is first instructed "Ki Atah Tavo es ha'Am", and then "Ki Atah Tavi es ha'Am" - by establishing the former as being the words of Moshe (who instructed him to go with the people as an equal [see also Rashi in Chumash]), and the latter, the words of Hashem, who appointed him as the sole leader (based on the priniple 'Dabar Echad le'Dor, ve'Lo Sh'nei Dabarim le'Dor' [There can only be one leader in a generation, and not two]).

(d) Rebbi Yochanan knows that the second Pasuk was said by Hashem, and not by Moshe, like the first - because the Pasuk speaks in the first person ("to the land which *I* swore ... "), and not in the third ("to the land which *Hashem* swore", as it did in the first Pasuk [indeed, as it does for the major part of Devarim]).

(a) The Beraisa states 'Zimun bi'Sheloshah'. This cannot refer to the B'rachah of Mezuman - because another Beraisa mentions them both 'Zimun u'Birchas Zimun bi'Sheloshah'.

(b) And we know that, when the Beraisa states 'Zimun u'Birchas Zimun bi'Sheloshah', the latter is not merely an explanation of the former - because we have a third Beraisa which states - 'Zimun bi'Sheloshah, u'Birchas Zimun bi'Sheloshah', clearly indicating that 'Zimun' in this context refers to something else.

(c) So we establish the Beraisa like Rava, who ruled that if three Dayanim send a Sheli'ach to invite someone to a court hearing - he must specifically issue the invitation in the name of all three Dayanim. Otherwise, Beis-Din do not have the authority to place him in Cherem for failing to attend.

(d) This will not be necessary however - on the actual day of judgment.

(a) Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda asked Rav Nachman bar Ya'akov how many Dayanim are required to judge Diynei K'nasos. We cannot accept the She'eilah at surface value - because our Mishnah has already taught us that Diynei K'nasos require three judges.

(b) What he must have therefore meant to ask him was - whether a Yachid Mumcheh is permitted to judge Diynei K'nasos.

(c) He replied by quoting Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda's grandfather - who forbade even ten Hedyotos to judge Diynei K'nasos. In that case, when our Mishnah states 'Tashlumei Kefel ... bi'Sheloshah', it must be referring to Mumchin, from which we can deduce that one Mumcheh cannot judge Diynei K'nasos.

(a) Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim argue in our Mishnah whether Motzi-Shem-Ra requires three judges or twenty-three. The case is - where the husband claims on the day after the marriage that his wife was not a virgin, and that she therefore loses her Kesuvah (see also Tosfos DH 'Motzi-Shem-Ra').

(b) We know that the husband only intends to make his wife lose her Kesuvah, and not to have her sentenced to death (with witnesses) - because if he did, why would Rebbi Meir argue?

(c) Our initial problem with the Rabbanan's opinion (that Motzi-Shem-Ra requires twenty-three) is - that, seeing as there no witnesses that the woman committed adultery after the betrothal, and her husband only comes to make her lose her Kesuvah, why should we take into account what would have been, had he brought witnesses that she had?

(d) So Ula establishes their Machlokes by whether 'Chosheshin le'La'az' (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Meir). 'Chosheshin le'La'az' means - that we take into account the likelihood that, following the husband's initial claim in Beis-Din, witnesses (of whom the husband was not aware) will come forward and testify that she commited adultery, and Beis-Din will need to reconvene (which makes a mockery of Beis-Din).




(a) According to Rava, nobody holds 'Chosheshin le'La'az', and the Rabbanan's reason is because they hold 'Chosheshin li'Chevodan shel Rishonim', meaning - that the husband appeared before a Beis-Din of twenty-three, claiming that he had witnesses that his wife had committed adultery. But when no witnesses arrived, the Dayanim went home.

(b) He then asked three other judges to judge his claim (of 'Pesach Pasu'ach') - so that his wife should at least lose her Kesuvah.

(c) The Rabbanan are now concerned about the Kavod of the Dayanim who had sat initially and had gone home (since to now judge the case with a Beis-Din of three, after a Beis-Din of twenty-three already convened to judge it, is a slight to the honor of the larger Beis-Din).

(a) The Beraisa states 'va'Chachamim Omrim, Tav'o Mamon bi'Sheloshah - Tav'o Nefashos, be'Esrim-u'Sheloshah' (see Chidushei ha'Ran).

(b) Rava will explain the Beraisa in exactly the same way as he just explained our Mishnah, based on the fact that he does not hold of 'La'az', but he does hold of 'Chevodan shel Rishonim'.

(c) The problem this poses on Ula is - from the Reisha. What is the case of 'Tav'o Mamon, bi'Sheloshah', according to him?

(a) To reconcile Ula with the Beraisa, Rava, together with Rav Chiya bar Avin, establishes the Reisha by Eidim Zomemin. Rava describes Rav Chiya bar Avin as - 'the lion of the group'.

(b) The case is - where the husband initially brought witnesses before a Beis-Din of twenty-three, but the girl's father brought witnesses who rendered them Eidim Zomemin. If the father now wishes to claim payment from the husband, he only needs a Beis-Din of three (even though the initial Beis-Din comprised twenty-three).

(c) When the Tana says 'Tav'o Nefashos, be'Esrim-u'Sheloshah', he means - that a case that can involve Diynei Nefashos (i.e. whenever the husband is the claimant), requires twenty-three (because of La'az).

(d) And the reason that we are not concerned about La'az in the Reisha - is due to the fact that we are now concerned with a new claimant (the father), as if it was a new case.

(a) Some commentaries establish the entire Sugya in connection with the Manah that the father is claiming from the husband (see Tosfos on the previous Amud DH 'Motzi-Shem-Ra'). We reject this explanation however - because if the husband did not bring witnesses, he would be believed outright to make his wife lose her Kesuvah. So the Mishnah must be speaking when he brought witnesses, and the father brought Eidei Hazamah. In that case, La'az would no longer be applicable, as we explained.

(b) According to Abaye, even Rebbi Meir agrees with both Chosheshin le'La'az and Chosheshin li'Chevodan shel Rishonim, and they argue over the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Tana Kama. According to the Tana Kama in a Beraisa, the two other condition required to sentence someone to death, besides a Beis-Din of twenty-three, witnesses and warning is - informing him that his sin renders him subject to the death-penalty.

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah - he must also inform him which death he is due to receive.

(d) In similar vein, the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan is confined to a case - where the witnesses brought by the husband failed to warn the woman which death she was due to receive, in which case, Rebbi Meir holds like Rebbi Yehudah. Consequently, it is no longer a case of Diynei Nefashos, and three judges will suffice.

(a) With regard to the previous case, we know that there is not another pair of witnesses ready to testify (in which case it would remain within the realm of Diynei Nefashos), because once one of the parties brings witnesses, we do not contend with the possibility of their being additional witnesses.

(b) Rav Papa learns basically like Abaye. Only to explain the Rabbanan, he establishes them like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who says - Chaver (a Talmid-Chacham) does not require a warning.

(c) The case by Motzi-Shem-Ra is - where the witnesses did not warn the woman before she committed adultery, because she was a Chaverah.

(d) Consequently ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir requires only three judges - because he holds like the Rabbanan, who require a warning even with regard to a Chaver, and it is no longer a case of Chayvei Miysos.
2. ... the Rabbanan require twenty-three - because they hold like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,