(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 10



(a) Rava rules that, in a case where two witnesses testify that Reuven committed adultery with a betrothed girl and were then made Zomemin, they are sentenced to death. With regard to paying the Kesuvah ...
1. ... that they attempted to make her lose - Rava rules that they are Patur from paying, because of 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih'.
2. ... in a case where they initially testified that he committed adultery with Shimon's daughter - he rules that they are Chayav, because it is 'Miysah la'Zeh (to the girl), and Mamon la'Zeh (to the father)'.
(b) Rava does not argue with Rav Yosef, who learned on the previous Amud, that the husband's witnesses are exempt from paying for the Kesuvah - because there, the woman was married, and it was she who was losing her Kesuvah, whereas here, she was only betrothed, and theKesuvah of a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah goes to her father.
(a) Rava also rules that, in a case where witnesses become Zomemin after testifying ...
1. ... that Reuven committed bestiality with an ox and then - they are sentenced to death, but are exempt from paying (since the owner is unknown).
2. ... that he committed bestiality with Shimon's ox - then they are sentenced to death and are also obligated to pay Shimon.
(b) We query why Rava found it necessary to teach us this set of rulings, since we already know it from the preious ones.

(c) In fact, Rava needed to present it only because of the She'eilah that accompanied it. He asked what the Din will be in a case where Reuven said 'P'loni Rava Shori' - whether 'Adam Karov Eitzel Mamono' and he is not believed to testify about his property any more than he is believed to testify about himself or his wife, or not.

(d) He concluded - Adam Karov Eitzel Atzmo, ve'Ein Adam Karov Eitzel Mamono'.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Malkos) "u'Shefat'tum" - (in the plural) that Malkos requires two judges, and since a Beis-Din can never consist of an even number, we add one judge to make three.

(b) We query this however, from the continuation of the Pasuk "ve'Hitzdiku" ... "ve'Hirshi'u" - which implies that another four judges are required.

(c) To answer this, we cite Ula, who asks 'Remez le'Eidim Zomemin min ha'Tsorah Minayin' - which is puzzling - since the Torah spcefically writes in Ki Seitzei "Ka'asher Zamam". So why should a hint be necessary?

(a) What Ula really mean to ask was - from where we know that Eidim Zomemin who are not subject to "Ka'asher Zamam" (such as witnesses who testified that a certain Kohen is the son of a divorcee) automatically receive Malkos.

(b) We cannot learn this from the Pasuk in Yisro "Lo Sa'aneh" - because of the principle 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh, Ein Lokin Alav' (and Eidim Zomemin, who did not perform any act, fall into this category).

(c) Ula learns it from the Pasuk "ve'Hitzdiku es ha'Tzadik, ve'Hirshi'u es ha'Rasha, ve'Hayah Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha", which cannot be understood literally - because what is the connection between the righteousness of the Tzadik and the fact that the Rasha receives Malkos?

(d) According to Ula therefore - the Pasuk refers to a second set of witnesses, who, after a former set had declared the Tzadik to be a Rasha, reinstated him as a Tzadik, and the previous witnesses as Resha'im (by declaring them to be Eidim Zomemin). And the Torah continues "ve'Hayah Im bin Hakos ha'Rasha", a hint that us that sometimes, Eidim Zomemin receive Malkus, even when that is not what they attempted to achieve.

(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael in our Mishnah, Chayvei Malkos require twenty-three Dayanim. Abaye quotes the source as 'Rasha' 'Rasha', because the Torah writes by Malkos "ve'Hayah Im bin Hakos ha'Rasha", which he learns from the Pasuk in Mas'ei (in connection with Chayvei Miysah)"Asher Hu Rasha La'mus".

(b) Rava disagrees. When he gives Rebbi Yishmael's reason as "Malkos be'Makom Miysah Omedes", he means - that having contravened his Creator's orders, the culprit really deserves to die, and Malkos is merely the manner of Miysah that the Torah prescribes.

(c) Rav Acha, Rava's son, asked Rav Ashi about this explanation from the Halachah that Malkos requires Umd'na' - which means that we assess how many strokes a person who is Chayav Malkos is capable of receiving, to ensure that he does not die in the process.

(d) Rav Acha's Kashya is - seeing as 'Malkos be'Makom Miysah Omedes', why are these precautions necessary. He is Chayav Miysah anyway, so let him receive the thirty-nine strokes that he is due, and if he dies in the process, he dies?

(a) Rav Ashi initially answers Rav Acha's Kashya (why we need Umd'na), based on the Pasuk "ve'Niklah Achicha le'Einecha, which implies - that all the culprit must receive all the strokes that he is due to receive, whilst he is alive.

(b) Rav Acha then asks further from the Beraisa 'Amduhu le'Kabeil Esrim, Ein Makin Oso Ela Makos ha'Re'uyos le'Hashtalesh' which means - that a sinner can only receive a number of strokes that is divisible by three.

(c) The Kashya on Rava is now - that, since he is only assesssed to die after receiving twenty-one strokes, we ought to give him twenty-one strokes, so that he receives his full quota, even though we know that he will die after the last stroke?

(d) Rav Ashi uses the same Pasuk to answer this Kashya too - by inferring from it that after he has received Malkos, he must still be called 'your brother', implying that he is still alive.




(a) We extrapolate from our Mishnah 'Ibur ha'Chodesh bi'Sheloshah', Chishuv Lo ka'Tani, Kidush Lo ka'Tani. We define ...
1. ... 'Ibur ha'Chodesh' - as the declaration that the month is Me'ubar (a full thirty-day month).
2. ... 'Chishuv ha'Chodesh' is - the debate as to whether one should declare the month Malei or Chaser.
3. ... 'Kidush ha'Chodesh' is - the cross-examination of the witnesses and the declaration (each month) that that day is Rosh Chodesh.
(b) The problem with our Mishnah as it stands is - why it is necessary to announce the thirty-first day as Rosh Chodesh. Seeing as they did not pronounce the thirtieth day, there is no other choice, in which case no declaration is necessary.

(c) Rava reject Abaye's answer 'T'ni Kidush ha'Chodesh', despite the fact that he has support from a Beraisa, on the grounds that - it is unlikely that the Tana erred to the extent of inserting 'Ibur', instead of 'Kidush'.

(d) The author of the Beraisa that supports Abaye's interpretation of our Mishnah - is Rebbi Meir.

(a) When Rava answers 'Kidush be'Yom Ibur, bi'Sheloshah, Achar Ibur, Leka Kidush', he means - that 'Kidush' on the thirtieth day (which leads up to the Ibur) requires three judges, whereas on the thirty-first, it does not (as we stated in the Kashya).

(b) The author of our Mishnah is then Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, who rules in a Beraisa, that in a case where the moon was not seen in its time - Beis-Din will no longer declare it Kadosh, since Hashem has already done do.

(c) 'in its time' means - on the thirtieth day, because that is when the new moon is 'born'.

(d) Rav Nachman says exactly the opposite. He establishes our Mishnah like P'liymu, who rules in a Beraisa, 'bi'Zemano Ein Mekadshin Oso, she'Lo bi'Zemano, Mekadshin Oso' - because Rosh Chodesh which falls in its natural time does not need to be reinforced through Kidush Beis-Din.

(a) According to Rav Ashi, our Mishnah means 'Chishuv de'Ibur', and the reason that the Tana says 'Ibur', and not 'Chishuv' (like we asked originally) is - in order to balance 'Ibur ha'Shanah' which follows it (and where 'Ibur' obviously needs to be said).

(b) The author of our Mishnah, according to Rav Ashi, is Rebbi Eliezer, who learns from the Pasuk "ve'Kidashtem es Sh'nas ha'Chamishim Shanah" - that only years (of the Yovel) require Kidush Beis-Din, but not months.

(c) The purpose of 'Chishuv ha'Chodesh' - is to ensure that Yom Kipur does not fall on Friday or Sunday, and that Hosha'ana Rabah does fall on Shabbos (Otherwise, they would have fixed the months one Malei and one Chaser alternately.

(d) The problem Beis-Din are likely to encounter when making the Chishuv is - that one cannot fix less than four full months per year, and not more than eight.

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel requires a progression of three to seven judge for Ibur Shanah - three, to decide whether there is any reason to fix the month Malei or Chaser; five, to debate the pro's and the con's, and seven, to declare the month 'Malei'.

(b) If ...

1. ... two of the three judges agree not to go on to the debating stage, or three of the five agree not to declare the year a leap-year - then, based on the principle 'Acharei Rabim Le'hatos', that is what they do.
2. ... one of the three judges maintains that they should not go on to the debating stage, or two of the five maintain that they should not declare the year a leap-year - then again we follow the majority opinion, ignoring the opinion of the minority.
(a) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeini and Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi argue over the significance of the three, five and seven judges. One of them attributes them to Birchas Kohanim - meaning the three, five and seven words contained in the three Pesukim of Birchas Kohanim (see Agados Maharsha).

(b) The other one says that the three corresponds to the three guards of the inner gate, the five, to the five of the 'Ro'ei P'nei ha'Melech' (of the seven ministers [both of which we find in connection with Tzdkiyahu ha'Melech]) and the seven, to all seven ministers (which we find in connection with Achashverosh [see also Tosfos DH 'Shiv'ah']).

(c) The significance of this connection is - the fact that both have to do with royal strategy.

(a) When Rav Yosef quoted a Beraisa that supports the latter opinion - Abaye expressed surprise that Rav Yosef had never told his Talmidim that before.

(b) Rav Yosef responded - by asking whether he had ever failed to tell him whatever he asked.

Next daf


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