ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 43
(a) As we Darshened the Pasuk in Emor "va'Yotzi'u es ha'Mekalel", so too, do
we Darshen the Pasuk "va'Yirgemu Oso Aven". We learn from ...
1. ... "Oso" - that a person is stoned without his clothes ("Oso", 've'Lo
(b) Having written "Aven", the Torah (in connection with the Mekoshesh
Eitzim) nevertheless needs to write "u'Sekaltem Osam ba'Avanim" - to teach
us that if he did not die with one stone, then one hurls other stones at him
until he dies.
2. ... "Aven" - that if he died with one stone, it is not necessary to bring
(c) The Tana learned the three camps from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from "mi'Chutz
la'Machaneh"- on the assumption that there was no actual Pasuk from which to
learn it ('Ilu Lo Ne'emar'). However, now that Rav Papa has divulged
specific Pesukim from which to learn the three camps (which presumably, the
Tana'im were aware of too), the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is no longer necessary.
(a) Rav Ashi learns "Hotzei es ha'Mekalel" like Rav Papa (from the Machaneh
Leviyah), only he learns from the Machaneh Yisrael from "el mi'Chutz
la'Machaneh". "Va'yotzi'u es ha'Mekalel", he says, comes to teach us
'Asiyah' (like we asked on Rav Papa). And we need a second Pasuk ("u'Venei
Yisrael Asu") for Asiyah, according to Rav Ashi - to teach us that Yisrael
carried out, not only the actual stoning, but also, leaning their hands on
the culprit and pushing him off the cliff.
(b) We learn the obligation of pushing the culprit off the cliff - from the
Pasuk in Yisro (in connection with someone who ascended Har Sinai at Matan
Torah) - "O Yaroh Yiyareh".
(c) The Rabbanan asked Rav Ashi what he (and Rav Papa) will do with the
various Pesukim ("ve'Hotzi") mentioned in connection with Parim
ha'Nisrafin - but he had no answer ('Kashya').
(a) It is obvious to Rav Huna that - it is Beis-Din who must provide the
stone that is to be used for Sekilah, the beam of wood on which he will
later be hanged and the sword with which they will stab someone who is
Chayav Hereg. The fourth item in Rav Huna's list is - the cloth that is used
to strangle someone who is Chayav Chenek.
(b) The reason for this is - because it is insensitive to ask a person to
provide the weapon with which he will then be killed.
(c) Rav Huna was not so certain however, about the cloths and the horse that
would be used to bring the accused back to Beis-Din. The onus to bring these
may well lie on the sentenced man, since they are for his benefit. On the
other hand, it might be the Beis-Din who are obligated to bring them -
seeing as the Torah has obligated them to try and save him from the
(d) Rav Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav Chisda learn from the Pasuk "T'nu Sheichar
le'Oved, ve'Yayin le'Marei Nefesh" - that Beis-Din are obligated to give a
man who is sentenced to death a cup of wine containing a grain of
frankincense, before carrying out the sentence, in order to render him
unaware of what is going on, to prevent him from worrying about his death
and slowing down the death process.
(a) According to the Beraisa - it was the precious women of Yerushalayim who
used to provide the cup of wine containing a grain of frankincense.
(b) Initially, Rav Huna's Safek extends to this item too. He has no problem
resolving this She'eilah - due to the Lashon "T'nu" used by the Pasuk, even
though the same She'eilah regarding the cloths and the horse remains
(a) Rav Acha bar Huna asked Rav Sheishes what the Din will be if a Talmid
claims that he has something to say in favor of the accused, and is then
struck dumb. The She'eilah was whether, despite the fact that he was unable
to give a reason for his statement, we assume that the other Chachamim would
have accepted his argument, in which case Beis-Din are obligated to close
the case, and bring new Dayanim.
(b) Rav Sheishes gave a wave of his hand - because in that case, he
maintained, we may also assume that there is someone at the other end of the
world who has something to say in favor of the accused, and bring in new
Dayanim on that score.
(c) The questioner however, differentiated between his case - where the
Talmid actually declared that he had something to say, and someone at the
end of the world, who did not.
(d) Rav Sheishes extrapolates from Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who rules
that if a Talmid raised a point in favor of the accused and died, when the
court reconvenes on the following day, we assume that he abides by his
previous statement - that we only act on a Talmid who gave his opinion and
clarified it. Otherwise, it is as if he had said nothing.
(e) Rav Acha bar Huna replied - 'Zikah P'shita Li, Lo Zikah Miba'i'.
Perhaps, he said, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina presented the case of Zikah,
because it is common, unlike a Talmid becoming dumb or dying after having
made his initial statement. Nevertheless, perhaps he would extend his ruling
to those cases as well.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that we return the accused to Beis-Din even
four or five times, provided he has something to say. Rav Papa reconciles
this with the Beraisa, which allows him to be returned to Beis-Din twice
even if has nothing substantial to say - by establishing our Mishnah from
the third time and onwards.
(b) Even though the Sheluchei Beis-Din who carry out the death-sentence are
not necessarily Talmidei-Chachamim, they will discover whether his argument
is substantial or not - says Abaye, by means of two Talmidei-Chachamim, whom
Beis-Din send with them from the second time.
(c) We do not employ the same tactics the first two times as well - because
we assume at that stage, that the accused has something serious to say, only
due to the terror that grips him due to his circumstances, he has difficulty
in expressing himself.
(a) If Beis-Din found a Z'chus, says the Mishnah, they would send him home.
If not, he would be sent to the Beis ha'Sekilah, and a proclamation would
precede him. The wording of the proclamation is - 'So-and-so is being takes
out to be stoned for having transgressed such and such an Aveirah, and
so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Will anyone who has something to
say in his favor, kindly come and do so'.
(b) Abaye added to it - the day, the time and the place of the crime, to
make it possible to bring witnesses to be Mazim the witnesses who had him
(c) We extrapolate from the Lashon of the Mishnah 'u'Kruz Yotze Lefanav' -
that they only issued the proclamation as he was being taken out to be be
killed, but not before.
(d) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi interprets the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Zove'ach Todah Yechabdan'ni" (with its two 'Nunin') to mean - that
someone slaughters (conquers [see Agados Maharsha]) his Yeitzer-ha'Ra (by
doing Teshuvah) and confesses to having sinned, it is as if he had honored
Hashem in both worlds.
2. ... "Zivchei Elokim Ru'ach Nishbarah" to mean - that someone who is
humble, it is as if he had brought all the sacrifices.
3. ... "Leiv Nishbar ve'Nidkeh Elokim Lo Sivzeh" (the conclusion of the
previous Pasuk) to mean - that his prayers will not be rejected.
(a) Our Mishnah describes the last stages before the execution. When the
condemned man arrived within four Amos of the Beis ha'Sekilah - they
instructed him to confess.
(b) They explained to him - that anyone who confesses receives a portion in
the World to Come.
(c) And they quoted the episode with Achan, who began to mock the Goral (the
lot that had declared him condemned), but Yehoshua said to him - ''Give
honor to Hashem the G-d of Yisrael and confess!"
(d) After he relented and confessed, Yehoshua responded with - "How you have
'blackened' us! Hashem will 'blacken' you today', insinuating "today" but
not in the World to Come.
(a) If the condemned man is unable to confess (with regard to other sins
which he knows he transgressed but which he cannot recall [Tif'eres
Yisrael]), then he says - 'May my death atone for all my sins'.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, if the condemned man knows that his
witnesses were false, then he precludes the sin for which he has been
condemned from his confession. The Chachamim object however - because then
every condemned man will do that in order to die with a good name.
(a) Hashem refused to divulge the culprit who had taken from the spoils of
Yericho, because 'I am not a Rachil (a tale-bearer)'.
(b) When the subsequent lot picked out Achan - he reacted by mocking the
lot. If one were to draw lots between Yehoshua and Elazar ha'Kohen, he
argued, one of them would have to be picked, so what proof do lots
(c) In response to Achan's mocking was - Yehoshua asked him 'please' not to
mock the lots, since that was the method by which Eretz Yisrael would be
distributed to the tribes.
(d) To extract the required confession - Yehoshua tricked Achan into
believing that if he would confess, he would be Patur.
(a) Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Chanina learns from the wording of Achan's confession
"Chatasi la'Hashem Elokei Yisrael, ve'cha'Zos ve'cha'Zos Asisi" that Achan
took forbidden spoil on two other occasions besides from Yericho - both in
the time of Moshe; one during the war against the Cana'ani Melech Arad
(Amalek), and the other, during one of the other campaigns that Moshe
(b) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon says ...
1. ... with regard to the above - that Achan actually took forbidden spoil
four times during the time of Moshe.
2. ... that Yisrael were not punished until now for Achan's earlier
transgressions - because they were not punished for the unknown sins of the
individual until after crossing the River Yarden (following the ceremony at
Har Gerizim and Har Eival, where they accepted responsibility for one
another). Note, that we will need to explain why Achan himself was not
punished earlier (indeed it is a pity that he wasn't!).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan's latter statement concurs with the opinion of Rebbi
Yehudah in the Beraisa, who interprets the Pasuk "ha'Nistaros la'Hashem
Elokeinu, ve'ha'Niglos Lanu u'Levaneinu" ...
1. ... (before Darshening the dots on "Lanu u'Levaneinu" and on the 'Ayin'
of "Ad") - literally, that they were punishable for the known sins of an
individual, but not for the unknown ones.
(b) The dots appear on "Lanu u'Levaneinu" and not on "la'Hashem Elokeinu",
where they really belong - because it is not respectful to place dots on
2. ... after Darshening them - that from the time they crossed the Yarden,
they also became punishable for the unknown sins of the individual.
(c) Now that the dots appear on "Lanu u'Levaneinu", we explain the Pasuk to
mean - that although initially, it was only the revealed sins that we and
our children accepted responsibility for, and the unknown ones were carried
by Hashem, that would change once we crossed the Yarden, when "the hidden
things were to be carried by both Hashem and by us and our children".
(d) The dot on the 'Ayin' of "Ad" signifies - that the present situation
stands to change once we cross the Yarden, or (see Tosfos DH 'Melamed') to
make up for the extra letter that "la'Hashem Elokeinu" has over "Lanu
(a) According to Rebbi Nechemyah - the dots teach us that Yisrael were only
punished for the revealed sins of the individual after crossing the Yarden,
but not before.
(b) As far as the Nistaros are concerned - he says, they were not punished
at all (either before crossing the Yarden, or afterwards).
(c) According to him, Yisrael were punished for Achan's sins - because, due
to the fact that his wife and children knew about them, they fell under the
category of revealed sins.