(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 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 K'suso').
2. ... "Aven" - that if he died with one stone, it is not necessary to bring more.
(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.

(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 death-penalty.

(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 unanswered.

(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 sentenced.

(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 constitute?

(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 fought.

(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.
2. ... after Darshening them - that from the time they crossed the Yarden, they also became punishable for the unknown sins of the individual.
(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 Hashem's Name.

(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 u'le'Vaneinu".

(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.

Next daf


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