ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 49
SANHEDRIN 49 (24 Cheshvan) - dedicated by Dr. Moshe and Rivkie Snow to the
memory of Rivkie's father, the Manostrishtcher Rebbe, Hagaon Rav Yitzchak
Yoel ben Gedaliah Aharon Rabinowitz Ztz"l. A personification of the Torah
scholar of old, the Ukranian born Rebbe lived most of his life in Brooklyn,
NY, where his warm ways changed many lives.
(a) Benayahu ben Yehoyada judged Yo'av - for having killed Avner and Amasa.
(b) When Yo'av claimed that he killed Avner because he was the Go'el ha'Dam
of Asa'el his brother, whom Avner had killed, Benayahu countered - that
Asa'el was chasing Avner, who therefore acted in self-defense.
(c) Yo'av replied that Avner could have saved himself by stabbing him to
incapacitating him, without actually killing him. And when Benayahu claimed
that Avner was under pressure and therefore unable to aim with such
precision - he quoted the Pasuk in Shmuel "va'Yakehu Avner ... el
ha'Chomesh" (the fifth rib), which Rav Yehudah Amar Rav explains to be the
point on the flank where the gall and the liver meet. Now if Avner was able
to aim at that vulnerable spot with such percussion, Yo'av argued, he could
certainly have incapacitated him without actually killing him.
(a) Leaving Avner aside, Yo'av justified his having killed Amasa - because,
he claimed, he was a Mored be'Malchus, since the king had ordered him to
return from a mission within three days, and he came after the time had
(b) When Benayahu rejected Yo'av's argument on the grounds that Amasa
Darshened 'Achin ve'Rakin', he meant - that he extrapolated from the Pasuk
"*Rak* Chazak ve'Ematz" - that he does not have the authority to cause Bitul
Torah, and it was because Amasa found the people studying Torah that he was
(c) In fact, Benayahu concluded, he (Yo'av) was the Mored be'Malchus -
because he had joined ranks with David's son Adoniyahu, when he rebelled
against his father shortly before the latter's death.
(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav explains the Pasuk "Ki Yo'av Natah Acharei Adoniyah
ve'Acharei Avshalom Lo Natah" to mean - that he really wanted to join
Avshalom's rebellion too, only he was prevented, as we shall now see.
(a) Rebbi Elazar attributed Yo'av following Adoniyah but not Avshalom to the
fact that 'Adayin Lachluchis shel David Kayemes', by which he meant - that
Yo'av was afraid to join Avshalom, since David was still able to fight,
which was not the case in the time of Adoniyahu, when David was already old
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, it was because of a statement
by Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who described the four hundred sons of David - all
sons of Y'fos To'ar, who grew long hair in order to inspire fear, who went
at the head of the troops and whom David used as a sort of private police
force, to intimidate evil-doers.
(c) During Avshalom's rebellion it appears - these four hundred men were
still in operation, and explains why Yo'av declined to join Avshalom. He
joined Adoniyahu, only because they were no longer operational.
(d) Rebbi Aba bar Kahana disagrees with Yo'av's reason for killing Avner. He
explains the Pasuk "Va'yehi David Oseh Mishpat u'Tzedakah le'Chol Amo,
ve'Yo'av ben Tzeruyah al ha'Tzava" to mean - that if David had not studied
Torah in the Beis-Hamedrash, Yo'av would not have been able to win the
battles, and if Yo'av had not fought the battles, David would not have been
able to sit in the Beis-Hamedrash and study Torah.
(a) With regard to the Pasuk there "va'Yeitzei Yo'av ... va'Yishlach
Mal'achim Acharai Avner va'Yashivu Oso mi'Bor ha'Sirah", Rebbi Aba bar
Kahana interprets ...
1. ... 'Bor' - to refer to the pitcher of water that David took from behind
Shaul's head whilst he and his entire camp slept, and which Avner claimed
one of the boys had handed to him (see also Agados Maharsha)
(b) Yo'av's motive in both of these cases was - to prevent Shaul from making
peace with David (perhaps this was because, as Chazal explain, he maintained
that David, who descended from Rus ha'Mo'aviyah, was Pasul).
2. ... 'Sirah' - to refer to the piece of Shaul's coat that David had cut
off whilst the former was in the cave where he was hiding, and which Avner
claimed had been torn-off by a thorn-bush, and David had found there.
(c) Yo'av tricked Avner - by asking him how a woman without hands makes
Chalitzah. Then, as he bent down to demonstrate how one performs Chalitzah
with the teeth, he struck him down in the fifth rib. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav
learns this from the Pasuk "va'Yatehu ... le'Daber Ito ba'Sheli" - by
interpreting 'ba'Sheli' as shoe (based on the Pasuk on Sh'mos, where Hashem
said to Moshe "Shal Ne'alecha me'Al Raglecha".
(d) And Rebbi Yochanan learns from the beginning of the Pasuk "va'Yatehu
Yo'av el Toch ha'Sha'ar" - that Yo'av judged Avner as a Beis-Din would have
judged him (even though it appears that he simply took the law into his own
hands - see Aruch la'Ner). It is not clear however, who gave Yo'av authority
to act on his own.
(a) The Pasuk describes the two men whom Yo'av murdered as more righteous
than him - because they both Darshened Achin ve'Rakin, which he did not.
(b) We have already explained how Amasa Darshened 'Achin ve'Rakin'. The
occasion that ...
1. ... Avner Darshened them too was - when Shaul ordered the 'boys' (among
them Avner) to kill the Kohanim who lived in Nov, and they refused.
(c) Avner and Amasa both refused to obey instruction - even though they were
issued verbally (directly); whereas Yo'av obeyed his instructions - even
though they were only issued in writing.
2. ... Yo'av failed to Darshen them - was when he followed David's
instructions to see to it that Uri'ah was sent to the front line alone, to
be killed in battle
(d) Amasa was not wary of the sword in Yo'av's hand - because, says Rav, he
did not suspect him of planning him harm.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav explains that what the Pasuk "va'Yikaver be'Veiso
ba'Midbar" means is (not that that was where Yo'av lived, but) - that his
house was Hefker like a Midbar (meaning that it was open to the poor at any
***** Hadran Alach 'Nigmar ha'Din' *****
(b) Alternatively, we might Darshen - that theft and adultery were absent
from Yo'av's house, just as they are not to be found in the desert.
(c) Rav Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Yo'av Yechayeh es Sha'ar ha'Ir" -
that he would send to the poor of his town even fine foods and luxuries,
such as various kinds of little fish.
***** Perek Arba Miysos *****
(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah lists the four Miysos Beis-Din as 'Sekilah,
Se'reifah, Hereg ve'Chenek'. Rebbi Shimon lists them as - 'Sereifah,
Sekilah, Chenek ve'Hereg'.
(b) The Tana concludes the Mishnah with the words 'Zu Mitzvas ha'Niskalin' -
because he intends to deal with Sereifah, Hereg ve'Chenek.
(c) The items listed in a Mishnah, says Rava Amar Rav Sechorah Amar Rav
Huna - do not usually need to be taken seriously.
(d) The only exception, he says, is - the Mishnah in Nidah, which lists
seven ingredients 'the spit of someone who has not yet eaten, the juice or
beans that were chewed, urine, Neser (a kind of earth), a herb called Boris
(used as a detergent), Kemulya and Ashlag (a mineral found in the holes in
which pearls sit), which, when rubbed onto a bloodstain in that order, will
remove it only if it is Dam Nidah. Consequently, they would use it to
determine whether the bloodstain of a woman was Dam Nidah or not.
(e) They will not achieve the same purpose - if they are applied
(a) Rav Papa the elder also cites our Mishnah as an exception to Rav Huna's
rule. He knows that their order is crucial - from the fact that Rebbi Shimon
(b) Rav Huna himself did not cite it
- precisely because it involves a dispute, and he is only referring to
Mishnos that are unanimous.
(c) The ramifications of the order of the four Miysos Beis-Din is - in a
case where someone is Chayav two Miysos Beis-Din, he receives the more
(a) Rav Papa includes the Mishnos in Yuma, which describe the Avodah on Yom
Kipur, and about which the Mishnah there specifically writes ' ... Im Hikdim
Ma'aseh la'Chavero, Lo Asah ve'Lo K'lum'. Rav Huna himself not cite it -
because he is only concerned with cases where one is more stringent (or
effective) than the other, whereas the Avodah on Yom-Kipur is not a matter
of stringency, but of the stringency of the day.
(b) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua adds the Mishnah in Tamid (with reference
to the order of the various Avodos connected with the Korban Tamid). Rav
Papa did not add that to the list of exceptions - because, in his opinion,
the order there is not crucial, and Bedieved, the Kohanim are Yotzei even if
they changed it.
(c) The second case that Rav Huna meant to include among the Mishnos where
the order is of no consequence is - the order of Chalitzah, as we shall now
(a) When the Yavam and the Yevamah first entered the Beis-Din - they would
advise the Yavam against making Yibum, if their ages were totally
incompatible (if he was an old man and she, a young woman, or vice-versa).
(b) After the Yevamah has said 'Me'en Yevami ... ', the Yavam says - 'Lo
Chafatzti Lekachtah' ...
(c) ... after which, the Yevamah would take off his shoe and spit in his
(d) The Yevamah's final words were - 'Kachah Ye'aseh la'Ish Asher Lo Yivneh
es Beis Achiv'.
(a) The Yavam and Yevamah had to speak in - Lashon ha'Kodesh.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Yarkah be'Fanav" - that the Yevamah's spit
had to be visible to the Dayanim.
(c) The point Rav Yehudah Amar Rav is making when he states 'Mitzvas
Chalitzah ... ', listing the five stages that are clearly described in the
Mishnah is - that it is only a Mitzvah, but not crucial.
(a) The second case included in Rav Huna's statement, is that of Bigdei
Kehunah. The four garments of ...
1. ... a Kohen Hedyot are - the Kutones (the shirt), the Michnasayim
(knee-breeches), the hat and the Avnet (the belt).
(b) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "u'Michnesei Vad Yih'yu al Besaro" -
the first garment the Kohen put on was the Michnasayim.
2. ... a Kohen Gadol are - the Choshen (the breast-plate), the Eifod (a form
of apron worn at the back), the Me'il (a coat or cloak) and the Tzitz (a
golden band worn on the forehead).
(c) The Mishnah switches the order (listing the Kutones before the
Michnasayim, because it takes its cue from the Pasuk, which changes the
order, to place the Kutones first - because it covered the entire body.
(a) The source we initially cite for Sekilah's stringency over Sereifah,
according to the Rabbanan - is the fact that this is the sentence meted out
to someone who curses Hashem or who serves idols, the worst sins, inasmuch
they constitute Poshet Yad be'Ikar (starting up with Hashem Himself,
(b) We might on the other hand, have thought that Sereifah is the more
stringent of the two (like Rebbi Shimon) - since the Torah sentences a bas
Kohen who commits adultery to Sereifah (even though a bas Kohen who is an
Arusah already receives Sekilah, and clearly, the Torah is coming to be more
stringent with a bas Kohen, not more lenient).
(c) We explain that nevertheless, Sekilah is more stringent, because,
according to the Rabbanan, the Torah only sentences a married bas Kohen to
Sereifah, but not an Arusah, who retains the Din of Sekilah.
(d) The basis for assuming that an Arusah is more stringent than a Nesu'ah -
is the fact that a Nesu'ah receives Chenek, whereas an Arusah (who is not a
bas Kohen - according to all opinions) receives Sekilah.
(a) What is wrong with the basis of the above D'rashah 'Nesu'ah Yotz'ah
li'Sereifah ve'Lo Arusah is the fact - that there is not such D'rashah.
(b) Consequently, the real source of Sekilah's stringency over Sereifah,
according to the Rabbanan - is the one that we originally cited - namely,
because the Torah metes it out to a Megadef and to an Oved Avodah-Zarah.
(c) And it is as a result of this S'vara - that the Rabbanan restrict the
punishment of Sereifah by a bas Kohen to a Nesu'ah, but not to an Arusah
(despite the fact that the Torah does not say so).