(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 60



(a) Rebbi Shimon learns from the two Pesukim which juxtapose witchcraft and bestiality - that just as Nochrim are subject to the latter, so too, are they subject to the former.

(b) And Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "es Chukosai Tishmoru, Behemt'cha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim" - that the Isur of Kil'ayim was already commanded before (to the B'nei No'ach).
2. ... "Behemt'cha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim, ve'Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim" - that K'lai Sadeh (i.e. grafting, which is similar to K'lai Beheimah) and K'lai Beheimah go hand in hand, both as regards B'nei No'ach, and as regards Chutz la'Aretz, where K'lai Sadei, like K'lai Beheimah, applies (even though it is a Mitzvah that is connected with the land).
(c) When we ask that we should then Darshen the Pasuk "u'Shemartem es Chukosai ve'es Mishpatai Tishmoru" in the same way, we mean that - seeing as this Pasuk refers to the whole Torah, B'nei No'ach should be obligated to observe the entire Torah (like we Darshened the previous Pasuk).

(d) We do not ...

1. ... Darshen this Pasuk in that way - because the inverted Lashon implies that we should observe the new Chukim, not the old ones (like "es Chukosai Tishmoru" implies).
2. ... make the same D'rashah with regard to the Pasuk (in connection with Sh'mitah and Yovel) "es Mishpatai Ta'asu *ve'es Chukosai Tishm'ru*" - because there, since it follows the first one, it is natural to invert it (see Tosfos DH 'Chukosai').
(a) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov confines Birchas Hashem to the four-letter Name of Havayah (see Toras Chayim), but not to the two-letter Name of Kah. He needs to say this in spite of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah in our Mishnah, which speaks about 'Yakeh Yossi es Yossi' - since we might otherwise have thought that the Tana only gives a casual example, but that he does not intend to preclude the two-letter Name from the ruling.

(b) According to the second Lashon, Rav Acha bar Ya'akov comes to teach us - that even the four-letter Name is included, and that the prohibition is not confined to the Name of forty-two letters.

(c) Our Mishnah obligates the Dayanim ...

1. ... to rise when the witnesses of Birchas Hashem pronounce the Name of Hashem in their testimony. Rav Yitzchak bar Ami learns this - from Eglon Melech Mo'av, who (despite his obesity), arose from his throne at the mere mention of the Name 'Elokim', how much more so must a Yisrael rise at the mention of the Sheim ha'Meforash.
2. ... to rent their clothes upon hearing what the Mevarech Hashem said - from the various dignitaries, who appeared before Chizkiyahu with torn clothes, because they had heard Hashem's Name being cursed by Ravshakeh (Sancheriv's general).
(a) Rebbi Avahu learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "va'Yechazek bi'Vegadav va'Yikra'em li'Shenayim Kera'im" - (from the word "Kera'im", which is superfluous) that the tear must be permanent.
2. ... to which we just referred (with reference to Ravshakeh's curse) "Keru'ei Begadim" - by means of a 'Gezeirah-Shavah', that the same applies to someone who hears Birchas Hashem.
(b) The Beraisa obligates the person who hears the curse to rent his clothes, as well as whoever hears it from him. The Tana exempt the witnesses from tearing Keri'ah when they testify in Beis-Din - on the basis of the Pasuk there, which specifically exempts the three witnesses from tearing Keri'ah a second time.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel exempts someone who hears Birchas Hashem from a Nochri, and the reason that the dignitaries there rent their clothes was - because Ravshakeh was a Yisrael Mumar (who rejected Torah).

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel qualifies Birchas Hashem still further - by confining it to the Sheim ha'Meforash (the Sheim Havayah), but precluding the Kinuy (of Adnus).

(a) Rebbi Chiya however, holds that someone who hears Birchas Hashem ...
1. ... from a Nochri - is obligated to tear K'riyah, as is ...
2. ... someone who hears it with regard to one of the Kinuyim.
(b) We infer this from another statement, in which he said - that someone who hears Birchas Hashem nowadays does not tear K'riyah, because, if he did, his clothes would be full of tears.

(c) This ruling cannot refer ...

1. ... a Yisrael who cursed Hashem - because he would not be so wicked.
2. ... a Nochri who cursed the Sheim ha'Meforash - because Nochrim are not generally conversant with the Sheim ha'Meforash.
(d) We then go on to conclude that since Rebbi Chiya is speaking about a Nochri cursing a Kinuy of Hashem - he must hold that min ha'Torah, Birchas Hashem extends both to what one hears from a Nochri and to a Kinuy (in contrast to Shmuel's ruling).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the second witness simply said 'Af Ani Kamohu' from which Resh Lakish extrapolates - that min ha'Torah, the testimony of the second witness in cases of Diynei Mamonos and Diynei Nefashos may be presented in the same way ...

(b) ... and if Beis-Din require the second witness to repeat in full what he saw, it is only a Chumra mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) They did not however, issue the same decree with regard to Birchas Hashem - to protect the Kavod of Hashem.

(d) It would be wrong to say that really the second witness is Chayav to repeat what he saw mi'd'Oraysa, and Birchas Hashem is different because of Kavod Hashem - because that would not justify putting someone to death without proper testimony.

(e) The author of the Beraisa, which adds that the third witness too, only needs to say 'Af Ani Kamohu' is - Rebbi Akiva, in the Mishnah in Makos, who compares the third witness to the other two, inasmuch as he is Pasul, the other two witnesses are Pasul too.




(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that someone who serves an idol, Shechts a Korban in its honor, sacrifices it on the Mizbe'ach, or pours a drink-offerring before it - are all guilty of having served idols and are Chayav either Sekilah, Kareis or a Korban.

(b) He adds to the list - someone who prostrates himself before it.

(a) If someone accepts an idol as his god, by declaring 'You are my god, he is Chayav too. even though it is no more than mere speech - from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "va'Yishtachavu Lo va'Yizbechu Lo va'Yomru Eileh Elohecha Yisrael".

(b) We might also explain ...

1. ... 've'ha'Mekablo Alav le'Elohah" - to refer to accepting an idol as one's god not in its presence.
2. ... 've'ha'Omer Lo Eili Atah' - accepting it in its presence.
(c) We need both cases - because had the Tana taught only one of them, we would have established it in the idol's presence, and concluded that one is not Chayav for accepting it not in its presence.

(d) The Tana rules that someone who ...

1. ... embraces an idol, kisses it, sweeps the floor in front of it, bathes it, anoints it with oil, dresses it or puts shoes on its feet - transgresses a La'av (but not Kareis ... ), and the same applies to someone who ...
2. ... makes a Neder or a Shevu'ah in its name
(a) The first of the two latter group involves the La'av of "*Lo Sa'avdem* ve'Lo Sa'aseh ke'Ma'aseihem" (in Mishpatim), besides the "Lo Sa'avdem" that is written in both Aseres ha'Dibros, rendering one of them superfluous). The La'av that involves the second group - is the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Sheim Elohim Acherim Lo Sazkiru".

(b) The first of the latter groups (someone who embraces an idol ...) entails she'Lo ke'Darkah (because serving Avodah-Zarah ke'Darkah is subject to Kareis irrespective ... .


1. 'Pe'or' is - an idol that one worshipped by exposing oneself in front of it and defecating on it.
2. 'Markulis' is - an idol that one worshipped by stoning it.
(d) The Tana finds it necessary to inform us that these are considered ke'Darkah - to teach us that even though, by any other type of idolatry this form of worship would be permitted (and perhaps even a Mitzvah), one is Chayav for worshipping Pe'or and Markulis respectively in these ways.
(a) The problem with the first case in the first list ('Echad ha'Oved') is - that it suggests that all the subsequent cases are not considered Oved.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah therefore establishes ...

1. ... it - by someone who worships ke'Darkah (in the regular way) ...
2. ... whereas the following four cases 'ha'Mezabe'ach, ha'Mekater, ha'Menasech ve'ha'Mishtachaveh' - when they were are performed she'Lo ke'Darkah.
(c) Abaye ascribes the Tana's omission of 'ha'Zorek' (someone who sprinkles the blood of the Korban) from the first list - to the fact that he considers Zorek as a form of Menasech (like The Pasuk in Tehilim "Bal *Asich* Niskeihem mi'Dam", which really means 'Zorek').
(a) We would have explained the Pasuk "Zove'ach Yochoram" ...
1. ... without the word "la'Elohim" - to refer to Shechutei Chutz.
2. ... with it ("Zove'ach la'Elohim Yocharam" - to refer to Avodah-Zarah she'Lo ke'Darkah.
(b) We know that the Pasuk is speaking ...
1. ... by she'Lo ke'Darkah - because the Torah uses the word "Zove'ach" and not "Oved".
2. ... about a Chiyuv Miysah (and not just a La'av) - because "Yocharam" implies Miysah (as we find in Bechukosai "Kol Cherem Asher Yocharam ... Mos Yumas").
(c) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Bilti la'Hashem Levado" - that all the other Avodos (Mekater and Menasech) that are performed before Hashem are included in the Chiyuv.
2. ... "va'Yeilech va'Ya'avod Elohim Acherim va'Yishtachu Lahem ... ve'Hotzeiso es ha'Ish ha'Hu ... u'Sekaltem" - that Hishtachavayah she'Lo ke'Darkah is included in the Chiyuv, too. The Pasuk must be referring to Hishtachavayah she'Lo ke'Darkah, because otherwise, it would be included in "va'Yeilech va'Ya'avod ... ".
3. ... "Ki Lo Sishtachaveh le'Eil Acher" - the Azharah for Hishtachavayah she'Lo ke'Darkah.
(d) Even though we learn Mekater and Menasech from Zove'ach, we cannot learn Hishtachavayah from there too - because whereas Mekater and Menasech are Avodos P'nim (part of the ritual of Korbanos, like Shechitah), Hishtachavayah is not.
(a) We need the Pasuk "Zove'ach la'Elohim Yocharam" - because, if we were to learn all the cases from Hishtachavayah, we would have to include even forms of worship that were not part of the ritual of Korbanos (such as embracing, kissing and putting shoes on the idol's feet).

(b) We learned earlier that if the Torah had written "Zove'ach Yochoram", we would have established the Pasuk by Shechutei Chutz. The problem with this is - that seeing as Shechutei Chutz is Chayav Kareis, and not Miysah, how could we have thought that this Pasuk, which is punished with Miysas Beis-Din, is speaking about Shechutei Chutz?

(c) And we answer - that we would have established the Pasuk of Kareis in cases where there is no warning, and our Pasuk, in cases where there is, so that Shechutei Chutz would then have entered the realm of Chayvei Sekilah, like Shabbos and Avodah-Zarah.

(a) Rava bar Rav Chanan asked Abaye why, when the Tana asked why when the Torah mentioned 'Zove'ach', he did not answer that we need it to teach us 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah' - which means that a person who thinks whilst he is Shechting, that he will worship the animal whilst performing a subsequent Avodah (even though he not do so).

(b) We would then know Mekater and Menasech - from Hishtachavayah.

(c) The difference whether we learn them from Zove'ach or from Hishtachavayah will be - that in the latter case, we will also learn Megafef, Menashek and Man'il, though not if we learn them from Zove'ach, as we explained earlier.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan holds that if someone Shechts an animal in order to sprinkle its blood to Avodah-Zarah or to sacrifice it (even if in the end, he did not), the animal becomes Asur. Resh Lakish - permits it.

(b) Everyone agrees that with regard to Pigul (performing an Avodah with the intention of eating or sacrifing it after the expiry time) by Kodshim, we say 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah ...

(c) ... and Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue over whether we learn Chutz mi'P'nim (Rebbi Yochanan), or not (Resh Lakish).

(d) Consequently, Rava bar Rav Chanan's previous Kashya (why we do not need "Zove'ach to teach us 'Mechashvin me'Avodah la'Avodah' by Avodah-Zarah) is valid only according to Resh Lakish, but not according to Rebbi Yochanan - because he will learn Chutz from P'nim regarding Chiyuv Kareis anyway (and does not therefore need 'Zove'ach' to learnit from), just like he learns the Isur Hana'ah from there. And the Kashya remains only why Resh Lakish should not the Isur from "Zove'ach".

Next daf


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