ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 71
(a) Our Mishnah states that a ben Sorer u'Moreh who steals either from his
father and eats in his father's domain or who steals from others and eats
either in their domain or in that of his father - is Patur.
(b) He will only be Chayav - if he steals from his father and and eats in
someone else's domain.
(c) He is Patur in a case where he steals ...
1. ... from his father and eats in his father's domain - because he is
afraid that his father might catch him (and will therefore not do it on a
(d) The reason that he is Chayav if he steals from his father's domain and
eats it in the domain of others - is because both conditions that are
required to implicate him are fulfilled: that the money is available to him,
and that he is not afraid that his father will catch him.
2. ... from others and eats in their domain - because it is not easily
accessible to him.
3. ... from others and eats in his father's domain?
(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah requires the ben Sorer u'Moreh to steal from
what belongs to his mother as well as to his father. Bearing in mind that wh
atever his mother owns belongs to his father, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina
explains - that what he really steals is the meal that is prepared for their
(b) In view of Rebbi Chanan bar Moldah, who requires the ben Sorer u'Moreh
to steal money with which he buys meat and wine, we amend this to read -
that he steals money that is designated to purchase their dinner, and
purchases meat and wine with it.
(c) We finally establish the case even where the money actually belongs to
his mother - by adding that someone gave her the money on condition that her
husband does not acquire it (see Tosfos).
(a) Our Mishnah states that in a case where either the ben Sorer u'Moreh's
father or mother declines to hand him over to Beis-Din - he is Patur.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah requires the ben Sorer u'Moreh's mother to be fit for his
father. We reject the suggestion that she is forbidden to him because she is
a Chayvei K'riysus - on the grounds that, seeing as they are his parents,
what difference would that make to his Chiyuv.
(c) What Rebbi Yehudah therefore means is - that they must resemble each
other in voice, appearance and height.
(d) He derives this from the Pasuk "Einenu Shome'a be'Koleinu" - by
inferring (by virtue of the singular form of "Koleinu") that they must have
the same voice, and we assume that this extends to appearance and height,
(a) We assume the author of the Beraisa which says 'ben Sorer u'Moreh Lo
Hayah ve'Lo Asid Liheyos' to be Rebbi Yehudah - because it is virtually
impossible for a husband and wife to resemble each other in the manner
prescribed by him.
(b) Alternatively, we establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon, who
maintains - that parents of a boy who eats a Tartimar of meat and drinks
half a log of wine are hardly likely to hand him over to Beis-Din to be
(c) Even though a ben Sorer u'Moreh will never happen, the Torah
nevertheless wrote it - for us to study it and get reward for it (perhaps
this includes the many lessons that we can learn from the Parshah).
(d) Rebbi Yonasan testified - that he saw a ben Sorer u'Moreh and even sat
on his grave.
(a) And we establish the Beraisa which says 'Ir ha'Nidachas Lo Haysah ve'Lo
Asidah Liheyos' like Rebbi Eliezer, who says - that if a town has as little
as one solitary Mezuzah (and certainly one of the five Sefarim of the Torah
or one of the Nevi'im), it cannot become an Ir ha'Nidachas.
(b) He derives this from the Pasuk "ve'es Kol Shelalah Tikbotz ...
ve'Sarafta" - which is impossible to carry out with regard to a Mezuzah, due
to the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Sa'asun Kein la'Hashem Elokecha" (forbidding the
destruction of the Name of Hashem).
(c) The above Beraisa is not unanimous - seeing that here too, Rebbi
Yonasan testified that he saw an Ir ha'Nidachas and sat on its ruins.
(d) The third Parshah about which the Beraisa says 'Lo Hayah ve'Lo Asid
Liheyos' is - that of Bayis ha'Menuga (a house with Tzara'as).
(a) We establish this Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who rules -
that the Shiur of Tum'ah is two G'risin (a large bean), which appear on two
adjacent bricks in the corner of a Beis ha'Menuga, one G'ris on each brick.
(b) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon learns this from the fact - that the Torah
in Tazri'a writes once "Kir" and once, "Kiros", implying that the Tzara'as
should be seen on one wall which is like two (implying the bricks in the
corner, as we explained).
(c) When Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok referred to an area within the
boundaries of Aza which was called 'Churvesa Segirta', he meant - that it
contained a ruin consisting of bricks from a Beis ha'Menuga.
(d) And Shimon Ish K'far Ako related that, when he visited the Galil - he
came across a marked spot, which, he was told, was where they threw stones
from a Beis ha'Menuga.
(a) Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Ve'Safsu Bo Aviv ve'Imo" - 've'Lo Gidmin' (if they have no arms).
(b) The significance of the last ruling is - that they must hear his refusal
to accept their admonition at the time of the warning (for which reason it
will not suffice for them to see later that he disobeyed them).
2. ... "ve'Hotzi'u Oso" - 've'Lo Chigrin' (if they are lame)
3. ... "ve'Amru" - 've'Lo Ilmin' (if they are dumb).
4. ... "Beneinu Zeh" - 've'Lo Sumin' (if they are blind [as "Zeh" always
implies an object that one can point at]).
5. ... "Einenu Shome'a be'Koleinu" - 've'Lo' Chershin (if they are deaf).
(c) When the Tana says that they warn their son in front of Beis-Din - they
mean that they admonish him in front of two witnesses, and should he
subsequently contravene their warning in font of two regular witnesses, then
he receives Malkos at the hand of three judges.
(d) The significance of the warning is - to fulfill the Pasuk "ve'Yisru Oso"
(which actually has dual connotations). It cannot be the warning which will
lead to Malkos - because a. that needs to be issued by the witnesses and not
by the parents, and b. it would constitute a 'Hasra'as Safek', since he is
unlikely to contravene their warning immediately, and any time lapse between
the warning and the contravention renders the warning a 'Hasra'as Safek'.
(a) We just learned that the parents warn their son in front of two
witnesses - who are needed to testify that they did indeed do so, because
otherwise, the parents will not be believed.
(b) Should their son then contravene their warning, they bring him before a
Beis-Din of twenty-three to be stoned - on condition that the Beis-Din
include the three original Dayanim, before whom he received Malkos.
(c) We cite Rebbi Avahu, who learns two 'Gezeirah-Shavos'. From ...
1. ... "*ben* Sorer u'Moreh" from "ve'Hayah im *Bin* Hakos ha'Rasha" he
learns - that a Ben Sorer u'Moreh receives Malkos after the first warning.
2. ... "ve'Lakchu Ziknei ha'Ir es ha'Ish ve'Yisru Oso" from "ve'Yisru Oso"
(of ben Sorer u'Moreh) he learns - that a Motzi Shem Ra (against his
newly-married wife) receives Malkos.
(a) If the ben Sorer u'Moreh runs away and passes the maximum age limit ...
1. ... before the final judgement has been passed - he is Patur.
(b) Rebbi Chanina rules that a ben No'ach who cursed Hashem and converted -
is Patur, because his Din and his Miysah changed.
2. ... after the final judgement has been passed - he is Chayav.
(c) The change that occurred in his ...
1. ... Din - is that he now requires two witnesses, twenty-three judges and
warning (whereas before no warning was necessary, and nly one witness and
(d) We initially try to support Rebbi Chanina from he Reisha of our Mishnah
('Barach ad she'Lo Nigmar Diyno ... Patur'), but we reject the proof from
there. The advantage that the Nochri there has over and above the Ger of
Rebbi Chanina - is that if he were to do the same thing then he would be
Patur, whereas the Ger would not.
2. ... Miysah is - from Sayaf to Sekilah.
(e) And we answer the Kashya on Rebbi Chanina from the Seifa of our Mishnah
've'Im mi'she'Nigmar Diyno Barach ... Chayav') from which we see that a
person remains Chayav even though his Din has changed - by ascribing that
Chiyuv to the fact that since he was already sentenced, he is like a dead
(a) The Beraisa rules that a ben No'ach who killed ...
1. ... a Nochri or who committed adultery with his wife and then converted -
(b) We see from here that even though the Din has changed, he remains
Chayav, yet it is not a Kashya on Rebbi Chanina - since his Miysah remains
2. ... a Yisrael or who committed adultery with his wife and then
converted - is Chayav.
(c) That's fine as far as a murderer is concerned, and it's also fine with
regard to the Din of Eishes Ish - because we are talking about a Na'arah
ha'Me'urasah, who receives Sekilah whether he is a Nochri or a Yisrael.
(d) We reject this answer however - on the grounds that 'Asah Kein
be'Yisrael' is said in the Beraisa in connection with 'Eishes Chavero' in
the Reisha, where there is no such thing as Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (only
(a) So we answer the initial Kashya by differentiating between this case and
that of Rebbi Chanina, because (in this case) 'Kalah ba'Chamurah Meishach
Shaycha' - meaning that as the latter punishment (Chenek) is more lenient
than the former (Sayaf), it is included in it (like someone who is Chayav
two punishments, who receives the lighter one), and cannot therefore negate
(b) We query this answer however, on the grounds that it will not work out
according to Rebbi Shimon - since, according to him, Chenek is more
stringent than Sayaf (leaving the Kashya intact).
(c) We solve this problem however, by establishing Rebbi Shimon like Tana
de'Bei Menasheh - who maintains that a Nochri is always punished by Chenek
(and not Sayaf).
(a) The Beraisa rules that if a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah commits adultery and
(after her sentence, she) becomes a Bogeres, she receives Chenek. We try to
prove from here - that if a change in her body causes a change in her Miysah
(which cannot be negated because 'Kalah ba'Chamurah Meishach Shaycha'), then
how much more so will we accept the change in the status of the Ger and
negate the more stringent Miysah completely in the case of ben No'ach
she'Beirach (a proof for Rebbi Chanina).
(b) We refute this proof however, on the basis of Rebbi Yochanan, who told
the Beraisa expert - to change the wording of the Beraisa to 'Teidon
bi'Sekilah, in which case the Tana will not go after the changed status,
even to lighten the Miysah.
(c) Consequently, the ben No'ach who cursed Hashem and then converted - will
be sentenced to Sayaf like his original (not like Rebbi Chanina).
(a) We have already quoted our Mishnah, that a ben Sorer u'Moreh is punished
because of what he is going to do and not because of what he did. The Tana
goes on to say that drinking wine and sleeping, and the death of ...
1. ... Resha'im is beneficial for them and for the world - because they can
no longer go on sinning (for them) and because the havoc they bring to the
(b) And the Tana finally says that ...
2. ... Tzadikim is bad for them and for the world - because they can no
longer study Torah (and accumulate Mitzvos), and because the world cannot
then benefit from the protection of their Torah-learning and their Musar.
1. ... the scattering of Resha'im is beneficial for them and for the world,
whereas their banding together is bad - because when the Resha'im unite,
they plot to harm (like the Generation of the Tower), and because they help
each other to do mischief.
(c) The last thing listed by the Tana that is bad for Tzadikim but god for
Tzadikim is - tranquility.
2. ... the scattering of Tzadikim is bad for them and for the world, whereas
their banding together is beneficial for both - because when they meet, it
is for the good of all concerned.