(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 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 regular basis).
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?
(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.
(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 dinner.

(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, too.

(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 killed.

(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).
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).
(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).

(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.
2. ... after the final judgement has been passed - he is Chayav.
(b) Rebbi Chanina rules that a ben No'ach who cursed Hashem and converted - is Patur, because his Din and his Miysah changed.

(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 one judge).
2. ... Miysah is - from Sayaf to Sekilah.
(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.

(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 man).

(a) The Beraisa rules that a ben No'ach who killed ...
1. ... a Nochri or who committed adultery with his wife and then converted - is Patur.
2. ... a Yisrael or who committed adultery with his wife and then converted - is Chayav.
(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 the same.

(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 Be'ulas Ba'al).

(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 it.

(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 world ceases.
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.
(b) And the Tana finally says that ...
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.
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.
(c) The last thing listed by the Tana that is bad for Tzadikim but god for Tzadikim is - tranquility.
Next daf


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