(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 111



(a) Resh Lakish interpets the Pasuk "Lachen Hirchivah She'ol Nafshah, u"Pa'arah Pihah li'Veli Chok" to mean - that for committing just one sin, a person will have to go to Gehinom (see Agados Maharsha).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan objects - on the grounds that Hashem does not want to be so harsh with K'lal Yisrael (and that consequently, if there is a way to learn the Pasuk in a way that is less stringent, then one should adopt it).

(c) So Rebbi Yochanan interprets "li'Veli Chok" - to mean that even if one only learns (and observes) just one Mitzvah, he will not go to Gehinom (see Maharatz Chayos).

(a) Considering that Shem was the third son of No'ach, and Arpachshad, the third son of Shem, Resh Lakish explains - that the Pasuk which states that, in the days of Mashi'ach, only one third of the sons of the people of the world will remain - refers to one third of the descendants of Arpachshad (incorporating Yisrael, Yishmael [the B'nei Keturah], the B'nei Lot and the B'nei Nachor [Rashash], and others). And assuming that Yisrael are more numerous than the others, this implies that part of Yisrael will not even be included in that third.

(b) Based on the same objection as in the previous case, Rebbi Yochanan explains the Pasuk to mean - that a third of all the descendants of No'ach will survive.

(c) This implies - that, assuming that Yisrael make up less than a third of the world, then they will all survive together with the Geirim and the Chasidei Umos ha'Olam (who will make up the third); whereas if they make up more, then inevitably, some of them will die too, but less than according to Resh Lakish.

(d) According to the second interpretation, Resh Lakish explains 'Shelishis' to mean a third of Yisrael, who is the third of Arpachshad, who is the third son of Shem. Rebbi Yochanan says - that one begins the Cheshbon with No'ach. A third of Arpachshad, who is the third of Shem, who is the third son of No'ach, incorporating the whole of Yisrael.

(a) In similar style, Resh Lakish interprets the Pasuk "Ki Anochi Ba'alti Bachem Velakachti Eschem Echad me'Ir, u'Shenayim mi'Mishpachah" literally; whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan, the Pasuk means - that one Tzadik in a town will save the town, and two Tzadikim in a family will save the family.

(b) Rav objected (just as Rebbi Yochanan did), when Rav Kahana interpreted the Pasuk like Resh Lakish. He once quoted the Pasuk "ve'Lo Simatzei be'Eretz ha'Chayim" to Rav Kahana - when he saw him washing his hair when he ought to have been learning Torah.

(c) When Rav Kahana asked him why he was cursing him, he replied - that he was merely quoting a Pasuk.

(a) Of the six hundred thousand Jews between the ages of twenty and sixty who left Egypt - only two entered Eretz Yisrael (Yehoshua and Kalev).

(b) Based on this fact, Rebbi Sima'i in a Beraisa, extrapolates from the comparison between leaving Egypt and arriving in Eretz Yisrael (contained in the Pasuk "ve'Lakachti Eschem Li le'Am, ve'Heveisi Eschem es ha'Aretz") - that for every two of B'nei Yisrael that left Egypt, six hundred thousand did not leave (see also Ya'avatz).

(c) The remaining hundred and eighty thousand million B'nei Yisrael died during the plague of darkness, so that the Egyptians would not be aware of their death.

(d) Based on the Pasuk "ve'Ansah Shamah ki'Yemei Ne'urehah u'che'Yom Alosah me'Eretz Mitzrayim", Rava comments - that in the days of Mashi'ach, the same proportion will leave Galus.

(a) An elderly Egyptian once showed Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi (presumably in an ancient script, Agados Maharsha) in Alexandria - that some of the B'nei Yisrael they drowned in the sea, some they killed by the sword and others they squashed in the buildings.

(b) And it was concerning those atrocities (see Agados Maharsha) that Moshe asked Hashem why He had intensified the slavery after appointing him Sheli'ach to go before Paroh and take Yisrael out of Egypt, for which he was subsequently punished.

(c) We are referring - to the Divine decree that Moshe would witness what Hashem was about to do Paroh (the Ten Plagues), but not what He would do to the thirty-one kings of Cana'an.

(a) When Hashem complained about those who were gone, and were no longer to be found, He was referring to - the Avos.

(b) The doubts one might have expected coming from ...

1. ... Avraham are - why he had to pay so much money for a burial ground for Sarah, when Hashem had already instructed him to acquire the land by walking its length and breadth.
2. ... Yitzchak are - why, having promised him that he would bless him in the land, he had to fight with shepherds for the wells that his own shepherds had dug.
3. ... Ya'akov are - why he had to pay a hundred Kesitah for a plot of land in Sh'chem, when Hashem had already told him that the land on which he was lying would belong to him and his children.
(c) Neither did they ask Hashem - questions concerning His Name, like Moshe did (even earlier).
(a) According to Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel, Moshe prostrated himself (as a mark of thanks) when he stood on Har Sinai, after the Chet ha'Eigel, and perceived the Midah of "Erech Apayim" (denoting temporary forgiveness, and a chance to make good). According to the Rabbanan however, he prostrated himself in prayer - when he saw the Midah of Emes (which denoted that Yisrael deserved to be killed).

(b) The opinion that has the support of a Beraisa - is the first one, as we shall now see.

(c) The Tana records the dialogue that took place between Hashem and Moshe when Moshe ascended Har Sinai and found Him writing "Erech Apayim". When Moshe suggested ...

1. ... 'Erech Apayim la'Tzadikim' - Hashem retorted 'Af li'Resha'im'.
2. ... that the Resha'im deserve to perish - He retorted that one day he would retract from that statement.
(d) And when, after Yisrael sinned by the Golden Calf, and Moshe was Davening on their behalf, Hashem reminded him how he himself had specifically asked for 'Erech Apayim la'Tzadikim', Moshe retorted - that Hashem had answered 'Af li'Resha'im.

(e) Moshe subsequently cited the Pasuk - "ve'Atah Yigdal Na Ko'ach Hashem (and apply 'Erech Apayim' even though they were Resha'im) Ka'asher Dibarta Leimor".




(a) When Rebbi Chaga heard a child, who quoted the Pasuk in Tehilim "Tefilah le'Moshe" immediately after that of "Edosecha Ne'emnu Me'od ... Hashem le'Orech Yamim", he was - climbing up a ladder in the house of Rabah bar Shiloh.

(b) He extrapolated from there - that Moshe must have perceived the Midah of 'Erech Apayim'.

(a) Based on the Pasuk "ba'Yom ha'Hu Yiheyeh Hashem Tzevakos la'Ateres Tzvi ... ", Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina says - that Hashem will become a crown on the head of each Tzadik who 'did the will of Hashem and hoped for His Glory'.

(b) He learns from the words there "le'She'ar Amo" - that in order to be eligible for such a reward, the Tzadik must also be humble.

(c) "u'le'Ru'ach Mishpat" refers to those who overcome their Yetzer-ha'Ra and do Teshuvah on their sins, when the Navi adds ...

1. ... "u'le'Yoshev al ha'Mishpat", he means - they must also judge accurately.
2. ... "ve'li'Gevurah" - that they overcome their Yetzer-ha'Ra, not just by desisting from sinning, but by performing a Mitzvah in its place.
3. ... "Meshivei Milchamah" - that they arrive early each morning in the Beis-Hamedrash, and remain till late at night.
(d) When the Midas ha'Din asked Hashem what it was that caused those who are precluded from attaining these levels, He answered - 'drinking wine' (i.e. that they were absorbed in the pleasures of this world).

(e) Their end is hinted in the words "Paku Peliliyah", which means - that they will be judged in Gehinom.

(a) Our Mishnah extrapolates from the Pasuk (in connection with the Ir ha'Nidachas) "Yatz'u Anashim B'nei Beliya'al *mi'Kirbecha*" - that the residents of an Ir ha'Nidachas will not receive a portion in Olam ha'Ba.

(b) Besides the fact that the Madichin (those who talk the residents into sinning) must be residents of the town and members of that tribe) - they must also be men (not women and not children) for he town to become an Ir ha'Nidachas.

(c) A town where only a minority were talked into worshipping Avodah-Zarah or if the Madichin were non-residents - has the Din of individuals.

(d) The ramifications of this Halachah are - that each person receives Sekilah, and that their money is not destroyed.

(a) To be considered an Ir ha'Nidachas - each person requires two witnesses and warning.

(b) A passing caravan will be deemed "Yoshvei ha'Ir ha'Hi" - if it has been at least thirty days in the town.

(c) They will then save - the town's money from being destroyed, assuming that they turned the minority who did not sin into a majority.

(d) Despite the fact that they would also cause the town's money to be destroyed, should they turn the minority who did sin into the majority, the Tana nevertheless presents specifically the case where they save - because seeing as they are basically strangers in the community, they are unlikely to be easily talked into serving Avodah-Zarah together with the other residents, and the case where they come to save will therefore be more common.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Hacharem Osah ve'es *Kol* Asher Bah" - that even the property of the Tzadikim has to be burned.

(b) Not all the property of the Tzadikim, but - whatever is inside the town.

(c) The animals in an Ir ha'Nidachas are put to death - by the sword (like their owners).

(d) "ve'es Kol Shelalah Tikbotz el Toch Rechovah". If the town ...

1. ... has no town-square - then one has to make one.
2. ... square is situated outside the town - then it has to be moved to inside.
(a) Our Mishnah also learns "Shelalah", 've'Lo Sh'lal Shamayim'. The ramifications of this ruling with regard to ...
1. ... Hekdesh are - that it must be redeemed.
2. ... Terumah are - that it must be left to go bad.
3. ... Ma'aser Sheini and Sefarim" are - that they must be placed in Genizah. The former cannot be burned (even though it can normally be eaten even by Yisre'elim, because the Torah calls it 'Kodesh').
(b) Rebbi Shimon learns from "Kalil la'Hashem Elokecha" - that if one carries out the Din against the Ir ha'Nidachas, it is considered as if one brought Hashem a burnt-offering.

(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili interprets "Vehaysah Teil Olam" literally. Rebbi Akiva disagrees because of the Pasuk "Lo Sibaneh Od" - from which he extrapolates "that although it may not be rebuilt into a residential area, it may be turned into gardens and orchards.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the word ...
1. ... "Yatz'u" - that if the Madichin did not entice the residents of the Ir ha'Nidachas directly, only through a Sheli'ach - the town does not have the Din of an Ir ha'Nidachas.
2. ... "Anashim" (besides 've'Lo Nashim, ve'Lo Ketanim') - that there must be at least two Madichim.
3. ... "B'nei Beliya'al" - that the Madichim are people who have thrown off the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven from on themselves.
4. ... "mi'Kirbecha" - that a town that is close to the border cannot become an Ir ha'Nidachas.
5. ... "Yoshvei Iram" - that the Madichim must be residents of that town (as we learned in the Mishnah).
6. ... "Leimor" - that each person who served Avodah-Zarah must have had witnesses and warning (as we learned in our Mishnah).
(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, it is possible for one city to have been divided among two tribes. Resh Lakish holds - that if a city fell between the borders of two tribes, then it belongs to the one with a majority of residents who reside there.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan proves his opinion from our Mishnah 'ad she'Yehei Madichehah me'Osah Ir u'me'Oso Sheivet' - which means that even if the Madichin *are* from that town, it only becomes an Ir ha'Nidachas if they are also from the same tribe (presumably because a town can be divided among two tribes).

(d) Resh Lakish refutes Rebbi Yochanan's proof - by establishing the Mishnah when one of the Madichin inherited a field in that town or received it as a gift.

(a) We assume that when the Pasuk in Yehoshua describes how two of the tribes gave nine towns of refuge - the Navi means that each gave four and a half towns (a Kashya on Resh Lakish).

(b) We query the answer that one of the tribes provided five, and the other, four - on the grounds that the Pasuk should have then said so.

(c) The Lashon 'Kashya' implies - that although it is difficult (to reconcile the Lashon ha'Pasuk, in our case), it is not considered a disproof.

(a) We ask what the Din will be if the residents of the Ir ha'Nidachas talked themselves in to serving Avodah-Zarah. And we try to resolve the She'eilah via our Mishnah, which precludes a town whose Madichin are women or children from the Din of Ir ha'Nidachas - on the assumption that self-Hadachah should be no better than Hadachah through women or children (seeing as it does fall under the category of "Vayadichu" any more than they do).

(b) But we refute this proof - on the basis of a 'S'vara', bearing in mind that a person does not take the Hadachah of a women or a Katan seriously, whereas his own Hadachah, he does.

(c) The word 'Hanach Basar Nafshaihu *Gridi*' - is an Arama'ic word meaning 'drawn after' (like the word 'G'reida', which means 'alone', a person who is drawn after himself).

(d) The word 'G'riri' - has the same meaning, only it is Lashon ha'Kodesh.

Next daf


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