(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 8


(a) On what grounds did Rav decline to litigate when his innkeeper came before him?

(b) To whom did he send him?

(c) Why did he subsequently do to warrant a reprimand from Rav Kahana?

(d) What did Rav Kahana warn him?

(a) Resh Lakish establishes the Pasuk in Devarim "ka'Katon ka'Gadol Tishma'un" in connection with attaching as much importance to a case involving a P'rutah as to one of a hundred Manah.
Why can this not be taken literally?

(b) Then what does Resh Lakish mean?

(c) And how does Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina explain the Pasuk there "Ki ha'Mishpat l'Elokim Hu"? What does he record Hakadosh Baruch Hu as saying?

(a) How does Rebbi Chanina (or Rebbi Yashiyah) explain the Pasuk "ve'ha'Davar Asher Yiksheh Mikem"? How does he connect it with the Pasuk "va'Yakreiv Moshe es Mishpatan Lifnei Hashem"?

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects this explanation however, on the basis of the continuation of the Pasuk "Tikrevun Elai *u'Shema'ativ*".
What does that prove?

(c) In that case, why *was* the Parshah ...

  1. ... of Nachalos said through the query of the daughters of Tz'lofchad?
  2. ... of Chilul Shabbos said through the actions of the Mekoshesh (the man who gathered wood on Shabbos [who some say was actually Tz'lofchad]?
(d) What do we then learn from these two Pesukim?
(a) How does Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Simla'i explain the Pasuk ...
  1. ... "va'Atzaveh es Shofteichem ba'Eis ha'Hi"?
  2. ... "va'Atzaveh eschem ba'Eis ha'Hi"?
(b) What is the connection between the former Pasuk and the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Ka'asher Yisa ha'Omen es ha'Yonek"?

(c) How does Rebbi Yochanan explain the apparent discrepancy between the two Pesukim in Vayeilech, where Yehoshua is first instructed "Ki Atah Tavo es ha'Am", and then "Ki Atah Tavi es ha'Am"?

(d) How does Rebbi Yochanan know that the second Pasuk was said by Hashem, and not by Moshe, like the first?

(a) The Beraisa states 'Zimun bi'Sheloshah'.
Why can 'Zimun' not refer to the B'rachah of Mezuman?

(b) And how do we know that, when the Beraisa states 'Zimun u'Birchas Zimun bi'Sheloshah', the latter is not merely an explanation of the former?

(c) So we establish the Beraisa like Rava.
What did Rava say about three Dayanim who sent a Sheli'ach to invite someone to a court hearing?

(d) Under which circumstances will this not be necessary?

(a) Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda asked Rav Nachman bar Ya'akov how many Dayanim are required to judge Diynei K'nasos.
Why can we not accept the She'eilah at surface value?

(b) What then, did he mean to ask him?

(c) He replied by quoting Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda's grandfather.
What did he say in the name of Rav? How does that resolve the She'eilah?

(a) Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim argue in our Mishnah whether Motzi-Shem-Ra requires three judges or twenty-three.
What is the case?

(b) How do know that the husband only intends to make his wife lose her Kesuvah, and not to have her sentenced to death (with witnesses)?

(c) What problem do we initially have with the Chachamim's opinion (that it requires twenty-three)?

(d) So Ula establishes their Machlokes by whether 'Chosheshin le'La'az (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Meir).
What does this mean? How does it explain the Rabbanan?

Answers to questions



(a) According to Rava, nobody holds 'Chosheshin le'La'az', and the Rabbanan's reason is because they hold 'Chosheshin li'Chevodan shel Rishonim'.
What happened initially?

(b) What does the husband now request?

(c) What are the Rabbanan now concerned about?

(a) The Beraisa states 'va'Chachamim Omrim, Tav'u Mamon bi'Sheloshah'.
What does it say about Tav'u Nefashos'?

(b) How will Rava explain the Beraisa?

(c) What problem does it pose on Ula?

(a) To reconcile Ula with the Beraisa, Rava, together with Rav Chiya bar Avin, establishes the Reisha by Eidim Zomemin.
How did Rava describe Rav Chiya bar Avin?

(b) What is the case? How does he explain the Reisha?

(c) What does the Tana then mean when he says 'Tav'u Nefashos, be'Esrim-u'Sheloshah?

(d) What is the basis to differentiate between the two cases? Why are we not concerned about 'Kevodan shel Rishonim' in the Reisha, too?

(a) Some commentaries establish the entire Sugya in connection with the Manah that the father claims from the husband (see Tosfos on the previous Amud DH 'Motzi-Shem-Ra').
On what grounds do we reject this explanation?

(b) According to Abaye, even Rebbi Meir agrees with both Chosheshin le'La'az and Chosheshin li'Chevodan shel Rishonim, and they argue over the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Tana Kama.
According to the Tana Kama in a Beraisa, which condition is required to sentence someone to death, besides a Beis-Din of twenty-three, witnesses and warning?

(c) What detail does Rebbi Yehudah add to the last condition?

(d) How will we now explain the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan accordingly?

(a) With regard to the previous case, how do we know that there is not another pair of witnesses ready to testify (in which case it would remain within the realm of Diynei Nefashos)?

(b) Rav Papa learns basically like Abaye. Only to explain the Rabbanan, he establishes them like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah say about a Chaver? What is a 'Chaver'?

(c) What is now the case by Motzi-Shem-Ra?

(d) How will we now explain the opinion of ...

  1. ... Rebbi Meir?
  2. ... the Rabbanan?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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