(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 27


(a) According to Abaye, an Eid Zomem becomes Pasul retroactively.
What are the ramifications of this ruling?

(b) How does Abaye learn this from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Al Ta'shes Yadcha Rasha"?

(c) What is Rava's reason for saying that he only becomes Pasul from the time that he becomes a Zomem?

(d) What makes 'Eid Zomem' a Chidush?

(a) In the second Lashon, Rava agrees with Abaye in principle.
Then why do the Rabbanan validate all his testimonies up to the time that he became an Eid Zomem?

(b) One ramification of the two Leshonos will be in a case where each of the two witnesses was declared a Zomem by two witnesses.
How will this now fit with the two Leshonos of Rava?

(c) What is the second difference between the two Leshonos?

(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah mi'Difti cites Rav Papi, who rules like Rava, Rav Ashi, like Abaye.
What is the Halachah?

(a) A Mumar who eats Neveilos for pleasure (including monetary gain [because it costs less]) is definitely Pasul from testifying. Abaye and Rava argue over a Mumar who does it to anger Hashem (incorporating one who just doesn't care).
What is Rava's reason for validating such a person?

(b) We ask on Rava from a Beraisa, which disqualifies someone who makes false Shevu'os.
We presume that this incorporates Shevu'os Shav and Shevu'os Sheker.
What is an example of ...

  1. ... a Shevu'as Shav?
  2. ... a Shevu'as Sheker?
(c) What makes us think that the Tana incorporates such a Shevu'ah (and is not confined to a Shevu'ah that concerns money)?

(d) How does Rava refute the Kashya? Why does the Tana then say 'Shevu'os' in the plural?

(a) What do we categorically prove from the Beraisa (at least for the moment) which lists only Gazlanin u'Malvei be'Ribis among the Pesulim of "Al Tashes Yadcha Eid, Al Tashes Chamas Eid"?

(b) Does this mean that Ochel Neveilos le'Te'avon is not disqualified either?

(c) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa disqualifies an Eid Zomem from testifying at all.
What does Rebbi Yossi say?

(d) On what grounds do we attempt to equate ...

  1. ... Abaye (who disqualifies a Mumar Ochel Neveilos le'Hachis) with Rebbi Meir?
  2. ... Rava with Rebbi Yossi?
(a) We decline to equate the two Machlokes completely, as we just suggested, though we do concede that Abaye cannot hold like Rebbi Yossi. Rava however, could hold like Rebbi Meir as well.
Why might Rebbi Meir agree that a Mumar Ochel Neveilos le'Hachis is not Pasul?

(b) Like in the previous case (of 'Eid Zomem le'Mafre'a Hu Nifsal') we rule like Abaye.
But did we not just disprove Abaye from a Beraisa (which does not include Ochel Neveilos le'Hachis among the Pesulim)?

(c) How do we reconcile this with the principle 'Rebbi Meir ve'Rebbi Yossi, Halachah ke'Rebbi Yossi'?

(a) What crime did bar Chama commit?

(b) What did the Resh Galusa mean when he instructed Rebbi *Acha* bar Ya'akov (Rabeinu Chananel) to verify the facts, and that if he was convinced of his guilt, he should poke out his eyes?

(c) What might he alternatively have meant?

(d) Why did he not order the death-sentence?

(a) How did bar Chama counter the two witnesses who testified that he did indeed kill someone?

(b) On what grounds did Rav Acha bar Ya'akov prepare to punish bar Chama (as per the instructions of the Resh Galusa) in spite of the fact that Rebbi Meir invalidates witnesses from a more lenient sin to a more strict one?

(c) What was Rav Papi's objection to Rav Acha bar Ya'akov's intended ruling?

Answers to questions



(a) We cite the Mishnah in Nidah 'Kol ha'Ra'uy la'Dun Diynei Nefashos Ra'uy la'Dun Diynei Mamonos'.
In what case must the Tana be speaking?

(b) Why can the author not be Rebbi Yossi?

(c) How do we nevertheless establish him as the possible author?

(d) How do we even prove this from the Seifa 'Yesh Ra'uy la'Dun Diynei Mamonos ve'Ein Ra'uy la'Dun Diynei Nefashos'? Why must the Tana be speaking about P'sulei Yuchsin, and not by someone who is suspect?

(a) So we cite our Mishnah (which is more detailed in Rosh Hashanah) 'Eilu Hein ha'Pesulin, ha'Mesachek be'Kuvya ... Zeh ha'Kelal ... '.
What 'K'lal' does the Tana there conclude with?

(b) Why can the author of that Mishnah not be Rebbi Yossi?

(c) So what have we now proved?

(d) How did bar Chama react to Rav Papi's proof?

(a) The Tana in the Mishnah that we just discussed also inserts 'Avadim'.
Why does our Tana omit it?

(b) Our Mishnah then lists the relatives that are disqualified from testifying. These include a brother and both a paternal and a maternal uncle.
Does the list also include ...

  1. ... one's sister's husband and the husband of his father's sister?
  2. ... the husband of his mother's sister?
  3. ... his father, father-in-law and brother-in-law?
(c) On what grounds does the Tana include a sister's husband in the list?

(d) Does this Tana draw any distinction between the relatives of one's father and those of one's mother?

(a) He also includes Giyso and Chorgo.
What relation is ...
  1. ... 'Giyso'?
  2. ... 'Chorgo'?
(b) What is the difference between Chorgo and those mentioned previously?

(c) Having taught Ba'al Imo, why does the Tana mention Chorgo, which is the same relationship in the reverse?

(d) The Tana also incudes both Achi Aviv and ben Achiv and most other dual relationships of this nature.
What distinction do 'ben Achi Ishto' and 'Chasno' share in common?

(a) Rebbi Yossi ascribes this ruling to Rebbi Akiva. The Mishnah Rishonah however, disqualifies 'Dodo' and 'ben Dodo', because they are fit to inherit him.
In which cases does the Mishnah Rishonah disagree with Rebbi Akiva?

(b) In that case, may he also testify for his mother's brother?

(c) What does the Tana say about an ex-son-in-law, say, whose wife died before he had witnessed the incident that he wants to testify on?

(a) What does Rebbi Yehudah say about a son-in-law, whose wife died, leaving behind children?

(b) He also disqualifies a witness who loves or hates the litigant, from testifying. Regarding the former, the Tana cites a best man.
What example does he give for the latter?

(c) What do the Rabbanan say?

(d) Will the Rabbanan say the same when it comes to judging?

(a) What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei ...
  1. ... "Ish be'Chet'o Yamus"?
  2. ... "Lo Yumsu Avos al Banim, u'Vanim Lo Yumsu al Avos"? Why does the Torah use the plural form ''Avos" and "Banim"?
(b) How will we reconcile "Ish be'Chet'o Yamus" with the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Poked Avos al Banim"?

(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Chashlu Ish be'Achiv"?

(d) How do we then reconcile this with "Ish be'Chet'o Yamus"?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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