Sanhedrin Daf 08 - Number of Judges for Dinei Kenasos
Summary
- The shiur opens with thanks and a sponsorship dedication, sets the daf’s starting point at the end of Sanhedrin 7b, and develops several themes: judicial bias and recusal standards, the scope and mechanics of *niduy/shemata/cherem*, prioritization and equal treatment of cases, not fearing litigants because כי המשפט לא-להים הוא and the theological implications including views on גלגול, Moshe’s statements about escalating hard cases and the zechut of בנות צלפחד alongside מגלגלין חובה על ידי חייב וזכות על ידי זכאי, reciprocal obligations between judges and the public and the patience demanded of leadership, contrasting models of שררה in the guidance to Yehoshua, procedural rules for *hazmana le-din* and signatures, parameters of דיני קנסות and the role of a יחיד מומחה, and the first three explanations for the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim regarding מוציא שם רע and whether to require three or twenty-three judges.
- The speaker thanks Elisha Graf for covering the *shiur* during the past month, noting appreciation from YUTorah listeners and the local shul. The shiur is sponsored by אבישי נועם לזכות רפואה שלמה for חיים נפתלי בן פרימט פריידא should be זוכה to רפואה שלמה בקרוב.
- The learning begins three lines from the bottom of דף ז עמוד ב at לא תכירו פנים במשפט. The Gemara proceeds to address judicial bias, leadership posture (שררה), *hazmana le-din* signature requirements, the composition of a *beit din* for דיני קנסות, and an extended analysis of the משנה’s מחלוקת about אונס מפתה מוציא שם רע.
- Rav Yehuda reads לא תכירו פנים במשפט as a prohibition on favoring a litigant one likes, and Rabbi Elazar reads לא תנכרוהו as a prohibition on disfavoring one a judge dislikes. Tosafot explain that when Rav said פסילנא לך לדינא he was not technically פסול but was מרחיק עצמו to avoid even a whiff of impropriety, paralleling the case of two דייני גזירות and the early fruit basket in Ketubot. The Rosh infers that while only an אוהב גמור is certainly פסול, even an אוהב מעט should not judge לכתחילה; the Beit Yosef infers from the Rambam (Hil. Sanhedrin 23) that it is אסור for a דיין to judge even when the affection is not גמור, though the ruling may not be invalid bedi’avad.
- Rav recuses himself from judging his former host and instructs Rav Kahana to adjudicate; Rav Kahana warns the litigant that if he misbehaves he will place him in *shemata*, rendering Rav unable to help him (מפיקנא לך רב מאוניך). Rashi explains that the threat is a *shemata*; Tosafot reconcile Moed Katan’s rule that מנודה לתלמיד אינו מנודה לרב by limiting it to cases of a student acting for his own honor, whereas לשם שמים the *niduy* binds even the teacher. The Ri”af (on Ein Yaakov) adds that even if the *niduy* would not bind Rav, it would bind everyone else and still be a severe sanction, and the speaker notes an anecdotal modern instance illustrating the harsh experience of *cherem*.
- Reish Lakish expounds כקטן כגדל תשמעון to require treating a case involving a פרוטה with the same seriousness as one with מאה מנה. The Gemara identifies the practical outcome as scheduling precedence—first come, first served—rather than only analytical diligence; the Bnei Yehoyada explains a hava amina to prioritize larger claims due to flight risk of defendants, and the Yad David suggests that the verse itself teaches there is a דין קדימה in docketing.
- The verse לא תגורו מפני איש, כי המשפט לא-להים הוא yields Rabbi Chama bar Chanina’s teaching that corrupt judges not only misappropriate funds but “מטּריחין אותי” to return money to its owner. The Bnei Yehoyada explains טירחא as the far-reaching collateral consequences Hashem must rectify, invoking scenarios including גלגול; Rav Schachter cites Geonic material classifying beliefs and reports a מחלוקת about the existence of גלגול, and the speaker notes a famous challenge to גלגול attributed to the Roshash (or possibly Rav Yaakov Emden) from a sugya in Niddah.
- The phrase והדבר אשר יקשה מכם initially appears to fault Moshe, yet Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reads ושמעתיו as Moshe either conveying what he learned or going to learn it from Hashem. A ברייתא states that פרשת נחלות was ראויה to be written by Moshe but was written through בנות צלפחד בזכותן, while פרשת מקושש was ראויה to be written by Moshe but was precipitated by the offender to teach מגלגלין חובה על ידי חייב וזכות על ידי זכאי. The Chatam Sofer explains the zechut of בנות צלפחד as securing שם עולם for their father—the mekoshesh—who acted לשם שמים, connecting to ישעיהו’s promise of יד ושם to שומרי שבת.
- The juxtaposition of ואצוה את שופטיכם בעת ההיא and ואצוה אתכם בעת ההיא teaches, per Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Simlai, a dual charge: an אזהרה to the ציבור to have אימה of the judges and an אזהרה to the judge to bear the ציבור. The measure of patience is, per Rabbi Chanan (or Rabbi Shabtai), כאשר ישא האומן את היונק.
- From כי אתה תבוא and כי אתה תביא, Rabbi Yohanan reports Moshe advising Yehoshua to lead with the elders, while Hashem directs Yehoshua to assert authority (טול מקל והך על קדקדן; דבר אחד לדור). The speaker explains that differing leadership models fit differing generations and leaders, with Moshe’s unparalleled authority permitting maximal ענוה, while Yehoshua required stronger assertion to establish effective leadership.
- The teaching זימון בשלושה refers not to Birkat Zimun but to *hazmana le-din*, which requires the authority of all three *dayanim*. Rava rules that a *beit din* cannot sanction a refusal to appear if the messenger invokes only one judge; only a summons issued משמיה דכולהו is valid, except when delivered on the actual day of judgment, when the presence of all judges is evident.
- Although the משנה lists תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמישה as judged by three, the query concerns whether a יחיד מומחה may adjudicate קנסות. Citing Rav Yehuda Avuha in the name of Rav that even ten הדיוטות are invalid for קנסות, the conclusion reads the משנה’s “three” as three מומחין, indicating that one מומחה does not suffice for דיני קנסות. Rav Schachter (Eretz HaTzvi, Kuntres HaSemicha) contrasts Tosafot and the Rambam on whether סמיכה confers the status of בית דין versus authority of הוראה, framing the question of a יחיד מומחה’s scope.
- The משנה records Rabbi Meir requiring three judges for אונס מפתה מוציא שם רע and the Chachamim requiring twenty-three for מוציא שם רע, and the Gemara explores six explanations, of which three appear here. Ulla explains that the dispute turns on חוששין ללעז: Rabbi Meir holds אין חוששין ללעז and allows beginning with three and adding later if it becomes נפשות, while the Chachamim require starting with twenty-three due to potential escalation. Rava rejects לעז as the issue and frames it as כבודן של ראשונים in a case where twenty-three gathered initially for נפשות and the matter shifted to ממון; a Tosefta stating תבעו ממון בשלושה, תבעו נפשות בעשרים ושלושה is reconciled by Rava and the אריא דחבורה (Rabbi Chiya bar Abba) as referring to the father collecting the קנס of מוציא שם רע after הזמה, which is handled by three, whereas the husband’s initial תביעת נפשות fixes the forum at twenty-three even if it ends as ממון. Abaye asserts that all agree we are חושש both for לעז and for כבודן של ראשונים, and he anchors the dispute in התראה: Rabbi Meir assumes, like Rabbi Yehuda, that עד שיודיעו באיזו מיתה הוא נהרג, so התראה סתם prevents the case from becoming נפשות and allows three, whereas the Chachamim treat such התראה as sufficient for נפשות and therefore require twenty-three.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions