Sanhedrin Daf 10 - Number of Judges for Malkus
Summary
- The text presents Rava’s rulings on applying *palginan dibura* to accept parts of testimony while rejecting self-incriminating elements, and it limits קם ליה בדרבה מיניה where it is ממון לזה ונפשות לזה. It derives the Mishnah’s three-judge requirement for malkot from scriptural plural forms and establishes that edim zomemim receive malkot when כאשר זמם cannot be executed, addressing why this is not derived from לא תענה. It records Rabbi Yishmael’s view that malkot requires twenty-three judges, offering Abaye’s gezerah shavah and Rava’s principle that מלקות במקום מיתה עומדת, with practical constraints from “ונקלה אחיך.” It introduces “עיבור החודש בשלשה” with four explanations and closes by stating that three, five, and seven judges each have defined roles in עיבור השנה.
- Rav Yosef rules that when a witness says “so-and-so raped me willingly,” he renders himself a rasha and his entire testimony is invalid due to “אל תשת רשע עד.” Rava states אדם קרוב אצל עצמו and אין אדם משים עצמו רשע, so the self-incriminating part is discarded while the accusation against the other party is accepted, which applies *palginan dibura*. Rava applies the same to “so-and-so had relations with my wife,” permitting him and another witness to join to execute the adulterer but not the wife, teaching that *palginan dibura* applies even regarding one’s wife.
- Tosafot (Ketubot 18) argue that we do not split a single witness’s statement about one individual into parts; we split only between persons, so we accept that “the accused performed the act” without accepting “with me,” paralleling the coercion-signature sugya. Tosafot haRiva asserts that relatives of a murder victim may testify against the murderer and are not נוגע בעדות, since they gain nothing from the execution, analogous to the husband whose marital loss is not reversed by executing the adulterer.
- Rava rules that when witnesses accuse a man of adultery with a na’arah me’orasah without identifying her and are found edim zomemim, they are executed and do not pay money, because their testimony did not target a specific monetary loss; Yad Rama explains that later identification does not retroactively create intent to obligate money. When they identify the girl (e.g., “the daughter of so-and-so”), they are executed and pay, because קם ליה בדרבה מיניה does not apply where it is ממון לזה ונפשות לזה; Aruch LaNer explains that the case is specifically a na’arah me’orasah so that the money goes to the father, separating mamon from nefashot.
- Rava rules that if they accuse a man of bestiality with an unspecified ox and are found edim zomemim, they are executed without monetary payment; if they specify “the ox of so-and-so,” they are executed and pay, again due to ממון לזה ונפשות לזה. Rava asks about “so-and-so violated my ox,” and he concludes אדם קרוב אצל עצמו ואינו קרוב אצל ממונו, while Rashi and Raavad dispute whether the disqualification on the monetary side affects the liability of the human offender or not.
- The Gemara derives three judges for malkot from “ושפטום” (plural implies two) and אין בית דין שקול (add one), while “והצדיקו... והרשיעו” is needed (per Ulla) as the scriptural source that edim zomemim receive malkot when כאשר זמם cannot be carried out. The text rejects deriving lashes from “לא תענה” because it is a לאו שאין בו מעשה; Tosafot note alternative grounds (לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת בית דין), account for Rabbi Meir’s and Rabbi Yishmael’s views, and probe whether speech is a מעשה, with Rashi invoking עקימת שפתיו and the difficulty that ראייה defines the offense. Rambam rules like the Tanna Kamma that malkot is judged by three but requires סמוכים; Kesef Mishneh explains that all aspects of malkot align with capital law except the judge-count, implying Sanhedrin-quality judges.
- Rabbi Yishmael requires twenty-three judges for malkot; Abaye derives this by a gezerah shavah “רשע–רשע” from חייבי מיתות, and Rava states מלקות במקום מיתה עומדת. Rav Acha bar Rav challenges Rava’s principle, and the verses “ונקלה אחיך לעיניך” and “אחר שלקה אחיך” require assessment to preserve life and reduction to a multiple of three (eighteen when the estimate is twenty), ensuring he remains “achicha” before and after the lashes. Rishonim explain מלקות במקום מיתה: Rashi treats malkot as a functional “fifth” death for violating the Divine will, Acharonim debate whether the Tanna Kamma agrees in principle, and Rambam explicitly writes that although malkot is with three, it stands in place of death; Tosafot cite yesh mefarshim contrasting Israel with Bnei Noach and note that malkot can sometimes result in death.
- The Mishnah states “עיבור החודש בשלשה,” and the Gemara presents four explanations of what this requirement refers to.
- The text states that three, five, and seven judges each have roles in עיבור השנה and raises which number applies in practice.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions