Sanhedrin 09 - Hazamah on Motzi Sheim Ra
Summary
- The text opens with greetings and sponsorships and proceeds to continue the analysis of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim over whether a case of *motzi shem ra* requires three or twenty-three *dayanim*, presenting four additional explanations (approaches five through eight). It frames cases where *motzi shem ra* may function as malkot rather than capital liability, analyzes the status of groups of *edim* when one is a *karov* or *pasul*, and differentiates between *dinei mamonot* and *dinei nefashot* in light of Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yosi, and Rebbe. It derives a mussar principle about attaching oneself to doers of mitzvah and applies it to participation in a *siyum* and its seudah, and it further clarifies whether *hatra’ah* must be issued by the *edim* themselves and how contradictions in *bedikot* affect admissibility. It concludes with Rav Yosef’s rulings on chains of *edim zomemim* in *motzi shem ra*, the application of kim lei, and with Rava’s principle of palginan dibura limiting self-incrimination in light of אין אדם משים עצמו רשע and the scope of הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי.
- The speaker greets the audience with a morning greeting and a Chanukah blessing and lists multiple sponsors who dedicate the learning in memory of relatives, for the success of כלל ישראל and its soldiers and captives, and in honor of a grandmother’s 100th birthday and a granddaughter’s birth and naming.
- Rav Ashi states that the case of *motzi shem ra* is where the woman, as an *eshet ish*, was warned only for malkot and not for mitah, so there is no capital liability and she receives malkot. The dispute thus reverts to the earlier machloket whether malkot requires three or twenty-three *dayanim*, aligning our Mishnah with the debate cited mishnah on דף ב עמוד א and with Makkot 13b about whether חייבי מיתות receive malkot when warned only for malkot. Rava explains that the core is whether a *lav hanitan le’hazharat mitat beit din* is lokein alav; Rashi and Tosafot write that our Mishnah assumes like Rabbi Yishmael that it is. Tosafot notes a simpler path via the husband’s malkot for *motzi shem ra* tied to לא תלך רכיל בעמך or ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, but Gur Aryeh and Tosafot read the sugya’s language as addressing the woman’s malkot; Yad Ramah adds that the woman must also receive malkot al pi edutam for the husband to be a qualifying *motzi shem ra*, making the debate about the count of *dayanim* for malkot.
- Ravina sets the case where one of three *edim* is a *karov* or *pasul*, hinging the result on Rabbi Akiva’s reading of על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים יומת המת that the third comes להחמיר, yielding two teachings: netpal to sinners is punished like sinners and מה שנים נמצא אחד מהם קרוב או פסול עדותן בטלה—so too three, even a hundred. Rashi in Makkot states Rabbi Akiva agrees that two can be mezimem three and that עד שיזומו כולם, but the verse teaches other points; Tosafot suggests Rabbi Akiva may reject Rabbi Shimon’s limitation and still execute when only two became *edim zomemim*, fitting the girsa לא בא שלישי להקל עליו אלא להחמיר עליו. Rabbi Yosi limits the sweeping disqualification to *dinei nefashot* due to והצילו העדה, while in *dinei mamonot* the remaining testimony stands; Tosafot reconciles משפט אחד יהיה לכם by noting that in mamon the remainder yields an *ed echad* who obligates a shevuah, so the foundation differs. Rebbe equates *dinei mamonot* and *dinei nefashot* but limits invalidation to when the *karov/pasul* also participated in *hatra’ah*, since otherwise justice would collapse in cases like two brothers and a third kosher witness seeing a murder; applied here, Rabbi Meir treats the third as joining to invalidate and thus leaves only mamon (three *dayanim*), while the Rabbanan treat the other two as valid *edut le’nefashot* (twenty-three).
- Rabbi Akiva’s teaching—אם כן ענש הכתוב את הנטפל לעוברי עבירה כעוברי עבירה—yields a mussar kal vachomer to attach to doers of mitzvah and receive reward like them, amplified by Rashi’s ratio of מדה טובה מרובה ממדת פורענות. Mishneh Halachot (Rabbi Menashe Klein, chelek 11 siman תמ״ט) applies this to allow one who did not learn with the group to say the hadran with the mesaymim, noting the plural nusach hadran alach hadran alan and that it is a tefillah without Shemot. Mishnah Berurah (siman ת״ע) records the minhag that bechorim rely on a *seudat mitzvah* of a *siyum* even if they did not learn the masechta, by joining the mesayem’s seudah, with the practice to gather before the actual completion and then make the seudah.
- The case is where others gave the *hatra’ah* and not the *edim*, aligning with the machloket in Makkot 6 where Rabbi Yosi requires that two *edim* be the ones who warn, derived from על פי שני עדים או שלשה עדים יומת המת, while the Chachamim require *hatra’ah* regardless of its source. Rabbi Meir treats the case as lacking *dinei nefashot* and therefore only mamon (three *dayanim*), and the Rabbanan treat the *hatra’ah* as sufficient for capital adjudication (twenty-three).
- The case is where the *edim* contradict one another in *bedikot* but not in *chakirot*, invoking the dispute where Ben Zakkai invalidated testimony based on details about עוקצי תאנים, while the Chachamim validate testimony when the *chakirot* align. Rabbi Meir follows Ben Zakkai and removes the capital aspect leaving only mamon (three *dayanim*), while the Rabbanan keep the *edut* valid for *dinei nefashot* (twenty-three).
- Rav Yosef states: if the husband brings *edim* that she was *zanah* while an *arusah* and the father brings *edim* who are mezimem those *edim* by saying עמנו הייתם, the husband’s *edim* are executed and do not pay, due to kim lei, as derived from אם לא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש implying that when there is אסון there is no payment. Tosafot Chachmei Anglia asks that the husband is ne’eman to forfeit the *ketubah* without them, and answers that their support may have emboldened him to advance the claim leading to forfeiture. If the husband then brings *edim* who are mezimem the father’s *edim*, the father’s *edim* are executed and also pay the husband the *motzi shem ra* *kenas*, since the mamon and nefashot attach to different parties and kim lei does not apply across parties.
- Rav Yosef states: if one says “Ploni engaged in mishkav zachar with me” and adds “le’onsi,” he and another witness combine to execute the offender; if he adds “leratzoni,” he is a rasha and פסול לעדות due to אל תשת רשע עד. Rava responds that one is not invalidated through his own self-incrimination because adam karov etzel atzmo and אין אדם משים עצמו רשע, so palginan dibura applies: the part identifying the offender is accepted while the self-incriminating consent is not, enabling him to join another witness for execution. The tension with הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי is resolved by Rashi (Yevamot) limiting that principle to mamon, not to *kenas* and punishments, and by Pnei Shlomo distinguishing self-incrimination purely about oneself from statements that also affect others, where the principle does not extend.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions