Sanhedrin 24 - January 10, 10 Tevet

Can Rami bar Hama's interpretation that gambling is prohibited due to asmachta (conditional commitment) align with the Mishna's position? What factors determine this alignment? Rava expanded the disqualification of witnesses to include not only those who lend with interest, but also those who borrow with interest. How should we understand mafrichei yonim (dove-handlers) in the Mishna? Two interpretations exist: either those who engage in bird racing (a form of gambling) or those who train doves to lure other birds. When someone repents, what evidence must they show the community to regain their eligibility as a witness? Does the path to rehabilitation differ between a butcher who fraudulently sold non-kosher meat as kosher and other disqualified witnesses like gamblers or usurers? Which other categories of people were initially qualified to serve as witnesses but later became disqualified? What led to these changes in status?

Today's daf is sponsored by Shulamith and Joel Cohn in loving memory of "Bubby," Rebbitzen Esther Predmesky whose yahrzeit is today, asara b'tevet. Today's day is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson, son of Naomi and Dani Weinberger, to our friend and co-learner, Deena Rabinovich. "May the entire family enjoy much nachat from the new arrival as he grows l'Torah (and l'daf), l'chuppa and l'maasim tovim.  May we all continue to celebrate smachot "ad beli dai." Ravin brings (in the name of Rabbi Yochanan) a fourth explanation for Rabbi Meir's position that allows litigants to disqualify witnesses. Reish Lakish's choice of words showed respect for Rabbi Meir, which leads the Gemara into a broader discussion about scholarly respect for one another. Through various interpretations of verses (primarily from Zechariah), the Gemara contrasts the behavior of scholars in Israel and Babylonia. The Israeli rabbis are portrayed as having mutual respect, while the Babylonian rabbis are described as lacking such respect. The text then explores complex scenarios about litigant rights. If someone accepts a single witness, a relative of the opposing party as witness or judge, or agrees to a weaker oath than required, can they later change their mind? This raises questions about whether this debate applies only to cases where the litigant is forgiving a claim (making it more likely they intended to commit to the outcome), or even to cases where they must pay (less likely they intended to commit). There's also discussion about whether this applies before or after the court's ruling. Who is disqualified from being a witness?  Why is someone who gambled not allowed to testify - is it because of asmachta (problematic conditional commitments) or because not having legitimate employment raises concerns they might be bribed to give false testimony?

Today's daf is dedicated in memory of three IDF soldiers who fell in Gaza: Nevo Fisher, Matityahu Ya'akov Perel, and Kanaoo Kasa. Nevo was a friend of my daughter. Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree about the selection process for three judges in monetary law cases. According to Rabbi Meir, each litigant selects one judge, and then both litigants together choose the third judge. The rabbis, however, maintain that after the initial two judges are chosen, these judges themselves select the third. It remains unclear if this Mishna specifically addresses an alternative arbitration court. A second point of disagreement concerns whether one party can disqualify the other party's judges or witnesses without valid cause. The Gemara initially struggles with interpreting the selection method. They think that when the Mishna says each side chooses "one," it means one complete court, which would result in nine judges! To resolve this confusion, they initially propose that the Mishna only applies to cases where neither side accepts the other's court. This interpretation is ultimately rejected. Instead, the Mishna is understood to present an ideal system for selecting judges: each side chooses one judge, and then the third judge is chosen jointly - either by the two litigants (according to Rabbi Meir) or by the two selected judges (according to the rabbis). This creates a balanced court. What is the source of the debate between them?  The Gemara then addresses a difficulty in Rabbi Meir's position: how can he allow either side to disqualify judges? The only reasonable interpretation is that disqualification is only permitted when the judges lack expertise. But this raises another question: how can Rabbi Meir permit the disqualification of two witnesses, given that the strength of witnesses in two is equal to the strength of judges in expert judges? Reish Lakish resolves this by explaining that the Mishna actually refers to disqualifying only one witness. Though this answer faces some challenges, the Gemara presents two additional explanations each playing off a case where one litigant brings another and the two testify against the other litigant's two witnesses. 

Today's daf is sponsored by  Marc and Becki Goldstein. "In honor of our 50 years of Aliyah, our son Kobi bought and dedicated a bavli Shas to the Nezarim shul in Gaza." Today's daf is sponsored by Suri Davis in loving memory of her grandmother Esther bat Menachem Mendel. "Her husband, Chaim Davis, brought the first daf yomi shiur to the five towns in 1974." There are two opinions regarding the Torah's original script - was it initially written in ancient Hebrew characters and later changed to Ashurit (modern Hebrew script), or was it written in Ashurit from the beginning? Out of respect for the monarchy, one is prohibited from riding the king's horse, sitting on his throne, or using his scepter. Additionally, one must not view the king while he is getting a haircut or when he is naked or in the bathhouse. The text discusses Avishag the Shunamite, who served King David in his final years. Though he could have married her, he chose not to, as he already had eighteen wives. This teaches us about the gravity of divorce - rather than divorce one of his existing wives to marry Avishag, David was permitted to be secluded with her unmarried. This leads to a broader discussion about marital bonds, particularly the deep connection between spouses in their first marriage. Rabbi Yochanan compared the complexity of matchmaking to the splitting of the Red Sea. When confronted with a seemingly contradictory teaching from Rav - that forty days before a fetus's creation, a heavenly voice declares a child's future spouse, they resolve that Rabbi Yochanan was referring specifically to second marriages. Regarding grooming regulations: a king must have his hair cut daily, a kohen gadol weekly, and regular kohanim monthly. The source of these laws is discussed, along with the prohibition of wine for serving priests. There's a debate about these laws' current applicability: Rebbi maintains neither applies today, while the rabbis argue that the wine prohibition remains in effect, as the Temple might be rebuilt suddenly and intoxicated priests would be unfit for immediate service. The Gemara explores why they distinguish between the grooming and drinking regulations, offering two explanations, with the second raising an unresolved difficulty. Notably, these priestly regulations are derived from the prophet Yechezkel rather than the Torah, raising the question of how these laws were known before his time. The text concludes with a description of the kohen gadol's distinctive hairstyle.

Today's daf is sponsored by the Greenstone family in honor of Adina Haggege and Amy Fredj’s birthdays!  The Gemara discusses the rights and obligations of kings: A king has the right to take half of all war spoils, which is derived from the kohen gadol's portion of the showbread. Regarding the number of wives permitted to a king, Tanna Kama rules a maximum of 18 wives. Rabbi Yehuda says there is no numerical limit, only restricted if the wives turn his heart from God. Rabbi Shimon holds that even one wife is forbidden if she turns his heart from God, and even if they are righteous, the king is still limited to 18. This creates an apparent contradiction in their approaches to deriving laws from reasoning, as here Rabbi Yehuda follows reasoning behind the commandment while Rabbi Shimon doesn't, while in other places, Rabbi Shimon typically follows reasoning while Rabbi Yehuda doesn't. The number 18 comes from verses about King David (Samuel II 3:2-5), though some sources derive 24 or 48. The Gemara identifies Egla as Michal, creating a difficulty since Michal is known to have been childless while Egla is mentioned with a child. King David had 400 children from captive women who served as warriors in his army. His daughter Tamar, who was from a captive woman, was tragically assaulted by Amnon, which led to the institution of new protective laws. The Gemara discusses Amnon's tactics and his subsequent hatred of Tamar, followed by the laws that were established to protect women from such assaults. The king may only keep horses, gold, and silver needed for royal and military duties. The Torah generally avoids giving reasons for commandments because when reasons were given for royal laws, King Solomon misinterpreted them, thinking he could circumvent the commandments while adhering to their reasoning. The king requires specially written Torah scrolls for his use, which must be prepared specifically for him. How many? for what purpose?

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of a grandson to our friend and co-learner Suri Davis. "May she and her family enjoy much nachat from the new arrival as he grows l'Torah (& daf), l'chupa and l'maasim tovim, and may his birth be the harbinger of smachot for all." Palti ben Layish is praised for refraining from relations with Michal, his wife, as she was still married to King David. His self-restraint is considered greater than Joseph and Boaz, who also overcame their desires. Regarding unique laws pertaining to kings: Their mourning practices are distinct. A king does not leave his palace to attend burials. However, Rabbi Yehuda challenges this, citing that King David accompanied Avner ben Ner's body. The rabbis explain that David did this specifically to prove to the people that he had not ordered Avner's death. During the seudat havra'a (mourner's meal), while the people sit on the floor, the king sits on a dargash. The Gemara presents two interpretations of what constitutes a dargash. The first interpretation is rejected. Concerning funeral processions, there is a question about whether women should follow or precede the bier. The rabbis defer to local custom, while Rabbi Yehuda cites King David's example to prove that women should walk in front. The rabbis' response to his proof is discussed. For what action was Avner punished? Rav explains that Avner could have protested King Saul's decision to kill the inhabitants of Nov (or King Saul's many attempts to kill David) but failed to do so. Rabbi Yitzchak contends that Avner did protest, but Saul did not listen. According to this interpretation, his sin was crowning Ish Boshet as king, which delayed David's reign over all of Israel by two and a half years. The requirement that a king must obtain permission from the Great Sanhedrin before engaging in optional warfare is restated here, despite being mentioned in the first chapter of Sanhedrin. A king has the right to create a path through private property. During wartime, when spoils are collected, the king claims his portion first, before the people may take their share. Shmuel and Rav debate whether a king is permitted to exercise all the powers that the prophet Shmuel warned about when the people requested a king (taking their sons, cattle, etc.). Was this a genuine description of royal prerogatives, or merely a warning to instill fear of the monarchy? This discussion parallels a debate between the tannaim Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Nehorai offers a third view: Shmuel's words were meant to discourage the request for a king. Rabbi Eliezer takes a middle ground, suggesting that while the elders' request for a king was appropriate, the amei haaretz sought one for improper reasons—to emulate other nations. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi explain that upon entering the land, the Jews received three commandments: to establish a king, to destroy Amalek, and to build the Beit haMikdash. Rabbi Yosi derives this sequence from verses in the Tanach. King Solomon initially ruled over both the celestial and terrestrial realms, but his marriage to non-Jewish wives diminished his authority in both spheres. There is disagreement about whether he regained his full authority after his downfall.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of Yovel MorYosef and Yossi Cohen who were killed in a terror attack (ה טבת תשע"ט/ December 13, 2018) at Givat Assaf, on their 6th yahrzeit, and for the continued refuah shleima of her son, Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora, who was critically injured in the attack. Today's daf is sponsored by Aimee Kahan and Rabbi Joshua Waxman in loving memory of Alex Kahan, Eliyahu ben Shlomo ha-Kohen v'Aliza, on his first yahrzeit. "May his gentleness and wisdom continue to guide us all."  Today's daf is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie, who continues to learn with her each day on the fifth anniversary of starting daf yomi.  A kohen gadol cannot perform yibum - why doesn't the positive commandment to fulfill yibum override the negative commandment to not marry a widow? Rabbis Meir and Yehuda disagree about whether a kohen gadol can escort a close relative's dead body until the city limits (at a distance) or is he not allowed to escort the body at all. This debate centers on a verse in the Torah, "And he shall not leave the Temple." How can this verse be explained according to both positions? When the kohen gadol would go to comfort mourners in a shura (line meant to comfort mourners), where would he stand and where was everyone else positioned? What about when a shura was created to comfort the kohen gadol? How does a shura work? Originally the people walked in a line and the mourners stood in one place. Later it was changed to be the reverse due to a fight that ensued between people who each wanted to walk first. In Tzipori, Rabbi Yosi reinstated the original custom. He also instituted that a mother should never walk in the marketplace with her child behind her, as a child was once kidnapped from behind her and when she went and screamed for the child, someone showed her where the kidnappers were and she was raped. A third takana of Rabbi Yosi was that women should always talk when going to the bathroom in an outhouse so that a man who may approach will know she is there and will not accidentally be secluded with her (yichud). Rabbi Yoshiya ruled that to have a shura, there is a minimum requirement of ten people, in addition to the mourners. Rav Yosef narrows the law in the Mishna that a king cannot be a judge or be judged to the Israelite kings, not from the Davidic dynasty, as kings from the Davidic dynasty were commanded to judge. This law limiting other kings from being judged was created as a reaction to a story where Shimon ben Shatach demanded that King Yannai (his brother-in-law) appear in court regarding one of his slaves who had murdered someone. Yannai challenged Shimon's decision to judge him and beseeched the other judges to side with him. When they did not get up to defend Shimon's position, they were struck down by Gabriel (the angel) and killed. At that moment they realized the dangers of judging a king. If a king is not allowed to relinquish the honor due to him, how can Rabbi Yehuda permit a king to do yibum? For the sake of a mitzva, this can be overridden. The student of Rabbi Yosi asked him how David was able to marry two sisters, Meirav and Michal? Rabbi Yosi answered that he married Michal after Meirav had died. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha brings a different answer - the betrothal to Meriav was never effective. The details of the story and how to explain certain complicated verses are explained according to both commentaries. One who raises someone else's children, those children are considered their own. This is proved by several verses in the Tanach. 

The High Priest (kohen gadol) and the king are subject to special legal considerations. The Mishna examines their unique status within the judicial system by addressing several key questions: Are they subject to judgment by courts? Can they serve as judges themselves? Are they qualified to serve as witnesses, and can others testify against them? While outlining these judicial matters, the Mishna also compares and contrasts other unique laws that apply to the king and the High Priest. The Gemara then proceeds with a detailed analysis of these distinctions and regulations as presented in the Mishna.

This week's learning is sponsored by Elisheva Gray. "With much appreciation to Rabbanit Michelle, Maggie and all the Hadran teachers and staff, along with the rich abundance of learning resources they provide. And special thanks to the Hadran Zoom family. It is a comfort, a privilege and a blessing to be part of this wonderful learning community. You are all an inspiration, and I learn from all of you." Today's daf is sponsored in loving memory of Bubbie Molly Andelman by her granddaughters. "She was a dearly loved wife, mother, grandmother and great-grandmother, who was an inspiration to all her descendants, a woman wise in the ways of the world, who taught us the importance of family and tradition." There is a debate in the Mishna between the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda regarding the number of judges in the Great Sanhedrin - seventy or seventy-one. Initially, the Gemara suggests this debate stems from interpreting the phrase "with you" in Bamidbar 11:16, where God instructs Moshe to gather seventy elders to "stand there with you." This interpretation is rejected. The Gemara then considers Bamidbar 11:17, "and they shall bear with you the burden of the people," but this too is rejected. Finally, the source is identified as Shmot 18:22, "and they shall bear with you." Although this verse originally refers to the small Sanhedrin, the principle is applied to derive the composition of the Great Sanhedrin. The mention of selecting elders in the desert leads to a braita discussing Eldad and Meidad. The Sages and Rabbi Shimon offer differing explanations for why these two remained in the camp rather than joining the other elders. The core question is whether they stayed behind out of fear of not being chosen or out of genuine humility. This raises several questions: How did events actually unfold? What was the content of their prophecy?  The Mishna stipulates that conviction requires a majority of two judges. This raises the question: How does this requirement align with the total number of judges needed? The law states that if all judges unanimously vote to convict, the verdict is invalid. This is because courts must delay conviction verdicts until the following day to allow time to find grounds for acquittal. A unanimous conviction would preclude this possibility. What qualifications must one meet to serve as a judge? The Gemara uses various phrases to refer to different rabbis - which phrases correspond to which scholars? Why does one opinion require a minimum population of one hundred and twenty people to establish a court of twenty-three in a city?

Today's daf is sponsored by Shifra Atik for the refuah shleima of Tzvi Dov Ben Sara.  A tribe that sins is judged in the Great Sanhedrin. To what is this referring? What was their sin? After rejecting the possibility that it is a regular sin with capital punishment like Shabbat or idol worship, several possibilities are suggested. Rav Matna says it is the Nasi of a tribe who sins. Ulla says it is a dispute between two tribes over property. Ravina returns to the rejected answer of idol worship and resolves the earlier difficulty by explaining that they are judged in a court of seventy-one, even though they receive the same punishment as individuals who worshipped idols. A false prophet is judged in the Great Sanhedrin. This is derived through a gezeira shava from the rebellious elder who is punished only if he rebels against a decision of the Great Sanhedrin, even though he is judged in a court of twenty-three. The High Priest is judged in the Great Sanhedrin. This is derived from the words "davar gadol" - issues relating to a gadol, a prominent person. However, others explain this as referring to a difficult matter. Rabbi Elazar asks about an ox of the High Priest that gored - would that be judged in a court of twenty-three or the Great Sanhedrin? There is no answer to this question, but Abaye infers from the question that it was obvious that a financial dispute of the High Priest is ruled in a court of three. The Great Sanhedrin needs to be part of the decision to go out to an optional war. From where is this derived? Only the Great Sanhedrin can expand the borders of Jerusalem and the azarot, and establish courts of twenty-three. These are derived from Moshe's actions, as his actions are considered equivalent to those of the Great Sanhedrin. From where is it derived that an idolatrous city is judged before the Great Sanhedrin? The derivations of other laws regarding idolatrous cities are brought - why not near the border and why not more than two cities? There are different opinions regarding how many cities can be designated as idolatrous cities, depending on location, different courts, and other factors.