Sanhedrin 15 - 2nd Day of Rosh Chodesh Tevet - January 1, 1 Tevet

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.  

Study Guide Sanhedrin 15 Today's daf is sponsored by Duli and Nehemia Sasson in loving memory of their father, Solomon ben Leah. The Gemara gives three different explanations for the case in the Mishna ‘valuations of moveable items’.   Why does Rabbi Yehuda require one kohen? Why in land valuations does it need to be nine Israelites and one kohen?   What is the case of a person that requires ten to evaluate as one cannot consecrate a human being?   What is the status of a person's hair ready to be cut - is it like moveable items or is it considered part of the person's body and therefore needs ten people or is it considered detached and therefore like movable items that require three?   What cases are included in the nirba and rovea?   An ox who gores a person - from where do we derive this halacha of twenty-three? Abaye questions Rava about his derivation and Rava brings three potential answers (two are rejected).   Wild animals are judged by twenty-three, but Rabbi Eliezer holds that anyone can take the law into their own hands and kill the animal. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether or not Rabbi Eliezer is only referring to a case where the animal already killed a person.

Due to the brave actions of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, who defied the Roman decree forbidding semicha (ordination), the tradition of rabbinic ordination continued. Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava was killed for this act, but not before he ordained Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yosi, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamoa. Rav Avia added that Rabbi Nechemia was also ordained at this time. While the story appears to suggest that one person alone could perform ordination, this contradicts a braita requiring three judges. The Gemara resolves this contradiction by explaining that two others must have been present with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled that rabbinic ordination cannot occur outside of Israel. The Gemara explores whether someone in Israel could ordain someone in Babylonia through written authorization or a messenger. The conclusion is that ordination requires the physical presence of both parties - the ordainer and the one being ordained must be together in person, as demonstrated by several stories of failed attempts at ordination on account of the distance. Rabbi Zeira initially hid to avoid ordination, believing it better to remain humble and avoid positions of power. However, upon hearing that one's sins are forgiven when rising to a position of authority, he agreed to be ordained. Regarding the egla arufa ceremony, Rabbi Shimon holds it requires three judges, while Rabbi Yehuda requires five. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov presents a third position not mentioned in the Mishna - that the king and High Priest must also participate. Rav Yosef concludes that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov requires the entire Great Sanhedrin to attend, supporting this with a tannatic source. While Abaye interprets this source differently, a braita is brought supporting Rav Yosef's reading. Maaser sheni whose value is unclear must be evaluated by three people. What Is meant by the term "whose value is unclear"? What kind of people can do the evaluation? The Mishna also states that evaluation of consecrated movable items requires three judges. This contradicts Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov's position requiring ten, which he derives from the word 'kohen' appearing ten times in Vayikra 27 in the section about consecrated items. The Gemara leaves unanswered the question of how the rabbis derive their requirement of three judges.

How is the calculation to determine whether or not to intercalate the year based on the equinox performed? Is it determined by the autumnal equinox or the spring equinox? Does all of Sukkot need to fall in the autumn, or is it sufficient if just one day (the last) is in the autumn season? Additionally, is the equinox considered the last day of the previous season or the first day of the upcoming season? These questions are the subject of debate among the Tannaim. How many elders are required for semicha on the bull offering? Rabbi Yehuda holds that five are needed, while Rabbi Shimon says three. From which verses in the Torah does each derive their opinion? Another braita mentions "semicha" and "semicha of the elders"—one of which is interpreted as referring to the ordination of a rabbi. From where do we derive that three judges are required, and is it truly the case that it can only be done in the presence of three?  

Today's daf is sponsored by Mona Fishbane in loving memory of her beloved mother-in-law and best buddy Bernice Fishbane z”l.  The decision to intercalate the year must take place after Rosh Hashanah, and the only way to do so is by adding an additional month of Adar. The year cannot be intercalated during a famine or in the Sabbatical year, as this would delay permitting the new crop to be eaten, compounding difficulties during already challenging times. There is a debate regarding the year following the Sabbatical year. This debate hinges on another discussion about whether or not one can import produce from abroad. It is prohibited to intercalate three years in a row or to decide in one year to intercalate the following year. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree about whether the impurity of the community regarding the Passover sacrifice can be a factor in adding a leap year. A story from the time of Chizkiyahu is cited to shed light on this topic. However, there are several interpretations of the story’s details and its relevance to this issue. Shmuel maintained that one cannot intercalate the year on the thirtieth day of Adar, as that day could potentially be the first day of Nissan.

On what criteria is the decision made to intercalate the month? One of the criteria is that it needs to be done by those chosen by the Nasi. A case is brought where an uninvited individual participated, and Rabban Gamliel asked whoever was not invited to leave. Shmuel HaKatan, to avoid embarrassing the individual, took the blame upon himself. Other rabbis have also acted in similar ways in different situations to prevent causing embarrassment to others. The decision to intercalate the year requires the approval of the Nasi. When making this decision, several factors are considered, while others are not. In addition to practical concerns like roads still being wet, three primary factors are evaluated: The readiness of the new grain crop, the ripening of new fruits, and the date of the equinox. Furthermore, the majority of the three main regions of Israel—Judea, the Galilee, and Trans-Jordan—are taken into consideration. The decision to intercalate must be made during the day, not at night.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Mindy and Eric Hecht in loving memory of Dr. Charles Feldman, z”l. "He would have loved to have been part of this learning community and is surely looking down on his many family members who learn the daf with much pride. He is missed every day."  Today's daf is sponsored by Naomi Oxman in loving memory of her mother, Sara "Bubaleh" Younger on her 6th yahrzeit. "We miss you much and think of you and Dad every day!"  Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island for the refua shleima to our friend and co-learner Rikki Zibbit, who is recovering from surgery. "We daven that you will continue to recuperate, and be able to use your new knee to dance at many smachot." Today's daf is sponsored by Vicky Harari in loving memory of her mother Tzipora bat Rachel. "Her persistent inner strength, resilience and eternal optimism inspire me daily."  Rava teaches that self-incriminating testimony is not accepted in court, and this principle extends to testimony against one's spouse. However, this does not apply to testimony about one's possessions. There is a dispute regarding the required court size for cases involving lashes. The rabbis hold these cases require three judges, while Rabbi Yishmael requires twenty-three. Abaye explains that Rabbi Yishmael derives this through a gezeira shava (textual comparison) from capital cases. Rava, however, views lashes as a substitute for capital punishment. The term "ibur hachodesh" in the Mishna has four different interpretations. Regarding the intercalation of the year, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel outlines a three-stage process: beginning with three judges, deliberating with five, and concluding with seven. The Tosefta Sanhedrin 2:1 elaborates on this view. Two explanations are offered for the significance of these specific numbers (3, 5, and 7).

Study Guide Sanhedrin 9 Today's daf is sponsored by Adina Gewirtz in loving memory of her father, Mel Rishe. "He loved learning, loved and served the state of Israel as a lawyer, and would be thrilled to see the learning that has flourished with Hadran."  Today’s daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Carol Robinson's father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe, z”l. “Today, the first day of Hanukkah, we mark his 25th yahrtzeit. Lou was a devoted family man and active participant in his synagogue. He could fix anything. When one of his girls was on a date, he never went to bed until she was safely home."  Under what circumstances do Rabbi Meir and the rabbis debate whether a defamation case should be heard by a court of three or twenty-three judges, and what underlies their disagreement? Four additional suggestions are presented (bringing the total to eight) to address this question. Rav Yosef presents a law concerning defamation. Generally, when someone faces both capital punishment and a monetary obligation for the same act, they are exempt from the monetary payment. However, in a defamation case, there can be a situation where both penalties apply. If a husband brings witnesses against his wife, and then the father brings witnesses who prove the first group to be eidim zomemim (false witnesses), and subsequently the husband brings witnesses who prove the father's witnesses to be zomemim, the father's witnesses receive both capital punishment (for attempting to have the first group of witnesses executed) and must pay the husband (the penalty he would have owed his wife had their testimony been accepted). These dual punishments are possible because the death penalty stems from their attempt to execute the husband's witnesses, while the monetary payment relates to their attempted financial penalty to the husband himself. Rav Yosef offers a second ruling: When someone testifies against another person but incriminates themselves in the process, their entire testimony is inadmissible because they are considered a sinner, and a sinner's testimony is not accepted in court. Rava, however, disagrees. He maintains that we can divide the testimony, accepting what the witness says about others while disregarding their self-incriminating statements, since one's testimony against oneself is not legally binding for self-incrimination.