Sanhedrin 15: שור סיני בכמה

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 15

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna (2a) all capital crimes are judged by a court of 23. The Mishna continues and teaches that when an ox gores and kills a person, the ox will be taken before a court of 23 who will pass judgment on the animal and kill it if it is found to be responsible for the person’s death.

Rather than decreeing a death penalty on someone whose ox killed a person, this pasuk is understood to teach that the ox will be tried in the same manner as a person would be tried, under these circumstances.

We explore the history of animal trials in antiquity and more recently.

Sanhedrin 14: אין נסמכין לבית עלי

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 14

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We are told about how judges were appointed when “the wicked kingdom of Rome issued decrees of religious persecution against the Jewish people”.

The rabbis understood that in an attempt to interrupt the internal justice system of the Jews, it was declared that anyone who ordained a judge, who was ordained, who was in that city would be destroyed; the boundaries of that city would be destroyed. Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava found a place between Usha and Shefar’am – a desolate area – where he ordained Rabbis Meir, Yehuda, Shimon, Yosei and Elazar. This is used as proof that one rabbi can ordain a judge.

Sanhedrin 13: סמיכת זקנים

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The rabbis then consider how many judges are required to grant smicha to other judges. It was understood that three judges were needed, but the rabbis cannot find a proper proof text for this custom. In their search for the origin of this practice, the rabbis find proofs for other possible numbers of judges.

According to the Mishna, among the ceremonies that require the participation of three judges is semikhat zekenim – rabbinic ordination.

In searching for a source for this requirement, Abaye points out a difficulty – if the source is the passage (Bamidbar 27:23) where Moshe lays his hands on Yehoshua to declare him his successor, then it would appear that a single judge would suffice. And if we saw that Moshe embodies the Sanhedrin and is considered the equivalent of its 71 members, then we should need a full Sanhedrin to confer rabbinic ordination.

We explore the ordination process then and now.

Sanhedrin 12: וביקש רחמים על עצמו

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 12

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Rabbis taught in a braisa: We may not intercalate a year because of tumah. [Even if it should involve the risk of offering the Pesach sacrifice in tumah; e.g., if the Nasi were dangerously ill, and it was judged that he would die less than a week before Pesach, in which case the community, by attending the funeral in his honor, would become tamei.]

Rabbi Yehudah said: We may intercalate. Rabbi Yehudah observed: It once happened that Chizkiyah king of Yehudah declared a leap year because of tumah, and then prayed for mercy, for it is written: For the multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim and Menasheh, Issachar and Zevulun had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the Pesach sacrifice otherwise than it is written: for Chizkiyah had prayed for them, saying: May the Lord in His goodness pardon everyone.

We explore the reign of Hezekiah.

Sanhedrin 11: מהיכא גמיר לה? משמואל הקטן

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 11

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz writes "Gatherings of the Sages in various lofts or attics – in the aliya, or the second story of the houses at that time – are mentioned on many occasions throughout the Talmud.

It appears that such meetings were arranged when the Sages wanted to discuss a matter privately, or, perhaps, even secretly. One example is the decision to add a “leap month” to the calendar, something that was always done privately with specifically invited guests. Others are things that could not be discussed publicly because of political ramifications.

Shmuel HaKatan was one of the tanna’im who lived during the period of the destruction of the second Temple. The source for his title as HaKatan (the small one) is unclear. It may refer to his modesty, or, perhaps, to the claim that he was only slightly “smaller” – i.e. inferior – to the biblical Shmu’el.

we explore the 4th perek of AVot attributable to this second generation Tanna.

Sanhedrin 10: וּמַאי עִיבּוּר? חִישּׁוּב דְּעִיבּוּר

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 10

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned in the first Mishna in Massekhet Sanhedrin, different courts were established to deal with different types of cases, with courts of three, 23 or 71 depending on the case.

One situation where we find a disagreement relates to ibur shana – establishing a leap year in the Jewish calendar. When discussing ibur shana, Rabbi Meir rules that a court of three judges suffices; according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel they begin deliberations with three, debate the matter with five, and conclude with seven judges. Nevertheless, if the decision was made with three judges it will also suffice.

We explore the Halacha of ibur hachodesh.

Sanhedrin 9: אֵין אָדָם מֵשִׂים עַצְמוֹ רָשָׁע

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 9

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Eight different interpretations are brought to explain what the case in the mishna is where Rabbi Meir and the rabbis debate whether one who claims his wife was not a virgin when they got married (and that she had relations with someone after the engagement) is done in a court of 3 or 23, and what is the issue of their debate.

Can we have a case where false witnesses can incur the death penalty and also incur payment?

Generally speaking, halakha does not allow a person to incriminate themselves.

Based on this rule Rav Yosef teaches that if someone makes a statement that will incriminate him the court will reject the statement in its entirety.

We explore self incrimination in Halacha.

Sanhedrin 8: פְּסִילְנָא לָךְ לְדִינָא

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 8

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The gemara extrapolates the verses at the beginning of sefer devarim when Moshe discusses setting up the court system. The gemara learns from here all sorts of laws relating to judges to ensure fair judgments (not showing favoritism, etc. and that the people listen to the courts (implements used by judges for enforcement purposes).

The Torah teaches lo takiru panim ba-mishpat (Devarim 1:17) – literally “do not recognize (respect) faces in judgment.” Rabbi Yehuda understands this to mean that when in court, the judge cannot show favoritism to someone with whom he is friendly. Rabbi Elazar suggests that it means that the judge must treat someone who he does not like as if he does not know him.

We present a variety of essays on fair justice.

Sanhedrin 7: כּל דַּיָּין שֶׁדָּן דִּין אֱמֶת לַאֲמִיתּוֹ, מַשְׁרֶה שְׁכִינָה

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 7

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The rabbis continue to argue about whether or not mediation, or compromise, is an optimal goal for judges. It is debated when it is best to suggest compromise within the judging process. Rabbis suggest a number of phrases that serve as analogies regarding disputes. Of note is the rabbis desire to end disputes as early as possible, for conflict escalates when left unattended.

A number of phrases are listed in the Gemara's effort to point out the benefits of working toward peace. Most of these phrases are supported by biblical and other texts.

We consitnue our exploration of the virtues of a judge.

Sanhedrin 6: אֶלָּא אֵיזֶהוּ מִשְׁפָּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שָׁלוֹם? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה בִּיצּוּעַ

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 6

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When two litigants come before the court, what is the best approach? Should the judges insist on hearing the case and deciding it based on the straightforward reading of the law, or should they offer arbitration and try to reach some level of agreement and accommodation?

The Gemora discusses the halachos of p’sharah (a compromise or a settlement that is reached between the two litigants). The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 12:2) praises the Batei Dinim that routinely settle disputes rather than judging them.

The rabbis then discuss differences between judgement, compromise, and mediation.

We explore mediation compromise and ayin tova.

Sanhedrin 5: לָאו מִינַּיְיכוּ נְקִיטְנָא רְשׁוּתָא

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 5

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Gemara reports that there was an existing tradition in both Israel and Bavel that someone who wanted to rule as a judge would need to receive permission from the head of the community – the Resh Galuta (Exilarch) in Bavel and the Nasi in Israel.

Once such permission was granted, even if the judge erred in his decision, he would not be personally responsible for paying for the mistake.

We explore the impeachment process for judges and its historical progression from the era of judges.

Sanhedrin 4: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת,vs יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 4

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In our daf the Gemara brings Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosei who quotes Rabbi Yoḥanan as explaining that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s understanding of the passage is based on the fact that he believes yesh em la-mikra – that when interpreting a pasuk we emphasize the way it is read (its vocalization) rather than the way it is written. The other position would be yesh em la-masoret – that what is important for interpreting the pasuk is the tradition that we have regarding the way it is written.

We explore the notion of morality independent of halachic norms and courts.

Sanhedrin 3: עֲשֵׂה לְךָ בֵּית דִּין נוֹטֶה

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 3

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The first Mishna in Massekhet Sanhedrin (2a) taught that for simple cases of monetary matters the appropriate court is made up of three judges. Several sources are offered by the Gemara for this number of judges. According to Rabbi Yonatan, the repeated use of the word elohim in Shemot 22:8 indicates that we need two judges. We do not want to have an even number of judges, since we want to allow court decisions to be made based on a majority ruling, so we add a third judge to the bench.

We explore the concept of majority rule in halacha.

Sanhedrin 2: συνέδριον

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Meiri, Massekhet Sanhedrin should be placed first in the Order of Nezikin – damages. The logic behind this order is that it seems appropriate to place the rules regulating the appointment and establishment of judges prior to those tractates whose focus is the laws that the judges will apply to different cases. Nevertheless, the accepted order of the tractates has Massekhet Sanhedrin following Massekhet Bava Batra, whose final Mishna (see Bava Batra daf 176) closes with the statement made by Rabbi Yishmael who recommended that anyone who wants to develop his intelligence should study the monetary laws. Thus, the first Mishna in Massekhet Sanhedrin begins with the words dinei mamonot – “the monetary laws.”

We begin our new masechta with a review of Rabbinic legal court structures.

Bava Batra 176: וַהֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ אַף בְּחָנוּק

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 176

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On our daf, the last page of Bav Basra, the Gemara brings Rabba bar bar Ḥana who quotes Rabbi Yoḥanan as saying that Rabbi Yishmael may have offered praise to Ben Nannas, but that that halakha follows Rabbi Yishmael’s position. In fact, Rabbi Yaakov quotes Rabbi Yoḥanan as saying that Rabbi Yishmael disagreed with Ben Nannas even in the case of the choking lender in the marketplace. Thus, Rabbi Yishmael’s position was that an arev can fully commit himself to guarantee someone’s loan, even if it is not at the time that the loan was made. Such a guarantee, however, cannot create a lien on his property.

We end the masechta with Amnon Bazak’s redaction of the talmud and Jeremy Weider’s academic study of talmud . We end with Ben Zion Booker’s theology of Talmud.

Bava Batra 175: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּחְכִּים – יַעֲסוֹק בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 175

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new mishnah recounts : if someone lends money to his friend in a loan document, he can collect from encumbered properties. If he lends money to his friend with witnesses (but not in a document), he may (only) collect from unencumbered properties. If someone (the lender) produced another person’s handwriting (the borrower’s) agreeing that he owes money to him, the lender can collect from unencumbered properties.

If, however, the loan was made in front of witnesses, but no note was written, then repayment can only be made from property that the borrower is still holding.

as an aside Rabbi Yishmael said: One who wants to become wise should engage inthe study of monetary law, as there is no greater discipline in the Torah, and it is like a flowing spring.

we explore the history of talmud with the help of Ben Zion Booker’s analysis.

Bava Batra 174: סַלְּקֵיהּ רַב חָנִין

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 174

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Chuna states that a person can become an arev, a guarantor, or a kablan, a third-party payer if he contracts himself to be in these roles. The rabbis attempt to differentiate between a loan guarantor and a third-party payer. A case is presented to illustrate further.

The rabbis argue about whether or not the father-in-law was a kablan or perhaps an arev. They debate whether as an arev or a kablan they were obligated for a ketuba. The Gemara debates who benefits from such a transaction and whether anyone, including the wife, is disadvantaged by this situation. They determine that the transaction would benefit everyone, and it is permitted in this case.

We explore the laws of arrives and kablan including examples from US law.

Bava Batra 173: גַּבְרָא אַשְׁלֵימְתְּ לִי, גַּבְרָא אַשְׁלֵימִי לָךְ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 173

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf focuses on the role of an arev – someone who agrees to guarantee a loan. According to the Mishna, although the arev agreed to be responsible for the loan, nevertheless the lender cannot collect from him without first trying to collect from the borrower. In a case where the lender states clearly at the time of the loan that he wants to collect from either one of them, then he has the right to do so. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees, ruling that in any case the lender must first collect from the borrower.

We examine the Halacha of insurance and the Gafni's review of Jeffrey Rubinstein’s works on Talmud history.

Bava Batra 172: שְׁנֵי אַחִין – אֶחָד עָנִי וְאֶחָד עָשִׁיר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 172

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When collecting a debt based on producing a promissory note, how clear and transparent must the names in the document be?

The Mishna on our daf teaches that if there are two people in a city who share the same name – the example suggested is “Yosef ben Shimon” – they cannot produce a promissory note on each other, nor can anyone else demand payment from one of them based on a note in which his name appears.

In a case where there are two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bathhouse or an olive press as an inheritance, if the father had built these facilities for profit, i.e., to charge others for using them, the profit that accrues after the father’s death is shared equally by the two brothers.

We explore the Grimm Fairy Tale of the two brothers and a folklore analysis of the same tale in antiquity.

Bava Batra 171: מַאן יָהֵיב לַן מֵעַפְרֵיהּ דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 171

To download, click/tap here: PDF

R ’ Yehudah in a Baraisa rules that a document that was dated on Shabbos or Yom Kippur is valid because it is assumed to be a postdated document and not one that was actually written on Shabbos or Yom Kippur.

Rashbam (1) explains that the document was dated according to the solar calendar and when the corresponding Hebrew date was calculated it was discovered that it coincided with Shabbos or Yom Kippur. This touches upon the issue discussed in the Poskim whether it is permitted for a person to date his correspondence according to the gentile method of calculating the year or not.

We continue our analysis of debts loans and promissory notes ending with Chaim Soloveitchik’s 1194 opus RUPTURE AND RECONSTRUCTION: THE TRANSFORMATION OF CONTEMPORARY ORTHODOXY