Sanhedrin 45: בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 45

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the simple reading of the passage in Sefer Devarim (21:22), someone who receives a death penalty will subsequently be hanged (and removed by nightfall). This reading of the Torah is rejected by both Rabbi Eliezer and the Ḥakhamim in the Mishna. Rabbi Eliezer restricts it to people who are condemned to death by stoning; the Ḥakhamim limit it further, only to people who are killed for blasphemy or idol worship. Another disagreement between the tanna’im relates to hanging women.

We explore the method of stoning and types of capital crimes.

Sanhedrin 44: תְּהֵא מִיתָתִי כַּפָּרָה

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 44

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When death sentences are carried out in civilized countries that have a death penalty, the condemned is asked to confess and show regret for the crime that he committed.

The Mishna teaches that Jewish law strongly encourages this behavior. According to the Mishna (43b), when the condemned man was ten cubits from the place of execution the court-appointed individuals who escorted him would tell him to confess, since by doing so his execution would serve as an atonement for him and he would receive a share in the World-to-Come.

We explore public confessions and vidui.

Sanhedrin 43: חֲמִשָּׁה תַּלְמִידִים הָיוּ לוֹ לְיֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 43

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf includes a section of the Gemara that was censored and does not appear in standard texts of the Talmud.

The Mishna on our daf teaches that before the condemned man is taken to be killed a public announcement is made: So-and-so the son of So-and-so is to be taken to be killed by stoning for committing a particular capital crime. Anyone who has anything to say on his behalf should come forward to speak up for him.

On the eve of the Passover Jesus was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything on his behalf, let him come forward.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.

Having mentioned Jesus, the Gemara lists his five disciples, Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni and Toda, all of whom are presented as offering biblical proof that they should not be killed based on how their names appear in Tanakh, and the Sages respond with corresponding passages that show that these names – and the people attached to them – can be destroyed.

We explore the textual talmudic evidence for the historical Jesus.

Sanhedrin 42: בֵית הַסְּקִילָה חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 42

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to Jewish law, carrying out the death penalty is not only performed out of a sense of protecting the community by removing a dangerous person from its midst, but also the fulfillment of a Torah obligation incumbent upon the beit din, and like all mitzvot it has many requirements and details. Thus this chapter covers such topics as the location where the punishment will be carried out, the means by which it will be carried out, upon whom is it incumbent to carry out the punishment and so forth…

Once convicted of stoning, there were a number of processes instituted in order to allow for a chance that new evidence may be brought forward to acquit.

A whole section of the gemara about Yeshu the Nazarene was censored and does not appear in the standard printed edition of the gemara.

We explore these missing passages today and tomorrow.

Sanhedrin 41: מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּא

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 41

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Who is ben Zakkai?

The Gemara is reluctant to identify him with the great tanna, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, since the story in the Mishna places him as a member of the Sanhedrin dealing with capital cases, while we have a tradition that of the 120 years of his life Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai spent the first 40 as a businessman, the next 40 as a student and the final 40 as a teacher.

Furthermore we know that the Sanhedrin moved from its location on the Temple Mount and ceased to try capital cases 40 years before the destruction (see Rosh HaShana 31b), yet Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai was active as a teacher and leader of the Jewish community after the destruction of the Second Temple.

The Gemara concludes that he must have presented his idea of asking questions of bedikot that include such detailed information while he was still a student and was called simply ben Zakkai.

We explore this paradoxical character through the eyes of modern scholarship.

Sanhedrin 40: אֱלֹהֵיכֶם גַּנָּב הוּא

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 40

To download, click/tap here: PDF

What relationships existed between the Sages and their non-Jewish contemporaries?

One example of a close relationship can be learned from the stories told of Rabban Gamliel of Yavne, who was head of the Jewish community following the destruction of the Second Temple, and the Roman emperor – most likely one of the Caesars that followed Vespasian’s dynasty (perhaps Traianus) – whose interests included science, literature and the religious beliefs of other cultures.

The Gemara on our daf lists questions posed by the Caesar to Rabban Gamliel about issues of religion and science. For example, one challenge that was posed accused God of being a thief, since the Torah describes that he put Adam to sleep in order to steal the rib from which Eve was created (see Bereshit 2:21).

Sanhedrin 39: אֱלֹהֵיכֶם גַּנָּב הוּא

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 39

To download, click/tap here: PDF

What relationships existed between the Sages and their non-Jewish contemporaries?

One example of a close relationship can be learned from the stories told of Rabban Gamliel of Yavne, who was head of the Jewish community following the destruction of the Second Temple, and the Roman emperor – most likely one of the Caesars that followed Vespasian’s dynasty (perhaps Traianus) – whose interests included science, literature and the religious beliefs of other cultures.

The Gemara on our daf lists questions posed by the Caesar to Rabban Gamliel about issues of religion and science. For example, one challenge that was posed accused God of being a thief, since the Torah describes that he put Adam to sleep in order to steal the rib from which Eve was created (see Bereshit 2:21).

Sanhedrin 38: מָה אֱנוֹשׁ כִּי תִזְכְּרֶנּוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 38

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to create a person, He created one group of ministering angels. He said to them: If you agree, let us fashion a person in our image.The angels said before him: Master of the Universe, what are the actions of this person You suggest to create? God said to them: His actions are such and such, according to human nature.

The angels said before him: Master of the Universe: “What is man that You are mindful of him? And the son of man that You think of him?” (Psalms 8:5), i.e., a creature such as this is not worth creating. God outstretched His small finger among them and burned them with fire. And the same occurred with a second group of angels. The third group of angels that He asked said before Him: Master of the Universe, the first two groups who spoke their mind before You, what did they accomplish? The entire world is Yours; whatever You wish to do in Your world, do. God then created the first person.

We explore this dazzling midrash and the conselling with angels in rabbinic literature.

Sanhedrin 37: חַבּוּרוֹת חַבּוּרוֹת, פְּצִיעוֹת פְּצִיעוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 37

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Yehudah the son of Rabbi Chiya said: This teaches us that Cain inflicted upon his brother Abel many bruises and wounds (until he killed him), because he did not know from where the soul departs, until he reached his neck.

Rav Yehudah the son of Rabbi Chiya also said: Since the day the earth opened its mouth to receive the blood of Abel, it has never opened it again.

Rav Yehudah brei d'Rebbi Chiya says that from the day that the ground swallowed the blood of Hevel, it never opened again. His brother, Chizkiyah, asks that the earth opened up to swallow the sinners in the incident of Korach. Rav Yehudah answers that it opened only for a bad occurrence, and not for a good occurrence.

We explore the sin of Cain.

Sanhedrin 36: סוּגָה בַּשּׁוֹשַׁנִּים

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 36

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah describes how the members of the Sanhedrin sat in a row in the shape of a half-circle in order for each person to be able to see everyone else.[1]

Why was it necessary for everyone to be able to have direct eye contact with everyone else?

Rashi explains that it is only when people have direct sight of each other that they can listen and then argue and debate with each other.

Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 1:3) explains that this arrangement was used in order for the President and the Av Beis Din to be able to see everyone. Lechem Mishneh notes that this was a sign of respect for these leaders to sit in the middle and for everyone to easily be able to listen to them.

Rashi also addresses why the Sanhedrin sat in a half-circle rather than in a full circle. From a technical standpoint, the witnesses and litigants would have to have a way to enter the circle to present themselves in front of the judges .

We explore the history of the Hungarian Sanhedrin Synod in the 19th century.

Sanhedrin 35: כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּשׁוּב חֲרוֹן אַף מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 35

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf focuses on death. Well, not death, exactly, but on the death penalty. The rabbis want to understand more about what to do with a verdict that requires capital punishment. The gemara notes that monetary sins are begun and finished their trials during the day. Only one capital case can be heard on the same day.

The Gemara explains that the need for many courts to be established did not stem from a technical rule that forbids a court from judging two people on a given day, since Rav Ḥisda taught that many people can be tried on the same day if it is for the same offense. Rather the need for many courts was to “remove God’s anger” (as indicated in the closing words of Num 25:4).

We explore midrasnhic indeterminacy as well The Sin of Protesting God in Rabbinic and Patristic Literature.

Sanhedrin 34: וּכְפַטִּישׁ יְפֹצֵץ סָלַע

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 34

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Just as this hammer breaks a stone into several fragments, so too, one verse is stated by God and from it emerge several explanations.

The Gemara expounds the verse, "uch'Fatish Yefotzetz Sala" (Yirmeyahu 23:29), which describes the words of Hashem. D'Vei Rebbi Yishmael derives from this verse that "just as a hammer divides into many sparks, so, too, one verse teaches many lessons."

The subject and object of the verse are unclear. Do the words "uch'Fatish Yefotzetz Sala" mean that Hashem's words are "like a hammer that shatters a stone into many fragments," with the stone the object, which is shattered by the hammer, or does the verse mean "like a hammer that is shattered to pieces when it strikes the hard stone," with the hammer the object that is shattered by the stone?

Sanhedrin 33: הֵיכִי דָּמֵי שִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 33

To download, click/tap here: PDF

One of the differences between dinei mamonot (monetary cases) and dinei nefashot (capital cases) that is taught in the Mishna (32a) is whether we will reopen a case when someone suggests that new evidence is available. In dinei mamonot we will always be willing to reopen a case; in dinei nefashot we will only do so if the original decision found that the defendant was guilty. If he had been found innocent we will not reconsider the case, even if new evidence is forthcoming.

We explore this idea of justice and being equable.

Sanhedrin 32: מִי בָּעֵינַן דְּרִישָׁה וַחֲקִירָה

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 32

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The fourth perek of Massekhet Sanhedrin begins on today’s daf. Entitled Eḥad dinei mamonot…, the first Mishna continues …ve-eḥad dinei nefashot b’derisha u-vaḥakira – teaching that according to halakha, judgment of both monetary claims and capital crimes require inquiry and interrogation of witnesses.

Thus the fourth perek moves beyond the teachings of the third perek that focused on general laws regarding the Jewish court system. This perek begins the examination of the laws regarding capital crimes, which is the main topic of Massekhet Sanhedrin.

Sanhedrin 31: דַּיְּינוּהּ אַתּוּן

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 31

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf deals with a situation where one litigant says, “I would like the case to be heard here” and the other one wants the case to be taken to the makom ha-va’ad – the place of the Assembly.

The concept of a makom ha-va’ad is explained by the Meiri as referring to any place where there are judges sitting in courts that were established by the community, and did not establish themselves as judges on their own. Such courts had more power to enforce their rulings.

Sanhedrin 30: דִּבְרֵי חֲלוֹמוֹת לֹא מַעֲלִין וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 30

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Tashbatz (II § 128) takes issue with this statement, for we find many other places in Shas which clearly indicate that Chazal gave credence to dreams (to name a few; Nedarim 8a, Brachos 55a, Yevamos 93b).

The Shulchan Aruch (O”C 220:1) rules that one who had a disturbing dream and it distresses him, he should make a hatavas chalom in front of three friends, and they should tell him “you dreamt a good dream....” This recital, in which the potency of the bad dream is nullified, is printed in many siddurim.

This should be done in the morning, and during the recital he should remind himself of the dream. When one has a bad dream, it is a mitzvah to recite the hatavas chalom, even on Shabbos.

Sanhedrin 29: וְאֵין טוֹעֲנִין לַמֵּסִית

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 29

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna teaches about how to interrogate witnesses. They are brought to a room and threatened, and then everyone leaves except for the most significant witness. They are asked how they know what they say that they know. This is done with the second witness. If the testimonies match, the three judges debate. If two decide that he is zakai, innocent, he is exempt. If two decide that he is chayav, guilty, he is guilty. If one judge is undecided, another judge is called in. Immediately after their decision, the judges inform of the outcome.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman says that Rabbi Yonatan says: From where is it derived thatthe judges do not advance a claim on behalf of an inciter? It is derived from the incident of the primordial snake who tempted Eve; he was the first inciter. As Rabbi Simlai says: The snake could have advanced many claims on its own behalf, but it did not claim them. And for what reason did the Holy One, Blessed be He, not advance these claims for it,deeming the snake exempt from punishment? Because the snake did not advance these claims itself.

We explore the notion of “primordial serpent" from the plain meaning, midrasnhic and kabbalistic perspectives.

Sanhedrin 28: לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וּבָנִים

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 28

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah (27b) teaches that people who are closely related – by blood or by marriage – will be disqualified from testifying about one another. Thus a person cannot testify for or against his brother or his sister’s husband, similarly he cannot be a witness regarding a case involving his uncle, whether it is his mother’s brother or his father’s brother, or, for that matter his mother’s sister’s husband or his father’s sister’s husband.

Why are relatives limited in this way?

The Gemara quotes Devarim 24:16 as a pasuk that can be interpreted to serve as the source for this law.

We explore personal vs inherited responsibility.

Sanhedrin 27: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכּוּלָּן עֲרֵבִים זֶה בָּזֶה

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 27

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Sages say that Jews are not suspected of false testimony due to love nor hatred.

The rabbis discuss the potential sources of this statement.

There are competing proof texts suggesting that sons will only die for the sins of their fathers when they continue those sins (or when they could have stopped but did not), and that one will be punished for his brother's sins. In this last case we are all responsible for each other.

We explore the notion of vicarious suffering by children for the sins of the fathers.

Sanhedrin 26: שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה בַּחֲשַׁאי מִפְּנֵי הַשָּׂטָן

For the source text click/tap here: Sanhedrin 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf struggles with morals.

The gemara (Sanhedrin 27a) suggests that Abbaye’s position disqualifying a le-hakhis sinner from testifying is based on R. Meir’s logic. Just as R. Meir was concerned that witnesses would escalate their lies even in more severe cases, Abbaye was similarly concerned with a sinner escalating and lying. Even though he has not been caught lying, we worry that his infraction indicates inferior moral character and increases the chances of future false testimony. This association between Abbaye and R. Meir indicates that Abbaye’s disqualification of a le-hakhis sinner from testifying is not based on his formal status as a rasha, but rather on the concern that he will escalate into a liar.

We explore various opinions on the topic.