Previous daf

1)

(a) When Rav Acha mi'Difti asks 've'Livrich ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv', he means - that according to Rav Yehudah, who gives the final time for Kidush Levanah as seven days, why not recite 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' from seven to fifteen days (whilst the moon is still hrowing)?

(b) Ravina answered him - that since we don't recite 'Baruch Dayan ha'Emes' from the time the moon begins to wane until the end of the month, it is not appropriate to recite 'ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv' as it grows.

(c) And the reason that we don't recite both B'rachos at the appropriate times is - because the growth and waning of the moon are natural occurances, the one does not benefit us, neither does the other cause us a loss.

(a) Rebbi Acha bar Chanina Amar Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem" (in connection with Kidush ha'Chodesh') and "Zeh Keili ve'Anveihu" (in Beshalach in the Shirah) - that when someone recites Kidush Levanah in its right time, it is as if he had greeted the Shechinah.

(b) When Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael says that if the only Mitzvah Yisrael kept was to greet their Father in Heaven once a month, it would be worthwhile - he was referring to the Mitzvah of Kidush Levanah.

(c) We recite it standing - in honor of the Shechinah.

(d) Mereimar and Mar Zutra used to recite 'Kidush Levanah' - on the shoulders of their Talmidim.

(a) When Rav Acha told Rav Ashi that in Eretz Yisrael, they would recite 'Baruch Mechadesh Chodashim' for Kidush Levanah, the latter commented - that even their wives were conversant with that text (meaning that the full text was far more complicated than that).

(b) The full text, exactly as we say it, is presented by Rav Yehudah. 'Po'alei Emes, she'Pe'ulasan Emes' refers to the sun and moon, who never change their order. The alternative wording (which in fact, we say) is - 'Po'el Emes, she'Pe'ulaso Emes' (and it refers to Hashem, whose reduction of the size of the moon we are justifying [see Tosfos DH 'Po'alei Emes']).

(c) Kidush Levanah is a good sign for Yisrael - because, as we actually mention in the wording itself, just as the moon will one day regain its original strength, so too, will K'lal Yisrael regain their freedom.

(a) The Pasuk in Mishlei advises us to use strategy in the battle with the Yeitzer-ha'Ra. Based on a play of words involving this Pasuk (Chavilos [bundles] instead of Tachbulos [strategy]), Rebbi Acha bar Chanina Amar Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan advises us to win the battle of Torah-study - by learning bundles of Mishnayos (presumably incrorporating Beraisos), which is the key to understanding Gemara.

(b) When Rav Yosef applied the Pasuk in Mishlei "ve'Rav Tevu'os be'Ko'ach Shor" to himself, he meant - that like Yosef ha'Tzadik (his namesake), he had accumulated vast storehouses of wheat (many Mishnayos and Beraisos), making him wanted by everybody (like Yosef). Nor was this a vain boast, for as we have learned in Horiy'os, Rav Yosef was known as 'Sinai' for that very reason.

(a) Rav Shimi bar Ashi confines our Mishnah, which validates the testimony, in a case where one witness says two hours and the one, three, to that case. But were one of them were to declare that the event took place 'before Hanetz ha'Chamah' (sunrise), and the other one, 'after it', he explains, the testimony would be invalid, on which we comment - 'P'shita' (But that is obvious)!

(b) We therefore amend his statement to read (not, 'one before Hanetz and one, after it', but) 'one before Hanetz and one, during Hanetz' (as the sun began to rise on the horizon).

(c) Again we ask 'P'shita?'. And we answer - that we might otherwise have thought that they both witnessed the occurrence before Hanetz, only the second witness mistook the brilliant pre-sun horizon for the sun.

(d) According to our Mishnah, a Talmid who raised a point in favor of the accused, was seated together with the Sanhedrin where he would remain for the remainder of that day. To concur with the Beraisa 'Im Yesh Mamash bi'Devarav, Lo Hayah Yored mi'Sham Le'olam', we establish this ruling - by a point that he raised but which turned out to be without substance (which in fact, the Beraisa goes on to specifically states).

(a) Rav Acha bar Chanina interprets the Pasuk "u'le'Roznim I Sheichar" to mean - that when the Sanhedrin are involved in the secrets of the world (a refernce to Diynei Nefashos [since the Neshamah of man is beyond our comprehension]), they may not drink wine. From which we can infer that they are permitted to drink wine when judging Diynei Mamonos. (see Tosfos DH 'ha'Oskim')?

(b) The Sugya in Eruvin 'Shasah Revi'is Yayin Al Yoreh' - refers to matters of Isur ve'Heter.

(c) We learned in our Mishnah that if one of the Dayanim says 'Eini Yode'a', we bring in two more Dayanim, up to seventy-one. And we learned that if they end up thirty-six, thirty-five against the accused, they continue discussing the issue until one person relents. If nobody does - they free the accused.

(d) Rav Papa asked Abaye why they did not free the accused without entering into the final discussion. To which he quoted Rebbi Yochanan as having said - that it would be a disgrace for Beis-Din to close the proceedings without having arrived at a Halachic decision.

(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Papa asked Abaye why they even needed to bring in extra Dayanim, why when they took the count and discovered that it was twelve-eleven against the accused, they did not send him home. To which he replied - that his question concurred with the opinion of Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa, who ruled that a Sanhedrin Ketanah may consist of twenty-three Dayanim, and no more.

(b) 'Omer be'Diynei Mamonos Nizdaken ha'Din', says the Beraisa, 'Aval Lo be'Diynei Nefashos. It would be wrong to interpret 'Nizdaken ha'Din' to mean that the Din is a venerable one that it requires much attention (as things stand) - because then, the Tana should have reversed the statements (seeing as Diynei Nefashos require more scrutiny than Diynei Mamonos.

(c) So Rav Huna bar Mano'ach in the name of Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika accepts the above interpretation - but simply switches Diynei Mamonos and Diynei Nefashos. Rav Ashi leaves the text as it is, only he interpret 'Nizdaken ha'Din' to mean - that the the Din is wise, and the matter is closed (which is not the case by Diynei Nefashos (le'Chovah), which will always be reopened should they find something to say in the accused's favor.

(a) The Beraisa places the onus of announcing 'Nizdaken ha'Din' on the senior Dayan. This makes sense according to Rav Ashi. But even according to Rav Huna bar Mano'ach, in spite of its derogatory connotations, it is the senior Dayan who must suffer the degradation - because as we learned in Ta'anis, self-degradation is less painful than degradation at the hand of others.

(b) The second Lashon takes this answer for granted, and asks on Rav Ashi from the Pasuk in Mishlei - "Yehalelcha Zar ve'Lo Picha", in which it would have seemed more correct for someone else to make the announcement.

(c) We answer that nonetheless - the principle that places matters concerning the Beis-Din under the jurisdiction of the senior Dayan overrides the consderation of "Yehalelcha Zar ve'Lo Picha".

(d) This principle is based on the Mishnah in 'Zeh Borer' - 'Gamru es ha'Davar, Hayu Machnisin Osan. Gadol she'be'Dayanin Omer Ish P'loni Atah Zakai ... '.

9)

(a) the Tana of our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "Hotzei es ha'Mekalel" - that the Beis-ha'Sekilah must be outside Beis-Din.

(b) The man standing outside Beis-Din holding cloths and the distant horse-rider would work in conjunction, in the event that a Dayan, a Talmid or even the guilty man himself, were to claim that he had something to say in defense of the accused. The former would wave the cloths, and the latter, who was waiting between the first man and the Beis-ha'Sekilah, would ride post-haste after the guilty man and bring him back to Beis-Din for reassessment.

(c) The guilty man himself was permitted to return to court with a point to raise in his own favor - even four or five times (i.e. as much as it took), provided, as we have already explained, he had something of substance to say.

(a) Our Mishnah implies that the Beis-ha'Sekilah was situated just outside Beis-Din. The Beraisa goes further still, and requires it to be outside the three camps - comprising Machaneh Shechinah (the Ezras Yisrael, within the Sha'ar Nikanor), Machaneh Leviyah (the five hundred Amos by five hundred Amos that comprised the Har ha'Bayis), and Machaneh Yisrael (from there until the walls of Yerushalayim).

(b) The equivalent to this with regard to towns other than Yerushalayim, which did not comprise three camps, would be - outside the city-walls.

(c) In view of this Beraisa, we establish our Mishnah - when the Beis-Din, had for some reason, already moved outside the city-walls.

(d) The reason for distancing the Beis-ha'Sekilah from the town might be so as not to convey the impression that Beis-Din was a murderous institution. Alternatively, it might have been - to give the guilty party more time to arrive there, leaving themselves more time to save him.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (in the above Pasuk in Emor) "mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" (Vayikra, in connection with the Parim ha'Nisrafin) - that the Mekalel was taken outside all three camps before being stoned.

(b) The Torah - does not specifically write Shalosh Machanos by Parim ha'Nisrafin. Note, that 'Parim ha'Nisrafin' comprises the Par Kohen Mashi'ach and the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur.

(c) To be Chayav for 'Shechutei Chutz' - one need only Shecht Kodshim outside the Ezras Yisrael in the Machaneh Leviyah.

(a) When the Torah writes (in connection with the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur) "ve'Saraf Oso Ka'asher Saraf es ha'Par ha'Rishon (of the Kohen Mashi'ach)" - that the Par ha'Eidah must be sent out of one camp (the Machaneh Shechinah).

(b) Now that the Torah writes there (in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach) "ve'Hotzi es Kol ha'Par el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh", we learn from the previous Pasuk - that Parim ha'Nisrafin must be sent, not just from Machaneh Shechinah, but from Machaneh Leviyah, too.

(c) And bearing in mind the Pasuk "al Shefech ha'Deshen Yisaref" (written there in connection with the Par Kohen ha'Mashi'ach), we learn from the Pasuk in Tzav (written in connection with the Terumas ha'Deshen from the Mizbe'ach) "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - that Parim ha'Nisrafin must be sent out of Machaneh Yisrael, too.

(d) We list four reasons why it is better to learn the taking out of the Mekalel from the taking out of the Parim ha'Nisrafin (three camps) rather than from Shechutei-Chutz (one camp). The Torah writes a. "Hotzei" and b. "el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" by both (but not by Shechutei Chutz); c. Machshir; d. Mechaper.

1. Machshir means - that they are both performing the Mitzvah (unlike Shechutei Chutz, which is doing anything but that).
2. ... Mechaper means - that they both atone for a sin (unlike Shechutei Chutz, which is itself a sin).

(a) As against the above however, we list four points in which Mekalel is similar to Shechutei Chutz (and not to Parim ha'Nisrafin): a. Both refer to a person (and not to an animal); b. Both sinned (unlike Parim ha'Nisrafin); c. Neshamah; d. Pigul.

1. Neshamah means - either that both of them entail killing (unlike Parim ha'Nisrafin, which entails burning an animal that is already dead), or that in both cases, the person dies (since Shechutei Chutz is subject to Kareis).
2. Pigul means - that in neither case does one contravene the laws of Pigul (Shechting Kodshim out of context), whereas Parim ha'Nisrafin can lead to Pigul, should the Shochet have in mind to burn the limbs outside too.

(b) The first reason given as to why we learn the Mekalel from Parim ha'Nisrafin rather than from Shechutei Chutz is - that we give priority to learning 'Machshir from Machshir', because it is the most significant of all the above eight comparisons.

(c) Rav Papa learns all three camps by the Mekalel (and by every Beis ha'Sekilah) from the Pesukim in Emor. The Pasuk "Hotzei es ha'Mekalel" must be speaking about sending out of the Machaneh Leviyah (and not from the Machaneh Shechinah, as we learned until now) - because Moshe, who was speaking, was standing in the Machaneh Leviyah.

(d) And Rav Papa then explains the Pasuk "va'Yotzi'u es ha'Mekalel el mi'Chutz la'Machaneh" - to add the Machaneh Yisrael.

(e) This latter Pasuk is not in fact, needed to teach us that they carried Out Hashem's command to the letter - because we already know that from the Pasuk "u'Venei Yisrael Asu Ka'asher Tzivah Hashem es Moshe".