Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Sanhedrin, 84

1) A KOHEN WHO PERFORMS THE "AVODAH" WHILE SITTING

OPINIONS: The Gemara earlier (83a) cites a Tosefta which states that a Kohen is forbidden to perform Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash while he is sitting. The Tosefta stresses that although this is prohibited, it is not punishable by death. The Gemara here quotes Rava who explains that we know that the Kohen must stand during the Avodah from the verse, "For Hashem, your G-d, has chosen him... to stand to minister in the Name of HaSh-m" (Devarim 18:5). This implies that a Kohen must stand while performing the Avodah. If standing, though, is not an intrinsic part of the Avodah such that the Kohen is not Chayav Misah if he does not stand, what is the reason behind the verse's requirement that the Kohen must stand?

(a) RASHI explains that the verse implies that if the Kohen is not standing while he performs the Avodah, then he is not considered "chosen," but rather he is considered like a Zar (a non-Kohen) who is forbidden from performing Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Rashi proves this from the Gemara in Zevachim (23b) in which Rava asks that if a Kohen who sits during the Avodah is considered like an ordinary Jew and his Avodah, therefore, is unfit, then why is the Kohen not punished with death, just as a Zar who performs the Avodah is punished with death? The Gemara there answers that we cannot learn the Chiyuv Misah from a Zar who performs the Avodah, because the Chiyuv Misah of a Zar is written as one of three unique verses, and thus we apply the rule that "Sheloshah Kesuvin ha'Ba'in k'Echad, Ein Melamdin" -- when three verses express the same Halachah regarding three different subjects, we cannot apply the Halachah elsewhere through a Binyan Av. Through the fact that the Torah found it necessary to repeat the law the second and third times, we may deduce that the Halachah is *not* meant to be applied automatically in all situations. We see from Rava's assumption (which the Gemara there does not disprove) that while sitting, the Kohen's status is that of a Zar with regard to the Avodah.

(b) The RAN argues and says that a Kohen sitting during the Avodah is not considered like a Zar. Rather, Rava is saying merely that a Kohen who sits during the Avodah is not considered a "choice" Kohen at that moment -- he is doing an improper thing.

(c) The YAD RAMAH argues with Rashi's interpretation of the Gemara in Zevachim. If the Gemara there means that he is actually like a Zar, then we do not need any Limud to teach that he receives death. He would automatically receive death like any Zar, and it would not be necessary to search for a source for this. We find with regard to a Kohen who performs the Avodah without wearing all of the Bigdei Kehunah that he is considered like a Zar and, consequently, is Chayav Misah like a Zar without any special Limud. In the case of a Kohen who performs the Avodah while sitting, it cannot be that he is considered a Zar, because a Zar is punished with Misah and a Kohen who sits is not.

Therefore, the Yad Ramah suggests a different way of understanding the Gemara in Zevachim. The emphasis of the Gemara's question there is on the fact that a Kohen who performs the Avodah while sitting makes the Avodah unfit like that of a Zar. The Gemara did not think that he is actually considered a Zar. (It is important to note that although Rashi in Zevachim learns the Gemara there similarly to the way he learns the Gemara here, in one version of Rashi there he asks this question on himself and does not answer it.)

(d) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Bi'as ha'Mikdash 5:17) apparently follows the opinion of the Ran and Yad Ramah. He states that the reason why the seated Kohen does not receive lashes is because the prohibition is derived from a positive statement in the verse and not from a direct negative commandment. The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH in Zevachim asks that the Kohen should still receive lashes because of the negative commandment prohibiting a *Zar* from doing Avodah. However, if the Rambam indeed learns like the Ran and Yad Ramah, then this question is not a question, because the Rambam holds that a Kohen who performs the Avodah while seated is *not* considered like a Zar. (Y. Montrose)

84b

QUESTION: In the Gemara, the tenth Perek of Sanhedrin is "Elu Hen ha'Nechenakin," describing the transgressions for which a person receives the punishment of Chenek. In contrast, in the Mishnayos, the tenth Perek is "Chelek," listing those who do not have a share in the World to Come, and it is followed by Perek "Elu Hen ha'Nechenakin." What is the reason for this difference?

ANSWERS:

(a) The most logical order to arrange these chapters would seem to be the order in which they are arranged in the Gemara. It is logical to discuss all of the forms of death administered by Beis Din, and only then to proceed to the topic of one's fate in the World to Come. This is the opinion of RASHI (90a, DH Kol Yisrael), the RIF, KOL BO, and others.

On the other hand, the RAN states that there is also a logical reason to arrange the order of the chapters as they appear in the Mishnayos. The tractate seems to be discussing the punishments in descending order of severity. First, the punishment of Sekilah is discussed. After discussing Sekilah in the seventh chapter, the eighth chapter deals with Ben Sorer u'Moreh, who is also punished with Sekilah, completing the topic of stoning. The ninth chapter deals first with those who are killed by Sereifah and then with those who are killed with Sayif, such as murderers and the residents of an Ir ha'Nidachas. Just as the discussion of the Ben Sorer u'Moreh complemented the seventh chapter, the chapter of "Chelek" -- which discusses the laws of the Ir ha'Nidachas -- complements the ninth chapter, and thus it logically follows the ninth chapter. This is why the Yerushalmi, the ROSH, RAMBAM and others place "Chelek" before "Elu Hen ha'Nechenakin."

However, there is a difficulty with the Ran's logic for the order of Perakim. Perek "Chelek" discusses the laws of Ir ha'Nidachas only after discussing who does or does not have a portion in the World to Come. According to the Ran, the discussion of Ir ha'Nidachas should follow immediately after the discussion of the punishment of Sayif. The discussion of Olam ha'Ba breaks the continuity of the order according to the Ran.

One answer is that the Mishnah opens its discussion about the people of an Ir ha'Nidachas by stating that they do not have a share in the World to Come. As a prelude to that discussion, the Mishnah discusses who does and does not have a share in the World to Come.

The Ran is not satisfied with this answer for a number of reasons. First, older texts of the Mishnah do not contain the statement that the people of an Ir ha'Nidachas have no share in Olam ha'Ba. Second, the Gemara earlier (47a) states that once someone is killed for a sin, he achieves atonement. When the residents of an Ir ha'Nidachas are killed for their sin, they achieve atonement and thus they earn back their share in Olam ha'Ba. (TOSFOS there answers this question by saying that the Mishnah's statement regarding the people of an Ir ha'Nidachas refers only to a case in which the people were not killed for their sin and therefore had no atonement.)

The Ran answers instead that because the ninth Perek, "ha'Nisrafin," deals with the topic of sins for which the sinner may be killed outside of Beis Din, the Mishnayos continue with additional serious punishments that occur beyond the jurisdiction of Beis Din, such as the loss of one's share in Olam ha'Ba. The RAMBAN adds in a similar vein that all of the people who have no portion in Olam ha'Ba, as mentioned in Perek "Chelek," are subject to the law that a zealous person may kill such a sinner ("Kana'in Pog'in Bo").

The Gemara in Makos (2a) apparently supports the Ran's logic. The Gemara there links the first Mishnah in Makos with the end of Sanhedrin, quoting a Mishnah in Perek "Elu Hen ha'Nechenakin." The Ran states that Makos is apparently an addendum to Sanhedrin. This seems to indicate that "Elu Hen ha'Nechenakin" is the eleventh, and not tenth, chapter of Sanhedrin.

However, the ARUCH LA'NER is not convinced by this proof. In Shevuos, the Gemara connects itself to the end of Makos, even though the connecting Mishnah is many Mishnayos from the end of the last chapter. It is not unusual for the connection between Masechtos to be based on the last Mishnah in the Perek that is second to last.

Rashi (ibid.) states that after discussing the four forms of capital punishment, the Mishnah proceeds to discuss those who have no portion in the World to Come. This implies that Perek "Chelek" is last, after all of the chapters that deal with Misas Beis Din. The TOSFOS YOM TOV states that it is on this comment of Rashi that the printers relied when they printed the Gemara and placed Perek "Chelek" last. However, he asserts that the proper order is that of the Mishnayos, in which Perek "Chelek" is placed as the tenth, and not eleventh, Perek (the Tosfos Yom Tov gives the explanation which the Ran does not accept, as discussed above). At the end of his argument, the Tosfos Yom Tov cites the words of Rashi in Makos (2a) as proof to his opinion. Rashi there seems to contradict himself, stating that the Mishnah in Sanhedrin which the Gemara in Makos cites is at the *end* of Sanhedrin. (It seems that the Tosfos Yom Tov maintains that Rashi in Makos is retracting what he wrote here in Sanhedrin.) (Y. Montrose)