Ask A Question on the daf

1) HOW MANY JUDGES ARE NEEDED

(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): Monetary cases require three judges; cases of theft, wounds (hitting someone), damage, half-damage, double payment (of a thief), payment of four or five (of a thief that slaughtered or sold) require three judges;
(b) Cases of rape, enticement, and Motzi Shem Ra require three judges;
(c) Chachamim say, 23 are needed for Motzi Shem Ra, for sometimes it is a capital case.
(d) Cases of lashes require three;
(e) R. Yishmael says, they require 23.
(f) R. Meir says, three judges are needed for Ibur Chodesh or Ibur Shanah (to add a day to the month (or to add a month to the year);
(g) R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, we begin Ibur Shanah with three, we deliberate with five, and the verdict is with seven;

1. If three judges gave a verdict to make an Ibur Shanah, it is Me'uberes.

(h) R. Shimon says, three judges are needed for Semichah (leaning on a Korban for a mistake of the Sanhedrin; alternatively, ordination) of judges and for the Eglah Arufah (beheaded calf);
(i) R. Yehudah says, five are needed.
(j) Three judges are needed for Chalitzah, Mi'un, redemption of Ma'aser Sheni or Neta Revai whose value is not known, or of Hekdesh, and Erchin ha'Metaltelim (this will be explained);
(k) R. Yehudah says, one of them must be a Kohen;
(l) Redemption of land or a person needs nine people and a Kohen.
(m) Capital cases require 23 judges;
(n) If an animal slept with a man or woman, 23 judges are needed - "V'Haragta Es ha'Ishah v'Es ha'Behemah (if it slept with a woman), "V'Es ha'Behemah Taharogu (if it slept with a man)";

1. An animal that is stoned (for killing a Yisrael) requires 23 judges - "Ha'Shor Yisakel v'Gam Be'alav Yumas" - the animal is killed like its owner (would be killed if he was Chayav Misah).

(o) Twenty-three judges are needed to kill a wolf, lion, bear, leopard, Bardelas (panther?), or snake;
(p) R. Eliezer says, anyone who kills one of these (without Beis Din) did a Mitzvah;
(q) R. Akiva says, 23 judges are needed.

(a) Seventy-one judges are needed to judge a Shevet (tribe) (this will be explained), a false prophet, or a Kohen Gadol;
(b) Seventy-one judges are needed to decide to go to an optional war;
(c) Seventy-one judges are needed to add to Yerushalayim or the Azaros (of the Mikdash);
(d) Seventy-one judges are needed to establish a Sanhedrin for a Shevet;
(e) Seventy-one judges are needed to make an Ir ha'Nidachas (a city destroyed because its majority served idolatry)

1. We do not make an Ir ha'Nidachas near the border of Eretz Yisrael, we do not make three of them (even not near the border), but we may make one or two.

(f) The Great Sanhedrin has 71 judges, a small Sanhedrin has 23;

1. We learn (about a Great Sanhedrin) from "Esfah Li Shiv'im Ish", and Moshe was the head;
2. R. Yehudah says, there are only 70.
3. We learn about a small Sanhedrin from "V'Shofetu ha'Edah...V'Hitzilu ha'Edah" - there is an Edah (congregation) Mechayev (incriminating), and an Edah Mezakeh (vindicating);

i. Question: How do we know that an Edah is (at least) 10?
ii. Answer: "La'Edah ha'Ra'ah ha'Zos" - this refers to the 10 Meraglim other than Yehoshua and Kalev.

4. Question: This only teaches 20 judges, how do we learn another three?
5. Answer: "Lo Siheyeh Acharei Rabim Lera'os" - but you may following a majority to acquit;

i. Question: What do we learn from "Acharei Rabim Lehatos"?
ii. Answer: We follow a majority to be Mechayev (convict), but it is different from the majority to be Mezakeh (acquit): a majority of one (more judge who is Mezakeh than are Mechayev) suffices to be Mezakeh, we need a majority of two (more judges who are Mechayev than are Mezakeh) to be Mechayev.

iii. (In order to be Mechayev against an Edah that is Mezakeh, the Edah that is Mechayev must have 12 judges;) we do not make a Beis Din with an even number of judges, therefore, 23 are required.

(g) Question: How many people must there be in a city for it to be fitting to have a Sanhedrin?
(h) Answer #1: One hundred and twenty.
(i) Answer #2 (R. Nechemyah): Two hundred and thirty, corresponding to judges of 10 (i.e. each judge on the Sanhedrin could be a judge over 10 people of the city).

(a) (Gemara) Question: Cases of theft or wounds are monetary cases (why are they listed separately?)!
(b) Answer #1 (R. Avahu (another answer will be given on Daf 3A)): The Mishnah teaches monetary cases, then gives examples: theft, wounds...

1. It omits cases of admissions and loans (witnesses say that they saw Reuven admit that he owes Shimon, or they saw Shimon lend to Reuven).

(c) The Mishnah had to teach monetary cases, and also theft or wounds.

1. If it only said monetary cases, one might have thought, this includes admissions and loans; therefore, it had to teach theft and wounds, to exclude admissions and loans;
2. If it only said theft and wounds, one might have thought that the same applies to admissions and loans, and the Tana taught theft and wounds because that is where the Torah taught about three judges.

i. Regarding (a watchman suspected of) theft it says "V'Nikrav ...*El ha'Elohim*" (this means Mumchim (expert judges), and it is written three times in the Parshah).
ii. Reasoning teaches that wounds are like theft - striking a person is like striking his money.

(d) Question: It teaches monetary cases, and gives theft and wounds for examples - why were admissions and loans omitted?

1. Suggestion: Admissions and loans do not require three judges.
2. Rejection: R. Avahu taught, all agree that if two judged a monetary case, this is not a judgment!

(e) Answer: They were omitted because admissions and loans do not require Mumchim.
(f) Question: Does R. Avahu say that Eiruv Parshiyos (words in a Parshah teach about a different Parshah) applies here?

1. If it does (i.e. "Ki Hu Zeh,,,ha'Elohim" written here really applies to loans), we should require Mumchim also for admissions and loans!
2. If Eiruv Parshiyos does not apply here, admissions and loans should not require three judges!

(g) Answer: Really, Eiruv Parshiyos applies here; we do not require Mumchim on account of R. Chanina's reasoning.

1. (R. Chanina): Mid'Oraisa, interrogation of witnesses is needed for monetary cases as well as capital cases - "Mishpat Echad Yihyeh Lachem;

i. It is an enactment not to interrogate witnesses in monetary cases, lest this discourage loans (people would be afraid to lend, lest the witnesses will err and be disqualified. Similarly, if Mumchim are required, it will be hard for lenders to collect, this will discourage loans.)

(h) Objection: By allowing amateur judges, if they err, they are exempt - all the more so, this will discourage loans!