Sanhedrin 173

במופלא שבב"ד הכתוב מדבר ממך זה יועץ וכן הוא אומר (נחום א, יא) ממך יצא חושב על ה' רעה יועץ בליעל דבר זו הלכה למשפט זה הדין

— the Writ refers to an 'outstanding' member, [mufla] of <i>Beth din</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Mufla generally means the instructing judge, 'a special expert assessor to whom questions of law are referred. (Jast.). Tosaf. supra 16b s.v. [H] states that the mufla was supernumary to the actual Beth din. In this case, however, mufla means 'ordained' (mumhe), in contradiction to talmid, an unordained disciple (Rashi and Tosaf. 16b, ibid.) Cf. Mishnah 86b. ');">¹</span> 'thee' refers to [a matter needing] a counsellor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained below. ');">²</span>

בין דם לדם בין דם נדה דם לידה דם זיבה בין דין לדין בין דיני נפשות דיני ממונות דיני מכות בין נגע לנגע בין נגעי אדם נגעי בתים נגעי בגדים

and thus it is said, There is one come out from thee, that imagineth evil against the Lord, a wicked counsellor;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nah. I, 11. ');">³</span> a thing refers to a [traditional] <i>halachah</i>,' 'in judgement,' this means [a law deduced by] a din;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Argument based on verbal similarity, and thus the equivalent of gezerah shawah. Rashi points out that din cannot bear its usual meaning here, viz., 'a legal ruling', since that is expressly stated in the verse. ');">⁴</span>

דברי אלו החרמים והערכין וההקדשות ריבות זו השקאת סוטה ועריפת עגלה וטהרת מצורע בשעריך זו לקט שכחה ופאה

between blood and blood, the blood of a <i>niddah</i>, childbirth, and gonorrhoea; 'between ruling and ruling,' whether capital or civil cases, or cases involving flagellation; 'between [leprous] plague spots, and plague spots' — embracing leprosy in man, houses and garments; 'matters' refers to haramim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Herem, pl. haramim, anything devoted to the Lord (Lev. XXVII, 28). ');">⁵</span> valuations,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 2 et seqq. ');">⁶</span>

וקמת מב"ד ועלית מלמד שבית המקדש גבוה מא"י וא"י גבוה מכל הארצות אל המקום מלמד שהמקום גורם

and sanctifications;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of animals, all these are the result of vows expressed by words and hence included in 'words' etc. ');">⁷</span> 'contentions' refers to the water ordeal of a sotah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman suspected of infidelity (Num. V, 12ff.). ');">⁸</span>

בשלמא בית המקדש גבוה מא"י דכתיב ועלית אלא א"י גבוה מכל הארצות מנא ליה דכתיב (ירמיהו כג, ז) לכן הנה ימים באים נאם ה' (לא יאמר) חי ה' אשר העלה את בני ישראל מארץ מצרים כי אם חי ה' אשר העלה ואשר הביא את זרע בית ישראל מארץ צפונה ומכל הארצות אשר הדחתים שם וישבו על אדמתם

the beheading of the heifer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In expiation of a murder committed by a person unknown (Deut. XXI, 1-9). ');">⁹</span> and the purification of a leper;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These three are deduced from 'contentions', being the result of such. Sotah and murder obviously so, whilst leprosy, according to the Rabbis, is a punishment for slander, which generally gives rise to strife. — 'Ar. 15b. ');">¹⁰</span>

תנו רבנן זקן ממרא אינו חייב אלא על דבר שזדונו כרת ושגגתו חטאת דברי ר"מ רבי יהודה אומר על דבר שעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ר"ש אומר אפילו דקדוק אחד מדקדוקי סופרים

'within thy gates' — this refers to the gleanings, forgotten [sheaves] and the corner [of the field;]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All of which belonged to the poor, of whom it is written, If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates (Deut. XV, 7; cf. also ibid. XIV, 29; XVI, 12). Thus the Baraitha teaches that the dispute between the rebellious elder and the Beth din was in respect of any of these laws enumerated. These are discussed below in detail. In nearly all cases cited these matters were disputed by the Rabbis themselves, but of course the minority had to submit to the majority. The crime of the rebellious elder, for which he was executed, consisted of his giving a practical decision opposed in the final ruling of one of the Botte din (plural of Beth din) in Jerusalem. (On the general question of the minority submitting to the majority. v. Halevy., Doroth ha-Rishonim I, 5 205 seq.) ');">¹¹</span> 'then thou shalt arise', [that is,] from the sitting of <i>Beth din</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thou shalt arise implies that there was first a formal sitting, where these difficulties arose, viz., at the local Beth din. ');">¹²</span>

מאי טעמא דר"מ גמר דבר דבר כתיב הכא (דברים יז, ח) כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט וכתיב התם (ויקרא ד, יג) ונעלם דבר מעיני הקהל מה להלן דבר שחייב על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת אף כאן דבר שחייב על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת

'and ascend' — this teaches that the Temple was higher than [the rest of] Palestine, and Palestine is [geographically] higher than all other countries' 'into the place', — this teaches that the place is the cause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the supreme authority of the Great Sanhedrin. The fact that it was situated in the Temple, the religious hub of the nation, imparted to its decisions and powers a weightiness which it would otherwise have lacked. ');">¹³</span> Now, it is correct to say that the Temple was higher than [the rest of] Palestine, since it is written, and thou shalt ascend;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that wherever one was in Palestine, he had to ascend, in order to reach the Temple. ');">¹⁴</span>

ור' יהודה (דברים יז, יא) על פי התורה אשר יורוך עד דאיכא תורה ויורוך

but whence does he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tanna. ');">¹⁵</span> learn that Palestine is more elevated than all other countries?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the passage refers to Palestine only. ');">¹⁶</span>

ור"ש אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא אפילו כל דהו

— From the passage, Therefore, behold the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt,' But the Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries whither I have driven them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that wherever one was in Palestine, he had to ascend, in order to reach the Temple. ');">¹⁴</span> and they shall dwell in their own land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. XXIII, 7f. Thus the journey from all countries to Palestine is termed an ascent. ');">¹⁷</span>

א"ל רב הונא בר חיננא לרבא תרגמא לי להא מתניתא אליבא דר"מ א"ל רבא לרב פפא פוק תרגמא ליה

Our Rabbis taught: A rebellious elder is liable only for a matter the deliberate transgression of which is punished by extinction, whilst the unwitting offence involves a sin offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he gave a practical ruling on a matter in which these are involved. ');">¹⁸</span> this is R. Meir's view. R. Judah said: For a matter of which the fundamental principle is Biblical, whilst its interpretation is by the Scribes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 572. n. 5. ');">¹⁹</span>

כי יפלא במופלא שבב"ד הכתוב מדבר ממך זה יועץ שיודע לעבר שנים ולקבוע חדשים כדתנן הן העידו שמעברים את השנה כל אדר שהיו אומרים עד הפורים

R. Simeon said: Even for a single detail arising out of the subtle interpretations of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Scribes'. ');">²⁰</span> What is R. Meir's reason? — He draws an analogy from the use of dabar [matter] in two places: Here it is written, If there arise a dabar [matter] too hard for thee in judgement; and elsewhere it is written, [And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance,] the matter [dabar] being hidden from the eyes of the assembly:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 13. ');">²¹</span>

דאי להאי גיסא קא שרי חמץ בפסח ואי להאי גיסא קא שרי חמץ בפסח

just as there [the reference is to] a provision which if deliberately transgressed is punished by extinction, whilst if unwittingly, involves a sin offering, so here too. And R. Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is his reason? ');">²²</span> — [Scripture states:] According to the Torah which they shall teach thee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. Ibid. 11. ');">²³</span>

דבר זה הלכה זו הלכות אחד עשר דאיתמר עשירי ר' יוחנן אמר עשירי כתשיעי ור"ש בן לקיש אמר עשירי כאחד עשר

intimating that both the Torah [i.e., the basic law] and their [sc. the Scribes,] teaching [i.e., the interpretation thereof] must be involved. Whilst R. Simeon's reason is: [And thou shalt do according to the sentence,] which they of that place shall shew thee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10. ');">²⁴</span> indicating even the smallest nicety.

רבי יוחנן אמר עשירי כתשיעי מה תשיעי בעי שימור אף עשירי בעי שימור

R. Huna b. Hinena said to Raba, Explain me the above Baraitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which enumerates all the matters of dispute between the rebellious elder and his Beth din, and includes such things as valuations and haramim. ');">²⁵</span> according to R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., how do all these matters involve extinction and sin offerings? ');">²⁶</span>

ר"ל אמר עשירי כאחד עשר מה אחד עשר לא בעי שימור אף עשירי לא בעי שימור

Thereupon Raba said to R. Papa. Go forth and explain it to him. [Thus:] If a matter be outstandingly difficult [yippale]: the Writ refers to an outstanding member, [mufla] of <i>Beth din</i>; 'thee', to a [question needing a] counsellor, who knows how to determine the intercalation of years and fixation of months.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 2a. ');">²⁷</span> [Now, the rebelliousness of the elder may be in respect of] what we learnt: They testified<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joshua and R. Pappias. ('Ed. VII, 7.) Owing to the development of the Mishnah, of which each Tannah had his own version, a great uncertainty arose as to the exact law. R. Gamaliel in consequence undertook a sifting of the various traditions with the purpose of declaring them authentic or otherwise. The scholars assembled at Jabneh, and attested their various teachings. The collection of these testimonies forms the tractate 'Eduyyoth (J.E. VII, 611). ');">²⁸</span>

משפט זה הדין

that a leap year may be proclaimed during the whole month of Adar. [This testimony was necessary,] because they [i.e., the other Sages] maintained: Only until Purim. [Hence, if the elder flouted the ruling of the great <i>Beth din</i>] in either direction, he permitted leaven to be eaten on the Passover.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus: If the Beth din ruled after Purim that the year was to he prolonged by a month (called the second Adar), Passover would commence six weeks after the end of the first Adar. If he disregarded this and gave a practical decision that such intercalation was invalid, Passover would commence four weeks earlier and end three weeks before it even began according to the ruling of the Beth din. Hence those who followed his views would be eating leaven during the Passover fixed by the latter. The same would result if they ruled that a month was not to be intercalated, and he ruled that it was. The deliberate eating of leaven on Passover is punished by extinction, as are all the offences enumerated in the following passage. ');">²⁹</span> '"A thing" refers to a [traditional] <i>halachah</i>.' By this is meant the [traditional] halachahs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. note 6 for the explanation of the plural here. ');">³⁰</span> of the eleventh [day].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Biblical law, a niddah can cleanse herself when seven days have passed from the beginning of her menstrual flow, provided it ceased on the seventh day before sunset ([H]) During the following eleven days, which are called the beginning days between the menses, she cannot become a niddah again, it being axiomatic that a discharge of blood in that period is not a sign of niddah, but may be symptomatic of gonorrhoea. A discharge on one or two day's within the eleven days renders her unclean, and she is forbidden cohabitation until the evening of the following day (the full details of her position vis a vis her husband, and her uncleanliness in general, are discussed in Nid. 71b ff.), and must wait for the third to see whether another discharge will follow, rendering her a zabah, or not. Should another discharge follow the third day, she becomes unclean as a zabah, and cannot become clean until seven days have passed without any issue at all. Should she, however, discharge on the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth days she is not a zabah, for the twelfth day commences a new period wherein the issue of blood may make her a niddah. (The foregoing is, as mentioned, on the basis of the ancient law, but already in the period of the Talmud itself the law was adopted whereby a single blood issue at any time imposes all the restrictions necessitating for cleanness a period of seven clean days.) ');">³¹</span> For it has been stated: As for the tenth day. R. Johanan maintained that it is as the ninth, whilst R. Simeon b. Lakish ruled that it is as the eleventh. R. Johanan maintained that it is as the ninth: Just as [a blood discharge on] the ninth necessitates observation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the tenth and eleventh days. Since discharges on those days following that of the ninth renders her a zabah. ');">³²</span> so for an issue on the tenth too observation is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though unable to become a zabah, she is subject to the law of a woman under observation. ');">³³</span> But Resh Lakish ruled that the tenth day is as the eleventh: just as [a blood discharge on] the eleventh does not necessitate observation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both R. Johanan said Resh Lakish agree to this, on the basis of Beth Hillel's ruling in the Mishnah Nid. 72a. ');">³⁴</span> so on the tenth too no observation is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus, in R. Johanan's opinion, there is only one traditional halachah with respect to the eleventh day, viz., that a blood discharge thereon does not necessitate observation, and this is the only thing in which it differs from the preceding ten days. But if there was a discharge on the tenth, observation is necessary on the eleventh just as on the other days. But according to Resh Lakish it differs in two respects: (i) that a discharge thereon necessitate further observation, and (ii) that it does not become an observation day on account of the tenth day's discharge. Hence there were two halachoth for that day. This explains the use of the plural in this passage. Now to revert to the main subject, in the opinion of R. Johanan, if a woman had a discharge on the tenth, cohabitation on the eleventh is Biblically forbidden on pain of extinction, whilst according to Resh Lakish it is prohibited only by a Rabbinical ordinance, not by Biblical law; thus this too conforms to R. Meir's requirements. ');">³⁵</span> '"In judgment", — this means [a law deduced by] a din.'