Sanhedrin 68

(שמות כט, לז) כל הנוגע במזבח יקדש שומע אני בין ראוי בין שאינו ראוי ת"ל (שמות כט, לח) כבשים מה כבשים ראויין אף כל ראוי ר' עקיבא אומר (שמות כט, כה) עולה מה עולה ראויה אף כל ראוי

Whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIX, 37. I.e., once it touches the altar, it retains its sanctity, as above. ');">¹</span> I might infer [that this holds good] whether it be fit for the altar or not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., leaven and honey, (cf. Lev. II, 11) which are never permissible for the altar, or unconsecrated animals (i.e., hullin), which are not yet fit for the altar. — Animals had to be formally consecrated before they might be sanctified upon the altar. ');">²</span>

ותרוייהו מאי קא ממעטו פסולי מר מייתי לה מכבשים ומר מייתי לה מעולה

Scripture therefore says,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the following verse. Ex. XXIX, 38. ');">³</span> [Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs;&nbsp;… just as lambs are fit [for the altar], so are all things that are fit [included in the previous statement].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if now disqualified. Yet they must be things that are essentially fit for the altar, as explained in p. 215. n. 7; otherwise, the law does not apply to them. ');">⁴</span>

והאמר רב אדא בר אהבה עולת העוף פסולה איכא בינייהו מאן דמייתי לה מכבשים כבשים אין אבל עולת העוף לא ומאן דמייתי לה מעולה אפילו עולת העוף נמי

R. Akiba said: [Scripture states,] burnt offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Ibid. verse 42; This shall be a continued burnt offering (R. Hananel). According to Rashi, it occurs in the same verse 38 as above. Though the word does not appear in the Masoretic text, it occurs in the Samaritan Text. On such variants, v. Heller, Samaritan Pentateuch, an adaptation of the Masoretic Text. ');">⁵</span> Just as the burnt offering is fit [for the altar], so with all things that are so. And what do both exclude? Invalid objects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., things that were never permissible upon the altar, e.g., leaven and honey; v. Lev. II, 11. ');">⁶</span>

אלא אמר רב אשי כדתניא (ויקרא יז, ד) דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך לרבות את הזורק דברי רבי ישמעאל

One Master deduces this from the word 'lambs'; the other, from 'burnt offering'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus, this Baraitha illustrates one law drawn from two Biblical verses.' ');">⁷</span> But did not R. Adda b. Ahabah say: They differed with respect to a fowl burnt offering which had been disqualified: he who deduced it [the scope of the law] from 'lambs', holds that only lambs are included,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Amongst the objects which, though disqualified, may not be taken back when once laid upon the altar. ');">⁸</span>

ר"ע אומר (ויקרא יז, ח) או זבח לרבות את הזורק ותרוייהו מאי קא מרבו זריקה מר מייתי לה מדם יחשב ומר מייתי לה מאו זבח

but not the burnt offering of a fowl; whereas he who deduced it from 'burnt offering' includes even a burnt offering of a fowl? — But, said R. Ashi, it is illustrated by the following Baraitha:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 107a. ');">⁹</span> Blood shall be imputed unto that man, he hath shed blood;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 4. ');">¹⁰</span>

והאמר רבי אבהו שחט וזרק איכא בינייהו לדברי רבי ישמעאל אינו חייב אלא אחת לדברי ר"ע חייב שתים

this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparent redundance of the expression. ');">¹¹</span> is to include [him] who sprinkles:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood of a sacrifice outside the Temple courts, as being liable to excision (kareth). ');">¹²</span>

הא איתמר עלה אמר אביי אף לדברי ר"ע נמי אינו חייב אלא אחת דאמר קרא (דברים יב, יד) שם תעלה עולותיך ושם תעשה ערבינהו רחמנא לכולהו עשיות:

that is R. Ishmael's view. R. Akiba said: [Scripture adds] Or a sacrifice:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. verse 8. ');">¹³</span> this is to include him who sprinkles. Thus, What do both include? — Sprinkling; one Master deducing it from the words: Blood shall be imputed, the other from the words: Or a sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it illustrates 'one law drawn derived from two Scriptural verses.' ');">¹⁴</span>

דיני ממונות דנין ביום וכו': (סימן משפ"ט מענ"ה מט"ה) מנהני מילי א"ר חייא בר פפא דאמר קרא (שמות יח, כו) ושפטו את העם בכל עת

But did not R. Abbahu say: They differ where a man both slaughtered and sprinkled [the blood of a sacrifice]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without the Temple precincts, i.e. Unwittingly, in a spell of forgetfulness, without being reminded between the two acts that they were of a forbidden character. Now, it is a principle that every forbidden act, which, if done wittingly, involves kareth, requires a sin offering if done wittingly. There is a further principle that all things whose forbidden nature is deduced from the same word, rank as a small transgression, and therefore involve only one sacrifice. ');">¹⁵</span> for according to R. Ishmael,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who deduces the penalty of kareth for sprinkling outside the court from the same verse which prohibits slaughter. ');">¹⁶</span>

אי הכי תחלת דין נמי כדרבא דרבא רמי כתיב ושפטו את העם בכל עת וכתיב (דברים כא, טז) והיה ביום הנחילו את בניו הא כיצד יום לתחלת דין לילה לגמר דין

he is liable only to one [sin offering]; whereas on R. Akiba's view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That kareth for sprinkling without the Temple precincts is deduced from a different verse. ');">¹⁷</span> he is liable to two? — But surely it was stated regarding this: Abaye said: Even according to R. Akiba he is liable only to one [sin offering], for Scripture writes, There thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings and there thou shalt do [all that I commanded thee]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 14. ');">¹⁸</span>

מתניתין דלא כר' מאיר דתניא היה ר"מ אומר מה ת"ל (דברים כא, ה) על פיהם יהיה כל ריב וכל נגע וכי מה ענין ריבים אצל נגעים

the Divine Law thus grouped all acts [of sacrifice in the same category]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence there is only this one verse which commands that all acts of sacrifice, which includes slaughtering and sprinkling, shall be done in the prescribed fashion. Therefore, transgression of both involves only one sacrifice ');">¹⁹</span> CIVIL SUITS ARE TRIED BY DAY etc. (Mnemonic: <i>Judgment, Answering, Inclining</i>.)

אלא מקיש ריבים לנגעים מה נגעים ביום דכתיב (ויקרא יג, יד) וביום הראות בו אף ריבים ביום ומה נגעים שלא בסומין דכתיב (ויקרא יג, יב) לכל מראה עיני הכהן אף ריבים שלא בסומין ומקיש נגעים לריבים מה ריבים שלא בקרובים אף נגעים שלא בקרובים

Whence is this derived? — R. Hiyya b. Papa said: From the verse, And let them judge the people at all times.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XVIII, 22; i.e., even at night. ');">²⁰</span> If so, even the beginning of the trial may [take place at night]! — It is as Raba explained. For Raba opposed [two verses]: It is written, And let them judge the people at all times;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">²¹</span>

אי מה ריבים בשלשה אף נגעים בשלשה ודין הוא ממונו בשלשה גופו לא כל שכן ת"ל (ויקרא יג, ב) והובא אל אהרן הכהן או אל אחד וגו' הא למדת שאפילו כהן אחד רואה את הנגעים

but elsewhere it is said, And in the day that he causeth his sons to inherit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 16. From the fact that day is stressed, the Talmud deduces that all matters in connection therewith, which principle includes disputes over the inheritance, are to be settled by day. But such disputes are part of civil suits in general, and thus this verse contradicts the preceding. ');">²²</span> How [can these be reconciled]? — The day is for the beginning of the trial, the night is for the conclusion of the trial.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, 'and they shall judge&nbsp;… at all times' implies the giving of the verdict, which is the essence of judgment. ');">²³</span>

ההוא סמיא דהוה בשבבותיה דרבי יוחנן דהוה דאין דינא ולא אמר ליה רבי יוחנן ולא מידי היכי עביד הכי והא"ר יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן כל הכשר לדון כשר להעיד ויש שכשר להעיד ואין כשר לדון ואמר ר' יוחנן לאתויי סומא באחת מעיניו

Our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which rules that the decision may be issued at night. ');">²⁴</span> does not agree with R. Meir. For it has been taught. R. Meir used to say: What is meant by the verse, According to their word shall every controversy and every leprosy be?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 5. ');">²⁵</span>

ר' יוחנן סתמא אחריתא אשכח דיני ממונות דנין ביום וגומרין בלילה

Now, what connection have controversies with leprosies? — But controversies are assimilated to leprosies: just as leprosies [must be examined] by day, since it is written, And in the day when [raw flesh] appeareth in him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIII, 14. ');">²⁶</span> so controversies [must be tried] by day; and just as leprosies cannot [be examined] by the blind,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Even of one eye only. v. Neg. II, 3.] ');">²⁷</span>

מאי אולמיה דהאי סתמא מהאי סתמא אי בעית אימא סתמא דרבים עדיף ואי בעית אימא משום דקתני לה גבי הלכתא דדינא

for it is written, Wherever the priest looketh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. verse 12. ');">²⁸</span> so controversies too may not be tried by the blind.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Even by one who is blind of one eye only, since it is deduced from 'leprosies', Yad Ramah.] ');">²⁹</span>

ורבי מאיר האי ושפטו את העם בכל עת מאי דריש ביה אמר רבא לאיתויי יום המעונן דתנן אין רואין את הנגעים שחרית ובין הערבים ולא בתוך הבית ולא ביום המעונן מפני שכהה נראית עזה ולא בצהרים מפני שעזה נראית כהה

And leprosies are further compared to controversies: Just as the latter may not be tried by relatives, so the former may not be examined by relatives. Now, if so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they are similar in so many respects. ');">³⁰</span> [one might argue,] that just as controversies must be tried by three, so must leprosies too [be examined] by three; moreover, it follows a minori,' [if questions affecting] one's wealth are [to be tried] by three, how much more so [when they concern] one's body! Therefore Scripture teaches, When he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest or unto one of his sons the priests,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. verse 2. ');">³¹</span>

ורבי מאיר האי ביום הנחילו את בניו מאי עביד ליה ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתני רבה בר חנינא קמיה דרב נחמן והיה ביום הנחילו את בניו ביום אתה מפיל נחלות ואי אתה מפיל נחלות בלילה א"ל אלא מעתה מאן דשכיב ביממא ירתון ליה בניה ומאן דשכיב בליליא לא ירתון ליה בניה

thus thou learnest that a single priest may examine leprosies. A blind man in the neighbourhood of R. Johanan used to try suits, and R. Johanan raised no objection. But how could he do so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., permit him to judge. ');">³²</span>

דילמא דין נחלות קאמרת דתניא (במדבר כז, יא) והיתה לבני ישראל לחקת משפט אורעה כל הפרשה כולה להיות דין

Did not R. Johanan himself say, The <i>halachah</i> is as [every] anonymous Mishnah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Mishnah that is taught without mention of its author, or of any conflict of opinions that exists regarding it. ');">³³</span> and we learnt: He who is qualified to judge is qualified to testify; some, however, are qualified to testify but not to judge. Whereon R. Johanan said: This is to admit [as witness] one who is blind of one eye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not as judge, so coinciding with R. Meir's opinion stated above, (v. p. 218 nn. 5 and 7). ');">³⁴</span>

כדרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב שלשה שנכנסו לבקר את החולה רצו כותבין רצו עושין דין שנים כותבין ואין עושין דין

— R. Johanan found another anonymous Mishnah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implied that a blind man is permitted to judge. ');">³⁵</span> viz., CIVIL SUITS ARE TRIED BY DAY AND CONCLUDED BY NIGHT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For there are many whose eye-sight is as dim by night as that of a blind man by day. ');">³⁶</span>

ואמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא ביום אבל בלילה כותבין ואין עושין דין משום דהוו להו עדים ואין עד נעשה דיין אמר ליה אין הכי קאמינא:

But why is this anonymous Mishnah more authoritative<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'stronger'. ');">³⁷</span> than the other? — Either because an anonymous Mishnah which expresses the opinion of the majority is preferable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah which, according to R. Johanan, treats of a blind man, expresses the view of R. Meir as expressed in the preceding Baraitha, but our Mishnah, that of the majority. ');">³⁸</span>

דיני נפשות דנין ביום וכו': מנהני מילי אמר רב שימי בר חייא אמר קרא (במדבר כה, ד) והוקע אותם לה' נגד השמש א"ר חסדא מניין להוקעה שהיא תלייה דכתיב (שמואל ב כא, ו) והוקענום לה' בגבעת שאול בחיר ה'

or alternatively, because this Mishnah is taught in the tractate relating to legal procedure.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the other anonymous Mishnah is cited only incidentally in a tractate relating to a different subject entirely, and it stands to reason that greater care would be taken in the former to teach what is actually the halachah. ');">³⁹</span> But how does R. Meir<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that disputes may only be tried by day. ');">⁴⁰</span> interpret the verse, And let them judge the people at all times? — Raba answered: As including even a cloudy day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which, unlike the cases of leprosies, civil suits may be tried. ');">⁴¹</span> For we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neg. II, 2. ');">⁴²</span> Leprosies may not be examined in the morning, in twilight, in the house, or on a cloudy day, for [then] a dull [spot] might appear bright,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it might wrongfully be declared unclean. Cf. Lev. XIII, 2ff. ');">⁴³</span> at mid-day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the sun is brightest. ');">⁴⁴</span> for a bright [spot] might then appear dull.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it might wrongfully be declared clean, Neg. II, 2. ');">⁴⁵</span> Now [again], according to R. Meir, what is the purpose of, And in the day that he causeth his sons to inherit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Meir deduces the law that civil suits must be tried by day from the case of the examination of leprosies, the reference to 'day' here appears superfluous. ');">⁴⁶</span> — He utilises it, even as Rabbah b. Hanina recited before R. Nahman: And in the day he causeth his sons to inherit: only by day mayest thou assign estates, but not by night. Whereupon the other retorted:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In B.B. 113b, this question is attributed to Abaye. ');">⁴⁷</span> If so, if one dies by day, his sons inherit, but should he die at night, they do not inherit! Perhaps you refer to the legal procedure in bequests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If made by day, a bequest has judicial authority, and does not need court authentication; by night, those who witnessed it are required to legalise it before court. (Rashi.) The Rashbam in B.B. 113b translates: 'Perhaps you refer to lawsuits concerning legacies,' i.e., that these, like any other civil suits, must take place by day. ');">⁴⁸</span> For it has been taught: And it shall be unto the children of Israel a statue of judgment:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVII, 11, at the conclusion of the section dealing with laws of inheritance. ');">⁴⁹</span> that invests the whole chapter with the force of judicial proceedings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when a bequest is made, those who are present become ipso facto a Beth din, even against the wish of the testator's natural heirs. This is the explanation given by Tosaf. in B.B. 113b, which adds that the reference is not particularly to a bequest made on one's deathbed, but even to one made in full health, save that it must be accompanied by a formal kinyan (q.v.). Rashi's interpretation here is on the same lines, but he appears to refer it to a sickbed bequest. ');">⁵⁰</span> Thus [your dictum] will agree with that which Rab Judah said in Rab's name, viz.: If three [persons] come to visit a sick man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And hear him assign his estate to his heirs. ');">⁵¹</span> they may, according to their desire, either record [his bequest],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Merely as witnesses. That document is afterwards produced by the heirs in court and there given its necessary authority. ');">⁵²</span> or render a judicial ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they are three they can constitute themselves into a court and have legal authority to execute the Will. ');">⁵³</span> In case of two, however, they may write it down,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the form of a witnessed document. ');">⁵⁴</span> but not render a judicial ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since two do not make a properly constituted Court. ');">⁵⁵</span> Whereon R. Hisda said: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ruling with reference to three. ');">⁵⁶</span> holds good by day; at night, however, they may indite the bequest, but not render a judicial ruling, since they are witnesses, and a witness cannot act as judge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when they hear a bequest at night, they can obviously do so only as witnesses, since a court cannot function at night, consequently, they cannot subsequently constitute themselves a court, for they already have the status of witnesses. ');">⁵⁷</span> — He [Rabbah b. Hanina] answered: Yes, I meant it so. BUT CAPITAL CHARGES MUST BE TRIED BY DAY [AND CONCLUDED BY DAY]. Whence is this deduced? — R. Shimi b. Hiyya said: Scripture states, And hang [we — hoka'] them up unto the Lord in face of the sun.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], Num. XXV, 4; i.e., in the day time. ');">⁵⁸</span> Whence do we know that hoka'ah means hanging? — From the verse, And we will hang them up [we — hoka'anum] into the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] II Sam. XXI, 6. ');">⁵⁹</span>