Previous Daf

KESUVOS 105

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah ...
1. ... lists two Gozrei Gezeiros (Admon ben Avishalom and Chanan ben Gada'i), omitting Chanan ha'Mitzri because he does not consider him important - whereas the Tana of the Beraisa includes him in his list because he does.
2. ... calls them 'Gozrei Gezeiros' does not argue with the Tana of the Beraisa, who refers to them as 'Daynei Gezeilos' - because in fact, they used to issue decrees concerning theft (and related issues).
(b) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yosi quotes the Gozrei Gezeiros, who penalize someone who cuts down another person's sapling (in its first year) to the tune of two silver Ma'ah. For cutting down a two year old tree - they would have charged him four silver Ma'ah.
(c) The author of the Beraisa which includes Nachum ha'Madi in the list of Gozrei Gezeiros is - Rebbi Nasan.

click for question
2)
(a) Rebbi Pinchas Amar Rebbi Oshaya informs us that there were three hundred and ninety four Batei-Dinim - (Sanhedrin Ketanah, consisting of twenty-three Dayanim) in Yerushalayim.
(b) The other three institutions that he included in his list of which there were that number - are Batei Knesiyos, Batei-Medrash and Batei-Sofrim (Chadarim).
(c) Although there were that many Batei-Din in Yerushalayim - there were only three Gozrei Gezeiros.

click for question
3)
(a) The source of the Gozrei Gezeiros in Yerushalayim's income - was the Terumas ha'Lishkah (the leftovers of the boxes in the Beis Hamikdash, which will be explained later), out of which they were paid ninety-nine Manah
(b) The problem with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi, who is initially quoted as saying that if they did not agree with that amount, they would receive more is - that in that case, we would be dealing with Resha'im, who demand from public funds more than they need in order to live.
(c) What Rav Yehudah Amar Rav really said was - that if that sum was insufficient for their needs, then one would give them more, even against their wishes.

click for question
4)
(a) When Karna judged disputes, he would take a Sela from each litigant. We know that the Pasuk "v'Shochad Lo Sikach" applies even if it is with the express intention of judging the litigant who paid it, fairly, according to the Halachah - because when it is a matter of judging wrongly, we already have a Pasuk (in Shoftim) which states "Lo Sateh Mishpat".
(b) Assuming that a Dayan takes money from both litigants, the Tana says ...
1. ... in the Mishnah in Bechoros 'Diynav Betelin' - when he takes the money in the form of bribery.
2. ... in a Beraisa 'Mechu'ar ha'Dayan' - when he takes it in the form of 'Sechar Batalah', but it is not clear to the litigants that this is the case.
(c) The three conditions that Karna fulfilled when taking money from the litigants was - 1. he took from both litigants; 2. he took Sechar Batalah (and not bribery-money); 3. he made it clear to the litigants that he was merely taking from them the Zuz that he would have earned in his profession as a wine-tester.
(d) When, before judging, Rav Huna would say to the litigants 'Havu Li Gavra d'Dali li ba'Charika'i' - he meant to say that they should pay for a man to water his fields for him.

click for question
5)
(a) Rebbi Avahu mocked the judges who took bribery - most people, he explained, would pay a doctor to cure their sore eyes (even though they had no guarantee that his cure would succeed. Yet, for a Perutah, these people are willing to cause themselves to become blind, as the Torah writes in Mishpatim "Ki ha'Shochad Ye'aver Divrei Chachamim ... ".
(b) Considering that fools and wicked people are not eligible to judge, when the Tana of the Beraisa, with reference to the Pasuk "Ki ha'Shochad Ye'aver Einei Chachamim ... " said 'Kal va'Chomer l'Tipshim'... 'Kal va'Chomer l'Resha'im' - he meant that once even the wisest man takes bribery, he will become blind before his death, and that even if a great Tzadik does so, he is bound to become foolish before becoming insane, and he will certainly become blind at that stage.

click for question
6)
(a) Rav Nachman bar Kohen explains the Pasuk "Melech ba'Mishpat Ya'amid Eretz v'Ish Terumos Yaharsenah" like this - a Dayan should be like a king, who is wealthy and who does not therefore, need to turn to others for assistance, and not to a Kohen collecting in the granaries.
(b) Rabah bar Rav Shilo disqualifies a Dayan who regularly borrows from the people of his town from judging - provided that is, he never reciprocates.
(c) Rava was a Dayan in Mechoza, even though he often borrowed from Bei bar Meryon without reciprocating - because he did that, not because he needed him, but rather in order to boost bar Meryon's esteem in the eyes of the people (since they would look up to people who had dealings with Rava and whom Rava trusted).

click for question
7)
(a) Rava bases the Torah's prohibition of a Dayan who accepts bribery to judge the person who gave it on the fact - that they become like one person, and one person cannot see that he is ever wrong. In fact, the word 'Shochad' is an acronym of 'she'Hu Chad' (they become one).
(b) Rav Papa prohibits a judge from judging ...
1. ... a close friend - because he will not be able to find fault with him.
2. ... someone that one dislikes - because he will not be able to find anything in his favor.
(c) Abaye say that if the townspeople love a Talmid-Chacham - it is due (not to his refined personality but) because he is lax in his obligation to rebuke them.
(d) Rava maintained that the residents of Mechoza (the town where he lived) used to love him until he became a Dayan. He said after he became a Dayan ...
1. ... (initially) - that those who won their cases loved him, whereas those who lost them hated him.
2. ... (ultimately) - that when they eventually saw how today's winner was tomorrow's loser (and vice-versa), they either all hated him or all loved him.

click for question
8)
(a) We learn from the fact that the Pasuk writes "v'Shochad Lo Sikach", rather than "u'Betza Lo Sikach" - that bribery is not confined to monetary gain, but extends to 'Shochad Devarim' ...
(b) ... bribery that comprises abstract benefits, as opposed to monetary ones.
(c) As an example of Shochad Devarim, we cite what happened to Shmuel, to whom, as he was crossing a bridge - someone offered his hand (to help him across). It later transpired that he wanted Shmuel to judge his case, which Shmuel declined to do because it was Shochad Devarim.
(d) Ameimar refused to take on the case of someone who removed a feather from his cloak, and so did Mar Ukva, when a prospective litigant removed some spittle from his path. Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi refused to take on the case of his own share-cropper - because he brought him his own basket of fruit (which he would have done anyway), a day early, because he happened to be in town to ask him to judge his case.

click for question
9)
(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi cursed those who accepted bribery - when during the course of the case (that he had declined to take on), he found himself automatically siding with his share-cropper. If that is what happened to him, he thought, in spite of the fact that he declined to take the fruit, and even if he had, it would have been his own fruit that he was taking, then imagine how real bribery must influence the judge who accepts it.
(b) A similar incident occurred with Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha, the Kohen Gadol, who refused to take on the case of somebody who came to him to be judged - because he brought him his Reishis ha'Gez (the first shearings - which the Torah obligates to give to a Kohen), when there were plenty of other Kohanim to whom he could have given it, simply because he happened to be going to see him anyway, in order to ask him to judge his case.

click for question
10)
(a) Rav Anan declined to accept the case of that man who sent him small fish. Based on an incident in Melachim (that happened with Elisha), the man nevertheless prevailed upon him to accept the fish as a gift. We learn from the reference to 'Bikurim' there - (which cannot be understood literally - because Elisha was not a Kohen [see also Tosfos]) that if someone brings a gift to a Talmid-Chacham, it is as if he had given Bikurim to a Kohen.
(b) When Rav Anan sent the man to him to be judged - Rav Nachman wrongly assumed that he must be his relative.
(c) The ramifications of that assumption were - that a case involving a Talmid-Chacham and his relatives takes precedence over cases involving other people ...
(d) ... because of the Aseh of Kavod Torah "es Hash-m Elokecha Tira" (Va'eschanan).

click for question
11)
(a) Bearing in mind that a second case awaiting Rav Nachman's attention concerned Yesomim - Rav Nachman was now faced with a dilemma whether to call the above case first or that of the Yesomim (who also take precedence over others - see Agados Maharsha).
(b) Rav Nachman decided - that the Aseh of Kavod Torah takes precedence over other Mitzvos Aseh.
(c) As a result of that decision - the man's opponent (seeing the honor that Rav Nachman was extending to him), became tongue-tied.

Next Daf