SANHEDRIN 86 (20 Tishrei) - Dedicated by Al and Sophia Ziegler of Har Nof, Jerusalem, and their son Jared, in loving memory of Al's mother, Chaya bas Berel Dov Ziegler, on the day of her Yahrzeit - and towards her grandson Jared's continued growth in Torah and Yir'as Shamayim.

The reference numbers below that appear in parentheses (e.g., TY #43) represent vessels or parts of the structure of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The labeling follows that of the diagram of the Tiferes Yisrael. This diagram, which has been included in a separate mailing and can also be found on our site (at http://www.dafyomi.co.il/midos/mids-charts.htm), is printed both in the Tiferes Yisrael Mishnayos (Midos Chapter 2 or following Midos) and in Rav P. Kahati's Mishnayos (page 290, at the beginning of Midos).

[a - 50 lines; b - 49 lines]

1)[line 2] "[KI YIMATZEI ISH GONEV NEFESH] ME'ECHAV, [MI'BENEI YISRAEL, V'HIS'AMER BO U'MECHARO, U'MES HA'GANAV HA'HU, U'VI'ARTA HA'RA MI'KIRBECHA.]"- "[When a man is found kidnapping a soul] of his brothers [from among the Jewish people, and he makes him do hard labor and he sells him, that kidnapper shall be put to death, and you shall remove the evil from your midst.]" (Devarim 24:7) - Rebbi Shimon interprets the word "me'Echav" to mean "from his brothers," that is, he must be taken away from his family. As a result, he rules that if a person who is kidnapped is sold to his own family, the kidnapper is not liable to the death penalty.

2a)[line 5] MASNISIN- our Mishnah, which, when stated anonymously, follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir

b)[line 5] TOSEFTA- a collection of Beraisos and teachings of Tana'im that were not included in our Mishnah which, when stated anonymously, follows the opinion of Rebbi Nechemyah

c)[line 6] SIFRA- Toras Kohanim. One of the earliest commentaries on Vayikra, which was written by Rav (circa 220 C.E.) and which, when stated anonymously, follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah (it is also called Sifra d'Vei Rav)

d)[line 6] SIFRI- One of the earliest commentaries on Bamidbar and Devarim, which, when stated anonymously, follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon

3a)[line 14] (MIKREI) [MAKREI] DARDEKEI- teachers of young boys (who teach them to read verses)

b)[line 14] (MASNU) [MASNEI] RABANAN- teachers of the Mishnah

4)[line 17] BOSHESH - [the payment for] embarrassment

See Background to Sanhedrin 78:30:5).

5)[line 17] "KI YINATZU ANASHIM YACHDAV, ISH V'ACHIV... [V'KATZOSAH ES KAPAH...]"- "When men fight together, one with another (lit. a man with his brother) [and the wife of one draws near to save her husband from the hand of him who strikes him, and puts forth her hand, and grabs him by his private parts. Then you shall charge her money (lit. cut off her hand) for the embarrassment that she caused.]" (Devarim 25:11-12)

6)[line 19] ACHAVAH- brotherhood

7)[line 19] YATZA EVED SHE'EIN LO ACHAVAH- this excludes a slave who has no "brotherhood," i.e. slaves have no Halachically recognized lineage

8)[line 19] ACHIV HU B'MITZVOS - he (the Eved) is "Achiv" (his brother, i.e. a Jew's brother) with regard to Mitzvos (since he is obligated to perform the Mitzvos that a woman is obligated to perform) (EVED KENA'ANI CHAYAV B'MITZVOS SHEHA'ISHAH CHAYEVES BAHEN)

(a)A Jew may acquire a Nochri slave or maidservant (Eved Kena'ani or Shifchah Kena'anis) by purchasing the slave from a Jewish or Nochri master and making a Kinyan on the slave with either Kesef (paying money), Shtar (receiving a contract), Chazakah (having the slave work for him) or Chalipin -- the same Kinyanim that are used in the purchase of real-estate (see Background to Bava Basra 52:25). In addition, an Eved Kena'ani can be acquired through Kinyan Meshichah, like moveable objects (see Background to Bava Metzia 44:5c). A Nochri can also be acquired as a slave by being captured (Gitin 38a). These Halachos, and the Halachos mentioned below, apply whether the slave is from the Kena'ani nation or from another nation. Nevertheless, the generic term used by the Mishnah and Gemara to refer to Nochri slaves is Eved "Kena'ani," since the Torah openly describes Kena'an as a slave (Bereishis 9:27; see Rashi to Kidushin 22b DH Sadeh).

(b)A Nochri slave must undergo a process of involuntary conversion, in which he is circumcised (in the case of a male slave) and immersed in a Mikvah, after which he becomes obligated in Mitzvos. Regardless of gender, a Nochri slave is obligated to keep only those Mitzvos which a Jewish woman is obligated to keep. The slave is not permitted to marry an ordinary Jew. When the slave is freed, he automatically becomes a full-fledged Jew and is obligated to keep all of the Mitzvos, like a normal convert. However, before he is freed, his exemption from certain Mitzvos, as well as his prohibition to marry a Jewish woman, are a direct consequence of the slavery. The Rishonim refer to this as a "Kinyan Isur," a "prohibitive" Kinyan (see Rishonim to Gitin 38a, Kidushin 16a).

(c)For a discussion of additional Halachos of an Eved Kena'ani, see Background to Sanhedrin 58:14.

9)[line 21] "ME'ECHAV, MI'BENEI YISRAEL"- see above, entry #1

10)[line 24] EIN MI'UT ACHAR MI'UT ELA L'RABOS

(a)When a Mi'ut (text that excludes a particular case or item) is followed by another Mi'ut, the law is that "Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela l'Rabos." That is, when one limitation of the law appears after another limitation, the Torah's intent is to *extend* the law, rather than limit it.

(b)This rule of Biblical interpretation interprets the occurrence of two Mi'utim regarding an identical point as *extending* the Halachah they describe, rather than limiting it to include less items or to apply in less cases. That is, even though a single Mi'ut limits the Halachah to specific items or cases, a double Mi'ut teaches to *extend* the Halachah and not to interpret it in a limiting sense.

(c)The logical derivation for this rule is as follows: If we already know to apply the Halachah under discussion to a particular item (or case), it would not be necessary for the Torah to again teach that the Halachah applies only to that item. It is therefore evident from the second Mi'ut that the first one was *not* meant to limit the law to lesser items or cases. Likewise, the second Mi'ut cannot have been written to exclude those cases, for the Torah could have taught to exclude them by writing *only* the first Mi'ut. It must therefore be concluded that the double Mi'ut means to teach that we should *not* learn to exclude items or cases in the Halachah under discussion. (This rule is closely related to the rule of "Shenei Chesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad Ein Melamdim" -- see Background to Kidushin 58:13 and to the converse rule of "Ein Ribuy Achar Ribuy Ela l'Ma'et -- see Bava Kama 45:19.)

(d)In all cases of Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut, the obvious question is why did the Torah write even a single Mi'ut? Let the Torah write neither Mi'ut and we would know by ourselves not to exclude items or cases from the law, since there is no Mi'ut to exclude it! (Obviously the item would not be excluded without a Mi'ut, since we originally found it necessary to interpret the first Mi'ut as excluding that item.) TOSFOS (to Yoma 60a DH Trei) asks this question and answers that perhaps we would have excluded that item without the first Mi'ut, through a Binyan Av (see Background to Sanhedrin 30:18) or a Kal va'Chomer (see Background to Bava Basra 111:13). The first Mi'ut was not really necessary, but we would have justified the Mi'ut as "Milsa d'Asya b'Kal va'Chomer Tarach v'Chasav Lah Kra" - "the Torah troubles itself to write out explicitly that which can be learned from a Kal va'Chomer" (see Kidushin 4a, Chulin 118b). The second Mi'ut teaches not only to ignore the first Mi'ut, but also to ignore the Binyan Av or Kal va'Chomer as well.

11)[line 30] "[KI AVADAI HEM, ASHER HOTZEISI OSAM ME'ERETZ MITZRAYIM;] LO YIMACHRU MIMKERES AVED."- "[For they are My servants, who I have taken ourt of the land of Egypt;] they shall not be sold in the manner that slaves are sold." (Vayikra 25:42) - This verse refers to an Eved Ivri (a Jewish slave - see Background to Bava Metzia 71:16).

12)[line 35] SHELOSH ESREI MIDOS SHEHA'TORAH NIDRESHES BAHEN- the thirteen methods that Chazal use for extracting the Halachah from the verses of the Torah, listed by Rebbi Yishmael in the introduction to the Sifra (the Halachic Midrash to Vayikra).

13)[line 36] DAVAR HA'LAMED ME'INYANO- "a topic that is understood from its context," which is one of the Shelosh Esrei Midos sheha'Torah Nidreshes Bahen

14)[line 46] DAVAR V'LO CHATZI DAVAR

(a)According to Rebbi Akiva, when the Torah states, "Al Pi Shenei Edim... Yakum *Davar*" - "According to the word of two witnesses... shall *a case* be established" (Devarim 19:15), it means that the witnesses must see, and testify about, the entire act for which the person is being held accountable. If they see only half of the act, their testimony cannot be used to convict the person.

(b)The Gemara here suggests that the argument between Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yochanan is based on the argument between Rebbi Akiva and the Chachamim. Chizkiyah follows the view of Rebbi Akiva, and thus when one set of witnesses testifies about the kidnapping and another set testifies about the selling of the victim, none of the testimony is acceptable. Rebbi Yochanan follows the view of the Chachamim, who maintain that the testimony of each set of witnesses is valid because they combine to form one complete "Davar."

15)[line 48] MODEH CHIZKIYAH B'EDIM HA'ACHARONIM SHEL BEN SORER U'MOREH SHE'HUZMU SHE'NEHERAGIN- Chizkiyah agrees that in the case of a Ben Sorer u'Moreh (see Background to Sanhedrin 53:10), the second set of witnesses (who testify that the rebellious son ate gluttonously from the money that he stole from his parents), who are found to be Edim Zomemim, are indeed killed

16)[last line] MI'TOCH SHE'YECHOLIM LOMAR HA'RISHONIM "L'HALKOSO BANU"- since the first set of witnesses are able to say, "We came [to testify that the rebellious son stole from his father in order] to give him lashes" (which is the preliminary punishment given to a Ben Sorer u'Moreh). That is, they are able to claim that they never intended to have the defendant killed, and thus if they are shown to be Edim Zomemim, they are not killed.

86b----------------------------------------86b

17)[line 8] TISTAYEM- you may correctly conclude as follows

18)[line 10] HAVAH LEI LAV SHE'NITAN L'AZHARAS MISAS BEIS DIN- it (the negative commandment of "Lo Sa'aneh v'Re'acha Ed Sheker" - "Do not bear false witness against your fellow" -- Shemos 20:13) is a negative commandment that was given as a warning for capital punishment (see next entry)

19)[line 10] KOL LAV SHE'NITAN L'AZHARAS MISAS BEIS DIN EIN LOKIN ALAV

(a)A person is punished with 39 lashes (Malkus) when he transgresses negative commandments of the Torah, with certain exceptions.

(b)One category of negative commandments for which one is *not* given Malkus is "Lav she'Nitan l'Azharas Misas Beis Din" ("a negative commandment that was given as a warning for capital punishment"). The Torah only prescribes capital punishment after writing a specific prohibition not to do a certain act. In such cases, the negative commandment is only written as a prerequisite for administering capital punishment, and not to give the offender Malkus. Therefore, when a person does a capital offense and is warned that he will incur Malkus, he is neither executed nor given Malkus.

20)[line 17] MODEH REBBI YOCHANAN B'EDIM HA'RISHONIM SHEL BEN SORER U'MOREH SHE'HUZMU SHE'EIN NEHERAGIN- Rebbi Yochanan agrees that in the case of a Ben Sorer u'Moreh, the first set of witnesses (who testify that the rebellious son stole from his parents), who are found to be Edim Zomemim, are not killed

21)[line 28] SHENAYIM OMRIM B'FANIENU GANAV U'SHNAYIM OMRIM B'FANEINU ACHAL- two [witnesses] say, "He stole [money from his father] in front of us" and two [other witnesses] say, "He ate [gluttonously from the money that he stole from his parents] in front of us"

22)[line 38] D'KA MERAMZEI REMUZI- they (witnesses who had the ability to testify that they saw the kidnapping) were hinting [as to their intention to testify, to the witnesses who saw the sale of the person who was kidnapped]

23)[line 39] REMIZA MILSA HI- hinting is significant [enough to be considered as if the witnesses to the kidnapping did testify, with regard to the ability of Beis Din to convict the witnesses to the sale, should those witnesses be found to be Edim Zomemim]

24)[line 40] "KI YIPALEI MIMCHA DAVAR LA'MISHPAT, [BEIN DAM L'DAM, BEIN DIN L'DIN, U'VEIN NEGA LA'NEGA, DIVREI RIVOS BI'SH'ARECHA; V'KAMTA V'ALISA EL HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASH-M ELOKECHA BO.]"- "If there arises a matter too hard for you in judgment, [between blood and blood, between judgment and judgment, and between plague and plague, being matters of controversy inside your gates; then you shall arise and go up to the place which HaSh-m, your G-d, will choose.]" (Devarim 17:8)

25a)[line 41] AL PESACH HAR HA'BAYIS- (lit. at the entrance to Har ha'Bayis) inside the Cheil (TY #8, see Background to Yoma 16:11), next to the eastern gate of the Ezras Nashim (TY #10)

b)[line 41] AL PESACH HA'AZARAH- inside the Ezras Nashim, at the entrance to the Azarah (courtyard) of the Beis ha'Mikdash

c)[line 41] LISHKAS HA'GAZIS- the Chamber of Hewn Stone (TY #27), the seat of the Jewish Supreme Court, known as the Great Sanhedrin of 71 judges. The Lishkas ha'Gazis was partially built in the Azarah of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Great Sanhedrin was the highest Halachic authority before which the most difficult cases were brought (Devarim 17:8).

26)[line 43] (AMAR) [OMRIM] LAHEM- they (the judges of the first Sanhedri Ketanah) say to them (the renowned Torah sage and the judges of his town) [the Halachah in the case under dispute] (TOSFOS YOM TOV; see KESEF MISHNEH to the RAMBAM Hilchos Mamrim 3:8)

27)[line 43] BA'IN LAHEN- they come [before the judges of the second Sanhedri Ketanah] (TOSFOS YOM TOV states that this refers to the renowned Torah sage and the judges of his town. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Mamrim 3:8) states that this refers to the renowned Torah sage, the judges of his town and the first Sanhedri Ketanah.)

28)[line 45] ELU V'ELU- (lit. these and these) the renowned Torah sage, the judges of his town and the judges of the first and second Sanhedri Ketanah

29)[line 46] "V'ASISA AL PI HA'DAVAR ASHER YAGIDU LECHA MIN HA'MAKOM HA'HU ASHER YIVCHAR HA'SH-M; V'SHAMARTA LA'ASOS K'CHOL ASHER YORUCHA"- "And you shall do according to the verdict which they of that place which HaSh-m shall choose shall declare to you; and you shall take care to do according to all that they inform you." (Devarim 17:10)

30a)[line 47] SHANAH V'LIMED- he learned and taught

b)[line 47] B'DERECH SHE'HAYAH (LAMED) [LAMUD]- according to his original opinion (that was overruled by the Great Sanhedrin)

31)[line 47] HORAH LA'ASOS- he issued a ruling [instructing others] to act [according to his original opinion]

32)[line 48] "VEHA'ISH ASHER YA'ASEH V'ZADON [L'VILTI SHEMO'A EL HA'KOHEN... O EL HA'SHOFET, U'MES HA'ISH HA'HU...]"- "And the man who will act presumptuously, and will not listen to the Kohen... or to the judge, that man shall die..." (Devarim 17:12) - see Background to Sanhedrin 84:8.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF