brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net
|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.|
1. One who kidnaps a person and then sells the victim to his father is Patur.
2. All of the various Mishnayos and Beraisos were compiled by the students of Rebbi Akiva.
3. There is a disagreement whether someone who kidnaps his son and sells him is Chayav.
4. There is a disagreement whether one who kidnaps a person who is half servant and half free then sells him will be Chayav.
5. There is an argument whether one who embarrasses a servant must pay the Boshes penalty.
6. Two witnesses testify that they saw a kidnapping, and two other witnesses testify that they saw the sale of the kidnapped person. If both sets of witnesses become Edim Zomemim, there is a Machlokes whether they are all Chayav Misah.
7. Witnesses testify that they saw a kidnapping. Then they become Edim Zomemin. There is a disagreement whether they are Chayav Malkus.
8. Witnesses testify that a person sold another Jew. Later, other witnesses testify that the person kidnapped the fellow Jew before selling him. If the first set of witnesses become Zomemim, they are Patur.
9. Witnesses testify that a Ben Sorer u'Moreh stole money from his parents for the first time and subsequently ate meat and drank wine. If they later become Zomemim, they are Chayav Malkus.
10. Two witnesses testify that a Ben Sorer u'Moreh stole money from his parents. Two other witnesses testify that he bought and ate meat with the money. There is an argument as to whether or not he is Chayav.
11. A Zaken Mamrei is only Chayav if he is passes a ruling that is in defiance of the ruling of the Beis Din ha'Gadol.
A BIT MORE
1. One is only Chayav if he kidnaps a person and takes him out of the Reshus of his "brothers." If the victim is sold to the father, he is still in the Reshus of his "brothers."
2. Any anonymous Mishnah is Rebbi Meir, any anonymous Tosefta is Rebbi Nechemyah, any anonymous Sifra is Rebbi Yehudah, and any anonymous Sifri is Rebbi Shimon. All of these Beraisos are based on the teachings of Rebbi Akiva.
3. Rebbi Yochanan Ben Berokah teaches he is Chayav. However, the Rabanan say that he is Patur, because the son frequents (Matzuy) the Reshus of his father. According to the Rabanan, if a Rebbi kidnaps and sells one of his students he is also Patur, since students frequent the Reshus of their Rebbi.
4. Rebbi Yehudah says that he is Chayav while the Rabanan hold that he is Patur. However, Rebbi Yehudah agrees that if someone kidnaps a full-fledged servant he is Patur.
5. Rebbi Yehudah says he is Patur because the verse says "brother" and a servant is not regarded as a brother. The Rabanan say he is Chayav because a servant is a "brother" with regard to Mitzvos, since a servant is Chayav in the same Mitzvos as a woman.
6. Everyone agrees that the witnesses who testified on the sale are Chayav Misah, because they were attempting to be punish the kidnapper with Misah. Chizkiyah maintains that the witnesses who testified on the kidnapping are not Chayav Misah, because they could only have punished the kidnapper with Malkus, not Misah (since their testimony is a "Chatzi Davar" regarding Misah). Rebbi Yochanan maintains that they are Chayav Misah, because they were attempting to kill him and not just to be Mechayev him Malkus. He maintains that "Geneivah is the beginning of Mechirah," meaning that their testimony is not disqualified because of "Chatzi Davar" with regard to Misah. Since their testimony can bring about Misah, it cannot bring about Malkus (because it is a Lav she'Nitan l'Azharas Misas Beis Din, with regard to Malkus).
7. Chizkiyah maintains they are Chayav Malkus, since they wanted to punish the purported kidnapper with Malkus. Rebbi Yochanan disagrees, and maintains that they could not have punished the purported kidnapper with Malkus. His logic is, had witnesses testified that the kidnapper sold the person he kidnapped (before the first witnesses became Zomemim), the kidnapper would be Chayav *Misah*. This makes the Lav which prohibits kidnapping "Nitan l'Azharas Misas Beis Din" (connected to a Misah punishment), and it exempts the transgressor from Malkus.
8. They are Patur from Misah because they can claim that they did not know that he kidnapped the person he was selling. Rather, they thought he was selling his servant. Thus, they did not intend to be Mechayev the kidnapper Misah.
9. Even Rebbi Yochanan agrees that they are Chayav Malkus, because they are attempting to be Mechayev the Ben Sorer a punishment of Malkus. A Ben Sorer u'Moreh is definitely Chayav Malkus for the first time that he stole from his parents.
10. Chizkiyah says that the Ben Sorer u'Moreh is Patur, because each set of witnesses is only testifying on half of the act. Witnesses must testify on a complete act in order for their testimony to be valid. Rebbi Yochanan says he is Chayav. He maintains that even if witnesses testify on half of an act it is a valid testimony.
11. However, if he only *teaches his students* in defiance of the Beis Din ha'Gadol, but he does not actually pass a ruling in accordance with his teaching, he is Patur.
Next Daf Index to Revach for Maseches Sanhedrin