## Sanhedrin Daf 33a

###### Sanhedrin 33a:1
[Sanhedrin 33a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:1)

מִיכָּן שֶׁפּוֹתְחִין בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת תְּחִלָּה לִזְכוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From here** it is derived that **in** cases of **capital law,** the court **opens** the deliberations by **first** raising a claim **to acquit** the accused. This *baraita* corresponds to the explanation of Abaya and Rava that the court notifies the accused that he has nothing to fear if he is innocent.


###### Sanhedrin 33a:2
[Sanhedrin 33a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:2)

דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחֲזִירִין כּוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ: דָּן אֶת הַדִּין, זִיכָּה אֶת הַחַיָּיב, חִיֵּיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי, טִימֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר, טִיהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא – מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, וִישַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that in cases of **monetary law,** the court **brings** the accused **back** to be judged again if new evidence arises, whether with a claim to exempt him or with a claim to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court brings the accused back to be judged again with a claim to acquit him, but does not bring him back to be judged with a claim to find him liable. **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a mishna (*Bekhorot* 28b): If a judge **issued a judgment** and erred, so that he **exempts a liable** party or **finds an innocent** party **liable,** or if he **ruled** that **a pure** item is **impure** or **ruled** that **an impure** item is **pure,** and by doing so he caused a litigant a monetary loss; **what he did is done,** i.e., the judgment stands, **and** the judge **must pay** damages **from his home,** i.e., from his personal funds. This indicates that the court does not bring the accused back to be judged again if new evidence arises.


###### Sanhedrin 33a:3
[Sanhedrin 33a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:3)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בְּמוּמְחֶה, כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּמְחֶה. וּבְמוּמְחֶה מַחְזִירִין? וְהָקָתָנֵי: אִם הָיָה מוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef says:** This is **not difficult.** The mishna **here,** which teaches that the court does bring the accused back to be judged again if new evidence arises, is stated **with regard to** a judge who was **an expert,** whereas the mishna **there** in tractate *Bekhorot*, which teaches that what he did is done, is stated **with regard to** a judge **who was not an expert.** The Gemara asks: **And** does **one bring** the accused **back in** the case of a judge who was **an expert? But** that mishna in tractate *Bekhorot* **teaches: If he was an expert** accepted **by** the **court** he is **exempt from** liability **to pay.** This indicates that the court does not bring the accused back to be judged again if new evidence arises, even if the judge is an expert; otherwise there would be no need to state that the judge is exempt from liability to pay.


###### Sanhedrin 33a:4
[Sanhedrin 33a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:4)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כָּאן שֶׁיֵּשׁ גָּדוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן, כָּאן שֶׁאֵין גָּדוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says** a different explanation: The mishna **here,** which teaches that the court does bring the accused back to be judged again if new evidence arises, is stated with regard to a case **where there is** a court **greater than** this one **in wisdom and number** of students that can judge the case again. The mishna **there,** which teaches that what he did is done, is stated with regard to a case **where there is no** court **greater than his in wisdom and number** of students that can judge the case again. If this judge erred, the error will not be corrected.


###### Sanhedrin 33a:5
[Sanhedrin 33a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:5)

רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: כָּאן שֶׁטָּעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה, כָּאן שֶׁטָּעָה בְּשִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת. דְּאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: טָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה – חוֹזֵר, טָעָה בְּשִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet says** a different explanation: The mishna **here,** which teaches that the court does bring the accused back to be judged again if new evidence arises, is stated with regard to a case **where** the judge **erred in a matter** that appears in the **Mishna,** i.e., he forgot an explicit mishnaic ruling, in which case the verdict is void. The mishna **there,** which teaches that what he did is done, is stated with regard to a case **where** the judge **erred in** his **deliberation. As Rav Sheshet says** that **Rav Asi says:** In the case of a judge who **erred in a matter** that appears in the **Mishna,** the decision is **revoked,** but in the case of a judge who **erred in** his **deliberation,** the decision is **not revoked.**


###### Sanhedrin 33a:6
[Sanhedrin 33a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ טָעָה בְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אֲפִילּוּ בִּדְרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אֲפִילּוּ בְּדִידִי וְדִידָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ אֲנַן קָטְלֵי קְנֵי בְּאַגְמָא אֲנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi:** Does the category of: Erred in a matter that appears in the Mishna, include **even** one who **erred concerning** a statement of **Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Oshaya,** who were among the last of the *tanna’im*? Rav Ashi **said to him: Yes.** Ravina asked him: Does it include **even** one who erred **concerning** a statement **of** the first-generation *amora’im* **Rav and Shmuel?** Rav Ashi **said to him: Yes.** Ravina asked him: Does it include **even** one who erred **concerning** statements **of mine and yours,** as we are of the final generation of *amora’im*? Rav Ashi **said to him: Is that to say** that **we are reed cutters in the pond?** That is, our statements are in this category as well.


###### Sanhedrin 33a:7
[Sanhedrin 33a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:7)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי שִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּגוֹן תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי אוֹ תְּרֵי אָמוֹרָאֵי דִּפְלִיגִי אַהֲדָדֵי, וְלָא אִיתְּמַר הִלְכְתָא לָא כְּמָר וְלָא כְּמָר, וְאִיקְּרִי וַעֲבַד כְּחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, וְסוּגְיָא דִּשְׁמַעְתָּא אָזְלִי כְּאִידַּךְ – הַיְינוּ שִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What is considered** an error in **a deliberation? Rav Pappa says: For example, two *tanna’im* or two *amora’im* who disagree with each other, and the *halakha* was not stated in accordance with** this **Sage or in accordance with** that **Sage, and it occurred** that the judge **acted in accordance with one of them, and the discussion of the *halakha* goes in accordance with the other** opinion, i.e., most judges rule in accordance with the opposing opinion; **this is** an error in **a deliberation.**


###### Sanhedrin 33a:8
[Sanhedrin 33a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:8)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּפָרָה שֶׁל בֵּית מְנַחֵם שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, וְהֶאֱכִילָהּ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן לִכְלָבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hamnuna raised an objection to Rav Sheshet** from the continuation of the mishna cited earlier (*Bekhorot* 28b): There was **an incident involving a cow of the household of Menaḥem whose womb was removed,** and when Rabbi Tarfon was consulted he ruled that it is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*], which is forbidden for consumption. **And** based on the ruling of **Rabbi Tarfon,** the questioner **fed it to the dogs.**


###### Sanhedrin 33a:9
[Sanhedrin 33a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:9)

וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בְּיַבְנֶה, וְהִתִּירוּהָ. שֶׁאָמַר תּוֹדוֹס הָרוֹפֵא: אֵין פָּרָה וַחֲזִירָה יוֹצֵאת מֵאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חוֹתְכִין הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תֵּלֵד. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: הָלְכָה חֲמוֹרְךָ, טַרְפוֹן! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: פָּטוּר אַתָּה, שֶׁכׇּל הַמּוּמְחֶה לָרַבִּים פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **And the incident came before the Sages** of the court **in Yavne, and they ruled** that such an animal is **permitted** and is not a *tereifa*. **As Theodosius [*Todos*] the doctor said: A cow or pig does not emerge from Alexandria of Egypt unless** the residents **sever its womb so that it will not give birth** in the future. The breeds of cows and pigs in Alexandria were of exceptional quality and the people of Alexandria did not want them reproduced elsewhere. The fact that these animals lived long lives after their wombs were removed proves that the hysterectomy did not render them *tereifot*. Upon hearing this, **Rabbi Tarfon said: Your donkey is gone, Tarfon,** as he believed he was required to compensate the owner for the cow that he ruled to be a *tereifa*. **Rabbi Akiva said to him: You are exempt, as any** judge accepted as **an expert for the public** is **exempt from** liability **to pay.**


###### Sanhedrin 33a:10
[Sanhedrin 33a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:10)

וְאִי אִיתָא, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: טוֹעֶה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה אַתָּה, וְטוֹעֶה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה חוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Hamnuna states his objection to Rav Sheshet: **And if it is so** that there is a distinction between the two types of judicial errors, **let** Rabbi Akiva **say to** Rabbi Tarfon: **You err in a matter** that appears in the **Mishna,** as the ruling that an animal whose womb has been removed is permitted is recorded in a mishna (see *Ḥullin* 54a), **and** in the case of one who **errs in a matter** that appears in the **Mishna,** the decision is **revoked.**


###### Sanhedrin 33a:11
[Sanhedrin 33a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:11)

חֲדָא וְעוֹד קָאָמַר: חֲדָא, דְּטוֹעֶה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה אַתָּה, וְטוֹעֶה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה חוֹזֵר. וְעוֹד: אִי נָמֵי בְּשִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת טָעִיתָ – מוּמְחֶה לָרַבִּים אַתָּה, וְכׇל הַמּוּמְחֶה לָרַבִּים פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva **states one** reason **and** adds **another** reason. **One: As you err in a matter** that appears in the **Mishna, and** in the case of one who **errs in a matter** that appears in the **Mishna,** the decision is **revoked. Another: Even if you erred in a deliberation, you are** a judge accepted as **an expert for the public, and any** judge accepted as **an expert for the public** is **exempt from** liability **to pay.**


###### Sanhedrin 33a:12
[Sanhedrin 33a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:12)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: מַאי קָא מוֹתֵיב רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת מִפָּרָה? פָּרָה הֲרֵי הֶאֱכִילָהּ לִכְלָבִים, וְלֵיתָא דְּתֶהְדַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: What** was the **objection raised by Rav Hamnuna to Rav Sheshet from** the incident of the **cow?** After all, the owner had already **fed** the **cow to the dogs, and it is not** possible **to revoke** the ruling and judge the case again.


###### Sanhedrin 33a:13
[Sanhedrin 33a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:13)

הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא טָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר, אַלְמָא קָם דִּינָא – הַיְינוּ דְּקָא מְפַחֵיד רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, וְקָאָמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ: מוּמְחֶה לְבֵית דִּין אַתָּה וְאַתָּה פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ טָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה חוֹזֵר, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ הֲוַאי פָּרָה, דִּינָךְ לָאו דִּינָא וְלָא כְּלוּם עֲבַדְתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי לָא כְּלוּם עֲבַדְתְּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava answered: **This** is what Rav Hamnuna **was saying to** Rav Sheshet: **Granted, if you say** that in the case of a judge who **errs in a matter** that appears in the **Mishna,** the decision is **not revoked,** which **evidently** indicates that **the verdict stands** as it is, **that is** why **Rabbi Tarfon feared** that he would have to pay, **and** Rabbi Akiva **said to him: You are an expert** accepted **by** the **court, and** are **exempt from** liability **to pay. But if you say** that in the case of a judge who **erred in a matter** that appears in the **Mishna,** the decision is **revoked, let** Rabbi Akiva **say to** Rabbi Tarfon: **Since if the cow were to be** here, **your verdict** is **not a verdict and you did nothing, now as well, you did nothing** and you are not liable to pay. It was the action of the owner that caused the loss, as he fed the cow to the dogs.


###### Sanhedrin 33a:14
[Sanhedrin 33a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:14)

רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: כָּאן – שֶׁנָּטַל וְנָתַן בַּיָּד, כָּאן – שֶׁלֹּא נָטַל וְנָתַן בַּיָּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda says** that the contradiction between the mishna here and the mishna in tractate *Bekhorot* as to whether or not the court brings the accused back to be judged again if new evidence arises can be answered as follows: The mishna **there** in tractate *Bekhorot* is stated with regard to a case **where** a judge **took** the item in question from one litigant **and gave** it to the other litigant **with** his **hand.** In this case, the judge is liable to pay. The mishna **here** is stated with regard to a case **where** a judge of the court **did not take** the item in question from one litigant **and give** it to the other litigant **with** his **hand.** The court merely issued a ruling, and the litigants executed the verdict on their own. Therefore, the court is not liable to pay, and the judges retry the case.


###### Sanhedrin 33a:15
[Sanhedrin 33a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:15)

בִּשְׁלָמָא חִיֵּיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּטַל וְנָתַן בַּיָּד. אֶלָּא זִיכָּה אֶת הַחַיָּיב, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״פָּטוּר אַתָּה״, וְהָא לֹא נָטַל וְנָתַן בַּיָּד! כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״פָּטוּר אַתָּה״, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּטַל וְנָתַן בַּיָּד דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** one can explain the clause from the mishna in tractate *Bekhorot*: He **finds an innocent** party **liable,** in a case **where** the judge **took** the item in question from the innocent party **and gave** it to the other litigant **with** his **hand. But how can you find** him giving the item from one to another with regard to the clause of: **He exempts a liable** party? **As,** the judge **said to** the litigant only: **You are exempt** from liability to pay, **but** the judge **did not take** the item in question from one litigant **and give** it to the other litigant **with** his **hand.** The Gemara explains: **Once he says: You are exempt** from liability to pay, it is **considered as if he took** the item in question from the innocent party **and gave** it to the other litigant **with** his **hand,** as there is no need for any further action.


###### Sanhedrin 33a:16
[Sanhedrin 33a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:16)

אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי: דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחְזִירִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, בִּשְׁלָמָא לִזְכוּת מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא: ״חַיָּיב אַתָּה״, וְלֹא נָטַל וְלֹא נָתַן בַּיָּד. אֶלָּא לְחוֹבָה הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״פָּטוּר אַתָּה״? וְהָאָמְרַתְּ: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ ״פָּטוּר אַתָּה״, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּטַל וְנָתַן בַּיָּד דָּמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** what of **the mishna, which teaches:** In cases of **monetary law,** the court **brings** the accused **back** to be judged again if new evidence arises, **either** with a claim **to exempt** the accused, **or** with a claim **to find** him **liable? Granted, you** can **find** the example of: **To exempt, where** the court **says at the outset** to one litigant: **You are liable** to pay, **and** a judge **did not take** the item in question from one litigant **and give** it to the other litigant **with** his **hand,** as Rav Ḥisda holds that the verdict is revoked and the court does not pay. **But how can you find** the example of judging the case again **to find** him **liable? As** once the court **says to** the litigant: **You are exempt,** the case cannot be judged again. **But you said** that **once** a judge **says: You are exempt** from liability to pay, it is **considered as if he took** the item in question from the innocent party **and gave** it to the other litigant **with** his **hand.** If so, the court must pay and the judgment will not be revoked.


###### Sanhedrin 33a:17
[Sanhedrin 33a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/33a:17)

חֲדָא קָתָנֵי: דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחְזִירִין לִזְכוּת, שֶׁהִיא חוֹבָה. דִּכְוָותַהּ גַּבֵּי נְפָשׁוֹת: מַחְזִירִין לִזְכוּת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna **teaches** only that **one** statement, and it should be understood as follows: In cases of **monetary law,** the court **brings** the litigant **back** to be judged again **to exempt** that litigant, **which is** to the **liability** of the other litigant, while **in the corresponding** situation **with regard to** cases of **capital** law, the court **brings** the accused **back to acquit** him,