## Sanhedrin Daf 5a

###### Sanhedrin 5a:1
[Sanhedrin 5a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/5a:1)

וְאִם הָיָה מוּמְחֶה לְרַבִּים, דָּן אֲפִילּוּ יְחִידִי. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא דָּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּיחִידִי. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא דָּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּיחִידִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if** one **was** a judge accepted as **an expert for the public,** then **he may judge** cases **even** as the **lone** judge. **Rav Naḥman said:** One **such as I may judge** cases of **monetary law as** the **lone** judge. **And similarly, Rabbi Ḥiyya said:** One **such as I may judge** cases of **monetary law as** the **lone** judge.


###### Sanhedrin 5a:2
[Sanhedrin 5a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/5a:2)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כְּגוֹן אֲנָא דִּגְמִירְנָא וּסְבִירְנָא וּנְקִיטְנָא רְשׁוּתָא, אֲבָל לָא נְקִיט רְשׁוּתָא – דִּינֵיהּ לָא דִּינָא? אוֹ דִילְמָא: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא נָקֵיט רְשׁוּתָא – דִּינֵיהּ דִּינָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: What is the meaning of: Such as I, in the statements of these Rabbis? Did they intend to say: **Such as I,** in **that I have studied and** have the skills to **extrapolate** and derive new rulings on the basis of earlier decisions, **and have** also **received permission** to judge as the lone judge? **But** accordingly, if one **has not received permission** to judge as the lone judge, **his judgment is not** a valid **judgment? Or perhaps** this is not the correct reading of the statements, and the *halakha* is that **even though he did not receive permission** to judge as the lone judge, **his judgment is** nevertheless a valid **judgment?**


###### Sanhedrin 5a:3
[Sanhedrin 5a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/5a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּמָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן דָּן דִּינָא וּטְעָה, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף. אָמַר לוֹ: אִם קִיבְּלוּךְ עֲלַיְיהוּ – לָא תְּשַׁלֵּם, וְאִי לָא – זִיל שַׁלֵּים. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כִּי לָא נָקֵיט רְשׁוּתָא – דִּינֵיהּ דִּינָא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a solution to this dilemma from the following case: **Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman,** once **adjudicated** a certain **case and erred** in his ruling. Upon recognizing his error, **he came before Rav Yosef** to ask what he should do. Rav Yosef **said to him: If** the litigants **accepted you upon themselves** as the lone judge, and both had agreed that they would accept your ruling, **you are not** liable to **pay** restitution to the party who lost the case due to your erroneous ruling. **But if** they did **not** accept you on themselves, but were rather compelled to be judged before you, you must **go** and **pay** restitution. And **learn from it** that even in a case **where one did not receive permission** to judge as the lone judge, **his ruling is** a valid **judgment.** The Gemara affirms: **Learn from it** that this is the case.


###### Sanhedrin 5a:4
[Sanhedrin 5a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/5a:4)

אָמַר רַב: הַאי מַאן דְּבָעֵי לְמֵידַן דִּינָא, וְאִי טְעָה מִיבְעֵי לְמִיפְּטַר – לִישְׁקוֹל רְשׁוּתָא מִבֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא. וְכֵן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לִשְׁקוֹל רְשׁוּתָא מִבֵּי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav says: One who wants to adjudicate a case and wants to be exempt** from payment of restitution **if he errs** in his judgment **must receive permission from the Exilarch** to judge cases. **And similarly, Shmuel says:** In such a case **he must receive permission from the Exilarch.** Once he receives permission, even an erroneous decision carries halakhic force and therefore it is as if he did not err.


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

פְּשִׁיטָא: מֵהָכָא לְהָכָא, וּמֵהָתָם לְהָתָם – מַהֲנֵי. וּמֵהָכָא לְהָתָם נָמֵי מַהֲנֵי, דְּהָכָא שֵׁבֶט וְהָתָם מְחוֹקֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since the Gemara mentioned the importance of a judge receiving authorization from the Exilarch, it now discusses the scope of this authority. It is **obvious** that **from here to here,** meaning relying on permission granted by the Exilarch in Babylonia in order to adjudicate cases within Babylonia, **and from there to there,** relying on permission granted by the *Nasi* in Eretz Yisrael in order to adjudicate cases within Eretz Yisrael, the authorization **is effective. And** it is also obvious that **from here to there,** relying on permission granted by the Exilarch to adjudicate cases within Eretz Yisrael, it **is also effective,** as the authority of the Exilarch is greater than that of the *Nasi*. This is so **since** the Exilarch **here** in Babylonia may be termed **a scepter,** i.e., a ruler with actual power of governance, **and** the *Nasi* **there** in Eretz Yisrael is only **a staff,** i.e., a legislator with limited power.


###### Sanhedrin 5a:6
[Sanhedrin 5a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/5a:6)

כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״לֹא יָסוּר שֵׁבֶט מִיהוּדָה״ – אֵלּוּ רָאשֵׁי גָלִיּוֹת שֶׁבְּבָבֶל, שֶׁרוֹדִין אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשֵׁבֶט. ״וּמְחֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו״ – אֵלּוּ בְּנֵי בָּנָיו שֶׁל הִלֵּל, שֶׁמְּלַמְּדִין תּוֹרָה בָּרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet until Shiloh comes” (Genesis 49:10). The term “Shiloh” is understood as a reference to the Messiah, and therefore the verse is interpreted as delineating the authority of Jewish rulers during the exile, before the Messiah comes. **“The scepter shall not depart from Judah”; these are the Exilarchs in Babylonia, who** are empowered by the government and consequently **subjugate the Jewish people** as **with a scepter. “Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet”; These are the grandchildren of Hillel** the Elder **who** hold the position of *Nasi* and **teach Torah in public,** but do not have authority to actually enforce their judgments.


###### Sanhedrin 5a:7
[Sanhedrin 5a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/5a:7)

מֵהָתָם לְהָכָא מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּרַבָּה בַּר חָנָה דָּן דִּינָא וּטְעָה. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי קִיבְּלוּךְ עֲלַיְיהוּ – לָא תְּשַׁלֵּם, וְאִי לָא – זִיל שַׁלֵּים. וְהָא רַבָּה בַּר חָנָה רְשׁוּתָא הֲוָה נְקִיט! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מֵהָתָם לְהָכָא לָא מַהֲנֵי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one has permission **from there,** from the *Nasi*, and wants **to** adjudicate cases **here** in Babylonia, **what** is the *halakha*? The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** an incident **that** occurred: **Rabba bar Ḥana adjudicated a case** in Babylonia **and erred. He came before Rabbi Ḥiyya** to ask what he should do. Rabbi Ḥiyya **said to him: If** the litigants **accepted you upon themselves, you are not** liable to **pay** restitution to the party who unjustly lost the case, **but if not, go** and **pay. But Rabba bar Ḥana received permission** from the *Nasi* in Eretz Yisrael; therefore, **learn from** this incident that permission **from there to** adjudicate cases **here is not effective.** The Gemara affirms: **Learn from it** that this is the case.


###### Sanhedrin 5a:8
[Sanhedrin 5a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/5a:8)

וְלָא מַהֲנֵי? וְהָא רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, כִּי הֲוָה מִינְּצֵי בַּהֲדֵי דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, אָמַר: לָאו מִינַּיְיכוּ נְקִיטְנָא רְשׁוּתָא, נְקִיטְנָא רְשׁוּתָא מֵאַבָּא מָרִי, וְאַבָּא מָרִי מֵרַב, וְרַב מֵרַבִּי חִיָּיא, וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא מֵרַבִּי! בְּמִילְּתָא דְעָלְמָא הוּא דְּאוֹקֵים לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is this permission **not effective? But when Rabba bar Rav Huna was** involved **in a dispute with the** members of **the house of the Exilarch he said:** It is **not from you** that **I received permission** to judge cases. **I received permission from my father, my master,** i.e., Rav Huna, **and my father, my master,** received permission **from Rav, and Rav from Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Ḥiyya from Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, it seems that permission received in Eretz Yisrael is in fact effective in Babylonia. The Gemara rejects this proof: **He was** merely **standing up to them with words alone,** but there was no halakhic validity to his statement.


###### Sanhedrin 5a:9
[Sanhedrin 5a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/5a:9)

וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּלָא מַהֲנֵי, רַבָּה בַּר חָנָה רְשׁוּתָא דִּנְקַט לְמָה לִי? לָעֲיָירוֹת הָעוֹמְדִים עַל הַגְּבוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But since** permission to judge received in Eretz Yisrael **is not effective** in Babylonia, **why did Rabba bar Ḥana** need to **receive permission** when he left for Babylonia? What was the value of that permission? The Gemara answers: The permission is effective **for the cities that stand on the borders** of Babylonia, which are not entirely in the jurisdiction of Babylonia, so permission from Eretz Yisrael is effective there.


###### Sanhedrin 5a:10
[Sanhedrin 5a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/5a:10)

מַאי רְשׁוּתָא? כִּי הֲוָה נָחֵית רַבָּה בַּר חָנָה לְבָבֶל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא לְרַבִּי: בֶּן אָחִי יוֹרֵד לְבָבֶל. ״יוֹרֶה?״ ״יוֹרֶה!״, ״יָדִין?״ ״יָדִין!״, ״יַתִּיר בְּכוֹרוֹת?״ ״יַתִּיר!״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **What** is the specific nature of this **permission?** The Gemara relates: **When Rabba bar Ḥana descended to Babylonia,** his uncle **Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: **My brother’s son is descending to Babylonia. May he teach** people and issue rulings with regard to what is prohibited and what is permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: **He may teach.** Rabbi Ḥiyya then asked: **May he** also **adjudicate** cases of monetary law, and be absolved from payment if he errs? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: **He may adjudicate.** Rabbi Ḥiyya continued: **May he declare a firstborn** animal **permitted?** The male firstborn of a kosher animal may not be eaten, as it is supposed to be offered in the Temple. But if it acquires a permanent blemish it is unfit for an offering, and it may be eaten. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: **He may declare** such an animal **permitted.**


###### Sanhedrin 5a:11
[Sanhedrin 5a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/5a:11)

כִּי הֲוָה נָחֵית רַב לְבָבֶל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא לְרַבִּי: בֶּן אֲחוֹתִי יוֹרֵד לְבָבֶל. ״יוֹרֶה?״ ״יוֹרֶה!״, ״יָדִין?״ ״יָדִין!״, ״יַתִּיר בְּכוֹרוֹת?״ ״אַל יַתִּיר!״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **when Rav,** who was also Rabbi Ḥiyya’s nephew, **descended to Babylonia, Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: **My sister’s son is descending to Babylonia. May he teach** people and issue rulings with regard to what is prohibited and what is permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: **He may teach.** Rabbi Ḥiyya then asked: **May he** also **adjudicate** cases of monetary law, and be absolved from payment if he errs? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded: **He may adjudicate.** Rabbi Ḥiyya continued: **May he declare a firstborn** animal **permitted?** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: **He may not declare** such an animal **permitted.**


###### Sanhedrin 5a:12
[Sanhedrin 5a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/5a:12)

מַאי שְׁנָא לְמָר דְּקָא קָרֵי ״בֶּן אָחִי״, וּמַאי שְׁנָא לְמָר דְּקָא קָרֵי ״בֶּן אֲחוֹתִי״? וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי הֲוָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְהָאָמַר מָר: אַיְּבוּ וְחַנָּה וְשֵׁילָא וּמָרְתָא וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא כּוּלְּהוּ בְּנֵי אַבָּא בַּר אַחָא כַּרְסַלָּא מִכַּפְרִי הֲווֹ? רַב בַּר אֲחוּהּ דַּהֲוָה בַּר אֲחָתֵיהּ, רַבָּה בַּר חָנָה בַּר אֲחוּהּ דְּלָאו בַּר אֲחָתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This incident raises several questions, which the Gemara asks in sequence. **What is different concerning this Sage,** Rabba bar Ḥana, **that** Rabbi Ḥiyya **called him: My brother’s son, and what is different concerning that Sage,** Rav, **that** Rabbi Ḥiyya **called him: My sister’s son? And if you would say that this was** the **situation:** Rabba bar Ḥana was his brother’s son and Rav was his sister’s son, **but doesn’t the Master say: Aivu,** Rav’s father, **and Ḥana,** the father of Rabba bar Ḥana, **and Sheila, and Marta, and Rabbi Ḥiyya, were all sons of Abba bar Aḥa Karsala from Kafrei?** Consequently, Rav would also be Rabbi Ḥiyya’s brother’s son. The Gemara answers: **Rav** was **his brother’s son who was** also **his sister’s son,** as Rabbi Ḥiyya’s half-brother married Rabbi Ḥiyya’s half-sister; while **Rabba bar Ḥana was his brother’s son who was not his sister’s son.** Therefore, he referred to Rav in a manner that emphasized the additional relationship.


###### Sanhedrin 5a:13
[Sanhedrin 5a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/5a:13)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that he called him: My sister’s son, for a different reason: