## Sanhedrin Daf 8a

###### Sanhedrin 8a:1
[Sanhedrin 8a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/8a:1)

פְּסִילְנָא לָךְ לְדִינָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: פּוֹק דַּיְּינֵיהּ. חַזְיֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה קָא גָּאֵיס בֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי צָיְיתַתְּ – צָיְיתַתְּ, וְאִי לָא – מַפֵּיקְנָא לָךְ רַב מֵאוּנָּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I am disqualified to judge for you,** because I may be partial to you due to what you’ve done for me. **Rav said to Rav Kahana: Go out** and **judge** the case. Rav Kahana **saw that** Rav’s host **was acting haughtily** due to his relationship with Rav, as he presumed that Rav Kahana was predisposed to favor him. Rav Kahana **said to** the host: **If you** are prepared to **listen,** then **listen** to me and follow my instructions. **And if not, I will take Rav out of your ears.** I will treat you harshly, and you will understand that your relationship with Rav will not help you at all.


###### Sanhedrin 8a:2
[Sanhedrin 8a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/8a:2)

״כַּקָּטֹן כַּגָּדֹל תִּשְׁמָעוּן״. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: שֶׁיְּהֵא חָבִיב עָלֶיךָ דִּין שֶׁל פְּרוּטָה כְּדִין שֶׁל מֵאָה מָנֶה. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אִילֵּימָא לְעַיּוֹנֵי בֵּיהּ וּמִיפְסְקֵיהּ – פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא לְאַקְדּוֹמֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to interpret clauses from the verse cited above. **“You shall hear the small and the great alike”** (Deuteronomy 1:17). **Reish Lakish says:** This teaches **that the judgment of one *peruta* should be as dear,** i.e., important, **to you as the judgment of one hundred *maneh*,** i.e., ten thousand dinars. The Gemara asks: **With regard to what *halakha*** is this said? **If we say** it is with regard to the need **to study it** carefully **and** to **decide** the case justly, it is **obvious** that even cases relating to small sums must be judged thoroughly. **Rather,** Reish Lakish was speaking with regard **to giving it precedence:** The small claims case may not be deferred in favor of the larger claim merely because the disputed sum is smaller.


###### Sanhedrin 8a:3
[Sanhedrin 8a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/8a:3)

״לֹא תָגוּרוּ מִפְּנֵי אִישׁ״. אָמַר רַבִּי חָנָן: אַל תַּכְנִיס דְּבָרֶיךָ מִפְּנֵי אִישׁ. ״כִּי הַמִּשְׁפָּט לֵאלֹהִים הוּא״. אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, לֹא דַּיָּין לָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין מִזֶּה מָמוֹן וְנוֹתְנִים לָזֶה שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין, אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּטְרִיחִין אוֹתִי לְהַחֲזִיר מָמוֹן לִבְעָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues the interpretation of the verse: **“You shall not be afraid before any man.” Rabbi Ḥanan says: Do not suppress your statement** of opinion **due to** any **person.** The verse continues: **“For the judgment is God’s.” Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: It is not enough for the wicked** judges, **that** they **take money from this** person **and** they **give** it **to that** person **unlawfully, but** they even **trouble Me to return the money to its** rightful **owners.** As proper justice is ultimately in the hands of God, He takes responsibility to bring about the rectification of the errors of unfit judges.


###### Sanhedrin 8a:4
[Sanhedrin 8a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/8a:4)

״וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם״. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה: עַל דָּבָר זֶה נֶעֱנַשׁ מֹשֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיַּקְרֵב מֹשֶׁה אֶת מִשְׁפָּטָן לִפְנֵי ה׳״. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מִי כְּתִיב ״וְאַשְׁמִיעֲכֶם״? ״וּשְׁמַעְתִּיו״ כְּתִיב! אִי גְּמִירְנָא – גְּמִירְנָא, וְאִי לָא – אָזֵילְנָא וּגְמִירְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The verse continues: **“And the cause that is too hard for you,** you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.” **Rabbi Ḥanina, and some say Rabbi Yoshiya, says: On** account of **this matter,** which displayed a degree of presumptuousness, **Moses was punished, as it is stated: “And Moses brought their cause before the Lord”** (Numbers 27:5). In this instance, when Zelophehad’s daughters presented their case to Moses, he did not know the answer himself and was compelled to ask God. **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objects to this** critique of Moses: **Is it written: “And I will tell you,”** which would indicate that Moses assumed the authority for himself? No, **it is written: “And I will hear it,”** meaning: **If I** have **learned** the *halakha*, **I** have **learned** it. **And if not, I will go and learn** it. Consequently, there was no presumptuousness in Moses’ statement.


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

אֶלָּא, כִּדְתַנְיָא: רְאוּיָה פָּרָשַׁת נַחֲלוֹת שֶׁתִּיכָּתֵב עַל יְדֵי מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁזָּכוּ בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד וְנִכְתְּבָה עַל יָדָן. רְאוּיָה הָיְתָה פָּרָשַׁת מְקוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁתִּיכָּתֵב עַל יְדֵי מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב מְקוֹשֵׁשׁ וְנִכְתְּבָה עַל יָדוֹ. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁמְגַלְגְּלִין חוֹבָה עַל יְדֵי חַיָּיב, וּזְכוּת עַל יְדֵי זַכַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the unusual manner in which the *halakha* of women’s inheritance (see Numbers, chapter 27) was revealed may be understood **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: It would have been **fitting for the** Torah **portion about inheritances to have been written by** attributing it to **Moses, our teacher,** i.e., to introduce the *halakha* with the standard formulation: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying. **But the daughters of Zelophehad achieved merit** as a result of their initiative in pursuing a portion in Eretz Yisrael, **and** therefore the *halakha* **was written by** attributing it to **them.** Similarly, it **would have been fitting for the** Torah **portion** concerning the punishment **of** the wood **gatherer** (see Numbers 15:32–36) **to have been written by** attributing it to **Moses, our teacher. But the** wood **gatherer was found guilty, and** the *halakha* **was written by** attributing it to **him.** This serves **to teach you that guilt is engendered by means of the guilty and merit by means of the innocent.**


###### Sanhedrin 8a:6
[Sanhedrin 8a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/8a:6)

כְּתִיב: ״וָאֲצַוֶּה אֶת שֹׁפְטֵיכֶם בָּעֵת הַהִיא״, וּכְתִיב: ״וָאֲצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם בָּעֵת הַהִיא״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי: אַזְהָרָה לַצִּיבּוּר שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימַת דַּיָּין עֲלֵיהֶן, וְאַזְהָרָה לַדַּיָּין שֶׁיִּסְבּוֹל אֶת הַצִּיבּוּר. עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי חָנָן, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי שַׁבְּתַאי: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת הַיֹּנֵק״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to interpret verses pertaining to judges and judgment. **It is written: “And I charged your judges at that time”** (Deuteronomy 1:16), **and it is written** soon thereafter: **“And I commanded you at that time** all the things that you should do” (Deuteronomy 1:18). There is an apparent contradiction between these verses, as one indicates God commanded the judges and the other indicates He commanded the people. **Rabbi Elazar says** that **Rabbi Simlai says:** Moses issued **a warning to the community that the awe of the judge must be upon them, and** Moses issued **a warning to the judge that** he must **bear** the burden of **the community. Up to what** degree must the judge bear this burden? **Rabbi Ḥanan, and some say Rabbi Shabbtai, says:** It is as Moses said, that he carried Israel **“as a nursing father carries the sucking child”** (Numbers 11:12).


###### Sanhedrin 8a:7
[Sanhedrin 8a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/8a:7)

כְּתִיב: ״כִּי אַתָּה תָּבוֹא״, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי אַתָּה תָּבִיא״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָמַר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ: אַתָּה וְהַזְּקֵנִים שֶׁבַּדּוֹר עִמָּהֶם. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: טוֹל מַקֵּל וְהַךְ עַל קׇדְקֳדָם. דַּבָּר אֶחָד לַדּוֹר, וְאֵין שְׁנֵי דַּבָּרִין לַדּוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, a distinction is drawn between two verses where Moses commanded Joshua concerning his impending leadership: **It is written: “For you shall go** with these people into the land” (Deuteronomy 31:7), **and it is written: “For you shall bring** the children of Israel into the land” (Deuteronomy 31:23). **Rabbi Yoḥanan** reconciled the difference between these two charges and **said: Moses said to Joshua,** in the first verse: **You and the elders of the generation** will enter into Eretz Yisrael together **with** the people, i.e., the elders will assist you in the leadership. Subsequently, in the second verse, **the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to** Joshua: You yourself must bring the people: **Take a rod and strike** the people **upon their skulls.** There must be **one** clear and authoritative **leader for the generation, and** there may **not** be **two** or more **leaders for the generation.**


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

תָּנָא: זִימּוּן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. מַאי זִימּוּן? אִילֵּימָא בִּרְכַּת זִימּוּן, וְהָתַנְיָא: זִימּוּן וּבִרְכַּת זִימּוּן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה! וְכִי תֵּימָא פָּרוֹשֵׁי קָמְפָרֵשׁ: מַאי זִימּוּן? בִּרְכַּת זִימּוּן. וְהָתַנְיָא: זִימּוּן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, בִּרְכַּת זִימּוּן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the discussion of halakhic matters related to the mishna. The Sages **taught** in a *baraita*: **A *zimmun*** is to be issued **with three** people. The Gemara analyzes: **What** is meant by the term ***zimmun*** in the *baraita*? **If we say** it is referring to the invitation to recite Grace after Meals jointly, which is called **the *zimmun* blessing,** that is difficult. **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: ***Zimmun* and the *zimmun* blessing are** to be issued **with three** people? As the *baraita* lists these *halakhot* separately, it indicates that the term *zimmun* is referring to a different matter. **And if you would say** that the *baraita* **explains** itself, by clarifying: **What** is meant by the term ***zimmun*?** It is **the *zimmun* blessing,** another source indicates even more clearly that these terms are referring to two different procedures. **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: ***Zimmun*** is performed **with three** people, and **the *zimmun* blessing** is performed **with three** people? Evidently, therefore, *zimmun* is not referring to the *zimmun* blessing.


###### Sanhedrin 8a:9
[Sanhedrin 8a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/8a:9)

אֶלָּא מַאי זִימּוּן? אַזְמוֹנֵי לְדִין. כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי בֵּי תְלָתָא דַּיָּינֵי דְּיָתְבִי, וְאָזֵיל שְׁלִיחָא דְּבֵי דִּינָא וְאָמַר מִפּוּמָּא דְּחַד – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, עַד דְּאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּכוּלְּהוּ. הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּלָא יוֹמָא דְּדִינָא, אֲבָל בְּיוֹמָא דְּדִינָא – לֵית לַן בַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what** is ***zimmun*?** It is **a summons** to appear in court **for judgment.** The Gemara notes that this is **similar** to **that which Rava said:** With regard to **this court of three judges who are sitting** and waiting to adjudicate a case, **and the agent of the court went and said** to one of the litigants that he is summoned **in the name of** only **one** of the judges, the summons is insufficient. It is as if the agent **did not say anything, unless** he **said** it **in the name of all of them.** That is what is meant when it is taught that *zimmun* is issued by three. The Gemara clarifies: **That statement** applies only **when** it is **not the day** set for **judgment. But on the day** set for **judgment,** when it is understood that a summons in the name of only one judge actually indicates a summons from an assembled court, **we have no** problem **with it.** Someone who ignores such a summons is subject to the full censure of the court.


###### Sanhedrin 8a:10
[Sanhedrin 8a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/8a:10)

תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל כּוּ׳. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יַעֲקֹב: יְלַמְּדֵנוּ רַבֵּינוּ, דִּינֵי קְנָסוֹת בְּכַמָּה? מַאי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? הָא אֲנַן תְּנַן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה! אֶלָּא יָחִיד מוּמְחֶה קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, דְּאֵין דִּינֵי קְנָסוֹת אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: Cases involving **payment of double** the principal must be adjudicated by a court of three judges. **Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda sent** an inquiry **to Rav Naḥman bar Ya’akov: Let our teacher instruct us:** With regard to cases involving **laws of fines, by how many** judges must such cases be adjudicated? The Gemara asks: **What is the dilemma he is raising? Didn’t we learn** in the mishna that such cases are judged **by three** judges? **Rather,** Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda **is raising a dilemma** with regard to **a single expert** judge: May he **adjudicate** cases involving **laws of fines** by himself **or not?**


###### Sanhedrin 8a:11
[Sanhedrin 8a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/8a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנֵיתוּהָ, תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶּפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. מַאי שְׁלֹשָׁה? אִילֵּימָא שְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת, הָאָמַר אֲבוּהּ דַּאֲבוּךְ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: אֲפִילּוּ עֲשָׂרָה וְהֵן הֶדְיוֹטוֹת פְּסוּלִין לְדִינֵי קְנָסוֹת! אֶלָּא מוּמְחִין, וְקָאָמַר שְׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman bar Ya’akov **said to him: You** already **learned** this in the mishna: Cases involving **payment of double** the principal **and payment of four or five** times the principal must be adjudicated **by three** judges. **What** is meant by **three? If we say** it means **three** non-ordained **lay** judges, **didn’t your father’s father say in the name of Rav: Even** if there are **ten** judges, if **they are lay** judges they are **unfit for** adjudicating cases involving **laws of fines? Rather,** the mishna is discussing **expert** judges, **and it says** that **three** are necessary. Therefore, a single expert judge may not adjudicate such cases.


###### Sanhedrin 8a:12
[Sanhedrin 8a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/8a:12)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna records a dispute concerning the number of judges required to judge the case of a defamer (see Deuteronomy 22:13–19), which generally involves a man defaming his wife by falsely accusing her of having committed adultery while she was betrothed. Rabbi Meir says the case must be tried by three judges, **and the Rabbis say:** An accused **defamer** is judged **by** a court of **twenty-three** judges. It is obvious that in a case in which the husband’s accusation has the potential to result in the woman’s execution, Rabbi Meir agrees that as this is a case of capital law, it must be tried by twenty-three judges. Therefore, the dispute in the mishna must involve a lesser claim, such as a case where there are no witnesses to the alleged adultery, but the husband claims she was not a virgin when they married and is suing for monetary compensation.


###### Sanhedrin 8a:13
[Sanhedrin 8a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/8a:13)

וְכִי יֵשׁ בּוֹ דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, מַאי הָוֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But although** the *halakha* of a defamer **contains** the potential to qualify as a case of **capital law, what of it?** As long as this particular case has no such potential, why do the Rabbis require twenty-three judges?


###### Sanhedrin 8a:14
[Sanhedrin 8a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/8a:14)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: בְּחוֹשְׁשִׁין לְלַעַז קָמִיפַּלְגִי. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְלַעַז, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְלַעַז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said:** Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis **disagree with regard to** the question of whether one needs to be **concerned with** the possibility of **rumors,** meaning that if the husband raises the claim that his wife committed adultery, although he has no witnesses and there is no potential for a capital conviction, should the court be concerned with the possibility that the publicity generated by the proceedings may lead to the emergence of witnesses, which would make it a capital case? **Rabbi Meir holds** that one need **not** be **concerned with** the possibility of **rumors. And the Rabbis hold** that one does need to be **concerned with** the possibility of **rumors.**


###### Sanhedrin 8a:15
[Sanhedrin 8a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/8a:15)

רָבָא אָמַר: כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְלַעַז לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, וְהָכָא בְּחוֹשְׁשִׁין לִכְבוֹדָן שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹנִים קָמִיפַּלְגִי. וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן דְּאִיכְּנִיף בֵּי עֶשְׂרִין וּתְלָתָא לְמֵידַן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, וְאִיבַּדּוּר, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: דַּיְּינוּ לִי מִיהָא דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: Everyone** agrees that one need **not** be **concerned with** the possibility of **rumors. And here** they **disagree about** whether one need be **concerned for the honor of the first** judges. **And with what are we dealing here?** We are dealing, **for example,** with a case **where a court of twenty-three** judges **was convened to judge** a case of **capital law,** because the husband accused his wife of committing adultery. As there were no witnesses to the alleged adultery, the court of twenty-three judges **was disbanded, and** then the husband **said to them: At least adjudicate for me the** aspect of **monetary law,** to reduce the sum in her marriage contract to the amount for a non-virgin. At that point, it became strictly a case of monetary law, which would normally be tried by three judges. Nevertheless, the Rabbis hold that the court of twenty-three judges must be reconvened, out of concern for their honor, since they had already begun to hear the case. Rabbi Meir disagrees, as he does not view this as an affront to the honor of the judges.