POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Sanhedrin 32
***** PEREK ECHAD DINEI MAMONOS ****
1) THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MONETARY AND CAPITAL CASES
(a) (Mishnah): The same laws of Drishah v'Chakirah apply to
monetary and capital cases - "Mishpat Echad Yihyeh
(b) The following are different in monetary and capital
1. Monetary cases require three judges, capital cases
(c) (Gemara) Question: Is it really true that monetary cases
require Drishah v'Chakirah?
2. In monetary cases, the judges may begin their
discussion with an opinion to Mezakeh or Mechayev,
in capital cases we must begin with Zechus;
3. In monetary cases, a majority of one suffices for
Zechus or Chiyuv; in capital cases, a majority of
one suffices for Zechus, a majority of two is needed
4. In monetary cases, we can overturn the verdict,
whether Zechus or Chiyuv; in capital cases, we can
overturn a verdict of Chiyuv, not of Zechus.
5. In monetary cases, anyone (even Talmidim) can give a
reason for Zechus or Chiyuv; in capital cases,
anyone can give a reason for Zechus, not everyone
can give a reason for Chiyuv.
6. In monetary cases, one who gave a reason for Zechus
can give a reason for Chiyuv, or vice-versa; in
capital cases, one who gave a reason for Chiyuv can
give a reason for Zechus, but one who gave a reason
for Zechus cannot give a reason for Chiyuv.
7. Monetary cases must be started during the day, they
can be finished at night; capital cases are started
and finished during the day.
8. Monetary cases are judged and finished on the same
day, for Zechus or Chiyuv; capital cases can be
finished on the same day for Zechus, a verdict of
Chiyuv cannot be given until the next day;
i. Therefore, we do not begin capital cases on
Erev Shabbos or Erev Yom Tov.
9. In monetary cases or questions of Tum'ah, the first
opinion is given by the greatest Chacham; in capital
cases, we may not begin with the greatest Chacham.
10. Everyone (even a Mamzer) is qualified to judge
monetary cases, but capital cases require Kohanim,
Leviyim or Yisraelim that are permitted to marry a
1. Contradiction (Beraisa): If Ploni and Almoni were
signed on a document dated 'Nisan 1, in Shemitah';
Reuven and David said 'They were with us that day in
another place!', the document and its witnesses are
Kesherim; we assume that it was postdated.
(d) The contradiction has not been resolved yet.
2. This shows that we do not require Drishah v'Chakirah
(its basic purpose is to enable Hazamah)!
3. Question: Why not ask from a Mishnah?
i. (Mishnah): Predated loan documents are
disqualified (because they can be used to
swindle), postdated loan documents are
4. Answer: The Beraisa is a bigger Chidush - even
though it is unlikely that one would postdate a
document and give a date in Shemitah, since it looks
suspicious (people usually refrain from lending in
Shemitah, lest the loan be cancelled), we assume
that this was the case;
ii. If we require Drishah v'Chakirah, why are they
i. Shemitah does not cancel loans until the end of
Shemitah, therefore the document is valid.
(e) Answer #1 (R. Chanina): Our Mishnah teaches that
*Mid'Oraisa*, the same laws of Drishah v'Chakirah apply
to monetary and capital cases - "Mishpat Echad Yihyeh
1. Chachamim enacted that monetary cases do not require
Drishah v'Chakirah on account of Ne'ilas Delet (lest
a person will not want to lend, lest the witnesses
will remember the loan but forget Drishos or
Chakiros, and he will be unable to collect).
(f) Question: If so, we should say that Beis Din does not pay
if they err (since they could not interrogate the
2) WE BEGIN MONETARY CASES WITH ZECHUS
(g) Answer: All the more so, that would discourage people
(h) Answer #2 (Rava): Our Mishnah discusses fines (Ne'ilas
Delet does not apply, no enactment was made); the Beraisa
discusses admissions and loans (in which Drishah
v'Chakirah was abolished).
(i) Answer #3 (Rav Papa): Both discuss admissions and loans;
our Mishnah discusses a Din Merumeh (when Beis Din senses
that the claim is false), the Beraisa is a normal case.
1. Contradiction (Reish Lakish): It says "B'Tzedek
Tishpot Amisecha" - it also says "Tzedek Tzedek
Tirdof" (be extra zealous to reach the correct
(j) (Beraisa): "Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof" - go to a good Beis
Din, to R. Eliezer in Lud, to R. Yochanan Ben Zakai in
2. Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): One must be extra zealous
in a Din Merumeh.
3. Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): (We resolve the Mishnah and
Beraisa like R. Chanina or Rava;) "Tzedek Tzedek
Tirdof" teaches to equally pursue Din (letter of the
law) or compromise.
i. (Beraisa): "Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof" - Equally
pursue Din or compromise: if two ships
encounter each other in a narrow river, if they
try to pass at the same time, both will sink;
if they go one after the other, both will pass.
ii. The same applies to two camels alighting the
incline to Beis Choron (in opposite directions)
- if they go at the same time, they will (not
have enough room at the top, they will) fall;
if they go one after the other, both will
iii. If one was laden and the other empty, the laden
one goes first; if one was near its city and
the other far, the far one goes first;
iv. If they are equal, make a compromise between
them; the one that waits receives compensation.
(k) (Beraisa): If a mill is heard in Boreni, this was a sign
of (grinding spices to cure the wound of) a circumcision
(when the king decreed against circumcision, they could
not openly announce it);
1. A lamp burning (by day, or many lamps at night) in
Beror Chayil is a sign of a circumcision feast.
(l) (Beraisa): "Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof" - go to the Beis
ha'Va'ad: to R. Eliezer in Lud, to R. Yochanan Ben Zakai
in Beror Chayil...to the Great Sanhedrin in Liskas
(a) (Mishnah): In monetary cases, we begin...
(b) Question: How do we begin (to interrogate the witnesses,
for Zechus, in capital cases)?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): We say, 'Who says that it was as
(d) Objection (Ula): This will make them retract!
1. Question: What is wrong with that?
(e) Answer #2 (Ula): We ask the defendant if he has witnesses
to Mezim them.
i. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): We make the
witnesses move from place to place, perhaps
this will confound them and they will decide
not to testify.
2. Answer: We encourage that they should retract on
their own (if they are lying), we do not induce them
to retract (perhaps they are telling the truth)!.
(f) Objection (Rabah): Do we begin with Zechus for the
defendant which would make the witnesses liable to
1. Question: This would not Mechayev them to die!
(g) Answer #3 (Rabah): We ask the defendant if he has
witnesses to contradict them.
i. (Mishnah): Edim Zomemim are not killed unless
there was a final verdict to kill the
2. Correction: Rabah meant, do we begin with Zechus for
the defendant which (if there would be a final
verdict before Mezimim were brought) could Mechayev
the witnesses to die?!
(h) Answer #4 (Rav Kahana): We say 'From your words, Ploni is
(i) Answer #5 (Abaye and Rava): We tell Ploni 'Don't worry,
if you are innocent, you will not be killed.'
(j) Answer #6 (Rav Ashi): We say, 'Whoever knows Zechus for
Ploni, let him say it!'
1. Support (for Abaye and Rava - Beraisa - Rebbi): "Im
Lo Shachav..." - this teaches that in capital cases
we begin with Zechus.