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 84
1) THOSE WHO TRANSGRESS A "LAV"
(a) (Beraisa): If one did Avodah when he was an Arel, Onen or
sitting, he transgressed a Lav, he is not Chayav Misah,
2) PUNISHMENT OF A "ZAR" THAT DID "AVODAH"
(b) Question: What is the source for an Arel?
(c) Answer (Rav Chisda): We have no source from the Chumash,
Yechezkeil wrote a verse alluding to it.
1. "Kol Ben Nechar Erel Lev v'Erel Basar Lo Yavo El
Mikdashi" - (a Rasha or Arel may not enter the
(d) Question: What is the source for an Onen?
(e) Answer: "U'Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yetzei (a Kohen Gadol who
became an Onen) v'Lo Yechalel Es Mikdash Elokav" - this
implies that if a regular Kohen became an Onen he is
Mechalel Avodah (this is forbidden by "V'Lo Yechalel").
(f) Question (Rav Ada): Why don't we learn a Gezerah Shavah
"Chilul-Chilul" from a Tamei person who ate Terumah, who
is Chayav Misah?
(g) Answer (Rava): Our verse discusses a Kohen Gadol, we
*infer* the law of a regular Kohen, something learned
from inference we do not learn (more laws about it) from
a Gezerah Shavah.
(h) Question: What is the source for one who sits?
(i) Answer (Rava): "Bo Bachar Hash-m...La'amod Leshares" -
Kohanim were chosen to serve standing, not sitting.
(j) (Beraisa - Rebbi): If a Ba'al Mum did Avodah he is Chayav
Misah; Chachamim say, he only transgresses a Lav.
(k) Question: What is Rebbi's reason?
(l) Answer #1: It says "Ach El ha'Paroches Lo Yavo (...v'Lo
1. He learns a Gezerah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" from a
Tamei person who ate Terumah, who is Chayav Misah.
(m) Objection: Rather, he should learn from Nosar, for this
resembles a Ba'al Mum who did Avodah in the following
2. Question: Why not learn "Chilul-Chilul" from Nosar,
which is Chayavei Kerisus?
3. Answer: It is more reasonable to learn from a Tamei
person who ate Terumah, for there also the
prohibition is on account of the person.
1. They pertain to Kodesh, they apply inside the
Mikdash, Pigul applies to them, Nosar applies to
(n) Answer #2: Rather, he learns "Chilul-Chilul" from Avodah
b'Tum'ah, the prohibition is on account of the person
(like Avodah of a Ba'al Mum), and it also has the
similarities of Nosar.
(o) Chachamim expound "(U'Mesu) *Bo* (a Tamei who eats
Terumah)" - but there is no Misah for Avodah of a Ba'al
(p) (Beraisa - Rebbi): If someone intentionally transgresses
Me'ilah he is Chayav Misah; Chachamim say, he only
transgresses a Lav.
(q) Question: What is Rebbi's reason?
(r) Answer (R. Avahu): He learns a Gezerah Shavah "Chet-Chet"
from a Tamei person who ate Terumah, who is Chayav Misah.
(s) Chachamim expound "(U'Mesu) *Bo*" - but there is no Misah
(a) (Beraisa): A Zar that did Avodah in the Mikdash...
(b) (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): It says "Veha'Zar ha'Karev
Yumas", it also says (regarding Korach's congregation)
1. Just as the latter died bi'Dei Shamayim, so is the
punishment for a Zar that does Avodah.
(c) R. Akiva says, it says "Veha'Zar ha'Karev Yumas", it also
says (regarding a false prophet) "Veha'Navi...Yumas";
1. Just as the latter is stoned, also a Zar that does
(d) R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, just as a false prophet is
choked, also a Zar that does Avodah.
(e) Question: What do R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue about?
(f) Answer: R. Akiva holds that it is better to learn "Yumas"
from "Yumas", not from "Yamus";
1. R. Yishmael holds that it is better to learn laws of
a commoner from a commoner, not from a (false)
(g) Question: What do R. Akiva and R. Yochanan ben Nuri argue
2. R. Akiva says, a prophet who entices to idolatry is
the ultimate commoner!
(h) Answer: They argue as R. Shimon and Chachamim do:
1. (Beraisa): If a prophet enticed to idolatry he is
(i) Question (Mishnah - R. Akiva): He is choked (but here, R.
Akiva says that he is stoned!)
2. R. Shimon says, he is choked.
(j) Answer: Tana'im argue about the opinion of R. Akiva - our
Mishnah is like R. Shimon, he says that R. Akiva (holds
like himself) that he is choked;
1. The Beraisa is Chachamim, they say that R. Akiva
(holds like themselves) that he is stoned.
***** PEREK ELU HEN HA'NICHNAKIN ****
3) THOSE WHO ARE PUNISHED WITH "CHENEK"
(a) (Mishnah): The following are choked:
4) WOUNDING ONE'S PARENTS "B'SHOGEG"
1. One who wounds his father or mother;
(b) (Gemara) Question: What is the source for one who wounds
his father or mother?
2. One who kidnaps a Yisrael;
3. A Zaken Mamrei that rebels against Beis Din;
4. A false prophet, or one who prophesizes in the name
5. One who has relations with a married woman;
6. Edim Zomemim who convicted a Bas Kohen for adultery,
or one who committed adultery with her (even though
her Misah is burning).
(c) Answer: "U'Make Aviv v'Imo Mos Yumas" - any unspecified
Misah is choking.
(d) Question: Perhaps that refers to killing a parent!
(e) Answer #1: That is unreasonable - one is beheaded for
killing a stranger, we cannot say that one is choked for
killing a parent!
(f) Question: That is according to Chachamim, who say that
beheading is more severe - according to R. Shimon,
choking is more severe, how can we answer?
(g) Answer #2: It says "Make Ish va'Mes Mos Yumas", and "O
v'Eivah Hikahu v'Yado va'Yamos" - since the Torah had to
specify that he died, this shows that normally, 'Haka'ah'
is not a death blow.
(h) The Torah must teach "Make Ish..." , and "Kol Make
1. If it only taught "Make Ish", one might have thought
that one is liable only for (killing) a man, who is
obligated in the Mitzvos, not for a minor -
therefore, it says "Kol Make Nefesh".
(i) Question: We should say that one is liable even if he did
not make a wound (i.e. bleeding) - but this is wrong!
2. If it only taught "Kol Make Nefesh", one might have
thought that one is liable even for a Nefel, or a
baby born after eight months (it is stillborn) -
therefore, it says "Make Ish".
1. (Mishnah): One who hits his father or mother is not
liable unless he made a wound.
(j) Answer: "Make Adam...Make Vehemah" - just as one is not
liable (to pay) for hitting an animal unless he made a
wound, for it says 'Nefesh' (which is in the blood), one
is not liable (Misah) for hitting a person (parent).
(k) Rejection (R. Yirmeyah): If so, if one weakens an animal
(by overloading it) with rocks, he should be exempt!
(l) Answer #2 (R. Yirmeyah): Since 'Nefesh' does not teach
that one is liable for hitting an animal only if he
wounds it, for one is liable for weakening it with rocks,
we use it to teach about hitting a person (parent).
(m) Question: What do we learn from the Hekesh equating
hitting people and animals?
(n) Answer #1: We learn Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah's law (that one
who was Shogeg in Chayavei Misos does not pay).
(o) Question: What do the other opinions (that argue with
Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah) learn from the Hekesh?
(p) Answer #2: Just as one who wounds an animal for the sake
of curing it is exempt, also regarding people.
(a) Question: May a son let blood from his father?
(b) Answer #1 (Rav Masnah): "V'Ahavta l'Re'acha Kamocha"
(since the father wants, it is permitted).
(c) Answer #2 (Rav Dimi bar Chinena): It says "Make
Adam...Make Vehemah" - just as one who wounds an animal
for the sake of curing it is exempt, also regarding
(d) Rav would not allow his son to remove a thorn from him
(lest he draw blood).
(e) Mar brei d'Ravina would not let his son to open a blister
to extract the puss, lest he draw blood (b'Shogeg), which
(f) Question: If so, he should not allow anyone to do so!
(g) Answer: Anyone else would transgress a Lav b'Shogeg; his
son would be Shogeg in a Lav of Misah.
(h) Question (Mishnah): A small needle may be moved on
Shabbos in order to remove a thorn.
1. If one draws blood, he was Shogeg in a Lav punished
(i) Answer #1: There he is Mekalkel (destructive), which is
(j) Question: This is according to the opinion that Mekalkel
is exempt (even if done intentionally);
1. According to the opinion that it is liable, how can
(k) Answer: R. Shimon holds that it is liable - he holds that
one is exempt for a Melachah she'Einah Tzericha l'Gufah
(a Melachah which was done for a reason unrelated to the
purpose of the Melachah).