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 86
1) LIABILITY FOR KIDNAPPING
(a) (A reciter of Beraisos): R. Shimon says "Me'Echav"
teaches that he must remove him from his brother's
premises, he is exempt for selling to relatives!
2) THE WARNING NOT TO KIDNAP
(b) (Rav Sheshes): Indeed, the Beraisa should say that he is
exempt for selling to relatives.
(c) Question: Why change the Beraisa, perhaps it is like
Chachamim who argue with R. Shimon!
(d) Answer: The Beraisa is part of Sifri (which expounds
Sefer ba'Midbar and Sefer Devarim), we may assume it is
like R. Shimon;
1. (R. Yochanan): An unauthored Mishnah is assumed to
be R. Meir;
(e) (Mishnah): If one kidnaps his son...
2. An unauthored Tosefta is assumed to be R. Nechemyah;
3. An unauthored Sifra (which expounds Sefer Va'Yikra)
is assumed to be R. Yehudah;
4. An unauthored Sifri is assumed to be R. Shimon;
5. All of these are assumed to be according to R. Akiva
(all of these were his Talmidim).
(f) Question: What is Chachamim's reason (to exempt)?
(g) Answer (Abaye): "Ki Yimatzei" - this excludes someone
(such as his son) who is always found by the kidnapper.
(h) Question (Rav Papa): If so, "Ki Yimatzei Ish Shochev Im
Ishah B'ulas Ba'al" - will we exclude the house of Ploni
(a certain house) where men and women live together?
(i) Answer (Abaye): I learn from "V'Nimtza b'Yado".
(j) (Rava): Children and Talmidim are normally by their
Rebbi, therefore he would be exempt for kidnapping them.
(k) (Mishnah): If one kidnaps a half-slave...
(l) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): Embarrassment does not apply to
(m) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
(n) Answer: "Ki Yinatzu...Ish v'Achiv" - this refers to
people that have (according to Torah law) brothers, it
1. Chachamim argue - since a slave is also commanded to
keep Mitzvos, he is called a brother of a Yisrael.
(o) Question: What is R. Yehudah's source to obligate for
kidnapping a half-slave?
(p) Answer: "Me'Echav" excludes a slave; "Benei Yisrael"
excludes a half-slave; "Mi'Bnei Yisrael" also excludes a
1. Two exclusions, one after the other, always come to
(q) Chachamim say, "Me'Echav" does not exclude a slave, for
he is a brother in Mitzvos;
1. "Benei Yisrael" excludes a slave; "Mi'Bnei Yisrael"
excludes a half-slave.
(a) Question: Which verse forbids kidnapping?
3) TESTIMONY ABOUT A "CHATZI-DAVAR"
(b) Answer #1 (R. Yoshiyah): "Lo Signov (in the 10
(c) Answer #2 (R. Yonason): "Lo Yimachru Mimkeres Aved".
1. They do not argue - R. Yoshiyah gives the Lav not to
kidnap, R. Yonason gives the Lav not to sell.
(d) (Beraisa #1): "Lo Signov" - this forbids kidnapping.
1. Question: Perhaps it forbids stealing money!
(e) (Beraisa #2): "Lo Tignovu (in Parshas Kedoshim)" - this
forbids stealing money.
2. Answer: One of (R. Yishmael's) 13 methods of
expounding is to learn from the context - the
previous Mitzvos (murder and adultery) are Chayavei
Misos, presumably "Lo Signov" is also.
1. Question: Perhaps it forbids kidnapping!
2. Answer: One of the 13 methods of expounding is to
learn from the context - the verse is followed by
(a) (Chizkiyah): If two witnesses testified that Reuven
kidnapped, two others testified that he sold, and all
were Huzmu, they are not killed (therefore, the testimony
is I Efshar Lehazimo, even if they are not Huzmu, Reuven
is not killed);
(b) (R. Yochanan): They are killed.
1. Chizkiyah holds like R. Akiva, who says that
testimony must be a (full) Davar (matter), not a
(c) Chizkiyah admits that if witnesses who testify about the
second time a Ben Sorer u'Moreh stole and ate (for which
he is killed) were Huzmu, they are killed;
2. R. Yochanan holds like Chachamim, who say that
testimony can even be a half-Davar.
4) "ZAKEN MAMREI"
1. Since the witnesses who testified about the first
theft suffice to lash him, also the testimony of the
latter witnesses is considered a (full) 'Davar'.
(d) Question (Rav Papa): If so, Chizkiyah should also admit
regarding kidnapping - since the witnesses who testify
about the kidnapping suffice to lash him, the testimony
about the sale is also a 'Davar'!
1. Suggestion: Perhaps Chizkiyah holds that one is not
lashed for kidnapping (without selling).
(e) (Rav Papa): Rather, all agree that witnesses of the sale
are killed (if they are Huzmu after the final verdict);
they argue about witnesses of the kidnapping:
2. Rejection: Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan argued whether
or not Edim Zomemim who testified about kidnapping
i. We concluded that Chizkiyah must say that they
are lashed - according to R. Yochanan, they
*could* be killed (if witnesses will testify
that he sold, and all will be Huzmu after the
3. Summation of rejection: If Chizkiyah says that the
kidnapper cannot be lashed, how can the witnesses be
lashed (this is not "Ka'asher Zamam")?!
ii. One is not lashed for a Lav that can obligate
1. Chizkiyah says that they are not killed - kidnapping
is considered a matter unto itself, it is not a
transgression of Misah;
(f) R. Yochanan admits that if witnesses who testify about
the first time a Ben Sorer u'Moreh stole were Huzmu, they
are not killed, because they can say that they only
intended to lash him.
2. R. Yochanan says that they are killed - kidnapping
is the first half of the transgression (which
culminates with the sale).
(g) (Abaye): All agree about Ben Sorer u'Moreh (sometimes,
the witnesses are exempt), all agree about Ben Sorer
u'Moreh (sometimes, the witnesses are liable), they argue
about (liability of the witnesses in a third scenario of)
Ben Sorer u'Moreh:
1. All agree that the witnesses who testify about the
first theft are not killed, because they can say
that they only intended to lash him;
(h) (Rav Asi): If witnesses testify that Reuven sold someone
(and they were Huzmu), they are exempt, for he can say
that he sold his slave.
2. All agree that the witnesses who testify about the
second theft are killed, because the testimony of
the first witnesses suffices to lash him, so the
testimony about the second theft is also a 'Davar';
3. The argument about Ben Sorer u'Moreh is when two
witnesses say that they saw him steal, two others
say that they saw him eat. (R. Akiva says that each
pair testifies about a half-Davar, the testimony is
invalid; Chachamim accept the testimony.)
(i) (Rav Yosef): This is like R. Akiva, who invalidates
testimony about a half-Davar.
(j) Objection (Abaye): Rav Asi said that they are exempt
because he can say that he sold his slave - Chachamim
agree with this, the case is, there are no witnesses that
1. Objection: If so, obviously they are exempt!
2. Answer: The case is, witnesses of kidnapping came
later (and Reuven was convicted, and later the
witnesses were Huzmu).
3. Objection: Still, it is obvious that they are
exempt, when they testified, there were no witnesses
4. Answer: The case is, the witnesses gesture to each
i. One might have thought, this shows that they
collaborated with each other (and the witnesses
of the sale are also liable) - Rav Asi teaches,
this is not so.
(a) (Mishnah): Zaken Mamrei that rebels against the Great
Sanhedrin - "Ki Yipalei...(v'Alisa El ha'Makom...v'El
ha'Shofet)". The verse discusses three Sanhedriyos:
1. One sits at the entrance to Har ha'Bayis, one sits
at the entrance to the Azarah, one sits in Lishkas
(b) If a Chacham opposed the Beis Din of his city, they go to
the Sanhedrin at the entrance to Har ha'Bayis. He says,
this is how I expounded, this is how they expounded; this
is how I learned, this is how they learned. If the
Sanhedrin has a tradition for the law, they give it; if
not, they go to the Sanhedrin at the entrance to the
(c) If also this Sanhedrin has no tradition, they all go to
the Great Sanhedrin in Lishkas ha'Gazis which teaches
Torah to Yisrael - "Min ha'Makom Asher Yivchar Hash-m".
(The Great Sanhedrin rules on the issue.)
(d) If the Chacham returns to his city and learns as he did
before, he is exempt; if he rules (for others to follow
in practice) he is liable - "Asher *Ya'aseh* v'Zadon", he
is liable only if he teaches for others to follow.
(e) If a Talmid (not qualified to rule) teaches for others to
follow he is exempt;
1. His disqualification exempts him.