(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Sanhedrin 89



(a) Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chol ha'Am Yishme'u ve'Yira'u" - that the Zaken Mamrei was not killed next to the Beis-Din in his home-town or in Yavneh, but in Yerushalayim, on Yom-tov (when all of Yisrael were there).

(b) During the last forty years prior to the Churban Bayis Sheini - the Beis-Din ha'Gadol sat in Yavneh.

(c) In the event that the Zaken Mamrei initially came before the Beis-Din in the Lishkas ha'Gazis, and by the time he had returned to his town and continued to rebel against Beis-Din, they had already moved to Yavneh - they would take him to the original location of the Beis-Din ha'Gadol in Yerushalayim, wait for Yom-Tov and kill him there (see also Tosfos and Rashash).

(d) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with his Rebbe. According to him - the Sanhedrin of his town would sentence him to death, and they would send written announcements across the land explaining whom they had killed and why they had killed him.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah argues with Rebbi Akiva - a. on the grounds that waiting so long before putting him to death would constitute 'Inuy ha'Din', and b. because that Pasuk writes (not "ve'Chol ha'Am *Yir'u* ve'Yira'u", but) "ve'Chol ha'Am *Yishme'u* ve'Yira'u", implying that they had to hear about the death-sentences (via announcements), rather than seeing them first-hand.

(b) Besides Zaken Mamrei and Meisis, the other two cases that require 'Hachrazah' (announcing) are - a ben Sorer u'Moreh and Eidim Zomemin (see Rashash).

(c) We learn this because by most of them the Torah uses an expression of "ve'Chol ha'Am Yishme'u" or "ve'Chol Yisrael Yishme'u", only not by Eidim Zomemin. The Torah changes there to "ve'ha'Nish'arim Yishme'u" - because not everybody is eligible to become a witness (and from there to become an Eid Zomem): for example, Gazlanim, people who lend on interest and those who deal with the produce of Shemitah are Pasul le'Eidus (though it is unclear how everyone is eligible to become a ben Sorer u'Moreh [see Rashash]).

(a) The two 'prophets' listed by our Mishnah under the category of a Navi Sheker, who are punished at the hand of Beis-Din - are one who prophesies a prophecy that was never said and one who prophesies a prophecy that was told to someone else but not to him.

(b) The third category of Navi that belongs in this list - is one that prophesies in the name of Avodah-Zarah.

(c) A Navi who withholds his prophesy on the other hand, receives - Miysah bi'Yedei Shamayim.

(d) The two other cases connected with prophesy who receive Miysah bi'Yedei Shamayim are -one who disobeys his command and one who disregards his own prophesy.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Anochi Edrosh me'Imo" - that the latter group of prophets listed in the Mishnah receive only Miysah bi'Yedei Shamayim.

(b) Someone who prophesies in the name of an idol will receive Chenek - even if he presents Torah Halachos in its name.

(c) We also included in the list of the Chayvei Chenek, someone who commits adultery with a married woman, and this will apply - even if her marriage was not yet consummated (e.g. if her father handed her over to the husband's Sheli'ach, where we know for sure that her marriage has not yet been consummated).

(d) The only case where a man and woman receive different deaths for committing an act of Intimacy for which they are Chayav Miysah - is that of 'Zomemei bas Kohen', where she receives Sereifah, and he receives Chenek.

(a) Rav Yehudah presents the Pasuk "Ach ha'Navi Asher Yazid Le'daber Davar bi'Shemi" as the source for a Navi who speaks what he has not been told, and from the continuation of the Pasuk "va'Asher Lo Tzivisiv" - as the source for a Navi who presents a prophesy that was said to somebody else, but not to him.

(b) And he learn the Din of someone who prophesies in the name of other gods - from the continuation of the Pasuk "va'Asher Yedaber be'Shem Elohim Acherim".

(c) We know that all of these receive specifically Chenek - because of the principle 'S'tam Miysah, Einah Ela Chenek'.

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav also quotes the Pasuk "ve'ha'Ish Asher Lo Yishma el Divrei ha'Navi Anochi Edrosh me'Imo", implying whoever disobeys the words of a Navi. He also Darshens the word "Yishma" - as if it had written "Lo Yashmi'a" (meaning that he does not announce his prophesy to others) and "Lo Yishama" (meaning that he does not obey his own prophesy).

(a) Tzidkiyah ben Cana'anah transgressed the sin of - prophesying a prophesy that was never said.

(b) We query his guilt - on the basis of his having been misled by a spirit, so how could he have known that it was not a prophesy.

(c) We resolve the problem by citing Rebbi Yitzchak, who says that two prophets can never deliver exactly the same prophecy (and in the case of Tzidkiyah ben Cana'anah, there were many 'prophets' all making exactly the same prophesy as he was).

(d) Rebbi Yitzchak explains the similar prophesies of Ovadyah and Yirmiyah (who prophesied during the same period), who said "Z'don Libcha Hishi'echa", and "Tiflatzt'cha Hishi Osach Z'don Libecha" (respectively) - by differentiating between two prophets issuing the same prophesies using the same words (which is impossible), and two prophets issuing the same prophesies but using different words.

(a) Hashem was looking for a spirit - to entice Achav to go to war in the belief that he would win, even though in fact, he was destined to die on that occasion. It was the spirit of Navos, whom Achav had murdered on that very spot, who volunteered.

(b) After the spirit of Navos volunteered, Hashem said "Tefateh ve'Gam Tuchal. Tzei va'Asei Kein". Rav Yehudah explain the word "Tzei" - as an order to leave Hashem's presence (because Hashem cannot countenance someone who lies).

(c) To answer the Kashya that perhaps Tzidkiyah was not conversant with Rebbi Yitzchak's ruling, we cite Yehoshafat King of Yehudah, who was present. When ...

1. ... Yehoshafat asked whether there was no Navi present, Tzidkiyah pointed to all the false prophets who were prophesying like himself.
2. ... Tzidkiyah did that - Yeshoshafat replied with Rebbi Yitzchak's principle (which Tzidkiyah chose to ignore).
(a) Chananyah ben Ezor (a former prophet) transgressed the sin of - prophesying what was said to someone else.


1. Yirmiyah prophesied in the upper Shuk - that Hashem would destroy the might of Eilam (a small province near Bavel that came to help Bavel).
2. Chananyah prophesied in the lower Shuk simultaneously - (using a 'Kal ve'Chomer') that He would destroy Bavel itself.
(c) We refer to this as 'the same prophesy' - since one has the right to Darshen a 'Kal va'Chomer' on one's own.

(d) The example we give of ...

1. ... someone who prophesies in the name of idolatry - is the prophets of Ba'al (particularly prominent in the episode with Eliyahu at Har ha'Karmel).
2. ... someone who withholds his prophesy is - Yonah ben Amitai.



(a) The example of someone who refuses to obey the command of a Navi is the 'friend' of Michayhu ben Yimla - who refused to strike the Navi when ordered by him to do so.

(b) This was symbolical of what had happened the same day with Achav, about whom Michayhu had prophesied that he would fall to ben Hadad of Syria - for sending him home in peace (and not destroying him).

(c) Ido ha'Navi is the example of a Navi who disregarded his own prophesy. Hashem had ordered him - not to eat or drink in that place after having prophesied what would happen to the Mizbe'ach of Yeravam ben Nevat in Beis-Eil, in the days of Yoshiyahu.

(d) He changed his mind and accepted the false prophet's invitation to eat with him - after the latter pestered him to stay, on the pretext that he too, was a Navi.

(e) Ido had barely left the town - when we was eaten by a lion.

(a) A Beraisa-expert quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav Chisda. The Tana there states - that someone who withholds his prophesy receives Malkos (see Tosfos end of Amud Alef and Chamra ve'Chaye).

(b) When Rav Chisda asked 'Tamri be'Arbeila Laki - he meant to ask - why the Navi should receive Malkos any more than someone who eats dates in a dish (see Me'iri), seeing as nobody would have known about his prophesy, so who would have warned him?

(c) Abaye answered that his fellow-prophets warned him. They would know that ...

1. ... he had received a prophesy that he had quashed - says abaye - because of the Pasuk in Amos "Ki Lo Ya'aseh Elokim Davar Ki-im Gilah Sodo".
2. ... the Navi did not quash his prophesy because Beis-Din shel Ma'alah had retracted from the evil decree (in which case, they would not have the right to give him Malkos) - because that too, Hashem would have informed them.
(d) We try to - refute the previous answer from Yonah, where we see that Hashem did not even inform *Yonah* that He had retracted (see Agados Maharsha and Aruch la'Ner), how much more so the other Nevi'im.

(e) We refute that proof however, on the grounds - that there was nothing there from which to retract, seeing as Hashem had never said that He would destroy Ninvei, only that it would be overturned in forty days, which it was (spiritually, due to their Teshuvah), and it was Yonah who had misunderstood Hashem's intentions in the first place.

(a) One is Chayav for disobeying a Navi - provided the Navi has proved that he is a Navi Hashem by performing a sign (either in the form of a miracle or by foretelling something that will happen before it does)

(b) Despite the fact that Miychayhu ben Yimlah did not give a sign - his 'friend' was Chayav for disobeying him, because he was already a proven Navi.

(c) We prove that someone who is Muchzak as a Navi does not need to substantiate his instructions with a sign - from Avraham Avinu, whose instructions at the Akeidah Yitzchak obeyed, and Eliyahu on Har ha'Karmel, whom the people obeyed by building a Bamah and bringing Korbanos on it (even though the Beis-Hamikdash was standing [despite the fact that neither gave a sign]), because both Avraham and Eliyahu were already proven Nevi'im.

(a) The Torah writes by the Akeidah "va'Yehi Achar ha'Devarim ha'Eileh". According To Rebbi Yochanan Amar Rebbi Yossi ben Zimra this means after the words of the Satan.
1. The Satan argued - that since Hashem had blessed Avraham with a son and heir at the age of a hundred, the least he could have done was to bring a dove or a pigeon from all the feasts that he made to celebrate (for the B'ris and the weaning party).
2. Hashem's reply was - that bearing in mind that all the feasts were in honor of his son Yitzchak, if He were to ask him to sacrifice his son, he would do so willingly (the test of the Akeidah followed).
(b) The significance of "Kach *Na* es Bincha", says Rebbi Shimon bar Aba - is that it serves as a plea on the part of Hashem not to fail this test, as this would cast doubts on the sincerity of the previous nine tests. And he compares it to a king whose champion was about to fight the greatest battle of his successful career, to whom the king issued a similar plea - not to let him down this time, as it would cast doubts on all his previous victories.

(c) When Hashem told Avraham to take ...

1. ... his son , he replied - that he had two sons.
2. ... his only son - he replied that both were only sons, one to Hagar and the other, to Sarah.
3. ... whom he loved - he replied that he loved both of them.
(d) Hashem chose to speak to him like that - to break the news of the Akeidah to him slowly, in order not to catch him by surprise him and confuse him (see Rashi in Chumash), thereby minimizing the greatness of his actions.
(a) On the way to the Akeidah, the Satan approached Avraham and asked him ...
1. ... initially, whether if Hashem really loved him, it was right to test him in such a way that wore him down and destroyed his children, especially as he had brought so many people to believe in Hashem and helped so many others.
2. ... (after Avraham replied 'Ani be'Tumi Eilech') - that surely, his fear of G-d ought to result in a stronger faith in Him. If Avraham was righteous, he argued, then why was Hashem destroying him?
(b) And when the Satan told Avraham that he had heard from behind the curtain that it was not Yitzchak that was about to be sacrificed, but a lamb - Avraham replied that the punishment of a liar is that nobody believes him, even when he tells the truth.

(c) According to Rebbi Levi, "Achar ha'Devarim ha'Eileh" refers to the conversation between Yishmael and Yitzchak. Yishmael boasted that he was greater than Yitzchak - inasmuch as, whereas Yitzchak was circumcised at eight days, he had been circumcised at the age of thirteen.

(d) Yitzchak replied - that if Yishmael was boasting about giving one limb to Hashem, *he* would gladly give him his entire body (hence the Akeidah).

(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Navi she'Hidi'ach bi'Sekilah; Madichei Ir ha'Nidachas bi'Sekilah'. According to Rebbi Shimon - both receive Chenek.

(b) The Rabbanan's source for the former ruling is the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Hadachah" "Hadachah" from Meisis. Rebbi Shimon did not receive this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (in this context) from his Rebbes. He therefore rules 'Navi she'Hidi'ach be'Chenek' - because of the principle 'S'tam Miysah ha'Amurah ba'Torah Eino Ela Chenek.

(c) The Rabbanan's source for the latter ruling 'Madichei Ir ha'Nidachas bi'Sekilah' is - the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', either from Meisis or from Navi she'Hidi'ach.

(a) Rebbi Shimon now learns the Gezeirah-Shavah "Hadachah" "Hadachah" (which he did receive from his Rebbes with regard to Madichei Ir ha'Nidachas) from Navi she'Hidi'ach. Rebbi Shimon prefers to learn the Gezeirah-Shavah from Navi shi'Hidi'ach than from Meisis - since, unlike Meisis, they both speak about enticing many people into worshipping idols.

(b) We counter this by arguing that it is preferable to learn Madichei Ir ha'Nidachas from Meisis - Hedyot from Hedyot, rather than from Navi she'Hidi'ach, who is on a higher status.

(c) Rebbi Shimon does not hold of this argument however - because a Navi who talks people into serving Avodah-Zarah, is no more than a Hedyot.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,