ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 111
(a) Resh Lakish interpets the Pasuk "Lachen Hirchivah She'ol Nafshah, u"Pa'arah Pihah
li'Veli Chok" to mean - that for committing just one sin, a person will have to go to
Gehinom (see Agados Maharsha).
(b) Rebbi Yochanan objects - on the grounds that Hashem does not want to be so harsh
with K'lal Yisrael (and that consequently, if there is a way to learn the Pasuk in a
way that is less stringent, then one should adopt it).
(c) So Rebbi Yochanan interprets "li'Veli Chok" - to mean that even if one only
learns (and observes) just one Mitzvah, he will not go to Gehinom (see Maharatz
(a) Considering that Shem was the third son of No'ach, and Arpachshad, the third son
of Shem, Resh Lakish explains - that the Pasuk which states that, in the days of
Mashi'ach, only one third of the sons of the people of the world will remain - refers
to one third of the descendants of Arpachshad (incorporating Yisrael, Yishmael [the
B'nei Keturah], the B'nei Lot and the B'nei Nachor [Rashash], and others). And
assuming that Yisrael are more numerous than the others, this implies that part of
Yisrael will not even be included in that third.
(b) Based on the same objection as in the previous case, Rebbi Yochanan explains the
Pasuk to mean - that a third of all the descendants of No'ach will survive.
(c) This implies - that, assuming that Yisrael make up less than a third of the
world, then they will all survive together with the Geirim and the Chasidei Umos
ha'Olam (who will make up the third); whereas if they make up more, then inevitably,
some of them will die too, but less than according to Resh Lakish.
(d) According to the second interpretation, Resh Lakish explains 'Shelishis' to mean
a third of Yisrael, who is the third of Arpachshad, who is the third son of Shem.
Rebbi Yochanan says - that one begins the Cheshbon with No'ach. A third of
Arpachshad, who is the third of Shem, who is the third son of No'ach, incorporating
the whole of Yisrael.
(a) In similar style, Resh Lakish interprets the Pasuk "Ki Anochi Ba'alti Bachem
Velakachti Eschem Echad me'Ir, u'Shenayim mi'Mishpachah" literally; whereas according
to Rebbi Yochanan, the Pasuk means - that one Tzadik in a town will save the town,
and two Tzadikim in a family will save the family.
(b) Rav objected (just as Rebbi Yochanan did), when Rav Kahana interpreted the Pasuk
like Resh Lakish. He once quoted the Pasuk "ve'Lo Simatzei be'Eretz ha'Chayim" to
Rav Kahana - when he saw him washing his hair when he ought to have been learning
(c) When Rav Kahana asked him why he was cursing him, he replied - that he was merely
quoting a Pasuk.
(a) Of the six hundred thousand Jews between the ages of twenty and sixty who left
Egypt - only two entered Eretz Yisrael (Yehoshua and Kalev).
(b) Based on this fact, Rebbi Sima'i in a Beraisa, extrapolates from the comparison
between leaving Egypt and arriving in Eretz Yisrael (contained in the Pasuk
"ve'Lakachti Eschem Li le'Am, ve'Heveisi Eschem es ha'Aretz") - that for every two of
B'nei Yisrael that left Egypt, six hundred thousand did not leave (see also
(c) The remaining hundred and eighty thousand million B'nei Yisrael died during the
plague of darkness, so that the Egyptians would not be aware of their death.
(d) Based on the Pasuk "ve'Ansah Shamah ki'Yemei Ne'urehah u'che'Yom Alosah me'Eretz
Mitzrayim", Rava comments - that in the days of Mashi'ach, the same proportion will
(a) An elderly Egyptian once showed Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi (presumably in an ancient
script, Agados Maharsha) in Alexandria - that some of the B'nei Yisrael they drowned
in the sea, some they killed by the sword and others they squashed in the buildings.
(b) And it was concerning those atrocities (see Agados Maharsha) that Moshe asked
Hashem why He had intensified the slavery after appointing him Sheli'ach to go before
Paroh and take Yisrael out of Egypt, for which he was subsequently punished.
(c) We are referring - to the Divine decree that Moshe would witness what Hashem was
about to do Paroh (the Ten Plagues), but not what He would do to the thirty-one
kings of Cana'an.
(a) When Hashem complained about those who were gone, and were no longer to be found,
He was referring to - the Avos.
(b) The doubts one might have expected coming from ...
1. ... Avraham are - why he had to pay so much money for a burial ground for Sarah,
when Hashem had already instructed him to acquire the land by walking its length and
(c) Neither did they ask Hashem - questions concerning His Name, like Moshe did (even
2. ... Yitzchak are - why, having promised him that he would bless him in the land,
he had to fight with shepherds for the wells that his own shepherds had dug.
3. ... Ya'akov are - why he had to pay a hundred Kesitah for a plot of land in
Sh'chem, when Hashem had already told him that the land on which he was lying would
belong to him and his children.
(a) According to Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel, Moshe prostrated himself (as a mark of
thanks) when he stood on Har Sinai, after the Chet ha'Eigel, and perceived the Midah
of "Erech Apayim" (denoting temporary forgiveness, and a chance to make good).
According to the Rabbanan however, he prostrated himself in prayer - when he saw the
Midah of Emes (which denoted that Yisrael deserved to be killed).
(b) The opinion that has the support of a Beraisa - is the first one, as we shall now
(c) The Tana records the dialogue that took place between Hashem and Moshe when Moshe
ascended Har Sinai and found Him writing "Erech Apayim". When Moshe suggested ...
1. ... 'Erech Apayim la'Tzadikim' - Hashem retorted 'Af li'Resha'im'.
(d) And when, after Yisrael sinned by the Golden Calf, and Moshe was Davening on
their behalf, Hashem reminded him how he himself had specifically asked for 'Erech
Apayim la'Tzadikim', Moshe retorted - that Hashem had answered 'Af li'Resha'im.
2. ... that the Resha'im deserve to perish - He retorted that one day he would
retract from that statement.
(e) Moshe subsequently cited the Pasuk - "ve'Atah Yigdal Na Ko'ach Hashem (and apply
'Erech Apayim' even though they were Resha'im) Ka'asher Dibarta Leimor".
(a) When Rebbi Chaga heard a child, who quoted the Pasuk in Tehilim "Tefilah
le'Moshe" immediately after that of "Edosecha Ne'emnu Me'od ... Hashem le'Orech
Yamim", he was - climbing up a ladder in the house of Rabah bar Shiloh.
(b) He extrapolated from there - that Moshe must have perceived the Midah of 'Erech
(a) Based on the Pasuk "ba'Yom ha'Hu Yiheyeh Hashem Tzevakos la'Ateres Tzvi ... ",
Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Chanina says - that Hashem will become a crown on the head of
each Tzadik who 'did the will of Hashem and hoped for His Glory'.
(b) He learns from the words there "le'She'ar Amo" - that in order to be eligible for
such a reward, the Tzadik must also be humble.
(c) "u'le'Ru'ach Mishpat" refers to those who overcome their Yetzer-ha'Ra and do
Teshuvah on their sins, when the Navi adds ...
1. ... "u'le'Yoshev al ha'Mishpat", he means - they must also judge accurately.
(d) When the Midas ha'Din asked Hashem what it was that caused those who are
precluded from attaining these levels, He answered - 'drinking wine' (i.e. that they
were absorbed in the pleasures of this world).
2. ... "ve'li'Gevurah" - that they overcome their Yetzer-ha'Ra, not just by desisting
from sinning, but by performing a Mitzvah in its place.
3. ... "Meshivei Milchamah" - that they arrive early each morning in the
Beis-Hamedrash, and remain till late at night.
(e) Their end is hinted in the words "Paku Peliliyah", which means - that they will
be judged in Gehinom.
(a) Our Mishnah extrapolates from the Pasuk (in connection with the Ir ha'Nidachas)
"Yatz'u Anashim B'nei Beliya'al *mi'Kirbecha*" - that the residents of an Ir
ha'Nidachas will not receive a portion in Olam ha'Ba.
(b) Besides the fact that the Madichin (those who talk the residents into sinning)
must be residents of the town and members of that tribe) - they must also be men (not
women and not children) for he town to become an Ir ha'Nidachas.
(c) A town where only a minority were talked into worshipping Avodah-Zarah or if the
Madichin were non-residents - has the Din of individuals.
(d) The ramifications of this Halachah are - that each person receives Sekilah, and
that their money is not destroyed.
(a) To be considered an Ir ha'Nidachas - each person requires two witnesses and
(b) A passing caravan will be deemed "Yoshvei ha'Ir ha'Hi" - if it has been at least
thirty days in the town.
(c) They will then save - the town's money from being destroyed, assuming that they
turned the minority who did not sin into a majority.
(d) Despite the fact that they would also cause the town's money to be destroyed,
should they turn the minority who did sin into the majority, the Tana nevertheless
presents specifically the case where they save - because seeing as they are basically
strangers in the community, they are unlikely to be easily talked into serving
Avodah-Zarah together with the other residents, and the case where they come to save
will therefore be more common.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Hacharem Osah ve'es *Kol* Asher Bah" - that even the
property of the Tzadikim has to be burned.
(b) Not all the property of the Tzadikim, but - whatever is inside the town.
(c) The animals in an Ir ha'Nidachas are put to death - by the sword (like their
(d) "ve'es Kol Shelalah Tikbotz el Toch Rechovah". If the town ...
1. ... has no town-square - then one has to make one.
2. ... square is situated outside the town - then it has to be moved to inside.
(a) Our Mishnah also learns "Shelalah", 've'Lo Sh'lal Shamayim'. The ramifications of
this ruling with regard to ...
1. ... Hekdesh are - that it must be redeemed.
(b) Rebbi Shimon learns from "Kalil la'Hashem Elokecha" - that if one carries out the
Din against the Ir ha'Nidachas, it is considered as if one brought Hashem a
2. ... Terumah are - that it must be left to go bad.
3. ... Ma'aser Sheini and Sefarim" are - that they must be placed in Genizah. The
former cannot be burned (even though it can normally be eaten even by Yisre'elim,
because the Torah calls it 'Kodesh').
(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili interprets "Vehaysah Teil Olam" literally. Rebbi Akiva
disagrees because of the Pasuk "Lo Sibaneh Od" - from which he extrapolates "that
although it may not be rebuilt into a residential area, it may be turned into gardens
(a) The Beraisa learns from the word ...
1. ... "Yatz'u" - that if the Madichin did not entice the residents of the Ir
ha'Nidachas directly, only through a Sheli'ach - the town does not have the Din of an
(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, it is possible for one city to have been divided
among two tribes. Resh Lakish holds - that if a city fell between the borders of two
tribes, then it belongs to the one with a majority of residents who reside there.
2. ... "Anashim" (besides 've'Lo Nashim, ve'Lo Ketanim') - that there must be at
least two Madichim.
3. ... "B'nei Beliya'al" - that the Madichim are people who have thrown off the yoke
of the Kingdom of Heaven from on themselves.
4. ... "mi'Kirbecha" - that a town that is close to the border cannot become an Ir
5. ... "Yoshvei Iram" - that the Madichim must be residents of that town (as we
learned in the Mishnah).
6. ... "Leimor" - that each person who served Avodah-Zarah must have had witnesses
and warning (as we learned in our Mishnah).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan proves his opinion from our Mishnah 'ad she'Yehei Madichehah
me'Osah Ir u'me'Oso Sheivet' - which means that even if the Madichin *are* from that
town, it only becomes an Ir ha'Nidachas if they are also from the same tribe
(presumably because a town can be divided among two tribes).
(d) Resh Lakish refutes Rebbi Yochanan's proof - by establishing the Mishnah when one
of the Madichin inherited a field in that town or received it as a gift.
(a) We assume that when the Pasuk in Yehoshua describes how two of the tribes gave
nine towns of refuge - the Navi means that each gave four and a half towns (a Kashya
on Resh Lakish).
(b) We query the answer that one of the tribes provided five, and the other, four -
on the grounds that the Pasuk should have then said so.
(c) The Lashon 'Kashya' implies - that although it is difficult (to reconcile the
Lashon ha'Pasuk, in our case), it is not considered a disproof.
(a) We ask what the Din will be if the residents of the Ir ha'Nidachas talked
themselves in to serving Avodah-Zarah. And we try to resolve the She'eilah via our
Mishnah, which precludes a town whose Madichin are women or children from the Din of
Ir ha'Nidachas - on the assumption that self-Hadachah should be no better than
Hadachah through women or children (seeing as it does fall under the category of
"Vayadichu" any more than they do).
(b) But we refute this proof - on the basis of a 'S'vara', bearing in mind that a
person does not take the Hadachah of a women or a Katan seriously, whereas his own
Hadachah, he does.
(c) The word 'Hanach Basar Nafshaihu *Gridi*' - is an Arama'ic word meaning 'drawn
after' (like the word 'G'reida', which means 'alone', a person who is drawn after
(d) The word 'G'riri' - has the same meaning, only it is Lashon ha'Kodesh.