REVACH L'DAF

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
daf@dafyomi.co.il    http://www.dafyomi.co.il
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net


Previous Daf
SANHEDRIN 15
Ask the Kollel
Ask the
Kollel

SANHEDRIN 15(8 Av) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Lily (Leah bas Pinchas) Kornfeld, who passed away on 8 Av 5765. Dedicated by her daughter and son-in-law, Diane and Andy Koenigsberg and family. May Lily and her husband's love for Torah and for Eretz Yisrael continue in all of their descendants.

SUMMARY

1. If a person says "Erech Kli Alai," he becomes obligated to donate to Hekdesh the value of that utensil.
 
2. If a Kohen collects Metaltelim from a person who said "Erchi Alai," the evaluation of those Metaltelim must be conducted by a group of three people.
 
3. In order for Karka or an Adam to be redeemed from Hekdesh, an evaluation must be performed by ten people.
 
4. A person who derives benefit from a slave of Hekdesh does not incur a Chiyuv Me'ilah.
 
5. Rebbi Meir maintains that fruits that are ready to be harvested are not considered like Karka despite the fact that they are attached to the ground. The Chachamim maintain that anything that is attached to the ground has the status of Karka.
 
6. An animal that is Rove'a a man has the same Din as an animal that is Rove'a a woman.
 
7. At the time of Matan Torah, any person or animal who came too close to Har Sinai was Chayav Misah.
 
8. Rebbi Elazar maintains that anyone is allowed to kill a dangerous wild animal.
 
9. Rebbi Akiva maintains that anyone is permitted to kill a snake.
 
10. If an entire Shevet worships Avodah Zarah, they are not judged under the Din of Ir ha'Nidachas.

A BIT MORE

1. The concept of Erech pertains only to people, not to utensils. Therefore, when a person commits himself to pay the "Erech" of a utensil, it is assumed that he means to pay to Hekdesh the value of the utensil.
 
2. Just as Metaltelim cannot be redeemed *from* Hekdesh unless they are evaluated by three people, they cannot be used to *pay* Hekdesh unless they are evaluated by three people. Ravina explains that this is based on a logical extrapolation. When Metaltelim are redeemed from Hekdesh, they must be assessed by a group of three people because if only one person assesses the Metaltelim, he might make a mistake that would cause Hekdesh to be underpaid. Similarly, when Metaltelim are used to pay an existing debt to Hekdesh, if the collection of Metaltelim were to be done by only one person, that person might mistakenly attribute too high a value to the Metaltelim and thereby cause Hekdesh to receive less than it is due.
 
3. When Karka is redeemed from Hekdesh, it must be evaluated by a group of ten people, at least one of whom is a Kohen. Similarly, if a person commits himself with a Neder to pay his own value to Hekdesh, the value must be determined by a group of ten people that includes at least one Kohen. This is because the monetary value of a person is based on his worth on the slave market, and there is a verse that equates slaves to Karka; therefore, a human being's value must be appraised in the same way that Karka is appraised.
 
4. The Torah equates Avadim to Karka; as a result, many of the rules that apply to Karka apply to slaves. A person who derives benefit from Karka of Hekdesh does not incur a Chiyuv Me'ilah, and the same applies to a slave whose owner was Makdish him; a person who derives benefit from such a slave will not become Chayav for Me'ilah. The Tana Kama maintains that even if a person derives benefit from a slave's hair which is about to be cut off, he does not incur a Chiyuv Me'ilah. Rebbi Shimon Ben Gamliel disputes this point, however, and maintains that a slave's hair is subject to a Chiyuv Me'ilah when it is about to be cut off. According to Rebbi Shimon Ben Gamliel, hair that is about to be cut off is viewed as if it has already been severed, and it is no longer considered like Karka.
 
5. The Gemara quotes a Mishnah which discusses the following case: one person claims that he entrusted to another person ten grapevines whose grapes are fully ripened, and the other litigant admits to only half of his claim. In such a situation, Rebbi Meir maintains that the defendant must swear a Shevu'as Modeh b'Miktzas (a Shevu'ah d'Oraisa that is made by a litigant who makes a partial admission to a claim). Even though Shevu'os are never made in disputes over Karka, Rebbi Meir maintains that grapes that are ready to be harvested are viewed as if they were already harvested and are not considered like Karka. The Chachamim disagree and maintain that the defendant may not make a Shevu'ah because anything that is attached to the ground has the status of Karka.
 
6. An animal that is Rove'a a person, whether male or female, is Chayav Sekilah. Both the person and the animal must be tried by a Beis Din of twenty-three judges.
 
7. During the time when the Shechinah rested upon Har Sinai, any person or animal who approached too close woud incur a Chiyuv Misah. Any such case had to be tried by a Beis Din of twenty-three judges.
 
8. Reish Lakish maintains that Rebbi Elazar permits killing only a wild animal that has already killed a human being. According to Reish Lakish, Rebbi Elazar agrees that it is possible to tame a wild animal and teach it not to cause damage. Consequently, a person can attain ownership of such an animal, and it is permissible to kill it only if it has already killed a person, thereby revealing that it was never really fit to be tamed and therefore could not be owned. Once such an animal has killed a person, it is immediately considered as if it had a Gemar Din for Misah and it is forbidden to benefit from its hide. Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Reish Lakish and maintains that it is impossible to tame a wild animal, and such an animal therefore is not subject to ownership. According to Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Elazar permits the killing of such an animal even if it has not killed a human being. The animal may be killed because it is considered ownerless. As a result, the person who kills the animal is also permitted to benefit from its hide.
 
9. Rebbi Akiva agrees with the Chachamim that a wild animal may be killed only after it has been tried by a Beis Din of twenty-three judges. With regard to a snake, however, Rebbi Akiva agrees with Rebbi Elazar's position that anyone is permitted to kill it because a snake is always a Mu'ad.
 
10. Rebbi Yoshiyah maintains a city may be judged as an Ir ha'Nidachas only if it has between ten and one hundred residents. Rebbi Yonasan maintains that in order for a city to be judged as an Ir ha'Nidachas, it must have at least one hundred residents, and at most the majority of a Shevet. Even Rebbi Yonasan, however, agrees that Beis Din may not condemn an entire Shevet as an Ir ha'Nidachas.

Next Daf

Index to Revach for Maseches Sanhedrin


MAIN SANHEDRIN PAGE

KIH Logo
D.A.F. Home Page

Other Masechtos  •  Join Mailing Lists  •  Ask the Kollel
Dafyomi Calendar  •  חומר בעברית
Donations  •  Feedback  •  Dafyomi Links