WHO CAN GIVE REASONS?
Question: What is R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah's reason?
Answer: "V'Ed Echad Lo Ya'aneh v'Nefesh Lamus" - he does not speak to kill, but he speaks for Zechus.
Question: What is Chachamim's reason?
Answer (Reish Lakish): It looks like his testimony is biased (he wants to acquit Ploni).
Question: What do Chachamim expound from "Lamus"?
Answer: It refers to one of the Talmidim;
(Beraisa): If one of the witnesses has a reason (even) for Zechus, we do not listen - "v'Ed Echad Lo Ya'aneh." ("Lamus" does not apply to witnesses. Since it would look like they are Noge'a, they may not a witness for Zechus or Chiyuv);
If one of the Talmidim has a reason for Chiyuv, we do not listen - "Echad Lo Ya'aneh v'Nefesh Lamus."
CHANGING ONE'S OPINION
(Mishnah): In capital cases, one who gave a reason...
(Rav): This is only at the time of debating. When they vote on the final verdict, one who gave a reason for Zechus can vote 'Chayav'.
Question (Mishnah): The next day, they rise early. A Mezakeh says 'I was Mezakeh, and I still am.' A Mechayev says 'I was Mechayev, and I still am';
One who gave a reason for Chiyuv can give a reason for Zechus, but one who gave a reason for Zechus cannot give a reason for Chiyuv.
The next day is when they give the final verdict!
Answer: They also debate the next day. One cannot change from Zechus to Chiyuv at the time of debate.
Question (Mishnah): They debate with each other until one of the Mechayvim agrees with the Mezakim.
According to Rav, it should say 'or until one of the Mezakim agrees with the Mechayvim'!
Answer: Indeed, that is true. The Tana prefers to teach only the case in which the final verdict is Zechus.
Question: R. Yosi bar Chanina taught that if one of the Talmidim was Mezakeh and he died, we count him as if he is still Mezakeh.
We should be concerned lest he would have retracted to Mechayev!
Answer: Since he did not retract in his life, we are not concerned for this.
Question: They sent from Eretz Yisrael that R. Yosi bar Chanina argues with Rav!
Answer: No, they said that he does not argue with Rav.
Question (Mishnah): One scribe stands to the right of the judges and writes the words of the Mezakim, and one scribe stands to the left and writes the words of the Mechayvim.
Granted, we must write the words of the Mechayvim, lest a Mechayev be Mechayev for a different reason the next day, requiring Halanas Din (to postpone the verdict another day, to give to him time to reconsider the new reason).
However, why must we write the words of the Mezakim? (We do not need Halanas Din for a new reason for Zechus!)
Suggestion: We must say that a judge cannot change from Zechus to Chiyuv (unless he originally erred in something the Tzedukim admit to. Therefore, we write his words, lest tomorrow he will think to Mechayev, and will assume that he formerly erred in something the Tzedukim admit to)!
Answer: No, we write the words of the Mezakim lest two judges give the same reason due to different verses (as we now explain)
Question (Rav Asi): If two judges give the same reason due to different verses, what is the law?
Answer (R. Yochanan): They count only like one (because one of them is erring).
Question: What is the source of this?
Answer (Abaye): "Achas Diber Elokim Shtayim Zu Shamati"- one verse has many meanings, but one law is not learned from more than one verse.
(Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "Uch'Patish Yefotzetz Sela" - just like a hammer is broken by (R. Tam; Rashbam - breaks) a rock into many pieces, one verse has many meanings.
ONE LAW LEARNED FROM TWO VERSES
Question: What is a case of a law learned from more than one verse (which indicates that one of the opinions is wrong)?
Answer (Rav Zvid - Mishnah): The Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh what is proper for it (as we now explain);
R. Yehoshua says, anything proper to be burned on the Mizbe'ach, once it is brought up the ramp, we do not take it down (even if it was Pasul and should not have been brought up) - "ha'Olah Al Mokedah";
Just like an Olah is proper to be burned on the Mizbe'ach, and if it was brought up, we do not take it down, the same applies to everything proper to be burned on the Mizbe'ach.
Raban Gamliel says, anything proper for the Mizbe'ach, once it is brought up, we do not take it down - "Hi ha'Olah Al Mokedah Al ha'Mizbe'ach";
Just like an Olah is proper for the Mizbe'ach, if it is brought up, we do not take it down, also everything proper for the Mizbe'ach.
Both Tana'im include Korbanos that became Pasul in the Mikdash. R. Yehoshua learns from "Mokedah", and Raban Gamliel learns from "Mizbe'ach."
Rejection: They argue in Halachah (not just how to expound)!
(Seifa): They argue only about the blood and the Nesachim.Raban Gamliel says that they do not go down (for they go on the Mizbe'ach). R. Yehoshua says that they go down (for they are not burned).
Answer #2 (Rav Papa - Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili) Suggestion: Perhaps "Kol ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash" applies whether or not it isf Kosher (for the Mizbe'ach)!
Rejection: "Kevasim" - just like lambs are Kosher, also anything Kosher (does not go down).
R. Akiva says, "Olah" teaches that just like an Olah is Kosher, also everything that is Kosher (does not go down).
Both Tana'im exclude Pesulim that were never Kosher. R. Yosi ha'Galili learns from "Kevasim", and R. Akiva learns from "Olah"!
Rejection: Rav Ada bar Ahavah taught that they argue about a Pasul Olas ha'Of. We do not learn this from "Kevasim", but it is included in "Olah".
Answer #3 (Rav Ashi - Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "Dam Yechashev... Dam Shofach" includes one who throws the blood (of a Korban outside the Mikdash. He is Chayav Kares, just like one who slaughters);
R. Akiva says, "Oh Zavach" includes one who throws.
Both include one who throws. R. Yishmael learns from "Dam Yechashev", and R. Akiva learns from "Oh Zavach."
Objection: R. Avahu taught that they argue about one who slaughtered and threw. R. Yishmael obligates only one Korban (if he was Shogeg, because throwing was learned from the same Kares as slaughtering), and R. Akiva obligates two Korbanos (we learned throwing from a different Kares written about offering outside the Mikdash).
Defense (of Rav Ashi - Abaye): No, R. Akiva admits that he is liable only once because the same Lav forbids both - "Sham Ta'aleh Olasecha v'Sham Ta'aseh..."
MAY WE JUDGE AT NIGHT?
(Mishnah): Monetary cases must be started during the day...
Question: What is the source (that they can finish at night)?
Answer (R. Chiya bar Papa): "V'Shoftu Es ha'Am b'Chol Es."
Question: If so, it should be permitted to start at night!
Answer: Rava teaches that this is not so.
Contradiction (Rava): It says "v'Shoftu Es ha'Am b'Chol Es", and it says "b'Yom Hanchilo Es Banav"!
Answer (Rava): The case must be started during the day. It can finish at night.
Our Mishnah is not like R. Meir.
(Beraisa - R. Meir) Question: "V'Al Pihem Yihyeh Kol Riv v'Chol Naga" - what is the connection between Riv (Dinim) and Naga (Tzara'as)?
Answer (R. Meir): The Torah equates them. Just like the Kohen looks at Tzara'as only during the day ("uv'Yom Hera'os"), also Dinim must be judged during the day.
Also, just like a blind Kohen cannot rule about Tzara'as ("l'Chol Mar'e Einei ha'Kohen"), a blind person cannot judge Dinim.
We also learn from Dinim to Tzara'as. Just like relatives cannot judge Dinim, they cannot rule about Tzara'as.
Suggestion: Just like three judges are required for Dinim, we should require three Kohanim to rule about Tzara'as!
Support: If three judges are required to take money from a person, and all the more so three are required to declare Tzara'as on his body!
Rejection: "V'Huva El Aharon ha'Kohen Oh El Echad" - even one Kohen can rule.
A blind man used to judge in R. Yochanan's neighborhood. R. Yochanan did not say anything.
Question: R. Yochanan said that the Halachah follows a Stam Mishnah!
(Mishnah): Anyone Kosher to judge is Kosher to testify. There is someone Kosher to testify who is disqualified from judging.
(R. Yochanan): Someone blind in one eye is Kosher to testify but disqualified from judging.
Answer: R. Yochanan rules like a different Stam Mishnah (i.e. ours).
(Mishnah): Monetary cases must be started during the day, but they can finish at night (when people are like blind people, they cannot see).
Question: Why does he rule like our Stam Mishnah, and not like the other?
Answer #1: Our Mishnah is the opinion of many Chachamim (since it is never attributed to an individual, but the other Mishnah is like R. Meir (in the Beraisa above).
Answer #2: Our Mishnah teaches the law among other laws of Dinim.
Question: How does R. Meir expound "v'Shoftu Es ha'Am b'Chol Es"?
Answer (Rava): It permits judging on a cloudy day. (We would have thought that we cannot, for we cannot see Tzara'as then.)
(Mishnah): We do not look at Tzara'as early in the morning or late in the afternoon (when the sun is weak), in a house, or on a cloudy day, for then a faint appearance will look strong;
We do not look at midday, for then a strong appearance will look weak.
Question: How does R. Meir expound "b'Yom Hanchilo"?
Answer: He learns like Rabah bar Chinena;
(Rabah bar Chinena): "B'Yom Hanchilo Es Banav" - we bequeath by day, and not at night.
Objection (Rav Nachman): If someone dies at night, do his children not inherit him?!
Suggestion (Rav Nachman): Perhaps your mean that we do not judge cases of inheritance at night.
(Beraisa): "L'Chukas Mishpat" - the end of the Parshah (of inheritance) is called Din.
(Rav Yehudah): If three people went to visit a sick person (and he commanded how to bequeath his property, and then died), they may write his command, or they may execute it;
If only two were present, they must write it, but they may not execute it (they are not a Beis Din).
(Rav Chisda): This is if they visited during the day. If they visited at night, they must write it, but they may not execute it, for they are witnesses, and they cannot become judges (even during the day).
Rabah bar Chinena: Yes, that is what I meant.