Sanhedrin 89

Today's d is on and we are at the Mishna about 10 lines from the bottom of mid. So we're moving along here at the very end of aim the very last of Sanhedrin before we start specifically we're talking about the z m. The zakam is somebody that had a mahus in learning with somebody from his local. They tried being makri the shila. They moved it up the ranks until finally it was presented to the bezdag. The bezel passed one way and this zen this person went against the of the bezdenhagel. The Torah says that we treat this person in a very very severe way. This person is hence he's mentioned here in Peric. Not only is he going to see in the course of today's that when he was killed, he was killed in a very public way. There were four people that were misdel and it was then that they would kill this person to send a very very important message. In other words, at the core of the zak lies a message that's foundational. It's critical to the entire yiddish kite. And it's for that reason not only would they kill him, but they would kill him in the presence of the entire. Now there are a lot of different that we saw related to the zak number one he had to be of a certain caliber he had to be somebody that was worthy to be a with the another that we saw was that there's a big what the nature of the that the zak was arguing with the had to be in order for him to be a zak specifically the son mentioned threeaso said that it doesn't have to be what it does however have to be isra something that is rooted in a however but if you look at the it's not 100% clear what the is it requires that type of is where one could become even if the entire to be clear doesn't mean but something that there's a point is that even if it's not but rather it's that says would be enough in order for this person to become a either way on that note in the world of there's an anomaly that emerges and that is something that is is more than something that's meaning something that's in the is treated more leniently that something that's not murish in the but rather something that is an idea that was expressed and put into place by the by if somebody would be a he would say that there's no fill in he wants that people should not put on fill he would not be considered a if however he would say not a fillain but rather there of course is filling but the fillain is not supposed to be made up of four. It's supposed to be made up instead of five. If he would do that, he would be what's the point? Where do you see the isra? The idea that you have to have four that's something that's only. So if the person would say ain't filling he wants to be over there he wouldn't become a if however he would say that instead of four there's supposed to be five bim well now he's not chaping with what's in the because the four is not in the what he's ching with is what said oh you're being in that case you're going to be hence if What's the reason that if says ain't fill in the he's going to be says which is an expression that's used to mean meaning that's considered the is only when it's a but if somebody says that something that's so obvious and so murish is not really the case it's not considered absac at all and if it's not considered absac it's not considered considered rebellion against the courts and for that reason this person is not going to become a only time would be something that is rooted in the has to be something that was explained by the it's an idea that if one wanted to be meaning physically you could be And it's also an idea that in the event that somebody would be he would make it work. So according to the name in order for somebody to be as the case that's being discussed we have to check all four boxes. Number one it's number two. Number three it's number four. And theor says that the only thing that we can figure out would be a case then that one could become based on the very strict criteria of and not only that it would only so let's go backwards. What does it mean? is the that we saw in the that said that the only time somebody becomes if it's two of the criteria of so we know it's going but why does it have to be so is based on the latter two criteria has to be a thing that is you could always add a bias to the fill in and it's something that because if you're going to have it's going to be a problem but ask what about is the only thing that can meet this criteria of the meaning of is mentioned in the other right So the Torah tells you the stating that there's a lot of that's involved in understanding what the are. So the like fill in is okay. Now you could always be how would you be? You'd be a men, right? It could always be of a fifth to the practically you could do that of the that why is it that the only case that checks off these whole boxes is the is true as well but the says no I'll tell you why what are you suggesting is the when it comes to with regards to what explains if you hold that does not require whether the three medium of the L right so the medium is made up of an asteric that's on its own and then you have the which is the it's the and the there's a sh whether the three of the have to be wrapped together that's a shar says that even if but there's a because of hitzvah you should be but the point says the if you hold it's not something you have to do then I don't think that by going and a fifth man taking another plant and holding it together with your and your is going to make anything worse and the reason I don't think it's going to make anything worse is because it's not tied together and if it's not tied together so why is it even Meaning the criteria are obviously because we don't know what the medium really are. Technically you could add a fifth. It's not because I don't see if why holding a fifth would make it worse. have you gonna tell me that no the holds of it's still not going to be a problem and the reason is because if you hold that means before you have to take the you have to tie them together now if you're going to go now be and want to make it worse obviously you're going to have to be together with the three right that's and the three and not this extra one that you're coming to be of course that's nothing. So you would be it all together. That's what the GMR is suggesting and that's where the problem should be of but the ising that if you're going to tie it all together then you weren't because it's it comes out that it was bad just explain the a little bit better said that the fourth condition is sounds like it was good now I was I went and I made it worse in the case where you added another min into the egg of the well comes out that it wasn't good and then you made it worse. It was bad and that's not the criteria of it sounds like it sounds like it had to have been good and only afterwards it was bad. If you look at the mooch a little bit like why would that even matter it was good then it became bad and if it was worse or bad that somehow makes it better like why should that even be the case and the say that obviously is four criteria learned out from and in his mash that you had something good and you're now posing to make it uh a problem That is the of the of the z the point is being that in this case it's going to be a problem. says that it's for that reason that relates to that box that not why it's not being then it wasn't good and then you were it's something that was says have another case that couldn't work what about is mentioned in the par of who However, there's certain perish that the gave as it relates to understanding the specifically says right the most basic that has to be how do we know that that's not something that's something that we know right but it's not you could always be technically and for sure if you is going to be puzzle so why does it what says the I'll tell you what but this is my what do you hold as it relates to regarding so explain is the cash do you hold that the cash not so the cash is the upper cash that's the knot that attaches the sites to the bag whether alians or cash if also it means you have to make that if it means you just have to attach somehow the fringes is to the but you don't actually have to make a a proper cash. So the time is what do we hold as relates to this sh of well then it comes out if you're going to go and you're going to be another then really it's not going to you look at the last on the Because being that you're not tying it and remember cuz even if you tie it, you didn't have to tie it. So it's not considered if there's a that you have to tie it. So then there's a a unit that's created. So if you would go now and you would add one so you add it to the to the unit. But being that so there's no of a of a of a unit that you have to have between the and between the bag. And for that reason, if you're going to be the last words of it's as if it's not even there. So if you hold it's like in the previous then there's no connection. There's no between the extra men and the four men that you already had. So then like we had earlier then it comes out when you went ahead and you took instead of four you took five and you tied them all together. So it comes out it was never and then it became a problem because of the it was when you went ahead and you tied it it was a radian issue. So again the says as it relates to say I agree doesn't say any ones that it's not considered that which there and if well then you would have had to have tied the together with the other four at the time of the original and it comes out it's something that was in the beginning says that's why it's fill in because it doesn't work for and it doesn't work for but says if you're going to go with the methodology that we just used to deflect Lulov and to deflect sites well why don't we say the same thing as it relates to how so I know it's a dish I understand but as it relates to I don't understand why that should be initial. Why? Because of the person would make the and then he would go ahead and he would just put a fifth next to it. Then why is that fifth one staring? Meaning why is the fifth bias staring the any more than you hold the fifth man if is not going to stare the and the fifth if you hold is not going to the I don't see why the fifth bias of the tomb should be any worse and if you went and you made five well then well then it was bad and if it's bad even though I understand that you shared it but you're telling me guba doesn't check off the box of you had four you added a fifth why is that fifth one sharing I don't you don't seem to think that the fifth and the fifth so why is this and if you make five oh that's why I never had a kasher well but if you never had a say it's talking about where you had four and then you went ahead and you made what's How does that big deal? So you added another bias. I'll tell you why. Because the bias the outermost bias with that that's not meaning that has something in between it and the proverbial puzzle is going to be ple the outermost bias has to be the outermost bias. And as a result it's now for you to go ahead and add one to the side. If you're going to add one to the side so the outermost one is not going to be the outermost one. If you do that it comes out. So you have a situation where it was because you had four and then you went and you added a fifth. What's the cash? Who cares? You added a fifth. Why is that even doing anything? Why is that on my radar? It's just there. It shouldn't be there. But why isn't that staring? the terror is because by you going ahead and doing that you're violating the effort says would not kill by the local not even if the was the kill they would bring him to and they would keep him there until they would kill him. Now it's not a proper say it would have to be it's not because it says this extra regarding the death of the everybody should hear and see or be fearful and no one's going to do this anymore but the point is everyone's going to hear everyone's going to hear means that it's going to be done in the presence of everybody says that this would be cruel and unusual someone's and you're going to keep him on death row until the It's not okay. They would kill him immediately. It says they would write letters and then they would send messengers to all the places that this person was. But the doesn't require that everybody physically be there. It just requires that everybody knows about it and everyone can know about it without making this person suffer by simply going out and sending says that elaborates on this he needed all of the to be present at the time that he killed which would mean it would have to be done on that's when it be by the best by the right that's the only way you can make this work no that's not Okay, rather you kill the person the same way you always kill a person. I how is everyone going to know about it? It's very simple. You go ahead and you send rather they would bring him to the keep him there as the says. So this is where the becomes a little lengthier than the does it say it doesn't say they have to see it. It says they have to hear. What does hear mean? They have to know about it. So why would you cause this person? Now if it said in the you have to do you have to do it but doesn't say yeah they kill immediately and they would write letters and they would send it to all the places this person. There are four people that when they were given Mrs. It had to be done in the affformentioned way. Meaning this of or according to it wasn't only true for the true for but he's one of four. Who are the others? Who are theis? And the reason is because by all four of them it says this idea in the everyone's going to know about it stating that makes one and that is by all of them it says by it says by the says it says wrote. So it says it says it doesn't say it. And the reason it says but it's not everybody is so as it relates to as it relates to the meist that's something that everybody so it says it says as it relates to the you have to be you have to be not everybody's it's for that reason it says meaning the the remaining people to whom this applies because it's not everybody body actually that this applies to. Now why isn't everybody says right there are certain people that so really kind of that if you're going to tell me that it says because not every person is because let's say someone's a godlin is everybody we just learned the whole term of is a few months is everybody sh to being a zak has to be someone that could have sat on the on the best not everybody could be a zak maybe a mist but for sure and for sure so the ran sash we've spoken at this ran over the years ran says a big the ran says that the reason we killed the zakam and the reason we killed the m is not so much for the of the zakam and the but it's more for the underlying principle of what this person violated the zakam violated the idea of he violated ated the idea that you have to listen to right that's the relationship we have to have with our he went against which is the fabric of has no respect for his parents so he violated that element of the of it's true that is not something that every person is shy to but the underlying principle something that everybody is shy to And that's why it says and it says because really it applies although maybe not in a very nuanced way but in a general way it applies to every single year. It's now everybody's that's why the Torah goes and the Dr. Shakar. So the Mishna in the very beginning of the paric mentioned the alohanim and included on that infamous list is the noviak. So our Mishna now is going to define noviak. It's going to give different examples of people that are mis where the a was committed is somewhat associated with nva. And the reason is because the high level is someone that hence it's mentioned right here. So the Mishna says what is a that's someone that says where no one ever communicated anything with him. So it's a good old fashioned. Additionally in the event that somebody would say a nava that was never said to him but it was said to another. So he's repackaging and reselling this nava as if he's a na'vi but he's really not. The difference is that the content of the navua was said to a na'vi. Well, that is included in the laws of Shakar and in both of those cases the person that just made up out of nowhere or the person that is saying that's true but it was never said to him and he's saying it as if it was said to him this person is going to be hashem communicates to and he tells him I want you to relay this message and he's he keeps it for himself. He doesn't relay it or if somebody hears something from avi and he doesn't act upon it. He doesn't listen to the so in this case the person committing the sin is not the actual or if a nvi didn't listen to what hashem told himself to do. So hashem told do something or he gave him an avu that's related to him and he violated that. In those cases, the people will be however they're not going to be, but rather they're going to be what's it says and is going to elaborate a little bit on this. If somebody says in the name of he says this is what told me to tell you even if whatever he said was true meaning let's say it was a issue and he got right something that is supposed to be he says that is either one of those cases this person is going to be in the event that somebody's so that too was included in of now we're digressing obviously from the topic of if somebody's born in as long as this had even if there was no yet any person that's meaning this is going to be so the only time someone that's this is say no 101 is in the event that this had before she had was a that's the parish of Naira Murasa that's a more complicated but just high level speaking that's bought in is and the is adding one you don't need the be as long as the takes place that in and of itself would be enough there to be another example of somebody that is going to be is if found to be and the z was where they had suggested gested that was now is that that's we saw that in the says stating that for would not be now that's a huge as the mission is about to say because ordinarily the punishment of the and over here the really should have been straight for It should not have been additionally the boil of the also be which is also because usually the boil and the get the same mis over here there's a kadesh that even though the bas geta but as it relates to the bo the bo not and the says that this idea of getting is a very idea as we just mentioned and now it's seen in the words of the way explains this this Rashad by the way but the way Rashi explains this is that ordinarily always get here additionally every single time there's an for the B and for the going to get the same the B is going to be different so it's two separate with two separate. One is the other is that the always get the same. Well, here's the exception to that rule and that is as opposed to when it comes to the bo of she's going to get he is going to get either way. Returning our attention to the first part of the Mishna Mishna had mentioned that in the world of Shak in the world of listening to ai not listening to avi so there's very much of sometimes of sometimes of in the words of the says he makes up it's a real but it was never Those are examples of if you go through the of related to there's actually six cases. three of them. Somebody says and he made it up meaning he never heard or was never told. Or if he said in the name of is in all three of these cases if withholds his he doesn't share it with the people that he was told to share it with. Or if somebody who's not a Na'vi was told to do something by avi and he's he doesn't listen or avi who was told to do something himself and he violated that meaning it's not he doesn't give over the in this case the was told to do something and he didn't do it in those three cases says to all this it's learned out from the following so The says it's all in this is talking about right. How do you know that? You know that from the fact he's right. He's making up something in my name. I never told him anything. And when the adds that it wasn't just but it was something that I didn't tell him. What's that for? That seems to be extra. Obviously if he made it up I didn't tell him. The point is it was I didn't tell him. But I told it to his friends. The end of the is clearly talking about someone that's saying in the name of what does the end of the say? And we know from learning that's how you know is that this person is going to be what's the second part of the list that's going down from a different the says it's actually one earlier says the Garra that pushet when the Pik says that the ish was so what does it mean? It means that this person did not listen to the right he didn't listen to the but the word can be moved in different directions. You could also say that meaning he's a and he didn't give over the he was and also you could also read it as if it said means that he didn't listen to himself. So in all three of these cases the says what it says means. So you have these two that talk about one of them says the other one says the one that says he made up even if I told it to somebody else saying in the name of it's very straightforward the three that it's really one but that one is we turned into three because the word we turned into he didn't listen to the he didn't give over the and which means that he didn't do what he himself was told that he was supposed to moving now is going to give examples of all these different things and these examples are going to involve a little bit of so really these gumaras go better if uh we have the background. We're going to do what we do. What's an example of somebody who is I'll give you one. An example would be the says this is actually of yeshiva fame in the context of Karen being etc. But the point is right the end of the is that's how we know but the context of what was going on in that pos was that who was a very very terrible king had come into an alliance with who was a good king now how were and both kings at the same time well that's obviously uh 101 because we know that was divided into two groups And then you had the is the at that time. Either way, they came to some sort of alliance and they agreed that they were going to go fight stating that told the only way I'm going to fight is if we are by the and the say this is the right thing to do. So because he wanted to go and he didn't know what the was going to come back and say So he came up and he brings these 400 N she and they all come together in a room and these start saying and they all say the same exact what's the is go fight and you're going to see that you are going to be successful. not Sitka Benana who gets a an honorable mention in Argamore. He's one of those and he was an example of somebody that was right. He said this and he said and again it was made up. So he's saying go over something that he was never taught. But the says I don't understand why would for doing what he did because if you know the rest of the story say the spirit of Israeli had shepherd with him. Now Israeli was somebody that had been killed by a wanted to take his vineyard and he killed him. And because of that the spirit had this ability to take revenge of he was waiting for an opportune time and this was the opportune time. have these mislead him into war and by them misleading him into war he's going to end up dying ends up dying in this war but the point is says why is there a on him he was misled by how do we know that it's who's going to persuade to go into this war right this is the opportunity to kill him all of a sudden this came I'm going to be the one that's going to do item said to go persuade him you'll see you're going to be successful and then he said say go out and do exactly as you told says parathetically this is a digression said might say what does the word say mean go out obviously he's going to go to do his job in Hashem was telling him that once you're going to do this you're not going to be able to be in my anymore because you're going to be fooling you're going to be lying and even though it's being done maybe for some noble cause but the kakronim is one of the four that are not. So he told him same but either way what does meanud said it was the but the bottom line is why would even though saying that's not real this is not some classic person where somebody wakes up in the morning and he says that you know he had a dream and all of a sudden he becomes a what's happening here is is that there was a ru that actually was misleading him sorry if he was being misled Right is right that that's a says you want to know what he could have done. I'll tell you what he could have done. He could have been to see whether the was or not. There was a way for him to figure it out based on something. There's one concept of that will tell many of but you're never going to find two that are going to say the identical. What does this mean? the concept of the nav hashem spreads amongst the but it's never the same lion. So one would say it in his would say it in his would say it in his language. They're all going to say it in their own different way. An example of this is who's talking about the downfall of in the end of days says right the you know caused you persuaded you to do something very silly. Yuria said something very similar. He was also talking about the the future downfall of but he said so eerily similar but it's not the same thing. What's the point? The point is when it came to these 400 they all said identical it's obvious that what they were saying was and this is something that should have known. So he should have known the says maybe he didn't know if he knows so then he could be but maybe he didn't know so says it's not true it's not a good excuse was present there and he was telling the what's really going on as the says right is there noi what do you mean what are you telling we had a deal said that I'm going to call 400 said the same thing said you're not fooling me. So this idea was already put out there and as a result from the fact that didn't listen to therefore there is going to be a moving was an example of somebody that says that was never really said to him. Right? So the is the example of somebody that says a what's an example of somebody says a be not to him. So the gar gives like a example again this takes us into the depths of so what was this all about the tells the story was he said I'm going to destroy the might of that only came to assist in fighting against the Jews Hashem says, "I'm going to destroy the might of the Babylonians themselves that are not just on the receiving end of an assist. They're the ones that are actually perpetrating. Certainly, they're going to have a downfall." Says, "Well, if who we know is a legitimate says that Hashem says he's going to destroy, it's a that so will be destroyed." So he went into the said I'm going to destroy the point is this is an example of someone that's saying that's MS based on it was never said this is a good example of an that was said to one but not said to the other because here really made up the was He but was the was not bubble as it relates to bubble was not said to anybody being that you're allowed to it's the first of the it's as if it was said to him literally meaning it's as if it was said but who the problem is it was said to me it wasn't said and that's why this goes on as an example of an that was said be it not to the person that's giving over. What's an example of somebody that's they said in the name of that's a classic example of what's an example of someone that's another easy one can go was told to go to and he refused for very noble reasons but he was that's an example of What's an example of somebody that is because he was going. So an example would be the friend of or who was the says this is also there was one of the younger who told his friend in the name of hit me. Hem said that I should tell you to hit me. The person refused to do it. Except the says that and the punch line is you're going to see you're going to be hit by a lie. So you see that this person was and he got of someone that's what's an example of that's and by the way that he too was going example would be the says that told you now the rest of the is so wants to eat with him, break bread and he says I can't because I had a that said and this was a real this was a real stating that the blessing says several later that was on his way back from and he meets another this was an older the says and the person tells him I'm a like And the told me and you should come then you should eat bread and drink water with me. The went with him. So he violated his own because he was told not to eat bread and not to drink water and now he went ahead and he violated several later says left. So you see this is an idea of that's don't eat he ate and what happened to him ultimately he was says there was who used to and he said over the following in the presence of quote like if and he doesn't express the doesn't say it He's going to be now we said that's a of this was that is not only but he's going to get as well responded to this with an epic expression told him if somebody eats and he eats dates that are inside a seieve is he going to get malus what does that mean it means if somebody doesn't do anything wrong he can't get malus right and from our perspective who knows that this person had a that we should be able to give and that we should be able to ascertain that he actually did something wrong to get malas meaning who knows but to give somebody malas we would have to know and there's no way in the world for us to be able to know so in this sarcastic way said what if somebody eats no can only give someone malus if you know we did something wrong there's no way to know that somebody was a rabbi I responded to this argument He said, "What do you mean? What do you mean? Who knows he did something wrong?" His friends would know how the friends said because it's a very important principle when it comes to meaning when wants to do something he doesn't just tell it to one person. He tells it to everybody. So all the other Nim knew about it and therefore they gave him now we can go ahead and know if he doesn't say we can give him how do you know that the was not taken back meaning the reason this person is not saying go is not because he's a gave him the that's why the other know about it but the backtracked maybe they revoked it so this nava is no longer applicable so how could he give him Now you're going to ask me if that's the case then why do the other Nim not know about that? Right? They're the ones that are suggesting he's doing something wrong. So maybe he knows about the fact that it was revoked and the other Nim don't. But the says it's not a doesn't work that way. In the event that Hashem with backtracks in a everybody would know about it. Is that true? Had withdrawn. He had revoked the nav that ninve was going to be flipped upside down and didn't know about it. Right? What was the nav? Go tell Ashin. Go tell them they have 40 days to repent and if not this is going to be a problem. And y is waiting and and he doesn't know what's happening. And he sees the 40 days pass and he's very confused. I thought there was supposed to be an avo. Now if there's a a concept if there's a concept of revoking an avo but only if he tells the so then should know what's going on accepted their ju and had revoked the zing but y doesn't sound like knew about it. So sounds like a can sometimes be given but not necessarily kept in the loop. So the Gmorra says no is not a riot because the original was a little bit ambiguous. He was told now he assumed that means when Hashem was and didn't destroy the was that we touched the word to meaning in a good way that you're going to do cha and everything is going to be okay. So there was no khazar needed because there the language initially was left in a way that it was open for interpretation didn't understand it 100% that's why he's not sure what's happening but it wasn't necessary form to come back to ya and inform him of what's going on because there was actually this loophole that was placed in the initial language that allowed this to play itself out without requiring the just change the definition of is from to all of a sudden being now one of the things that the Mishna had mentioned In the context of somebody doesn't listen to the ask how's this person supposed to know the somebody comes to you today he tells you he's now all of a sudden you have to listen to him and if not so says yeah ordinarily you don't have to listen to anybody but if the person gives you an he makes a he makes a miracle right see and pyro in the beginning of par there's an idea that you give an ice and then we know you're pray. We just told the story of Mikah, right? And the person gets eaten up by a lie. He didn't give any and the person who didn't hit him was punished. Why was he punished? He doesn't say anything about making a miracle. Once a person is already that he's a then you don't have to give. That's true. He didn't give an O. He didn't have to give an O because he's already a card carrying member of the once there's a on the person the is not necessary and the pro he's not going to say that to listen to how would able to go bring doesn't say made a miracle fork don't say no did anything specific here you have to say once somebody is that this person is at that point you don't have to prove anything so too being that already been that was it wasn't necessary to prove anything now this last just mentioned this is going to segue now into a a classic so a lot of ag tucked away here in so much going on and often quoted that the last two specifically wereas very lishar says and this he also is somebody that's the concept of but this next now is going to bring us to a little bit of it's a story of arcade.