Sanhedrin 9 - December 26, 25 Kislev

Study Guide Sanhedrin 9 Today's daf is sponsored by Adina Gewirtz in loving memory of her father, Mel Rishe. "He loved learning, loved and served the state of Israel as a lawyer, and would be thrilled to see the learning that has flourished with Hadran."  Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Carol Robinson's father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe, z"l. "Today, the first day of Hanukkah, we mark his 25th yahrtzeit. Lou was a devoted family man and active participant in his synagogue. He could fix anything. When one of his girls was on a date, he never went to bed until she was safely home."  Under what circumstances do Rabbi Meir and the rabbis debate whether a defamation case should be heard by a court of three or twenty-three judges, and what underlies their disagreement? Four additional suggestions are presented (bringing the total to eight) to address this question. Rav Yosef presents a law concerning defamation. Generally, when someone faces both capital punishment and a monetary obligation for the same act, they are exempt from the monetary payment. However, in a defamation case, there can be a situation where both penalties apply. If a husband brings witnesses against his wife, and then the father brings witnesses who prove the first group to be eidim zomemim (false witnesses), and subsequently the husband brings witnesses who prove the father's witnesses to be zomemim, the father's witnesses receive both capital punishment (for attempting to have the first group of witnesses executed) and must pay the husband (the penalty he would have owed his wife had their testimony been accepted). These dual punishments are possible because the death penalty stems from their attempt to execute the husband's witnesses, while the monetary payment relates to their attempted financial penalty to the husband himself. Rav Yosef offers a second ruling: When someone testifies against another person but incriminates themselves in the process, their entire testimony is inadmissible because they are considered a sinner, and a sinner's testimony is not accepted in court. Rava, however, disagrees. He maintains that we can divide the testimony, accepting what the witness says about others while disregarding their self-incriminating statements, since one's testimony against oneself is not legally binding for self-incrimination.