Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's shiur will be Masechet Sanhedrin דף י"ד, but we will start 14 lines from the bottom of דף י"ג עמוד ב'. The Gemara says, תני, we learned, סמיכה וסמיכת זקנים בשלשה, that semichah, putting on the hand, and the semichah of זקנים, you need a Beit Din of three. And the Gemara asks, מאי סמיכה מאי סמיכת זקנים? What does semichah mean, and what does סמיכת זקנים mean? סמיכת זקנים we know what it means. We know that סמיכת זקנים means that when there is a korban brought, which is פר העלם דבר של ציבור, if the בית דין פסק'נד wrong and the people did according to the Beit Din, then you have to bring a korban for the whole tzibur. So then the Torah says: וסמכו זקני העדה ידיהם על ראש הפר, that the זקנים of the עדה have to put their hands on the head of the פר. And this beraita holds that you need three people to do it. But what is semichah? And the Gemara answers: אמר רבי יוחנן, Rabbi Yochanan said, מיסמך סבי, that means to give semichah to a talmid chacham, ordination, to call him Rabbi, to give him the authority of paskaning the שאלות. אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: מיסמך סבי בשלשה מנלן? This, that you have to have three people when you give semichah to a חכם, how do you know that you have to have three people? אילימא, if you're going to say we learn it out מדכתיב, since it says, ויסמוך את ידיו עליו, that he put his hands on him. This refers to Moshe Rabbeinu, that he put his hands on Yehoshua. And from here we have this idea of semichah. But אי הכי, if so, תסגי בחד, let one be enough! Just like משה did it himself, so too, whenever you give semichah, it should be enough with one. וכי תימא, if you're going to learn that משה במקום שבעים ואחד קאי, that משה was in the place of 71, משה's authority was in the place similar to the authority of 71 people, אי הכי, if so, ליבעי שבעים ואחד, you should need 71! But where do we get this idea that you have to have three people to give semichah? And the

Gemara says: קשיא, this remains a kashya. אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי, Rav Acha the son of Rava said to Rav Ashi, he asked a question: בידו ממש סמכינן ליה? Is it so that you mamash have to use your hand? Do you actually take your hands and put it on his head when you give him semichah? אמר ליה, so he said, no. סמכינן ליה בשמא, we give him semichah by the name, which means קרו ליה רבי, we call him Rabbi, we give him the title רבי, ויהבי ליה רשותא, and we give him the permission למידן to פסק'ן דיני קנסות. To פסק'ן דינים of קנס. Because we know there are two kinds of inyanim. There is what we call דיני ממונות, when a person owes somebody money, or he damages somebody, etc., and he owes him the money, that is normal דיני ממונות. Then we have דיני קנסות. That's when the Torah said that you have to give a certain amount of money which is not based on the amount that you owe. For instance, when someone steals, the din is that you must pay כפל, you must pay double. So the first amount, that is the value of the object he stole. But then the double that he has to give, that's קנס, that is a fine. Or, if an ox kills an עבד, so the din is that the owner of the ox has to pay שלושים שקלים, he has to pay 30 שקלים to the owner of the עבד, to the owner of the slave. Now this is called a קנס, a fine. It is not because this is the value of the עבד, because could be the עבד is worth much less. Nevertheless, the Torah says you have to pay 30 שקלים. Or אונס ומפתה, etc. Now, in order to פסק'ן דיני קנסות, you must have semichah. And this is what he says here, when you give semichah, you don't actually put your hand on him, but you give him the permission to פסק'ן דיני קנסות. And as Rashi explains here, that how do we know that in order to פסק'ן דיני קנסות you must have semichah? So he says because the Torah says the word Elokim when it comes to paskening דיני ממונות. And Elokim means that you must be a דיין מומחה, you must be an expert. And in order to be an expert, you must have the semichah first to show that you are an expert. So be'emet, any type of דיני ממונות you must be an expert, and any type of דיני ממונות you must have semichah, but it depends.

Rashi puts it into three categories. If it is a kind of דיני ממונות that if we're going to make it hard for people to pasken, then this will cause for people not to want to lend out any money, then the חכמים לכתחילה said, we don't need semichah there, because we're afraid שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין, you should not close the doors for people who have to borrow money. If people will know that if he'll have a problem with the money, it'll be very hard for him to get a דיין to pasken his din, so he's not going to want to lend out the money. So it'll be hard for people to lend money, to borrow money, so therefore, the חכמים said, in a case like that, you do not need semichah. In a case where there is no din of תנעול דלת בפני לוין, we're not afraid that this might cause that people will not want to lend out money, for instance, if someone steals, or the case of the שומרים, if someone gives something for someone else to watch, and then he denies it, etc., where we are not afraid if it'll be hard to pasken this din that that people will not want to lend money because it has nothing to do with lending. So here the din is that you do need semichah. But nevertheless, לפועל, even nowadays we pasken such דינים, even though we do not have semichah now, and that is because it says אנן שליחותייהו קא עבדינן. We are agents, we have a mission given to us from the original דיינים who had semichah. They gave us permission and said you do our שליחות and pasken these דינים. But when it comes to a third category which is דיני קנסות, here they did not make us שלוחים, and therefore here you actually have to have people with semichah. And if you do not have semichah, you cannot פסקן דיני קנסות. And this is what the Gemara said here, that when you give semichah, you call him Rabbi and you give him reshut to פסקן דיני קנסות. Then the Gemara asks the question, וחד לא סמיך? And one cannot give סמיכה? We just said that in order to give סמיכה you must have three people. Is it so that one cannot? ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב, didn't רב יהודה say in the name of רב, ברם זכור אותו האיש לטוב, should be remembered this person for the good, ורב יהודה בן בבא שמו, and his name was רב יהודה בן בבא. Why should you remember him for the good? שאלמלא הוא, if not for him, נשתכחו דיני קנסות מישראל, the dinim of kenas would have been forgotten from the Yidden. So the Gemara says, נשתכחו? What, you say they were forgotten? ניגרסינהו, let's learn it! If you're afraid you'll forget it, you learn it! אלא, what does it mean? Not that it would be forgotten, but בטלו דיני קנסות מישראל. If not for him, the dinim of פסק'נינג דיני קנסות would have been batel. Because if not for him, as the Gemara will tell the story, there wouldn't have been semichah. And as we said before, without semichah you can't פסקן דיני קנסות. So if not for him, there would be no more pesak of דיני קנסות. Because פעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה גזירה על ישראל, because once the wicked nation, the wicked kingdom, made a decree on the Yidden, שכל הסומך ייהרג, anybody who gives סמיכה should get killed, וכל הנסמך, and anybody who gets סמיכה, ייהרג, should be killed, ועיר שסומכין בה תיחרב, and if they catch any city that someone in that city gave סמיכה, so they will destroy the whole city, ותחומין שסומכין בהן יעקרו, and the תחומין, the borders of the city that in it someone gave semichah, should be torn out, should be destroyed. תחומין are like the outskirts of the town. So with this decree, no one could give semichah. מה עשה רב יהודה בן בבא,

what did Rav Yehudah ben Bava do? הלך וישב לו בין שני הרים גדולים, he went and sat between two great mountains. And where were these two great mountains? בין שתי עיירות גדולות, between two big cities. He did not want to stay in a city because if he would be caught, not only he would be punished, but the whole city would be destroyed. So he didn't want to put the whole city in danger, so he went to a place which was not in a city, it was between the cities. ובין שני תחומי שבת, and it was between two תחומי שבת. It was far from both cities, further than the תחום שבת, because as we said before, the decree was that the techum of the city should be destroyed, so he went even away from the techum. And this was בין אושא לשפרעם, between Usha and Shefar'am. וסמך שם חמשה זקנים, and there he gave semichah to five זקנים. ואלו הן, and they are, these are they: רבי מאיר, ורבי יהודה, ורבי שמעון, ורבי יוסי, ורבי אלעזר בן שמוע. רב אויא מוסיף, Rav Avya adds, אף רבי נחמיה, Rabbi Nechemiah was there too. כיוון שהכירו אויביהם בהם, when their enemies realized that they are there, and they realized that their enemies are coming, אמר להם, so he said to them, בני, my children, רוצו, run away! אמרו לו, they said to him, רבי, מה תהא עליך? What will be with you? We'll run away, and you're going to stay here? אמר להם, so he said to them, הריני מוטל לפניהם, I am laying in front of them, כאבן שאין לה הופכין, like a stone that no one wants to turn. In other words, what'll happen to me will happen to me. I'll lay here, and whatever they decide to do to me they'll do, but at least you will be safe. אמרו, they said, לא זזו משם, they did not move away from there. The enemy that came and caught him did not go away עד שנעצו בו שלש מאות לולביות של ברזל, that they didn't move until they put into him 300 spears of metal, ועשוהו ככברה, and they made him like a sieve. They killed him. But at least we see from this story that he himself gave semichah to these five people. So

how can we say before that for semichah you must have three, when here we see that one person gave semichah? The Gemara answers, רב יהודה בן בבא אחריני הוו בהדיה. In the case of Rav Yehudah ben Bava, there were more people with him. He wasn't the only one that gave semichah, he and a group of people. והאי דלא חשיב להו, and the reason they don't mention the others, משום כבודו דרב יהודה בן בבא, because of the kavod of Rav Yehudah ben Bava, because he was the greatest of them all, so they apply it to him. But really it wasn't only him, it was him and a few more people who gave semichah. Then the Gemara continues, ורבי מאיר, רב יהודה בן בבא סמכיה? Is it true that Rabbi Meir got his semichah from Rav Yehuda ben Bava as we said before? והא אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן, didn't רבה בר בר חנה say in the name of רבי יוחנן, כל האומר רבי מאיר לא סמכיה רבי עקיבא, anybody who says that Rabbi Meir did not get his סמיכה מדרבי עקיבא, אינו אלא טועה, is only mistaking, because the truth is that Rabbi Akiva, that Rabbi Meir got his semichah from Rabbi Akiva. And here we're saying that Rabbi Meir got his semichah from Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. Gemara answers, סמכיה רבי עקיבא ולא קיבלו. First Rabbi Akiva gave him semichah, and no one accepted it, because he was still young. סמכיה רבי יהודה בן בבא וקיבלו. Then Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava gave him semichah, and the people accepted it.

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, אין סמיכה בחוץ לארץ. There is no semichah in chutz la'aretz. And as we said before, the main thing that semichah refers to is דיני קנסות, that if you have semichah, you could פסקן דיני קנסות. So when he says אין סמיכה in chutz la'aretz, that would seem to say that you cannot פסקן דיני קנסות in חוץ לארץ. So the Gemara asks, מאי אין סמיכה? What do we mean with this din that there is no semichah in chutz la'aretz? אילימא, if you're going to say דלא דייני דיני קנסות כלל בחוץ לארץ, that you cannot פסקן any דיני קנסות in חוץ לארץ at all—in other words, even if somebody got semichah in Eretz Yisrael, when he comes to chutz la'aretz, he cannot פסקן דיני קנסות, that's what we mean. That the whole concept of semichah has no connection to chutz la'aretz, because what semichah accomplishes, which means gives him the right to פסקן דיני קנסות, will not have any value in חוץ לארץ, because you could never פסקן דיני קנסות in חוץ לארץ. But that's not so. והתנן, didn't we learn in the משנה, סנהדרין נוהגת בין בארץ בין בחוץ לארץ, that Sanhedrin goes on in Eretz Yisrael and in חוץ לארץ. That means that if somebody gets semichah in Eretz Yisrael, and then he comes to חוץ לארץ, he could act in חוץ לארץ as a person who got semichah. Whatever he could have done in Eretz Yisrael, he could do in חוץ לארץ, because the Sanhedrin, the authority of the Sanhedrin applies for חוץ לארץ, too. So we can't say that when we said that there is no semichah in חוץ לארץ, it means that there is no way of פסקנינג דיני קנסות in חוץ לארץ. אלא what does he mean? דלא סמכינן בחוץ לארץ, that we do not give semichah in חוץ לארץ. But if someone got semichah in Eretz Yisrael, and then he comes to חוץ לארץ, he could act in חוץ לארץ with his semichah, and פסקן דיני קנסות. Then the Gemara continues, Peshita, this is a clear thing, that סומכין בחוץ לארץ ונסמכין בארץ, if the ones that are giving semichah are in חוץ לארץ, and the one that's getting the semichah is in Eretz Yisrael, so certainly הא אמרינן, and didn't we say before, דלא, that that's no good? We said before that in חוץ לארץ you cannot give semichah. So therefore, even if the one that is receiving the semichah is in Eretz Yisrael, and the people who want to give him semichah are now in חוץ לארץ, they cannot give him the semicha, because in חוץ לארץ, we said before, you cannot give semicha. אלא the שאלה we have now is,

what is if סומכין בארץ ונסמכין בחוץ לארץ? If the ones that are giving semicha are in Eretz Yisrael, the one that's getting semicha is in חוץ לארץ, מאי, what is the din? In other words, if this person would be there in Eretz Yisrael together with the ones that want to give him semicha, so certainly he could get semicha, because in Eretz Yisrael you give semicha. The question is, when he is outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the people who want to give him semicha are in Eretz Yisrael, can they give him semicha even though he is not there? מאי, what is the din? The Gemara says, תא שמע, come here, I'll answer you. Because we know that רבי יוחנן הוה מצטער עליה דרבי שמואל בר אבא, רבי יוחנן felt bad concerning רבי שמואל בר אבא, דלא הוה גביה דליסמכיה, that he wasn't by him in order to give him semicha. Rabbi Yochanan wanted to give semicha to Rabbi Shmuel bar Abba, and he felt bad that he wasn't there, so he couldn't give him semicha. So right away we see that if he is not there, he cannot get semicha. רבי שמעון בן זירוד וחד דעמיה. Another story, Rabbi Shimon ben Zerod and another person that was with him, ומאן ניהו, who was that other person? Rabbi Yonatan ben Nachmai. ואמרי לה, others say that we first mention רבי יונתן בן נחמאי, וחד דעמיה, the one that was with him, ומאן ניהו, who was he? Rabbi Shimon ben Zerod, it's Rabbi Shimon ben Zerod. The difference between these two opinions is who is the first and who is the second, in other words who is greater. But the story is that these two people, חד דהוה גביה, one of them that was there with those that wanted to give him semicha, סמכוהו, they gave him semicha, וחד, one, the other one, דלא הוה גביה, he wasn't there, לא סמכוהו, they didn't give him semicha. So again we see that if you are not there, you cannot receive semichah. Then there's another story, that חנינא ורב הושעיא, הוה קא משתדל רבי יוחנן למיסמכינהו, רבי יוחנן tried hard to give semichah to Rav Chanina and Rav Hoshaya. לא הוה מסתייע מילתא, it just never came out, he never managed to do it. הוה קא מצטער טובא, so he had a lot of pain, he felt very bad about it. אמרו ליה, so they said to him, לא נצטער מר, that our master, please don't feel bad about it, because it'll never happen anyway, and it's not your fault, דאנן מדבית עלי קאתינן, and we come from the household of Eli. We are descendants of Eli. And if you are a descendant of Eli, you cannot get semichah. דאמר רב שמואל שמואל בר נחמן אמר רבי יונתן, because Rav Shmuel bar Nachman said in the name of רבי יונתן, מניין שאין סומכין לבית עלי, how do we know that anybody from the house of Eli will not get semichah, שנאמר, because the pasuk says, ולא יהיה זקן בביתך כל הימים, that there will be no זקן in your house, and this refers to Eli who was the Kohen Gadol at that time, so he was told that there will be no זקן in your house all the days. Now מאי זקן, what does this זקן mean? אילימא if you're going to say זקן ממש, it means פשוט old, that he was cursed that no one from his family will live to an old age, it couldn't be, because וכתיב the pasuk says, the same pasuk says, וכל מרבית ביתך ימותו אנשים, and most of the people in your house will die as young people, so this part of the pasuk already tells us that none of them will live long, so we can't say that the other part of the pasuk where it says that there will be no זקן in your house means that there will be no old person, because then it would be saying twice the same thing. אלא so therefore what does the word זקן mean? Semichah, that nobody in the household of Eli will become a זקן. The word זקן has another meaning, that is from the words זה שקנה חכמה, a person who receives חכמה. So when the pasuk says that you will not have a זקן, it means that you will not have anybody who gets semichah. And that's what they said to Rabbi Yochanan, that don't feel bad if you can't give us semichah, because you won't manage to do it anyway, because the pasuk already said that nobody who comes from Eli will get semichah. Then the Gemara continues that רבי זירא הוה מטמר למיסמכיה, רבי זירא tried to hide from getting semichah, he tried to avoid getting semichah. Why? דאמר רבי אלעזר, because Rabbi Elazar said, לעולם הוי קבל וקיים. Rabbi Elazar said a person should always stay away from accepting upon himself the responsibility and the authority of רבנות, and then you will live. So therefore, he did not want to receive semichah. But כיוון דשמע להא דאמר רבי אלעזר, but when he heard that Rabbi Elazar said another statement, that אין אדם עולה לגדולה אלא אם כן מוחלין לו על כל עוונותיו, that a person does not get become greater, does not go up in level of greatness unless Hashem forgives his aveirot first, so he realized that by getting semichah, which means he will be עולה לגדולה, Hashem will forgive his aveirot, then אמצי לה אנפשיה, then he found himself he made himself available to get the semichah. כי סמכו ליה לרבי זירא, and when they gave semichah to רבי זירא, שרו ליה הכי, they sang to him, לא כחל ולא שרק ולא פרכוס ויעלת חן, that even though there is no paint, no rouge, nor dye, still he has radiant charm. What they meant to say that without any makeup and he's still nice, that means that there is nothing outside, he essentially is nice, he is essentially great. כי סמכו ליה לרב אמי ולרב אסי, when they gave semichah to Rav Ami and to רב אסי, שרו ליה הכי, this is what they sang to them: כל מן דין, כל מן דין סמוכו לנא, all people like this, all of people like this we should give semichah. But לא תסמכו לנא, but you should not give semichah to us, לא מסרמיטין ולא מסרמיסין. סרמיטין Rashi says comes from the word סמרטוט which means like a שמטע, people who do not give a good explanation to what they say, to them you shouldn't give semichah. סרמיסין Rashi says are people who are upside down, people who change around the reasoning of the Torah, so they should not get semichah. ואמרי לה, others say that the expression they used was לא מחמיסין. חמיסין Rashi says comes from the word chamasanim, chamasanim is a person who holds back from giving the proper explanations to the Torah. ולא מטורמיסין, and Rashi says he doesn't know exactly what the word טורמיסין means. But what they meant to say was that only people like them, like Rav Ami and Rav Asi deserve to get semichah, but people who cannot explain the Torah properly, people who cannot use the Torah properly are not worthy of getting semichah. Then the Gemara continues, רבי אבהו כי הוה אתי ממתיבתא לבי קיסר, when Rabbi Abahu used to come from the מתיבתא, from the yeshivah to the palace of the קיסר, of the emperor, נפקי מטרוניתא דבי קיסר, so the princesses of the קיסר

used to come out, ומשריין ליה, and used to sing to him, and these are the words they used to say: רבא דעמיה, the great man of your people, ומדברנא דאומתיה, the leader of your nation, בוצינא דנהורא, the lantern of light, בריך מתייך לשלם, let your coming be blessed with peace. And the reason they said this because he was the nasi, and he was the parnas of the people, close to the מלכות, and when she said בוצינא דנהורא, you are a lantern of light, because he was pashut very, very nice, as the Gemara says in Bava Metzia that שופריה דרבי אבהו מעין שופריה דיעקב אבינו, that the beauty of Rabbi Abahu was similar to the beauty of Yaakov Avinu, which goes back all the way to the beauty of אדם הראשון. So since he was so handsome, they used to say to him that he is a lantern of light. Then the Gemara continues, we learned in the משנה, עריפת עגלה בשלשה. When it comes to making an עגלה ערופה, you have to have three. An עגלה ערופה was made if you would find a dead body, and you wouldn't know who killed him. So the din is that you would have to have people, the beit din, coming out and measuring from that place where you found the body to the closer city. And then the beit din of that city would have to come and bring a calf, and there was a whole thing that they had to do, chop off the head of the calf and say certain things, etc. So it said in the Mishnah that when you do the scene of the עגלה ערופה, you must have three. And as Tosafot explains here, which really does not refer to this piece of the Gemara, but really refers to the Mishnah, but Tosafot says that when we say you have to have three by an עגלה ערופה, doesn't mean the chopping off of the head of the calf needs three of the Beit Din, because the lashon is mashma like that. עריפת עגלה means the chopping off of the head of the עגלה, but Tosafot says this is not what it means. It just means around the עגלה ערופה. Now, which part around the עגלה ערופה must have three? So Tosafot says it is the measuring, when the Sanhedrin would come and measure from the place where the body was found to the closer city, that's when you have to have three. But later on, when the Beit Din of that specific city would come to the place, the נחל איתן, and would do everything that the Torah says they have to do, there we don't find that you have to have three. So the Gemara continues and says, תנו רבנן, and the רבנן learned, the pasuk says, ויצאו זקניך ושפטיך, that your zekanim and your judges should go out and they should measure from there to the city. So we learn out from the words זקניך, your elders, plural, is shnayim, is automatically two. When it says שופטיך, your judges, again plural, is again shnayim, is two. Together it's four. ואין בית דין שקול, we have a rule that you cannot have an even number in a Beit Din, so מוסיפין עליהן עוד אחד, so you have to add one more, הרי כאן חמשה, so now you have five. So in

order to do this measuring by the case of the עגלה ערופה, you have to have five, דברי רבי יהודה, that's the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. רבי שמעון אומר, רבי שמעון says, זקניך שנים, he just darshens'es the words זקניך, your elders, that teaches us that you have to have two, because it's plural. And ואין בית דין שקול, since you cannot have a Beit Din with an even number, מוסיפין עליהן עוד אחד, so you have to add one more, הרי כאן שלשה, so you have three. But Rabbi Shimon holds that you only need three. But then the Gemara asks, לרבי שמעון, האי שופטיך מאי עביד ליה? What does Rabbi Shimon do with the word שופטיך? Doesn't it say שופטיך, your judges, which is also plural? So why doesn't he learn that also to teach you that you have to have two, but together it would be four and one would be five? And the Gemara answers, ההוא מיבעי ליה למיוחדין שבשופטיך. He uses that pasuk for a different darsh, to teach us that the zekenim that have to come here have to be from the סנהדרי גדולה. When it says שופטיך, your judges, it means the special judges, which is the סנהדרי גדולה. So since that word שופטיך comes to teach us this din that you have to have Sanhedrin, so you cannot use the word שופטיך to teach us the amount of people. So he's only left with the words זקניך, which is two, and one more, which is three. But then the Gemara says, Rabbi Yehuda, what's a kashya on Rabbi Yehuda? How can Rabbi Yehuda use the word שופטיך to teach us that you have to have two more, when the word שופטיך must be used to teach us that they must be members of the סנהדרי גדולה? So he says no, מזקני זקניך נפקא. He learns that out from the words זקנך. It could have said זקני, and it says זקניך, so that comes to teach us it must be the special zekenim from the Sanhedrin. So from the one word זקניך, he learns both things: that it has to be from Sanhedrin, plus it's plural, so we know it has to be two. The word שופטיך is extra, so it teaches us two more, and one more, it's five. But then the Gemara says, Rabbi Shimon, so it's a kashya on Rabbi Shimon, how could Rabbi Shimon say that he does not use the word שופטיך to teach us two more because he uses it to teach us that it has to be from the Sanhedrin, when that could be learned out from the word זקני זקניך? So he says, אי מזקני, if you want to use it from the word זקני, הוה אמינא זקני השוק. The word זקני itself would not teach us a Sanhedrin, because we could say זקני means zekenim from the street, just old people. Therefore, כתב רחמנא זקניך, so the Torah wrote זקניך, that it shouldn't be just people from the street, but it have to be elders from a בית דין. But that is not enough. אי כתיב זקניך, if it would just say זקניך, הוה אמינא I would think, סנהדרי קטנה, it's enough if they come from the small סנהדרין. כתב רחמנא ושופטיך, so therefore the Torah adds the word שופטיך, מיוחדין שבשופטיך, from the special ones of your judges, that means from the סנהדרי גדולה. So again, we are not left with the extra word שופטיך, because that comes to teach us סנהדרי גדולה. So all he has left is the words זקניך, so he knows two plus one is three. But then the Gemara says, veRabbi Yehuda, there's a kashya on Rabbi Yehuda, how could Rabbi Yehuda say that from the word זקני זקניך itself we know that it has to be from the סנהדרין, but maybe all it means is סנהדרי קטנה? How do we know סנהדרי גדולה? So he says, גמר זקני זקני מווסמכו זקני העדה את ידיהם. He learns out a gezeirah shavah that here it says זקניך, and in the case of the זקנים that have to put their hands on the פר העלם דבר, it also says the word זקנים. It says, וסמכו זקני העדה את ידיהם. מה להלן מיוחדין שבעדה, just like over there by the case of the סמיכת זקנים, they have to be the מיוחדין But Tosafos asks a kashya, how does the Gemara know that Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov argues on the Mishnah? The pshat of it is because Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov says that you have to have also מלך and כהן גדול, and in our Mishnah it is not mentioned. But לכאורה that is no re'iyah. We

find other things in the Mishnah that we know for sure that you must have things in addition to what the Mishnah says, and still there is no question that the Mishnah, there is no possible סברא to say that the Mishnah argues. For instance, it says in the Mishnah that when you add on the city, meaning you add on Yerushalayim, you must have have a Beis Din of שבעים ואחד. But we know there must be more things, as we find in other Gemarot, that you must have the מלך, a נשיא, you must have the אורים ותומים, you must have two תודות, you must have a שיר, all kinds of things you must have when you add to the city. Also, when it says concerning going out to מלחמה, so in the Mishnah, in our Mishnah, it just speaks about the amount of Sanhedrin you have, but we also know that you must have the מלך and the משוח מלחמה, as the Gemara says. And nevertheless, because the Mishnah doesn't mention it, we don't say that the Mishnah argues. So maybe here too, the Mishnah doesn't talk about everything else, the Mishnah just talks about the amount of Beit Din you must have. So here it says or five or three, but that you have to also have a מלך and a Kohen Gadol, the Mishnah doesn't mention, but it doesn't mean that the Mishnah doesn't hold of that. So how does the Gemara know for sure that Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov argues with the Mishnah? And Tosafot answers that the other things that we mentioned before, since they need a Beit Din of שבעים ואחד, so by the fact that the Mishnah does not mention the other things doesn't mean that the Mishnah doesn't hold of it. The Mishnah is just talking about the Sanhedrin. But when it comes to this, where the Mishnah says that you must have three or five, which seems like a very small thing, if the Mishnah would not have mentioned מלך and Kohen Gadol, we would think that you davka don't need מלך and Kohen Gadol. So how come the Mishnah doesn't mention it? Therefore, we must say that the Mishnah davka holds that you do not need a מלך and Kohen Gadol. Then the

Gemara continues, איבעיא להו, there was a question and a be'aya asked: רבי אלעזר בן יעקב בחדא פליג או בתרתי פליג? Is רבי אלעזר בן יעקב arguing with the Mishnah only in one thing, or in two things? Is the peshat that במלך וכהן גדול פליג, he argues concerning melech and kohen gadol? He holds that you also must have a melech and kohen gadol, while our Mishnah doesn't hold of that. אבל בסנהדרין, but when he says that you also must have Sanhedrin, so here he doesn't argue. אי כרבי יהודה, אי כרבי שמעון. Or he holds like Rabbi Yehuda that you have to have five members of the Sanhedrin, or like Rabbi Shimon that three is enough. But he doesn't argue in that part. או דילמא maybe בסנהדרין נמי פליג, or maybe concerning Sanhedrin he also argues, דאמר he holds כולה סנהדרין בעינן, we need the whole Sanhedrin. Because if we look back to the baraita, he said that from the words זקניך we learn out זו סנהדרין, this is the Sanhedrin. And he doesn't say how many. So it seems as if he says that you must have the whole Sanhedrin there. And this is the Gemara's question: Did he mean that or not? Did he just mention the word Sanhedrin, not going into the details, but really he means or three or five? And the only thing he argues against the tanna of the Mishnah is whether you need a melech and kohen gadol or not? Or no, when he said Sanhedrin he meant the whole Sanhedrin, so he argues in that too, and in our Mishnah there is an opinion of three and an opinion of five, and he says that you must have the whole Sanhedrin. But the Gemara says, אמר רב יוסף,

Rav Yosef said, תא שמע, come, I'll answer you. I'll prove to you his opinion. Because we learn in a ברייתא, מצאן אבית פאגי והמרה עליהן. So, first, the din of a זקן ממרא. The din is that if you have a zaken, a talmid chacham, who goes against the Sanhedrin, he is ממרא, he revolts against the beit din, so then he is חייב מיתה if it fits to all the conditions of the dinim of a זקן ממרא. So the beraita says here that if this זקן ממרא met the Sanhedrin by בית פאגי, בית פאגי is not the place where the Sanhedrin belong. The סנהדרין גדולה used to sit in the לשכת הגזית in the הר הבית there, by the בית המקדש. So if this זקן ממרא came to the place where they were sitting, and that's where he had the argument and he was ממרא, so then he has a din of a זקן ממרא. But if he found the Sanhedrin by בית פאגי והמרה עליהן, and over there he revolted against them, יכול, I would think, תהא המראתו המראה, his revolt is considered a revolt and he has the דין of a זקן ממרא, תלמוד לומר, so the pasuk says, וקמת ועלית אל המקום, that you should go up, and and go get up and go to the place where the Sanhedrin sits. ללמד, that teaches us, שהמקום גורם. Since the Torah uses the word מקום, the place, that teaches us that the place is the cause, that the only time a זקן ממרא is chayav if he revolts, rebels against them in their place where they where they belong. But if he met the Sanhedrin not in their place, even if he met them in בית פאגי, which בית פאגי is a place near Yerushalayim, still he is not a זקן ממרא. That's what the beraita says. But now let's learn peshat in the beraita. When the beraita had an hava amina that if he met the Sanhedrin in בית פאגי, he should be a זקן ממרא, the question is nafka mina, how many people, how many members of the Sanhedrin went out of their place that he met them in בית פאגי? אילימא, if you'll say מקצתן, some of them, he met some of the members of the Sanhedrin in the Beit Pagi, and there was an hava amina that he still has a din of a זקן ממרא, how could there be even such a hava amina? דילמא הנך דאיכא גוואי קיימי כוותיה, maybe those that are left inside hold like him? A זקן ממרא is only if he rebels against the whole Sanhedrin. Now, maybe since only some of them are here, some of them stayed inside, maybe those that are inside hold like him, so how could he have had the din of a זקן ממרא לכתחילה? There would be no hava amina. אלא פשיטא, therefore for sure we must say, דנפקי כולהו, that they all went out. In other words, he met the whole Sanhedrin, all the members in Beit Pagi, and there's a hava amina that he had the din of a זקן ממרא, and the answer is that since it's not in the proper place, he doesn't have a din of a זקן ממרא. But the question is ולמאי, why did the Sanhedrin go out? אילימא לדבר הרשות, if we say they went out just for an ordinary thing, not for a מצוה, מי מצי נפקי? How can they go out? How are they allowed to go out? והא כתיב, doesn't the pasuk say, "שררך אגן הסהר אל יחסר המזג", which means that your navel is like a round goblet wherein no mingled wine is wanting. And from here we learn out that the members of the Sanhedrin were not allowed to go out for secular things. And as Tosafot explains as the Gemara says later on on דף ל"ז, that when one of the members of the Sanhedrin wanted to leave, he had to check. If 23, which is the number of a סנהדרי קטנה, were left, then he was able to leave, and if not, not. And that we learn out from the word מזג. מזג means really the mixture of water and wine, and the normal way they used to mix water and wine was two parts water and one part wine. And that's what it means, that if he would want to go out, he would have to make sure that a third of the Sanhedrin is left, just like the מזיגה, the mixing of the water and the wine. Another peshat Tosafot says, the word מזג is gematria, the numerical value of it is 50. That means that when there are 50 out, that's when you can't leave. But if there are only 49 members out, then you're allowed to leave. Even though we're going to have 22 left only, but that's an even number. Whenever you have an even number, you always have to add one more, so they're going to have 23. So, from here we know that if you have 23 left inside, you're allowed to, but if you don't have 23 left inside, you're not allowed to leave. So, automatically we see here that the whole Sanhedrin cannot leave at a time. So, how can we say that when it says here that he met them in Beit Pagi, which automatically means he met the whole Sanhedrin, how in the world did he meet them there? How did they get there and for what reason did they go out? They couldn't go out for a דבר הרשות, for a secular thing. אלא פשיטא, therefore we must say for sure that they went out לדבר מצוה, for a mitzvah. Heichi damei? What kind of mitzvah can the whole Sanhedrin go out? Lav, don't you think that the way the reason they went out was למדידת עגלה, to measure concerning עגלה ערופה, and it will fit according to Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov, דאמר who says, כולה סנהדרין בעינן, you need the whole Sanhedrin. So that answers the question. We asked the question before. Does Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov hold that you must have the whole Sanhedrin? So here we see that he does, because there must be some opinion that holds that you must have the whole Sanhedrin, because otherwise we can't find any other reason why the Sanhedrin should have to leave. And therefore, we have a re'ayah that according to Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov, at least, we must have the whole Sanhedrin. The only thing is that Tosafos asks that we say in the Gemara later on at דף פ"ח that after the תמיד של בין הערבים, they all used to go home. So maybe that's what it means when he met them in בית פאגי, on the way home after the end of the day. But Tosafos says, there, everyone used to go separately, and it was very not common that they should meet them all up together. And therefore, there must be that they all went out for a specific reason together, and it couldn't be לדבר הרשות, it had to be לדבר מצוה, and the only case we could find is if they went out for the ענין of עגלה ערופה. אמר ליה אביי, so Abaye said to him, "לא, no, maybe כגון שיצאו להוסיף על העיר ועל העזרות, maybe they went out to add on the city and on the עזרה, because as we learn in our Mishnah, כדתנן, we learned in the משנה, אין מוסיפין על העיר ועל העזרות, you can't add on the city, meaning on ירושלים, or on the עזרה of the בית המקדש, אלא בבית דין של שבעים ואחד, only with a בית דין of 71. So ממילא there's another reason possible that the whole בית דין, the whole Sanhedrin, should have to go out. So maybe when it says in the Baraisa that if this זקן ממרא met them in בית פאגי, he is not considered a זקן ממרא, that doesn't mean that they went out for עגלה ערופה, but they went out for adding on the עיר and the עזרות. So, since there's another possibility, there is no re'ayah that there has to be an opinion that says that all the Sanhedrin is needed for the ענין of עגלה ערופה." And the Gemara says, תניא כוותיה דרב יוסף, באמת we learned like Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef was the one that said that from this braisa we do have a raaya that the whole Sanhedrin goes out for the עגלה ערופה, so we find in a braisa where it says מפורש like that. It says מצאן בבית פאגי, if he found them in בית פאגי, והמרה עליהם, and he revolted, rebelled against them, kegon, for instance, how did they get to בית פאגי? So it says in the braisa clearly, שיצאו למדידת עגלה, if they went out, for instance, to measure concerning עגלה ערופה, או להוסיף על העיר ועל העזרות, or they went out to add on the city and on the עזרה, so יכול, I would think, שתהא המראתו המראה, that his revolt is considered a revolt and he is a din of a זקן ממרא, תלמוד לומר, the pasuk says, "וקמת ועלית אל המקום", you should get up and go up to the place. So since the pasuk expresses the word "מקום", מלמד שהמקום גורם, that teaches us that the place is גורם, and when does he have a din of a זקן ממרא? Only if he meets them in their place, in the לשכת הגזית. But from this braisa that we see clearly that one of the examples of the whole Sanhedrin leaving is for מדידת עגלה, and this would go according to Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov, that he holds that you must have the whole Sanhedrin by the measuring of the עגלה ערופה. Tosafos asks a kushya: here the Gemara, concerning the din of זקן ממרא, learns out from the פסוק מקום, that the מקום is גורם, that the specific place is גורם, and therefore, if he was a זקן ממרא in a different place, so then he doesn't have a din of a זקן ממרא. Tosafos asks: by מעשר שני, it also says the word מקום. It says that you should take the מעשר שני to the מקום that Hashem chose, or the place Hashem chose. And the din is, we know, that מעשר שני can be eaten in the whole city, the whole of Yerushalayim. מעשר שני doesn't have to be in the place of where the Sanhedrin is, or where the Beis HaMikdash is. So how come by Sanhedrin, we say that when the Torah says מקום, it means דווקא by the לשכת, into לשכת הגזית by the by the Beis HaMikdash? And Tosafos says, that it depends where it says. By מעשר שני, when it says מקום, so the place of מעשר שני could be the whole city. By Sanhedrin, מקום means their place, and what was their place? Their place was לשכת הגזית, which was close to the מחנה שכינה. As the Gemara says, חזי מקומם, that we learn out that the Sanhedrin was in the part that belonged to Yehudah, and the שכינה was in the part that belonged to Binyamin, but they were right next to each other. So the place of Sanhedrin is their לשכת הגזית. So therefore, when it says here by Sanhedrin, by זקן

ממרא it says מקום, it means לשכת הגזית. And therefore, if he met them by Beis Pagi, even though Beis Pagi has a din like Yerushalayim, as Tosafos quotes, nevertheless, it is not their place, and therefore he doesn't have a din of a zaken mamre. But then Tosafot asks, that when we say that if he met him in בית פאגי, he doesn't have a din of a zaken mamre, it doesn't mean דווקא בית פאגי, which is like Yerushalayim, but even if it's actually in Yerushalayim, still it is not called the place of the Sanhedrin. As it says in the first perek of Shabbos, that the last 40 years before the churban Beit Hamikdash, the Sanhedrin went away from its place, and was in the חנות. And because of that, the Gemara says, they couldn't judge דיני נפשות, capital punishment, because דיני נפשות could be judged only as long as the Sanhedrin is found in its proper place, in its original place, which is the לשכת הגזית. But when it went away from the לשכת הגזית, they couldn't judge דיני נפשות. And where did they go to? They went to the חנות, and the חנות was still in Yerushalayim. Because as it says in Rosh Hashanah, that 10 גליות, 10 exiles, the Sanhedrin went through. First they went from לשכת הגזית to the חנות, from חנות to Yerushalayim, so we see that חנות is even closer than Yerushalayim proper. So from here we see that even the Yerushalayim itself is not considered the place of the Sanhedrin. The only area which is called המקום, the place of the Sanhedrin, is the לשכת הגזית. And now we'll continue with the Gemara. The

Gemara quotes in the Mishnah, it said: נטע רבעי ומעשר שני שאין דמיו ידועין בשלשה. That when it comes to נטע רבעי, נטע רבעי is the fourth year when the things grow. So we know that when you plant a tree, the first 3 years it is orlah. It is forbidden to have any use from the fruit of the tree. The fourth year, it's called נטע רבעי. You must take the fruit up to Yerushalayim, and you must eat it only in Yerushalayim, and you must eat it betaharah, you have to be tahor, and it has the same dinim as מעשר שני. מעשר שני means that every year when you would gather your crop, so the first few thing you would have to do is take off a certain amount for terumah, give it to the Kohen. Then another amount would be מעשר ראשון, that would be given to the Levi. It was a tenth taken off, given to the Levi. And then, מעשר שני, the second tenth, would be taken off, and that wasn't given to anybody, was kept by the person, but he was supposed to take it to Yerushalayim, and in Yerushalayim, you would eat it with taharah. You would eat it while you were tahor. And there are certain restrictions that apply to מעשר שני, and the same restrictions apply to נטע רבעי. And the din is that if a person has too much fruit to take up to Yerushalayim, so he's able to redeem it. So what he would do is redeem the fruit for money. The money would have the din of נטע רבעי or מעשר שני. He would take the money up to Yerushalayim, and in Yerushalayim, you would buy food with that money, and the food you would buy would get a din of מעשר שני. So it says here that when you come to redeem נטע רבעי, or you come to redeem מעשר שני, when it is something that the value is not known, so in both of these cases, you must have a Bet Din of three when you do it. And as Tosafot explains, that the words in the Gemara where it says שאין דמיו ידועין, that it is a kind that you do not know the value, that doesn't refer to נטע רבעי. In other words, נטע רבעי, when you come to redeem נטע רבעי, you always have to do it in front of three people. מעשר שני, normally if you redeem מעשר שני, you don't have to do it in front of three people. Only if it is מעשר שני, a kind of מעשר שני that the value is not known, that's when you have to have three people. And the reason is, so Tosafot says, because נטע רבעי, even if it is known the value, it's still possible that a person would make a mistake or a person would not redeem it properly, that's why we have to have three people. Because this is something that a person wants to eat, he is very excited and very enthusiastic in eating it. For three years he couldn't use the fruit, now is the first time he could eat the fruit, so he probably wouldn't be so exact in redeeming it. So therefore, you always have to do it in front of three people. But מעשר שני, then normally we're not afraid that he will make a mistake. But if it is a kind of מעשר שני that אין דמיו ידועין, we do not know the value, so here we're afraid that he won't do it properly, and that's why you have to have it in front of three people. The Gemara says, תנו רבנן, the Rabbanan learned, איזהו מעשר שני שאין דמיו ידועין? What is considered מעשר שני that its value is not known? So it says, פירות שהרקיבו, for instance, fruit that were rotten. So now we do not know what its value is. When it is not rotten, it has a value in the market, so we know how much it is. But when it's rotten, it has no special amount of value, therefore you have to do it in front of three. או יין שהקריס, or wine that was became sour, ומעות שהחלידו, or money that was rusted. And the

Gemara continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, מעשר שני שאין דמיו ידועין, מעשר שני that its value is not known, פודין אותו בשלשה לקוחות, you have to redeem it in front of three businessmen, three people who are experts in business, and they will be the ones to say the value of this מעשר שני. אבל לא בשלשה שאינן לקוחות, but not in front of three if they are not experts. Then it continues, אפילו נכרי אחד מהם, it could be done even if one of the three is a גוי, אפילו אחד מהם בעלים, even if one of the three is the owner himself. And the Gemara continues, בעי רבי ירמיה, Rabbi Yirmiyah asked in a בעי, asked a question: What is the דין if שלשה, there are three, מטילין לתוך כיס אחד, but they all put into one wallet? It means three partners, that all the business they do goes into one wallet. Is that considered three, or, since they all do business together, they're partners, it's considered like one? So תא שמע, come here, I'll answer your question. We know the דין is איש ושתי נשיו פודין מעשר שני שאין דמיו ידועין, a man and his two wives are allowed to redeem מעשר שני if its value is not known. In other words, this is considered three. And normally, the women don't have their own business, so everything they do goes into the same pocket, and therefore it is like a partnership. And still we say that you're allowed to do it with a man and his two wives. That answers the question that three partners are allowed to do it, in other words, they are considered like three separate people. But the Gemara says it's no ראיה, דילמא maybe כגון רב פפא ובת אבא סורא, maybe what kind of wives do we mean? Like Rav Pappa and his wife who was the daughter of Abba Sura, and she was known to do work for herself, and she had her own pocket, so to speak, she wasn't partners with her husband. So maybe when we say that a man and his two wives are allowed to do it, that means what kind of wives? Wives who do not work and put the money for the to their husbands into their husband's pocket. That's when you're allowed. So we have no ראיה what is the דין when you have partners. Then the Gemara continues, we learned in the Mishnah: ההקדשות בשלשה, that when it comes to redeem הקדש, if someone gave away, was מנדב, donated something to הקדש, and then it comes to redeem it, you have to do it in front of three people. The

Gemara says, מתניתין דלא כי האי תנא, this Mishnah does not go like that תנא, there's another תנא who argues on the Mishnah. דתניא, because we learned in a ברייתא, רבי אלעזר בן יעקב אומר, רבי אלעזר בן יעקב says, אפילו צינור של הקדש, even if it's a צינור, and as Rashi says, that a צינור means like a little fork that you weave gold with it, even if it's that small of a thing, צריכה עשרה בני אדם לפדותה, you must have ten people when you redeem it. Because in our Mishnah it says that when it comes to redeem קרקע, if someone donated real estate to hekdesh, then you must have ten people. But מטלטלין, if they're movable objects that were donated to hekdesh, you could do it in the front of three. But Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov says that even מטלטלין, even if it's only a צינור that belongs to hekdesh, you also must have ten people to redeem. And Tosafos says that צינור doesn't necessarily mean like Rashi says, that is the fork with what you weave the gold, but there are all kinds of צינורות. For instance, there is a צינור that you use to clean out the wicks, if you clean out the candles. There's another kind of צינור that a Kohen Gadol, it says, used to get dressed up and used to, with the צינור, used to move around the אברים, move around the parts on the מזבח. So that seems like it's like a fork that you use for that. The Rabbeinu Chananel says that צינורה means אצינורא, that wood of fire. But whatever it is, it is מטלטלין, and Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov says that if it is of hekdesh you must have ten people to redeem it. So we

see that Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov argues on our Mishnah. אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי, רב פפא said to Abaye: בשלמא לרבי אלעזר בן יעקב דאמר כשמואל, according to Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov, who we understand, because he holds like Shmuel, we know a reason why he should have to have ten people, דאמר שמואל, because Shmuel said, עשרה כהנים כתובין בפרשה, ten כהנים are written in the parsha. That means that in this parsha there are ten times the word כהן. And this refers to the parsha where the Torah deals with פדיון הקדש, with redeeming hekdesh. And this is the end of Parshas Bechukosai. And there we have three דינים. We have the דינים of ערכין, this is the first parsha there. The din deals with the din that if somebody says that I take upon myself to pay my erech or the erech of somebody else. And there are special dinim in the parsha there. So there we find three times the word kohen. Then we find three times the word kohen concerning פדיון בהמה. When a person redeems a בהמה, so the Torah speaks about that and mentions three times the word kohen. And then later, it mentions four times the word kohen concerning the redeeming of קרקעות, redeeming of real estate that belongs to hekdesh. So Shmuel said, since the Torah says ten times the word kohen in this whole parsha, so from here we know that you have to have ten people when it comes to redeem hekdesh, because in the parsha of redeeming hekdesh it has ten times the word kohen. So we understand the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov. אלא רבנן, but according to the רבנן, שלושה מנא להו? How do they know three? What is their reason that when you redeem hekdesh, you must have three people? וכי תימא, and if you're going to say, דכתיב בהו שלושה, because concerning the redeeming of hekdesh of מטלטלין, we find three times the word kohen, as we said before, three times the word kohen is written by Erchin, three times the Torah says it when you redeem a בהמה, now redeeming a בהמה is מטלטלין, so maybe this is the reason. Since by the din of redeeming מטלטלין the Torah has three times the word kohen, so from here we know that you have to have three people. But if so, קרקעות, land, real estate, דכתיב בהו ארבעה, where we have four times the word כהן, תסגי בארבעה, let four be enough? As we said before, by the redemption of קרקע of hekdesh, the Torah says four times the word כהן. So four people should be enough when you redeem קרקע. וכי תימא הכי נמי, if you're going to say that is true, that when it comes to redeem קרקע four is enough, אלמא תנן, why did we learn, הקרקעות תשעה וכהן, that when you come to redeem קרקעות from הקדש, you must have nine people and one כהן, together it's ten? אלא מאי? So what is the reason? Why takeh do you need ten when you redeem קרקע? דמשלמו בהו עשרה. Because when it comes to קרקע, that's where we have the end of ten. The dinim of redeeming קרקע are the last dinim in that parsha. So the four that the four times the word כהן that it says by the dinim of redeeming קרקע finishes off the ten times the word כהן. So since this is the end, so we include all the words כהן that are mentioned before also. And since by the time we finish with קרקע we have ten times the word כהן, that's why you have to have ten people to redeem קרקע. In other words, we don't just look at how much times, how many times the word כהן is written in this specific דין. Because if that would be true, then by קרקע we'll have four times the word כהן, so four people would be enough. Since we say we need ten people, obviously we look of how many times the word כהן is mentioned from the beginning of the parsha of פדיון הקדש up to that parsha. And therefore, since קרקע is the end, so by the time we're finished with the parsha of קרקע, we have ten times the word כהן, and therefore we have to have ten people by the redemption of קרקע. But if so, הקדשות, regular הקדש of מטלטלין, דמשלמו בהו שיתא, that six times the word כהן is finished, since the the redeeming of מטלטלין of הקדש is the second part of this parsha, so we already have six when we're finished with the parsha of פדיון of regular הקדש of מטלטלין, because we have three by ערכין and then three by הקדש, as we said before. So then, ליבעי שיתא, we should need six! So it should be or six or any other number, but why three? Where do you get three from? So kashya, the Gemara hits a kashya, and there is no answer to this kashya.

Concerning what we learned before, in a machloket between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, how many people you must have by the עריפת עגלה, so the Gemara says that Rabbi Yehuda learns out from the words זקניך ושופטיך that you have to have four and then you add one more because אין בית דין שקול. While Rabbi Shimon says that he can't use the word שופטיך to teach us an amount, because the word שופטיך comes to teach us that it must be from the סנהדרי גדולה. And then the Gemara goes on, how does Rabbi Yehuda know it has to be from סנהדרי גדולה, etc. But one thing that seems for sure from this Gemara is that from the word זקניך itself, we would not have known that you must have the people from the סנהדרי גדולה. We would think it could be from the סנהדרי קטנה. The only word that could teach us that it has to be from the סנהדרי גדולה is the word שופטיך. So the Maharsha asks a kashya that Rashi in Chumash, he says on the words ויצאו זקניך, so Rashi says מיוחדים שבזקניך, the special ones of the זקנים, which is the סנהדרי גדולה. So we see that Rashi learns in Chumash that from the words זקניך we learn out that you must have the people from סנהדרי גדולה. While here in the Gemara it seems that from the words זקניך for sure we cannot know that. So לכאורה Rashi is going against what it says in the Gemara here. And the Maharsha says that we can answer this kashya, that what he really means, he relies on the word שופטיך, that because it says שופטיך, therefore we know that when it says זקניך it means סנהדרי גדולה. From the word שופטיך itself, we wouldn't know it, because the word שופטיך could also mean סנהדרי קטנה. The only reason we know that שופטיך means סנהדרי גדולה, because since it says זקניך, therefore שופטיך is סנהדרי גדולה. So that's what Rashi means there too, that what makes us say that זקניך is סנהדרי גדולה? Because since it says זקניך and then it says שופטיך, so we know it's סנהדרי גדולה, so therefore we know that when it says זקניך, it means it's סנהדרי גדולה. Then there's another kashya that the Maharsha asks: the Gemara said according to Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov, he darshens from the word זקניך זה סנהדרין. שופטיך goes on מלך and כהן גדול. The Maharsha asks, if he uses the word שופטיך for מלך and כהן גדול, so how does he know that it has to be from סנהדרי גדולה? Because the only way we could know סנהדרי גדולה is from the word שופטיך. But from the word זקניך we can't know it, so maybe it could be סנהדרי קטנה. And the Maharsha answers that these two דרשות are דרשות שקולים. Because we find sometimes when we have a pasuk, and the pasuk could mean one thing, and could mean another thing, and they're both equal, so then we learn them both out from the same pasuk. So here too, from the word שופטיך we could learn out that it means the סנהדרי גדולה. We could also learn out that it means a melech and Kohen Gadol, as he quotes the pesukim. So since the דרשות שקולים, so we learn out both. So therefore, he learns out that you have to have a melech and Kohen Gadol, plus it has to be סנהדרי גדולה. And even according to the sevara that the Gemara says that it has to be the whole Sanhedrin, he also learned out the same way. It has to be the whole סנהדרי גדולה, because they are דרשות שקולים.