Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת סנהדרין דף ה'. We will start from the last line on דף ד' עמוד ב'. And the גמרא says: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, דיני ממונות בשלשה, that when it comes to judge דיני ממונות, you have to have a בית דין of three people. אם היה מומחה לרבים, if there was one person who was a מומחה, an expert, and he was an expert that was famous, and everyone accepted him as an expert, so then the דין is: דן אפילו יחידי. So he could פסקן even himself as one. And רש״י explains that this is based on the פסוק: בצדק תשפוט עמיתך, which means, with righteousness you should judge your friend, and since it says תשפוט, לשון יחיד, you, singular, so then we learn out that even one person could also judge. So therefore, he says, that if he was a מומחה לרבים, even one could judge a דין. And

רש״י also adds that this גמרא goes according to the מאן דאמר that אין כאן עירוב פרשיות, that there is no mixtures of פרשיות, as we learned before, that concerning the פסוק כי הוא זה, which teaches us the דין of מודה במקצת in a normal case of הלוואה, so there's a מחלוקת whether that belongs in the place where it is written, because it's written amongst the דינים of a שומר, or really it doesn't belong there and it belongs someplace else. If we hold that this is a פסוק that is concerning a הלוואה, and it was put into a place where it really doesn't belong, so it comes out that amongst the דינים of שומר, where the תורה tells us three times the name אלקים to teach us that you must have three people for a בית דין, in that פרשה we also have a דין concerning a regular loan, a regular debt, so if you hold that way, then even concerning a regular debt, regular דיני ממונות, you also must have three. So therefore, we must say that this גמרא here that says that even a יחיד, if he is a מומחה לרבים, he is able to פסקן the דין, this גמרא holds that there is no עירוב פרשיות, and the פסוק כי הוא זה does not refer to a regular דין of הלוואה, but this פסוק refers טאקע only to שומרים. So therefore, we have no פסוק that tells us that by a הלוואה you must have three people, therefore, he holds that if he was a מומחה לרבים, even if he is one, he's able to פסקן the דין. But

תוספות does not learn that way. תוספות learns that this could go also according to the מאן דאמר that there is עירוב פרשיות, and the תורה, when it says כי הוא זה, does refer to a regular דין of הלוואה, and the תורה put that דין amongst the דין of שומרים, where it says three times אלקים, so לכאורה you should have to have three people even concerning a regular דין of הלוואה, but nevertheless, being that we have the פסוק בצדק תשפוט עמיתך, so that teaches us that even if you have one, you're also allowed to פסקן, and we say that this is only if he is a מומחה לרבים. And the גמרא continues: אמר רב נחמן, so רב נחמן said, כגון אנא, for instance a person like I am, דן דיני ממונות ביחידי, am able to judge monetary questions myself. וכן אמר רב חייא, so did רב חייא say: כגון אנא, for instance I, דן דיני ממונות ביחידי, I'm able to judge דיני ממונות by myself. And the reason is because both of them were a מומחה לרבים. And as it

seems from the גמרא later, a מומחה לרבים means that he was a person who was גמיר, he learned a lot of שמועות, a lot of דינים from his רבי, and he was also סביר, which means that not only did he learn it, but he was also able to understand the reason behind it, and therefore he was able to come out with from those דינים that he learned from his רבי with judgments concerning other דינים. He had a right to compare one case to another because he understood the proper reasons for the דינים he learned, and therefore he was able to judge himself. So was רב נחמן and so was רב חייא. And תוספות explains that this דין that the גמרא says that a יחיד who is מומחה לרבים is able to judge himself means even in a case where the two בעלי דינין, the two people who are arguing, did not accept him upon them. Because if it would be speaking in a case where they were מקבל that he should be their judge, then even if he wasn't a מומחה, the דין is that he's able to judge. When the גמרא says that since he is a מומחה, that's why he's able to judge himself, that means that even if they were not מקבל, nevertheless, he has the authority to judge them by himself, which means that even if they don't want to come, he is able to force them to come. And from this תוספות learns out that סתם three people, when they sit down as a בית דין, also have a right to judge a person even if he doesn't want. Because we know that three people are, instead, are just as strong as a יחיד מומחה, so therefore, if we say here that a יחיד מומחה, and one person, but if he is a מומחה, is able to force them to judge themselves, so too can a בית דין of three even if they are not מומחין. And the truth is, according to the מאן דאמר that holds that בדיעבד even if they were two people it's also considered a בית דין, the opinion of שמואל, but it's called a בית דין חצוף, so even two people could force them to judge. The only thing is they would be considered a בית דין חצוף. And this is even if they were not מקבל, because if they would have been מקבל, then certainly they could do it. But even if they were not מקבל, but being that it's considered a בית דין, they could force the person to go to this דין תורה. But then

תוספות asks: אי, we learned later on in דף כ״ג it says, זה בורר לו אחד וזה בורר לו אחד, that each one chooses one in certain cases, is משמע that only if he chooses, if he wants, then you could judge him, but you can't force them to judge themselves. How can we say here that even by force this one person or the בית דין has a right to make them come to the דין תורה? So תוספות says, when do you need the person's דעת? Only if he says, "I don't want to go to this person, I want to go to a different בית דין." But if he says, "I don't want to come at all to בית דין," or if he doesn't want to take the דין תורה in his city, he wants to go to a different city, then תוספות says, then you could force them to come to the דין תורה, which is to the three people or in this case, to a יחיד מומחה. Then תוספות asks another קושיא: here the גמרא says that if he was a מומחה לרבים, he has a right to judge himself. And not only that this is a דין, but רב נחמן actually said that a person like me is able to judge himself, and that's what רב חייא said. So תוספות asks, we have a משנה in פרקי אבות where it says, אל תהי דן יחידי, a person should not judge all by himself, שאין דן יחידי אלא אחד, that the only one that judges all by himself is השם, but a human being should not take upon himself the responsibility to judge by himself. So how could the

גמרא say here that a מומחה לרבים is able to judge himself? And תוספות answers that מצד הדין, a person could judge himself if he is a מומחה לרבים. But when it says in the משנה that you shouldn't, that's just a good advice, because after all, it's possible that he will make a mistake. So therefore, the advice is: do not judge yourself. אי, if so, the question is that why didn't רב נחמן and רב חייא listen to this good advice? Why did they say that they did judge themselves? So תוספות has two פשטים. One פשט תוספות says is that when רב נחמן said כגון אנא, for instance, one like me, he didn't mean that he actually did it. He just wanted to give an example of a person that על פי הלכה is allowed to judge himself. So he said a person like me is allowed to do it, and the same with רב חייא. But לפועל ממש it doesn't mean that רב נחמן or רב חייא judged themselves, because probably they accepted the good advice from the משנה not to judge yourself. Another פשט תוספות says that the case of רב נחמן and רב חייא, being that they were so רגיל in דין תורות, it was so common that they had דין תורות, so they were very sure that they would not make a mistake, and therefore they were allowed to, even after taking the good advice, to judge all by themselves. Then the גמרא continues: איבעיא להו, they ask an איבעיא, a question was asked in the ישיבה: when רב נחמן for instance said כגון אנא, for instance one like me am able to judge myself, what did he mean? Did he mean because דגמירנא, he learned, he heard a lot of שמועות, a lot of דינים from his רבי, plus וסבירינא, he understood them, he knew the reasons behind them and therefore he was able to compare one case to another, plus ונקטנא רשותא, I received רשות, he had permission, authorization from the ריש גלותא? The ריש גלותא was the head of the Jews in the גלות in בבל. So he had the proper authorization from the ריש גלותא. Is this what he meant, that that is the reason why he is able to judge himself, because in addition to having the דגמירנא וסבירינא, knowing the דינים plus understanding them, he also had רשות, that's why he was able to judge himself? אבל לא נקיט רשותא, but if he wouldn't have had the רשות, if he wouldn't have gotten the authorization, דיניה לא דינא, his דין would not have been a דין, he wouldn't have the right to פסקן דינים himself, and if he would have פסקנד himself, the דין would not have been valid? או דילמא, or maybe אף על גב דלא נקיט רשותא, even if he didn't get the רשות, the authorization, דיניה דינא, the דין is still a דין? And the גמרא says: תא שמע, come hear, I will answer your question, because דמר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן, מר זוטרא the son of רב נחמן, דן דינא, he פסקנד a דין, he judged by himself, וטעה, and he made a mistake. אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף, he came to רב יוסף. אמר ליה, so רב יוסף said to him: אי קיבלוך עלייהו, if the two בעלי דינים, the two people who are arguing, accepted you upon them that you should judge them yourself, then לא תשלם, you should not pay. It is not your obligation to pay the one that lost the money by your mistake. ואי לא, but if they did not accept you upon them—and as רש״י explains, it means that when they asked you to take the דין תורה, they didn't didn't say, "We accept you, whatever you will say we will do," but they said, "We want you to פסקן according to the דין of the תורה." Now, since you made a mistake, you did not פסקן according to the דין of the תורה, so therefore, concerning your פסק דין the way you gave it, they did not accept you, because they accepted you only if you will פסקן according to the תורה. So if that's what they said, they didn't accept you 100%, they only accepted you to פסקן according to the דין of the תורה, זיל שלים. So therefore, go and pay. Since you were the one that caused the loss, you have to pay. So we see from here, שמע מינה, this proves that כי לא נקט רשותא, דיניה דינא, that even if they didn't get רשות, the דין is a דין. Since he said to them that if they didn't accept you 100%, you have to pay, why didn't he say that if they didn't accept you, then your whole דין is no דין? He didn't say that. So obviously, even if they didn't accept him, the דין is still a דין, the only thing is he is responsible to pay. So that shows that even though he didn't have רשות, the proof that he didn't have רשות is because if he did have רשות, then even if they didn't accept him upon them, he still wouldn't have to pay. Being that he said that you do have to pay if they didn't accept you, obviously he didn't have the proper authorization from the ריש גלותא. And nevertheless, all he said was that you would have to pay, but he didn't say that your whole דין is no דין. So that shows, שמע מינה, that even if you don't have the proper רשות, if he is גמיר וסביר, he learned and he understands the דינים, so then he is allowed to פסקן himself if he is a מומחה לרבים, even without having the proper רשות. This is the way רש"י learns that when he said if they do not accept you upon them, it meant that they did accept you, but they said, "We only accept you to פסקן according to the תורה," and therefore, if he didn't, concerning that specific way he פסקנד, that's where they didn't accept him. But תוספות learns that when the גמרא says that if they didn't accept you, then you have to pay, it means that they didn't accept him at all. And תוספות proves the point that it couldn't be the case where all they said was, "We accept you to פסקן a דין תורה," but what it really means is that they said, "We don't accept you at all," and in that case he told him you would have to pay. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב, רב said, האי מאן דבעי למידן דינא, if somebody wants to פסקן a דין, wants to פסקן a דין תורה, ואי טעי, מבעי למיפטריה, and if he makes a mistake, he wants to do something that he should be פטור from paying, לישקול רשותא מבי ריש גלותא, let him take the רשות, the permission, the authorization from the ריש גלותא. So then, even if he makes a mistake, he doesn't have to pay. וכן אמר שמואל, so did שמואל say, לישקול רשותא מבי ריש גלותא, let him get the authorization from the ריש גלותא, and then he will be פטור to pay even if he makes a mistake. Then the גמרא continues, פשיטא מהכא להכא, ומהתם להתם, ומהכא להתם, מהני. We know that we said before in בבל, the head of the יידן was called the ריש גלותא, and he was the one that gave the permission to פסקן, he was the one that gave the authorization to פסקן. In ארץ ישראל they also had a head, the נשיא of the יידן, and he would give the authorization there. So the גמרא is saying as follows, that this is clear that if a person got authorization from the ריש גלותא, so he is able to פסקן all over בבל. Since the authority of the ריש גלותא applied to the whole of בבל, so the authorization he got here is good for here. Also it's simple, מהתם להתם, if he got authorization from the נשיא in ארץ ישראל, so he has the right to פסקן all over ארץ ישראל. It is also clear, מהכא להתם, that if he got authorization here in בבל from the ריש גלותא, he has the right to פסקן even in ארץ ישראל. Why? Because the authority of the ריש גלותא was stronger than the authority of the נשיא in ארץ ישראל. And he says why, because דהכא שבט, והתם מחוקק. Here in בבל, the head of the גלות, the ריש גלותא, is called שבט. He is the leader with the title שבט, and שבט comes from the word whip, that he has a strong authority, he is able to force certain דינים because he got the authority even from the גויישע government. והתם, but in ארץ ישראל, מחוקק, he's only called a מחוקק, which is a lower level, which is more or less like a teacher only. כדתניא, as we learn in a ברייתא, the פסוק says, לא יסור שבט מיהודה, there will never stop the whip, the שבט, the rulership from יהודה, that all the rulers will always come from the שבט יהודה. So what does that mean? אלו ראשי גליות שבבבל, that refers to the ראשי גליות, to the head of the גלות that's in בבל, שרודין את ישראל בשבט, why are they referred to as שבט? Because they would rule over the יידן with a whip, with strength, with force. Then when the פסוק continues, ומחוקק מבין רגליו, stop, that it will never stop, the מחוקק, between its feet, that the מחוקק will always come from יהודה, who does this refer to? אלו בני בניו של הלל, this refers to the descendants of הלל, שמלמדים תורה ברבים, that they teach תורה ברבים in public in ארץ ישראל, that the leaders of the יידן in ארץ ישראל will be also from שבט יהודה. They were the grandchildren of הלל, who came from שבט יהודה. So we see that concerning the ריש גלותא, the פסוק refers to him as the שבט, and concerning the leaders of the יידן in ארץ ישראל, the פסוק refers to him as the מחוקק, and שבט is stronger than מחוקק. So therefore, it's understood that if he got the authority from the ריש גלותא, so this gives him the authority to פסקן even in ארץ ישראל. The question is מהתם להכא, from there to here, if he got the authorization from the נשיא in ארץ ישראל, does this give him a right to פסקן in בבל? מאי, what is the דין? But תוספות asks a קשיא, from this גמרא is משמע that שבט is greater than מחוקק, and therefore the authority of the ריש גלותא was more than the authority of the נשיא in ארץ ישראל. But תוספות asks that the גמרא says in פסחים דף נ"א, that concerning the יידן of בבל, אנן כייפינן להו, or we are כפוף to them, that we are בטל, we are under them, we from בבל are also בטל to the נשיא of ארץ ישראל, therefore we must do, concerning the דין that the גמרא is talking about there, like the people of ארץ ישראל. So there is משמע that there was a stronger, greater authority to the נשיא in ארץ ישראל over the ריש גלותא in בבל. And רבינו תם answers that there it is only talking about things of איסור והיתר, concerning דינים of what you're allowed and what you're not allowed to do, has nothing to do with money questions. So there we say that the נשיא of ארץ ישראל had a stronger power than the ריש גלותא of בבל, because we know that the people of ארץ ישראל are smarter, were greater scholars, because we know אוירא דארץ ישראל מחכים. The גמרא says that the אויר, the air even of ארץ ישראל makes you smart, so the people of ארץ ישראל were smarter, so concerning איסור והיתר, they knew better, so we had to follow them. And we טאקע see here too that concerning איסור והיתר, concerning scholarship, concerning learning, even in this גמרא we see that the people from ארץ ישראל, the נשיא of ארץ ישראל was greater, because when he refers to the ריש גלותא, he says that what is the job of the ריש גלותא? שרודין את ישראל בשבט, that the ראשי גליות of בבל would control the יידן with a whip. Concerning the נשיאים of ארץ ישראל, it says that what do they do? שמלמדים תורה ברבים, they teach תורה ברבים. So we see that concerning learning תורה, the authority of the people, the נשיאים of ארץ ישראל, was stronger than of בבל, because their ענין was more to learn תורה, while the one of בבל, the ריש גלותא of בבל, his job was more to control the יידן, רודים את ישראל בשבט. So therefore, there when we're talking about an ענין of איסור והיתר, so the גמרא טאקע says that we in בבל are בטל to them, to ארץ ישראל. But when we talk about monetary things, concerning taking away money, which is connected to the דין of הפקר בית דין הפקר, that the בית דין has the authority of being מפקיע, taking away the ownership of a person's possessions and giving it to somebody else, etc., so concerning that, so in בבל the authority was stronger. Since they were שבט, they had the right to force the people to do things, and therefore, concerning taking away money or פסקנ'ינג דינים, concerning who money belongs to, who property and things like that belong to, that was stronger in the hands of the ריש גלותא. And the reason for that itself, תוספות says, because the ריש גלותא, the ראשי גליות of בבל, they came from שבט יהודה, but it was from the זכרים, from the males, while the נשיא of ארץ ישראל came from the נקבות, from the females, as it says in ירושלמי. And therefore, there was a stronger power in the hands of the ריש גלותא than in the hands of the נשיא of ארץ ישראל. But in the meantime, we're still with the question that what is the דין, if one got authority and authorization from the נשיא of ארץ ישראל, is that valid for him to פסקן also in בבל? And the גמרא says, תא שמע, come and hear, and I will answer the question: that רבה בר חנה דן דינא וטעה, רבה בר חנה פסקנ'ד a דין and made a mistake. And let's not confuse this with רבה בר בר חנה, as תוספות says, because רבה בר בר חנה was a grandson of חנה. רבה בר בר חנה means רבה the son of the son of חנה, so he was a grandson of חנה. And here, as we will see later in the גמרא, this רבה was a nephew of רב חייא. Now, רב חייא was a brother to חנה. So if he was the grandson of חנה, then he couldn't be his nephew. So therefore, תוספות says we have to be גורס here, as we said before, רבה בר חנה, רבה the son of חנה, not רבה the grandson of חנה, because רבה בר בר חנה, תוספות says, he was in the time of רבי יוחנן. And he was טאקע the grandson of חנה. But רבה בר חנה, he was a nephew of רב חייא, he was the son of חנה. But then תוספות says, some are גורס in the גמרא רבה בר בר חנה. איי, it comes out that he was a grandson of חנה, and חנה was a brother of רב חייא, and later in the גמרא רב חייא refers to this רבה as his nephew, so some say that he really wasn't a grandson of חנה. His name was בר חנה, so רבה בר בר חנה means רבה the son of בר חנה, so really he wasn't a grandson. But תוספות says this is

not the right גירסא, the right גירסא really is רבה בר חנה. And the story is that this רבה בר חנה פסקנ'ד a דין and made a mistake. Now the דין that he פסקנ'ד was in בבל, and he made the mistake in בבל. אזל לקמיה דרב חייא, he came to רב חייא, when he went up to ארץ ישראל, came to רב חייא, to his uncle רב חייא, and he asked him, what should he do? אמר ליה, so רב חייא said to him, אי קיבלוך עלייהו, if they accepted you upon them, if the two בעלי דינים accepted you that you should פסקן the דין by yourself, לא תשלם, do not have to pay. ואי לא, if they did not accept you, זיל שלים, go and pay. Now the question is, ורבה בר חנה רשותא הוי נקיט, רבה בר חנה had the permission! As the גמרא will say later on, that רבה בר חנה got the permission from the נשיא in ארץ ישראל to פסקן דינים! And nevertheless, he said to him that if they did not accept you upon them, then you have to pay. But didn't we learn before that if you have the authorization, the רשות, you do not have to pay if you made a mistake? So why did he say to him here that if they didn't accept you have to pay? שמע מינה, that shows, מהתם להכא לא מהני, that from there to here doesn't help! Because, as we'll see later, the authorization he got was from the נשיא of ארץ ישראל. This דין that he פסקנ'ד and made a mistake was in בבל. So we

see that the authorization you get in ארץ ישראל doesn't help for פסקנ'ינג דינים in בבל, and therefore he said to him that in בבל it's as if you didn't have the authorization, and since you didn't have the authorization, you have to pay if you made a mistake. שמע מינה, that proves that the authorization of the נשיא of ארץ ישראל doesn't help for בבל. Then the גמרא asks, ולא מהני? Doesn't it help? You said that the authorization of the נשיא of ארץ ישראל doesn't help for בבל, but it's not so! והא רבה בר רב הונא כי הוה מינצי בהדי דבי ריש גלותא, when רבה בר רב הונא would have arguments with the family of the ריש גלותא, אמר, he said, לאו מינייכו נקיטנא רשותא, I didn't get my רשות, my authorization from you. נקיטנא רשותא מאבא מרי, I received my רשות, my authorization from my father, who was רב הונא, ואבא מרי מרב, and my father received the authorization from רב, ורב מרבי חייא, רב received his authorization from רב חייא, ורבי חייא מרבי, and רב חייא received his authorization from רבי, who was the נשיא in ארץ ישראל. So we

see that he told them that since he received the authorization in ארץ ישראל, he is not under the authority of the ריש גלותא. But we just said before that the authority given by the נשיא doesn't help for בבל because the authority of בבל is stronger than the authority of ארץ ישראל. So how did he say to them that his authority is not dependent on them because he got it from his father, from רב, from רב חייא, going back to רבי? So the גמרא answers, במילי דעלמא הוא דאוקינהו, he just said סתם words to them. In other words, really על פי הלכה the authority of בבל is stronger than the authority of the נשיא of ארץ ישראל, but he just wanted to push them away, so he said to them, I didn't get the authority from you, but I got it from the נשיא of ארץ ישראל. But in הלכה the truth is that the authority of the ריש גלותא of בבל is stronger than the authority of the נשיא of ארץ ישראל. And תוספות explains that when he said to them that I received my רשות from my father, and he received it from רב, and רב from רב חייא, and רב חייא from רבי, because the דין is that the one that received רשות, automatically he is able to give רשות too. That means that you don't only have to go to the top person, to the נשיא himself, but one that received רשות from the נשיא is able to give רשות himself too. As we

find תוספות says, later in the גמרא on דף י״ג it says concerning דיני קנסות that only a person who has סמיכה, the סמיכה that used to be in the time of the תנאים, that was סמוך איש מפי איש עד משה רבינו, only a person like that was able to פסקן דיני קנסות, to פסקן דינים of fines. Still it says that one who has סמיכה himself is able to give סמיכה to somebody else and is able to give רשות to פסקן דיני קנסות. As the גמרא says there, that ברם זכור אותו האיש לטוב, that remember יהודה בן בבא לטוב, because if not for him, there would be no more דיני קנסות, because he was the one that gave the סמיכה to others. Even though he wasn't a נשיא, but he received סמיכה from somebody else, and therefore he had the authority to give סמיכה to others and give permission to פסקן even דיני קנסות. But according to that, תוספות asks, how come in the גמרא later, as we're going to learn soon, the גמרא is going to tell a story that רבי חייא asked רבי to give his nephew רשות to פסקן? But the question is, since רבי חייא himself had the רשות from רבי, so why didn't רבי חייא himself give the רשות to his nephew? Why did he have to ask רבי to give the רשות? And תוספות says, maybe because it was in the city of רבי. Now, in his own city, there no one else is allowed to give רשות, but the one that, the רב, so to speak, the head of the city. But otherwise, anybody himself who has רשות, is able to give רשות to somebody else. Then we will continue in the גמרא: וכי מאחר דלא מהני, רבה בר חנה רשותא דנקיט למה לי? We said before that the רשות you get from the נשיא of ארץ ישראל doesn't help to פסקן in בבל. So then why did רבה בר חנה receive, ask for the רשות before he left from ארץ ישראל to בבל, if it wouldn't help him anyway? The גמרא answers: לעיירות העומדים על הגבול. This was not for בבל, but for the cities who are by the border, a certain cities by the border that were an extension of ארץ ישראל. So on the way, when he came to those cities, he wanted to have the authority to פסקן, and therefore, before he left, he got the authority from the נשיא of ארץ ישראל, because concerning them, that רשות helped, because they were still part of ארץ ישראל. Then the גמרא asks: מאי רשותא? What is the story concerning the רשות that רבה בר חנה received? We said before that רבה בר חנה had רשות, and that was the whole source of the question. What's the story concerning his getting the authorization from the נשיא of ארץ ישראל? The גמרא tells the story: כדנחית רבה בר חנה

לבבל, when רבה בר חנה was going to בבל, אמר ליה רבי חייא לרבי, so רבי חייא said to רבי: בן אחי יורד לבבל, my nephew, the son of my brother, is going to בבל, יורה? Can he פסקן? And this is an expression used concerning איסור והיתר, not concern concerning monetary things, but concerning questions of איסור והיתר, what you're allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do. So he asked him: יורה? Can he פסקן? And he answered: יורה. Yes, he could פסקן. ידין? Can he פסקן דיני ממונות, can he פסקן monetary questions? And he answered: ידין. Yes, he could פסק monetary questions. יתיר בכורות? Can he be מתיר בכורות? A בכור is a firstborn, and the דין is that every firstborn animal is קודש, is a קרבן to ה׳. And in the time of the בית המקדש, it would be brought as a קרבן. Nowadays, that we have no בית המקדש, so then we can't bring it as a קרבן, so it is קודש, it is holy. The only thing that you could do with it is if it gets a מום, if it gets a blemish, then you're allowed to שחט it, then it's חולין. But the only thing is, only if it gets a מום קבוע, a מום, a blemish which is permanent. But if it gets a מום עובר, a temporary מום, then the דין is that you're not allowed to שחט it, because the מום will go away and it's still a קרבן, it's still קדשים. And this is one of the things that the רבנן, the חכמים of those days, had to know, to see which מום is considered a מום קבוע, a permanent one, and which is a temporary one, in order to be מתיר that they should שחט the בכור. So that's what he asked him: יתיר בכורות? Does he also have a right to be מתיר, to allow a בכור to be geschacht? Can he פסקן the דינים of מומין? And he answered: יתיר. Yes, he could be מתיר. Then there's another story: כדנחית רב לבבל,

when רב went down to בבל, אמר ליה רבי חייא לרבי, so רבי חייא said to רבי: בן אחותי יורד לבבל, my nephew, but this time he said the son of my sister, is going to בבל, יורה? Can he פסקן דינים of איסור והיתר? So he said: יורה. Yes, he could פסקן. ידין? Can he פסקן דיני ממונות? ידין. He could פסקן, he answered. יתיר בכורות? Can he also be מתיר בכורות? Can he פסקן דינים concerning מומין? So he answered: אל יתיר. He should not be מתיר. He has no right, no רשות to do that. The גמרא ask the קשיא: מאי שנא למר דקא קרי בן אחי, what is the difference, why to רבה בר חנה he said, he called him the son of my brother, ומאי שנא למר דקא קרי בן אחותי, but concerning רב he said, he is the son of my sister? וכי תימא, and if you're going to say: הכי הוה מעשה, this is the way the story was, this was the fact, that רבה בר חנה was the son of his brother, that's how he was his nephew, and רב was the son of his sister, that's how he was his nephew, but that is not so, because both of them were children of his brothers. Because דאמר מר, because we know the the fact is that איבו, a person called איבו, וחנה, ושילא, ומרתא, ורבי חייא, כולהו בני אבא בר אחא כרסלא מכפרי הוו. All of them All of them were sons of אבא בר אחי כרסלא from כפרי. So it comes out that the father of רב, who was חנא, was a brother to רב חייא, because as we just said that חנא was a son of this אבא בר אחי, and so was רב חייא, and also was איבו. איבו was the father of רב. He was also a brother of רב חייא. So it comes out that רב was a son of רב חייא's brother, and so was רבה בר חנה. So the question is: why, when he mentioned to רבי רבה בר חנה, he said, "The son of my brother," when he mentioned רב to to רבי, he said, "The son of my sister," when he was really the son of his brother? The גמרא answers: רב בר אחוה דהוה בר אחתיה. רב was the son of רב חייא's brother, but he was also the son of רב חייא's sister. While רבה בר חנה, בר אחוה דלא בר אחתיה. רבה בר חנה was the son of רב חייא's brother, but not of רב חייא's sister. Which means that רב's parents were both a brother and a sister to רב חייא. Between themselves they were nothing, but to רב חייא, they were both a brother and a sister, as the גמרא says in פסחים דף ד', that רב's father was a brother to רב חייא from one father, and רב's mother was a sister to רב חייא from one mother. So between themselves they were not related at all, but to רב חייא, one was a brother, one was a sister. And therefore, when he mentioned רב, he also mentioned that he is בן אחותי, the son of my sister. ואיבעית אימא, and if you want, there's another reason I could give you why he referred to רב by saying בן אחותי, the son of my sister: על שם חכמתו, because of his scholarship, because of his wisdom, his חכמה. He was a greater חכם than רבה בר חנה, and therefore he called him by the word sister, דכתיב, because the פסוק says, אמור לחכמה אחותי את, "Say to the חכמה, you are my sister." And the גמרא in קידושין explains that it means that a person should be so well-versed in his חכמה as clear as it is that you're not allowed to marry your sister. But whatever the reason is, we see that the תורה, the פסוק in משלי refers to חכמה as a sister. So therefore, since רב was a big חכם, he mentioned the word sister, אחותי, concerning רב. But then the גמרא asks another question: יתיר בכורות? אל יתיר. When he asked concerning רב, "Does he have the רשות to be מתיר בכורות, to פסקן the דינים of מומים?" He said, "No." מאי טעמא? What is the reason? When he asked this concerning רבה בר חנה, he said, "Yes." But when he asked concerning רב, he said, "No." Why did he do that? אילימא משום דלא חכים, if you're going to say because he wasn't that great of a חכם, so therefore he didn't want to allow him to פסקן דינים of מומים, that's not so. הא קאמרינן, didn't we just say, דחכים טובא? He was even a greater חכם. We just explained that why did he refer to him as בן אחותי? Because he was a greater חכם than רבה בר חנה. So we can't say that the reason why he didn't give him the permission to פסקן the מומים was because he wasn't a great חכם. אלא, so we must say, משום דלא בקי במומין. He was טאקע a big חכם, but he wasn't well-versed specifically in מומים. He didn't know exactly which מום is a מום קבוע, a permanent one, and which is a temporary one. But that can't be either, והאמר רב, because רב said, שמונה עשר חדשים גדלתי אצל רועה בהמה, "For 18 months I raised myself, I stayed with a shepherd of בהמות, למידע, to know, to learn, איזה מום קבוע ואיזה מום עובר, which blemish is a permanent one and which blemish is a temporary one." So we see that he was well-versed in the דינים of מומים. So we can't say that the reason that he said he should not פסקן דינים of מומים is because he didn't know the דינים of מומים. אלא, we must say the reason: לחלוק כבוד לרבה בר חנה, to give כבוד to רבה בר חנה. He

let רבה בר חנה be the one to פסקן the דינים of מומים, and not רב, so people will give כבוד to רבה בר חנה. רב didn't need anything special so people should give him כבוד. People gave him כבוד anyway. But רבה בר חנה, people didn't give him that much כבוד, so he wanted him to get the extra כבוד, so that's why he said he should be the one to פסקן מומים, and not רב. ואיבעית אימא, if you want, it could be another reason: משום הא גופא, for that reason itself, דרב בקי במומין טפי. Since רב was more בקי, was more well-versed in the דינים of מומים, that is the reason why he said he shouldn't פסקן מומים. Why? Because since he was so well-versed, ושרי מומא, he might be מתיר, he might allow a מום דלא ידעי אינשי, that people don't know. Since he is so well-versed, there could be a מום which really is a מום קבוע, really it's a permanent one, but people think that it's a מום עובר, a temporary one. He will be מתיר it, because he knows that it's a קבוע, it's a permanent one, it's allowed. But people won't know ואמרי, and they will say, כי האי גוונא שרי רב, that רב was מתיר a מום like this. There will be another מום, which is really only a מום עובר, a מום which is temporary, but they will think that it's like the מום that רב was מתיר, and really it's not. The מום that רב was מתיר was a מום קבוע. But they won't know the difference. ואתו למישרי מום עובר, they're also going to be מתיר a temporary מום. So therefore, he said that he shouldn't be מתיר any מומין. Then the גמרא asks: He said, "יורה יורה." He asked permission whether he should פסקן, and he said, "יורה", he could פסקן דינים of איסור והתר. The גמרא's question is, "אי גמיר," if he learned, obviously he was a person that learned a lot. He knew the דינים. So then, רשותא למה לי למישקל? Why did he have to get the permission to פסקן דינים of איסור והתר? מילא, why he needed permission to פסקן דינים of דיני ממונות, we understand, as we said before, that just in case he makes a mistake, so if he got permission, he got the authorization, then he is not חייב to pay. But concerning איסור והתר, why did he ask for an authorization for איסור והתר? If he was גמיר, he knew the הלכות, he could פסקן without this authorization, too. And the גמרא answers, "משום מעשה שהיה," because of a story that happened. תניא, we learned in a ברייתא, פעם אחת הלך רבי למקום אחד, once רבי came to a certain place, וראה בני אדם שמגבלין עיסותיהן בטומאה, and he saw people that they were kneading the dough בטומאה. They didn't טובל the כלים, they didn't make the vessels טהור before they kneaded the dough in it. אמר להם, so he said to them, "מפני מה אתם מגבלין עיסותיכם בטומאה? Why are you kneading your dough

בטומאה? Why aren't you careful to use כלים which were טהור?" אמרו לו, so they said to him, "תלמיד אחד בא לכאן," a certain student, a scholar, was here, והורה לנו, and he פסקנ'ט to us that "מי בצים אין מכשירין," that water that come from swamps is not מכשיר. The דין is that food does not become טמא, even if it touches טומאה, if it touches a dead body or it touches a שרץ, which makes things טמא, it still wouldn't become טמא unless the food was first מוכשר לקבל טומאה. מוכשר means ready, prepared to be מקבל טומאה. What makes it ready to be מקבל טומאה? If it got wet with משקין, if it got wet with any of the specific seven liquids, so then afterwards, at any time it will touch טומאה, it will become טמא. So here, since they used water, so automatically the dough became מוכשר to be מקבל טומאה, and being it was used in טומא'דיקע כלים, automatically it become טמא. But they said to him that this תלמיד told us that water of swamps is not מכשיר, doesn't prepare the food to become טמא, and therefore they felt that there was nothing wrong in kneading this dough and using water of the swamps in כלים of טומאה. But the truth was that והוא מי ביצים דרש להו. When he דרשנ'ט, he דרשנ'ט to them that water of eggs, which mean the liquid of eggs, is not מכשיר, which is true! Because only the seven liquids are מכשיר, and the seven liquids are: wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, and water. And the סימן to remember that is that it makes up three words: יד, שחת, דם. And these three words is an abbreviation: יד is an abbreviation of יין and דבש, שחת is שמן, חלב, טל, and דם is דם and מים. So therefore, when he said that eggs are not מכשיר לקבל טומאה, that was true. But אינהו סבור, but they thought, מי בצעים קאמר. The thing is that he wasn't clear, that they thought he meant water from the swamps, that's what he said, and that's why they felt that by using the water of the swamps, it won't become טמא. ותו נמי בהא, they also made a mistake in something else. He said, "מי כרמיון ומי פיגה פסולין, מפני שהם מי בצעים," that when you want to use the water for אפר פרה, for the חטאת, מי חטאת, that is concerning the פרה אדומה, that in order to make a person טהור from טומאת מת, from becoming טמא by touching a dead body, so it's not enough just to go to the מקוה, but you had to go through the process of spraying on this person the מי חטאת, that water that was mixed with the ashes that came from the burnt פרה אדומה, red heifer. Now, not all waters are כשר for מי חטאת. You have to have מים חיים, it says, living water. But he said that מי בצעים, that water from swamps are no good, and therefore the water from the river that was called כרמיון, or the river that was called פיגה, is no good. ואינהו סבור, so they thought, מידי דלגבי חטאת פסיל, since לגבי אפר פרה, לגבי the מי חטאת, לגבי the water to use for the פרה אדומה it is פסול, so obviously it's not really considered water, אכשורי נמי לא מכשרי. So it's also not מכשיר. So if it touches food, it will not make the food מוכשר לקבל טומאה. But בלא היא, it is not so, it is not true. התם לענין חטאת, concerning חטאת, concerning the water of the of the ashes of the פרה אדומה, בעינן מים חיים, we need living water. The תורה there says it has to be living water. So therefore, the water from these rivers were no good. But הכא, here, אכשורי כולהו מכשרי, any type of water is מכשיר לקבל טומאה. So therefore, even if you use the water that's פסול for מי חטאת, is still מכשיר לקבל טומאה. And they thought that by using this water, it won't become טמא. So therefore, תנא, we learned, באותה שעה, that time, גזרו, the חכמים made a גזירה, תלמיד אל יורה, a תלמיד should not פסקן, אלא אם כן נטל רשות מרבו, unless he got permission from his רבי, even to פסקן דינים of איסור והתר, because if the רבי gives him רשות, the רבי will make sure that he is a person that will be מדייק and will be clear in what he says. ואע''ג, מצד הדין, there is no reason why he should need רשות to פסקן איסור והתר if he knows the דינים, but because of this, to make sure that people will not make a mistake, so he has to first get רשות from his רבי and his רבי will only give רשות to a person that will be clear, that he will knows that will not lead to any mistake. But

תוספות asks a קשיא: how were they able to make a mistake between the words בצעים and ביצים? It sounds different. And therefore תוספות says that really he didn't say בצעים, but he said ביצין, because in Hebrew ביצה also means mud. So he said מי ביצין, which is almost like מי ביצים, and therefore they made a mistake. Another thing תוספות asks, that he דרשנ'ט to them that the water of כרמיון and the water of פיגה are פסול for מי חטאת. תוספות asks, why are they פסול for מי חטאת? Because in the גמרא in בבא בתרא, it's משמע that they were rivers. Because on the פסוק ועל נהרות יחוננו אל, so the גמרא says, אלו ד' נהרות, this refers to which rivers? The four rivers: the ירדן, ירמוך, כרמיון, and the פיגה. And if they were rivers, they should be כשר, because rivers are מים חיים, are water that come from wells, so they should be כשר for מי חטאת. So why did he say that they were פסול? And רבינו תם answers that the truth is that they were טאקע rivers, but they were not clear water. There was a lot of dust, a lot of sand mixed into it, a lot of mud mixed into it, and therefore it is פסול for מי חטאת, because then it would be a חציצה between the water and the כלי. It says it has to be מים חיים אל כלי, the water has to be put into the כלי, but if there is dust and mud in the water, so that is a separation between the water and the כלי, that's why it's פסול. So this is the reason why he דרשנ'ט to them that the water from these two rivers are פסול. Then the

גמרא continues: תנחום בריה דרב עמי, תנחום the son of רב עמי, איקלע לחטור, he happened to be in this place called חטור, דרש להו, he דרשנ'ט to them, he taught them that מותר ללתות חטים בפסח. You're allowed to soak wheat on פסח right before you grind them. And the reason why he's not afraid that it will become חמץ is because right after they soak them, right away they would grind them, so it didn't have a chance to become חמציג. אמרו ליה, they said to him: לאו ר' מני דמן צור איכא הכא, isn't ר' מני of צור here? ותניא, we learned: תלמיד אל יורה הלכה במקום רבו, a תלמיד should not פסקן a דין in the place of his רבי, אלא אם כן היה רחוק ממנו שלש פרסאות, unless he was far away from him three פרסאות, כנגד מחנה ישראל, which is the size of the Jewish camp in the desert. Because it says in the תורה: ויחנו על הירדן מבית הישימות עד אבל השיטים, that the camp took up from בית הישימות till אבל השיטים. And רבה בר בר חנה said, I saw that place and it was three פרסאות. So from there we learn out that you cannot פסקן in the place of your רבי unless you're three פרסאות away at least, because it says in the תורה: והיה כל מבקש ה', anybody who had any question concerning ענינים of ה' would go to משה רבינו. And there, since the מחנה took up three פרסאות, that showed that up to three פרסאות they would go to משה. So from there we learn out that up to three פרסאות you go to the רבי. So therefore, if he is further than three פרסאות, then you're allowed to פסקן. But if your רבי is within three פרסאות, you're not allowed to פסקן. So they said to him, how were you able to פסקן this דין that you're allowed to soak the wheat and we're not afraid it will become חמץ, when ר' מני of צור is here and he is your רבי? אמר להו, so he said to them: לאו אדעתאי, I didn't realize that. I didn't realize that he was here, and therefore I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to פסקן. Then the גמרא continues:

ר' חייא חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה קאי בבית הקברות. ר' חייא saw this person that he was standing in a cemetery. אמר ליה, he said to him: לאו בן איש פלוני כהן את, aren't you the son of this and this person who was a כהן? אמר ליה, so he said to him: אין, yes. אבוה דההוא גברא, but the father of this person, meaning my father father, גבה עינים הוה, he had high eyes, which means he looked what his eyes saw, and he followed his desires, ונתן עיניו בגרושה, he put his eyes to a divorcée. He saw a divorcée he wanted to marry, and he married her, וחיללו, and he was מחלל him, because the דין is that if a כהן marries a woman that he's not allowed, for instance, a divorcée, so then the children that are born are חללים, and they don't have the דינים of כהונה. So that's what he said: My father married a גרושה, so then I am a חלל, so therefore I am allowed to be in the בית הקברות. Now, the question is what does this גמרא have to do here? How does this story with רב חייא fit into this גמרא? So רש״י says that he didn't hear any פשט, but he thinks that the פשט is as follows: That even though רב חייא was the תלמיד of רבי, and this story happened probably in the place of רבי, nevertheless, רב חייא פסקנ'ד a דין. When רב חייא saw him in the בית הקברות, right away he asked him, "What are you doing here?" Even though this was פסקנ'ינג a דין, he was saying to him, "You're not allowed to be here," and it was in the place of רבי, and nevertheless he did it.

Why? Because the כלל is לאפרושי מאיסורא. If you come to take someone away from an איסור, to hold someone back from doing an עבירה, there is no דין of מורה הלכה בפני רבו. There is no איסור of פסקנ'ינג a דין in front of your רבי. And that's why the גמרא brings the story here, since we are talking about the דין that you're not allowed to פסקן a הלכה in front of your רבי, so the גמרא is trying to say that if it comes לאפרושי מאיסורא, to separate somebody from doing an עבירה, then you're allowed to, even if it's in front of your רבי, as we see in this story. This is one פשט that he brings. But then רש״י says that we have another פשט: That in ירושלמי, in שביעית, in the פרק שלוש ארצות, ראיתי, there it says that this story didn't happen to רב חייא, it happened to רבי. And this story comes right after the previous story that we brought, that רבי came to a certain place and he saw them kneading their dough בטומאה, and it all came through the mistake that they thought that the תלמיד said that מי בצים is not מטמא. So right after that, the גמרא continues that רבי saw this person in the בית הקברות. And the ירושלמי says that this happened in the city of עכו. And the ירושלמי wants to bring out from here that עכו, part of it was ארץ ישראל and part of it was חוץ לארץ. So in the part of ארץ ישראל, that's where he saw that they were kneading their dough בטומאה and he complained to them why they're doing it. And at the same time, he saw that a כהן was going out into the part of עכו which was חוץ לארץ. So the story wasn't that he saw a person in the בית הקברות, but he saw this person, he thought he was a כהן, going out on the other side of עכו, which was חוץ לארץ. And we have a כלל that חוץ לארץ is טמא, the אויר of חוץ לארץ, even the air of חוץ לארץ is טמא. So in the time when they were careful with טומאה and טהרה, a כהן was not allowed to go out from ארץ ישראל to חוץ לארץ. So when he saw this person go out into the other half of עכו, he asked him, "Aren't you the son of that person who was a כהן? How could you do it?" And he answered him, "No, that my father married a גרושה, and I am a חלל." So that's why the גמרא brings the story here, because this is a continuation of the previous story. That this happened at the same time when רבי saw them kneading the dough בטומאה, at the same time he saw this person going out into a place which was טמא. Then the גמרא

continues: פשיטא, this is a clear דין, לפלוגי, that if you give permission to somebody to פסקן דינים, but not all דינים, only partially, part of the דינים, some דינים yes, some דינים not, הא קאמר דמהני, didn't we say that it helps? As we see before, that to רב, he only gave permission to פסקן איסור והיתר and דיני ממונות, but not מומין. The question is על תנאי מאי, if you give permission on condition, what is the דין? And as רש״י says, it means if you give only for a certain amount of time. If you say, "You have the authorization to פסקן דינים up to a certain time," is that valid or not? During the time that he does have the permission, is he allowed to פסקן or not? So the גמרא says: תא שמע, come here, I'll answer your question. דאמר ליה רבי יוחנן לרב שמן, רבי יוחנן said to רב שמן, הרי את ברשותינו, you are with our permission, עד שתבוא אצלינו, until you come back to us. He was going from ארץ ישראל to בבל. So he said to him that as long as you're there, till you come back, you have רשות to פסקן. So we see that there is such a thing as giving רשות for a certain amount of time, and during that time, he is allowed to פסקן.