This discussion begins with a passage from the Talmud Bavli, Tractate Avodah Zarah, page 8. This page is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther, and for a complete healing of Mikki ben Jamie, a healing of the soul and a healing of the body, and may it be God's will, Amen.
We start on page 7b, seven lines from the wide section. A teaching states that Nachum HaMadi says that dill is subject to tithing at three stages of its development: as a seed, as a vegetable, and as a shoot. The novel point of Nachum HaMadi, as Rashi explains, is that people consume dill at all three of these stages. One is only obligated to tithe an item when it is plucked in its finished stage. Since some people eat dill as a seed, some as a vegetable, and some as a shoot, in all these cases, when it is plucked, it is considered finished, and therefore one is obligated to tithe.
They responded to Nachum HaMadi, as they had in previous statements, "Let your words be forgotten and not spoken." The Gemara asks why his words should be forgotten, given that Rabbi Eliezer agrees with him. As we learned in a Mishnah: Rabbi Eliezer says that dill is tithed as a seed, a vegetable, and a shoot. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer was referring to garden dill. When dill grows in a garden, it is eaten in these three different ways. However, wild dill that grows in the fields is eaten only as a seed, like a mustard seed, as Rashi explains, and therefore would only be subject to tithing as a seed. Since Nachum HaMadi stated his ruling as applicable across the board, Rabbi Eliezer's statement, which applies only to garden dill, cannot be brought as support for him.
Rav Aha bar Minyumi said to Abaye, "A great man, Nachum HaMadi, came from our place, from Media. Everything he said, they told him, 'Let your words be forgotten and not spoken.'" This was not the first time; on the previous page, we learned of two other statements he made, each met with the same rejection. Rashi asks, if he is such a great man, why should his words be forgotten? Abaye replied, "There is one instance where we rule according to him." As it was taught: Nachum HaMadi says that a person may insert their personal requests into the blessing of "Hear Our Prayer" (Shome'a Tefillah).
The Gemara suggests that even on this point, we do not follow him. Abaye responded, "Even on this matter, we do not follow him, for this is dependent on a dispute among the great 'ropes,' referring to the great Sages." Rashi explains that "great ropes" (ashlei ravrevei) refers to thick and strong cords, or, as some say, to great trees, meaning the rabbis. This subject that Nachum HaMadi discusses is subject to a significant debate among these great Sages.
As it was taught in a Baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says, "A person should first ask for their needs and only then pray the Amidah." How do we know this? As it is stated, "A prayer of the afflicted when he is faint." "Faint" (ya'atof), Rashi explains, refers to praying about one's personal matters. So, after praying for personal needs, "he pours out his complaint before the Lord." What is "complaint" (sichah)? There is no "complaint" but prayer, as it is stated, "And Isaac went out to converse in the field." We know this refers to when he established the Mincha prayer. So the verse implies: first, he beseeches God for his personal needs, and then, "he pours out his complaint before the Lord."
Rabbi Yehoshua says the opposite: "First one should pray, and then ask for their needs." As it is stated, "I will pour out my complaint before Him," meaning my prayer, "I will tell my trouble before Him," which refers to personal needs. So, Rabbi Yehoshua's verse implies prayer comes first.
The Gemara asks: And what about Rabbi Eliezer? Doesn't his verse also say, "I will pour out my complaint before Him," implying prayer comes first? Rabbi Eliezer would explain it thus: "I will pray to You when I put my personal needs first, when I stated them first, then I will pour out my complaint before You." And Rabbi Yehoshua, who says one must first pray and then ask for needs, what does he do with the verse "A prayer of the afflicted when he is faint," which implies personal matters come first? Rabbi Yehoshua would explain it thus: "When do you make the personal prayers? When you have poured out your prayers before the Lord." Therefore, he interprets that verse in the opposite way from Rabbi Eliezer.
The Gemara concludes that the verses do not precisely support either Rabbi Eliezer or Rabbi Yehoshua, as they can be interpreted both ways. What, then, is the root of their dispute? It is as Rabbi Simlai expounded: "A person should always arrange the praise of the Omnipresent and only then pray." The first approach says that one should first praise God, and after praising God, then one prays. Where do we learn this from? Rashi explains, like the first three blessings of the Amidah—Patriarchs, God's Might, and Sanctification of God's Name—which contain no requests, only praise, and then the remaining blessings contain supplication and prayer. This is the structure of the Amidah: first praise God, then ask for what you need. From whom do we learn this? From Moses our Teacher, as it is written, "O Lord God, You have begun to show Your servant..." First, Moses our Teacher praises God in Parshat Va'etchanan. And it is written immediately after, "Let me now cross over and see the good land." Then he states his request. So Moses our Teacher becomes the paradigm for every Amidah: first praise, then request.
Rabbi Yehoshua holds that we learn from Moses our Teacher; it is a good example, and therefore, one should first praise and pray to God, and then state their requests. But Rabbi Eliezer holds that we do not learn from Moses. Moses is different because he was a great man. Rashi explains that his great deeds and wisdom made him worthy to praise God in his way and then ask for his request. But if anyone else were to follow this system, it would appear as arrogance. Therefore, we do not learn from Moses our Teacher; we do the opposite. We are not as great as Moses, and therefore, according to Rabbi Eliezer, we pray for our needs first, and then we offer the prayer.
The Sages say, "Neither according to this nor according to that." Rather, a person should ask for their needs in the blessing of "Hear Our Prayer" (Shome'a Tefillah). This means that all private requests should be placed within the context of the blessing of Shome'a Tefillah.
Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Shilat, said in the name of Rav: "Even though it was said that a person may ask for their needs in Shome'a Tefillah, if one wishes to add a personal request pertinent to each blessing at the end of that blessing, they may do so." Rashi gives examples: if a person was forgetting their learning, they could extend the blessing "Who grants knowledge" (Chonen HaDa'at) with a prayer for memory. If one is a penitent, they could extend "Who desires repentance" (Rotzeh Bitshuva). And so on for all the blessings, such as "Heal us" (Refa'enu).
Rav Chiya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: "Even though it was said that a person may ask for their needs in Shome'a Tefillah, if one has a sick person in their household, they should mention them in the blessing for the sick (Birkat Cholim)." So it is better to place prayers for the sick in the blessing of Refa'enu. Hacham Ben Tzion Abba Shaul rules that not only family members, but also Torah scholars who are sick, should be prayed for in Refa'enu, because all are considered their relatives. But for everyone else, prayers are said in Shome'a Tefillah. And if one needs sustenance, they should mention it in the blessing for the years (Birkat HaShanim).
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: "Even though it was said that a person may ask for their needs in Shome'a Tefillah, if one wishes to add their prayers at the end of the Amidah, before 'He who makes peace' (Oseh Shalom), after 'May the words of my mouth be acceptable' (Yihyu LeRatzon), they may extend it as much as they want, even like the order of Yom HaKippurim." This implies that in Shome'a Tefillah, one should not be overly lengthy with individual prayers. One may include personal prayers, but not at great length. However, after the section of Yihyu LeRatzon and before Oseh Shalom, one may extend their prayers as long as they wish, even like the order of Yom HaKippurim.
Tosafot asks: This implies that in the middle of the Amidah, one should not be overly lengthy. Yet, what about the current custom on fast days, Mondays and Thursdays, where they extend the blessing "Forgive us" (Selach Lanu) with verses of mercy and penitential prayers? This custom seems to contradict the idea that one should only extend prayers at the end of the Amidah, not in the middle. Tosafot answers that perhaps communal prayers are different. This is similar to what we say in Gemara Berakhot: "A person should not ask for their needs in the first three blessings nor in the last three." Yet, we see that Ashkenazim have a custom to recite Krovot, which are various liturgical poems, at the beginning of the prayer, even though we said nothing personal should be said there. This is because these are communal matters. Therefore, it must be concluded that communal prayers are different. This Gemara is discussing matters for an individual. An individual should not be overly lengthy. That is why if one wants to be lengthy, they can place it at the end of the Amidah.
Let's look at Tosafot on page 7b: "And there is no 'complaint' but prayer, as it is written, 'And Isaac went out to converse in the field.'" We brought a proof that "complaint" (sichah) means prayer from the fact that Isaac went out to the field and it says, "And Isaac went out to converse." Tosafot asks: In Tractate Berakhot, Chapter 4, we say that Isaac established the Mincha prayer, as it is written, "And Isaac went out to converse in the field," and there is no "complaint" but prayer, as it is written, "I will pour out my complaint before Him." Why do we need two verses to prove this point? Why "And Isaac went out to converse" and "I will pour out my complaint before Him"? Tosafot answers that both verses are necessary, as we derive understanding from both. If it were only from the verse about Isaac, one might think he went out to the field to speak with someone, not to pray. The verse "I will pour out my complaint before Him" teaches us that it must be prayer because it is addressed to God. Thus, the term refers to prayer. But if we only had "I will pour out my complaint before Him," one might think it refers to prayer, but not a fixed, established prayer. The verse about Isaac, "towards evening," implies that this was his custom every evening, meaning it was the Mincha prayer towards evening. So, it teaches us that it is prayer and that he established it on a permanent basis.
The next Mishnah states: "And these are the festivals of idolaters: Kalanda, Saturnalia, Kartisim, the coronation day of their kings, the birthday, and the day of death." These are the words of Rabbi Meir. We will see what Kalanda is in the Gemara, and what Saturnalia is in the Gemara as well. Kartisim will also be explained by the Gemara. The coronation day is the day of the kings' enthronement. The birthday is when they make a party every year and bring sacrifices. The day of death is the day kings died, which they also celebrate with sacrifices, considered idolatry. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.
The Sages say: It depends. "Any death that involves burning, involves idolatry; and any that does not involve burning, does not involve idolatry." The custom was that when a king died, they would burn all his possessions to show that no one could use them. So, any death commemorated by a burning ceremony of his possessions was considered an idolatrous ceremony, a holiday, and one could not transact business with them. But if they did not burn possessions, the ceremony had no idolatrous aspect, so it was not a problem. However, the following are considered personal holidays for individual non-Jews: "The day he shaves his beard"—they used to make a big deal of the day they shaved their beard, having a special time for it, and they would make a party on that day. "And his topknot"—this refers to when they cut their hair. They would let their hair grow and leave a certain tail in the back, called a blorit, and when they cut it, they made a holiday. "And the day he ascended from the sea"—for example, if he was saved from danger in the ocean. "And the day he was released from prison." "And a non-Jew who made a feast for his son"—this refers to a wedding. "It is forbidden only on that day and for that person alone." This is not a general prohibition because each person shaves their beard or has a haircut on a different day, and not everyone makes a wedding on the same day. So these are private matters for the person and for the specific day on which they occur.
The Gemara continues: Rav Chanan bar Rava said, "What is the holiday of Kalanda? Kalanda is eight days after the winter solstice (tekufat Tevet), after the winter season. Saturnalia is eight days before the solstice." Is this correct? No, it is not. And your mnemonic is "behind and before You have formed me" (achor vakedem tzartani). How do you remember which is after the solstice and which is before? The first one is later, and the second one is earlier. You can remember that based on the verse, "behind and before," which puts later first. So Kalanda is later than Saturnalia.
The Rabbis taught: "The reason for these holidays is that Adam HaRishon (the first man) saw the day diminishing." According to one opinion, Adam HaRishon was created in Tishrei. In Tishrei, the days begin to get shorter every day. So, Adam HaRishon, after he sinned, began to notice that every day the days were getting shorter. He said, "Woe is to me! Perhaps because I sinned, the world is becoming dark for me. And it will return to chaos and void. And this is the death that was decreed upon me from Heaven." He then fasted and prayed for eight days. When he saw the winter solstice (tekufat Tevet), and saw the day beginning to lengthen, he said, "This is the way of the world." He realized that days naturally get shorter and then longer, and it had nothing to do with his sin. He then made eight days of celebration to commemorate that it was not his sin. The following year, he made both sets of days—those before the solstice and those after—into holidays. He established them for the sake of Heaven, but the non-Jews established them for the sake of idolatry.
The Gemara asks: "This makes sense according to the opinion that the world was created in Tishrei." He only saw days getting shorter; he had not yet seen long days. Therefore, he was nervous that the world was getting shorter and shorter and would eventually be plunged into darkness. "However, according to the opinion that the world was created in Nissan," there is a dispute in Rosh Hashana between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. According to the opinion that the world was created in Nissan, he would have seen both short days and long days. He would have seen that the days were getting longer as Nissan progressed. So what did he get nervous about? The Gemara answers: "He had not seen days that were so short." This means he wasn't nervous at first when he saw the days shorter and then getting longer. But when it came to Tishrei, he saw the days got very, very short. So when he saw Tishrei later on, and the days became very short, then he got nervous that perhaps the world was coming to an end. Rashi explains: "He had seen long days on the day of the summer solstice (tekufat Tammuz)." In Nissan, the days are still short. When Tammuz came, in the summertime, he saw the days got very long. So he should have figured out that that's the way of the world, that the world goes from shorter days to longer days. So why did he get nervous? "It is the way of the world." But what? When he saw very short days in Tishrei, during winter, when the days became very short, he thought that the cycle of the world was limited to getting a little bigger from this short day. But when he saw a drastic decrease in Tishrei, where the days really became very short, the short winter days, then he got nervous. He thought Nissan was the shortest. Correct, he thought Nissan was the shortest. So that's what the Gemara says: "He had not seen days that were so short." He hadn't seen the shortest days yet, and therefore he was not aware that this was the way of the world, and he became nervous.
The Rabbis taught: "On the day Adam HaRishon was created, when the sun set, he said, 'Woe is to me! Because I sinned, the world has become dark for me.'" He didn't realize there was such a thing as sunset. "And the world will return to chaos and void." He thought the world was returning to chaos. "And this is the death that was decreed upon me from Heaven." He sat fasting and crying the entire night. And Chava (Eve) cried opposite him. When the dawn broke, he said, "This is the way of the world." "Oh, this must be the way of the world." Why wouldn't he think the next night that it was the way of the world? He never saw a sunrise. He figured it out. He said, "The sun must go down, the sun must go up." He prayed all night, so now that it came up... he thought the sun was going down and never coming up again. Right, so now when he saw that it came up, he said, "Oh, maybe my prayer was answered." Right, but then he knew it was answered. When you see sunset the next night, then he saw that it was the way of the world. Okay. Anyway, it says here: "He said, 'This is the way of the world.'" He arose and offered a bull whose horns preceded its hooves. It is a very rare bull whose horns appear before its hooves. Normally, when a bull is born, it has its hooves, and later its horns grow. But the first animal created, this bull, had its horns grow out of the ground first. The head came out first, so the head produced horns first, and then the hooves came. Everything was created complete at the beginning of creation. They didn't have to wait six months for the horns to appear; it was born complete. So it was the only bull like that, a bull that was not born but created, "whose horns preceded its hooves." As it is stated, "And it will be more pleasing to the Lord than a bull, an ox with horns and hooves." It speaks about that bull. It says "with horns and hooves." "With horns" (makrin) is from the word "horn" (keren). "With hooves" (mafris) is from the word "hoof" (parsa). So it was a type of bull that had its horns first before its hooves.
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: "The bull that Adam HaRishon sacrificed had one horn on its forehead." As it is stated, "And it will be more pleasing to the Lord than a bull, an ox with horns and hooves." It said it had "horns" (makrin). The Gemara asks: "Makrin" implies plural, meaning two horns. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: "It is written 'mikeren' (singular)." If you look at the verse in Tehillim (Psalms), it is missing a "yud." It does not say "makrin" (plural). You could read the verse "mikeren" (singular), to teach that it only had one horn, a unicorn.
The Gemara now poses a question. Rav Matna asked: "Rome used to celebrate Kalanda, a pagan holiday. And all the cities subservient to it, which paid taxes to Rome, did not celebrate Kalanda. The question is: Are those cities forbidden or permitted?" One logic is, well, they don't celebrate it, so why can't you conduct business? Or do you say that since you give them money, and they're going to give the money to Rome, and Rome is going to use the money for sacrifices, it's going to get to idolatry. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, "Kalanda is forbidden to everyone." He says it is forbidden to Rome and to all the suburbs. Rabbi Yochanan said, "It is forbidden only to its worshippers alone." It is only forbidden to those who worship it, not the suburbs around it. A Baraita was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan: "Even though we said that Rome celebrated Kalanda and all the subservient cities around it, it itself is forbidden only to its worshippers alone." It is only forbidden to the worshippers themselves. So you see we have a Baraita to support Rabbi Yochanan.
The Baraita continues: "Saturnalia, Kartisim, the coronation day of their kings, and the day a king was crowned: before it is forbidden, and after it is permitted. And a non-Jew who made a feast for his son: it is forbidden only on that day and for that person." This concludes the Baraita, as we saw at the end of the Mishnah. So we have a proof from a Baraita for Rabbi Yochanan. Rav Ashi said, "We also learned this in our Mishnah as a proof for Rabbi Yochanan." What does it say? "As it was taught: The day he shaves his beard, or his topknot, or the day he ascended from the sea, or the day he was released from prison: the prohibition applies only on that day and to that person." The Gemara asks: "It makes sense that it says 'that day' to exclude the days before and after." You might think there are days before, three days before, or days after. The Mishnah teaches us that these are not such big holidays; it is forbidden only on that day. "However, why does it need to say 'that person' to exclude what?" Of course, it is forbidden for that person; it is a private holiday. Why would I think it is forbidden for anyone else? "Is it not to exclude his subservients?" It comes to teach that even if the person has workers or people dependent on him, the novel point is that it is forbidden only to him, but not to the people serving him. Oh, so what do you see? You see that the servants of the person are not included; you can transact business with them, even though the money might eventually go to the master. Similarly, Rome is forbidden, but the suburbs around it are not forbidden. So we have a proof from our Mishnah from the fact that it says "only that person," to exclude the people who work for him and are subservient to him.
The Gemara continues: "And Kartisim." That is another type of idolatry, Kartisim. "What is this idolatry called Kartisim?" It is a holiday. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: "It is the day that Rome established its kingdom." Rashi explains that they fought against the Greeks and defeated them, eventually ruling over the entire world. So that day Rome took over power is called Kartisim. But it was taught: "Kartisim and the day Rome established its kingdom." This implies that Kartisim is a different day. Rav Yosef said: "Rome actually had two conquests." One was in the days of Queen Cleopatra, and another was when they conquered in the days of the Greeks. So therefore, Kartisim is one of the conquests, and "the day Rome established its kingdom" is another conquest. Which one is which? Tosafot explains: "Kartisim, says Rav Shemaya, is a Greek word." It means "second conquest." "Kort" means conquest, and "sis" means two. So the word is made up of two words: Kort sis. Kort is the conquest, and sis is the second one, the second conquest. And the explanation is that it means the second conquest, and this fits with what we said later: "Kartisim and the day Rome conquered the kingdom." What is its explanation? Kartisim is the second conquest, and "the day Rome conquered the kingdom" is the first. So now the Gemara will tell the story of how the Romans defeated the Greeks and took over the world.
When Rav Dimi came, he said: "The Romans fought 32 battles against the Greeks." This was during the time of the Second Temple. "And they were unable to conquer them." "Until they allied with the Jewish people." And they made a condition or a pact among themselves: "If kings are appointed from us (the Romans), governors will come from you (the Jews). If kings are appointed from you (the Jews), governors will come from us (the Romans)." So they were going to share power; that's how they made the pact. And the Romans sent a message to the Greeks: "Until now, we have been fighting in war. Now let us contend with logic." "We will send an argument to you, and you will not be able to answer it. You will have to admit that we must take over." "A pearl and a precious gem: which of them should serve as a base for the other?" They sent back: "The pearl is less expensive, that's the base, and you put the precious gem on the base." Okay, right answer. "A precious gem and an 'inach' gem (a more expensive type of gem): which of them should serve as a base for the other?" "The precious gem is the base, and the 'inach' gem goes on top." "An 'inach' gem and a Torah scroll: which of them should serve as a base for the other?" You have the 'inach' gem, which was very precious, but you have the most precious item, the Torah scroll. Which is the base for what? "The 'inach' gem for the Torah scroll." Even the Greeks understood: the 'inach' gem goes on the bottom, the Torah scroll goes on top. Ah, they sent back to them: "It answered itself, you put yourself in a hole. If so, we have the Torah scroll with us, and the Jewish people are with us." So what? Who is the base for whom? You become the base, and we go on top, because the Torah scroll goes on top of the thing that is less important. After that argument, they subjugated them for 26 years. They conquered them, and there was a victory that lasted for 26 years. They subjugated them for 26 years, and they kept their word. The Romans had kings, the Jewish people had governors, and there was a pact between them. "From then on," but after 26 years, "they subjugated them." Then the Romans broke their deal and began to subjugate the Jewish people.
The Gemara asks: "What did the Romans expound initially, and what did they expound later?" What was the interpretation they made first, and what was the interpretation they made after? "Initially, they expounded: 'Let us travel and go, and I will go alongside you.'" This means originally they interpreted the verse of Esau. What did Esau say? "Let us travel and go, and I will go alongside you," let's travel together. So therefore, you see that Rome and Esau and Jacob can go together, they are equal, like a pact. "And later, they expounded: 'Let my lord pass on before his servant.'" Then Jacob said to Esau, "You go first." So they saw that verse—it took them 26 years to see that verse, which is really written right after—"Let my lord pass on before his servant." Okay, now you go first. So okay, we go in front of the Jewish people, so therefore they took over. So the Gemara says: "26 years, and they kept their word." But they stayed. Now we are going into history with numbers. The Gemara will go into a long discussion to historically prove all these years. How do you know it was 26 years that they kept their word? Where do you get that number from, 26 years? So they begin: Rav Kahana said: "When Rabbi Yishmael ben Rabbi Yose fell ill, they sent him a message: 'Rabbi, tell us two or three new teachings that you used to say in the name of your father, Rabbi Yose.'" He said to them: "180 years before the destruction of the Temple, the wicked kingdom of Rome spread over all of Israel." "Seventy years before the Temple was destroyed, they decreed ritual impurity upon the land of the nations and upon glass vessels." So the rabbis made some decrees. Number one, they said anyone who goes outside the land of Israel contracts ritual impurity; it is "impurity upon the land of the nations." And they said that glassware also becomes susceptible to ritual impurity. "Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin (High Court) left its place on the Temple Mount and sat in a shop." It went to a place called Chanut, which is next to the Temple Mount, a little lower.
The Gemara asks: "And for what purpose?" So what is the practical difference where the Sanhedrin sits? If they are sitting on the Temple Mount or in the Chanut, what is the difference? Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi said: "To say that they did not judge cases involving monetary penalties." Once they got to the new location, they were unable to judge cases that involve monetary penalties. What is a case of monetary penalties? Rape, where the Torah says the perpetrator must pay a penalty to the father. Seduction. The 30 shekels for a Canaanite slave: if you beat a Canaanite slave and he goes free, you have to pay him 30 silver coins. There are many cases of monetary penalties: double payment, four or five times payment. So all these cases, they stopped judging. Why? Look at Rashi: "Cases involving monetary penalties: rape, seduction, and the 30 shekels for a slave, where the Torah set a single price for both valuable and worthless items." "And since they did not sit in the Lishkat HaGazit (Chamber of Hewn Stone), they did not judge and they ceased." "Cases involving monetary penalties, as it is written concerning double payment, which is a penalty: 'that which the judges will condemn.'" You need "judges" (Elohim). What is Elohim? "These are experts who have received rabbinic ordination (smicha)." The Beit Din, those rabbis who are called Rabbi. Because a Sanhedrin that is not ordained has no jurisdiction over cases involving monetary penalties. You need the big rabbis. Okay, the big rabbis sat on the Sanhedrin. Once they moved to the Chanut, you didn't have these ordained rabbis. You didn't have these rabbis on the level of ordination. They weren't able to judge cases involving monetary penalties. That's what Rashi is telling us at this point. So once they got to the Chanut, there was no ordination, there were no real rabbis who were worthy to give these rulings.
The Gemara asks: "Wait, you think they stopped doing cases involving monetary penalties?" You think that they stopped doing cases involving monetary penalties 40 years before the Temple was destroyed when they moved the offices to the Chanut? Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: "Indeed, may that man be remembered for good, and his name was Yehuda ben Bava." "For were it not for this rabbi, Yehuda ben Bava, the laws of monetary penalties would have been forgotten from Israel." What does it mean "forgotten"? Why would you forget them? Go learn them. Whoever has a Chumash, go read them and study them. Why do you need Yehuda ben Bava to remind us of cases involving monetary penalties? They are all written in the Torah. "Rather, the judging of monetary penalties ceased in Israel." If it wasn't for him, the judges would not have been able to continue to rule on cases involving monetary penalties. He made it so that cases involving monetary penalties would continue to be judged in rabbinical courts. Why, what did he do? "Because the wicked kingdom decreed a decree." Now, what did we already learn? Only rabbis who have received ordination from a rabbi with a tradition can judge cases involving monetary penalties. The Romans made a decree. What was the decree? "Anyone who ordains shall be killed." "And anyone who is ordained shall be killed." "And the city in which ordination takes place shall be destroyed." "And the area in which ordination takes place shall be uprooted." What did Yehuda ben Bava do? "He went and sat between two large mountains and between two cities." He didn't want to sit next to any cities because he didn't want them to be destroyed. So he sat between two mountains and between two cities, not next to the Sabbath boundary of any city. "Between two Sabbath boundaries," so no city would be within the boundary. "Between Usha and Shefaram." He went to that remote place and decided to give ordination in order to keep the laws of monetary penalties in place. What did he do? "And he ordained five elders there: Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosi, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua." And Rav Avya adds: "Also Rabbi Nechemya." Some add a sixth rabbi, Rabbi Nechemya. "When the enemies recognized them," when the Romans heard what happened, "he said to them," so the rabbi saw that the Romans were coming after them. So the rabbi told the students, "My sons, run!" They said to him, "Rabbi, what will become of you?" He said to them, "I am left before them like a stone that no one turns over." I am too old; I cannot run. I am like a rock that nobody is looking for, nobody is analyzing, which means I am here, there is nothing I can do. They said: "They did not move from there until they caught up with Yehuda ben Bava and pierced his body with 300 iron lances." And they made his body like a sieve. His body was filled with holes. Oh, so what the Gemara says, so what do you see here? That this was talking about Yehuda ben Bava. You are telling me that what? This was after the Temple's destruction already. So you are telling me, and they were doing cases involving monetary penalties. You are telling me if it wasn't for Yehuda ben Bava's self-sacrifice to give ordination to these five or six rabbis, there wouldn't have been any more cases involving monetary penalties. That means this is after the Temple's destruction, and they were still doing cases involving monetary penalties. How did you tell me 40 years earlier, when they moved from the Lishkat HaGazit to the Chanut, they stopped doing cases involving monetary penalties? What are you talking about? Cases involving monetary penalties spanned even after that time. That's the Gemara's question.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: "Do not say 'cases involving monetary penalties.'" Change the text. Do not read "cases involving monetary penalties." "Rather, they did not judge capital cases." When they moved from the Lishkat HaGazit to the Chanut, since they moved their place, they stopped capital punishment judgments. "And what is the reason?" "Since they saw that murderers were numerous, and they were unable to judge them all, they said, 'It is better for us to move from place to place so that we do not incur guilt.'" They said it seems that the murders were too rampant; the Sanhedrin decided that they cannot judge all these capital cases, and therefore they went and moved their offices on purpose so they wouldn't have to judge capital cases. Who says that you can't judge capital cases outside the Lishkat HaGazit? "As it is written: 'And you shall act according to the word that they declare to you from that place.'" "This teaches that the place is a determining factor." You need the place. And what is that talking about? Capital cases. That is in Parshat Shoftim V'shotrim (Judges and Officers). So it is about capital cases. It has to be in "the place." Okay, so that's the Gemara.
Look at Tosafot: "Rather, they did not judge capital cases." They stopped capital cases. "And if you will say: And we say in the chapter 'These Maidens' (Perek Elu Na'arot) that from when the Temple was destroyed, even though the four death penalties ceased, the law of the four death penalties did not cease." Even though the four types of capital punishment by the court ceased after the Temple was destroyed, there were no more capital cases, but the divine retribution corresponding to the four death penalties of the court continued. "One who was liable to stoning was hit by a rock, he fell off a mountain," meaning they received their deserved punishment. "And why does it state 'from when the Temple was destroyed'?" So why is the Gemara in Ketubot saying from when the Temple was destroyed? "Behold, even 40 years before the Temple, they did not judge capital cases." According to this Gemara, even 40 years before, they stopped doing capital cases. So it is not "from when the Temple was destroyed"; it is even before the Temple was destroyed. Do you understand Tosafot's question? "And it can be said: Nevertheless, when they saw a need, they would return to the Chamber and judge there." Oh, they did not completely abolish it, Tosafot says. When they saw a need to judge someone for a capital offense, they moved their offices back to the Lishkat HaGazit for that case and judged capital cases. So there were capital cases even before the destruction. But once the destruction came, then there was no exception, no more capital cases at all. That's how Tosafot answers. So therefore, "from when the Temple was destroyed," exclusively there were no more capital cases at all, because then they didn't even make exceptions. But there were exceptions before.
Look at the next Tosafot: "This teaches that the place is a determining factor." How do you know that you can only do capital cases on the Temple Mount? Because the verse said, "And you shall act according to the word that they declare to you from that place." Tosafot asks: "And if you will say: But Jerusalem is also called 'place' regarding the eating of sacred offerings and second tithe, as it is written, 'in the place that the Lord shall choose.'" Who told you "the place" is the Temple Mount? You see Jerusalem was also called "place" for eating tithes and sacred offerings. So maybe I will tell you a new rule? That capital cases can only be done in Jerusalem. Where did you get this rule that "the place" is the Temple Mount? Strong question from Tosafot. "And it can be said: Regarding capital cases, 'place' refers only to the Lishkat HaGazit." When it comes to capital cases, Tosafot says when it says "place," it is only talking about the Lishkat HaGazit, the offices on the Temple Mount. Why? "Because it was half in the sacred area and half in the secular area." Those offices were actually half in the sacred section of the Temple and half the office was actually in the secular area. "And this is the reason: because we require the Sanhedrin to be close to the Divine Presence." Specifically. The Sanhedrin, their offices need to be as close as they can to the Divine Presence. As it is stated, and we also say: "Anyone who appoints an unworthy judge," the Gemara says in Avodah Zarah, "it is as if he planted an Asherah (idolatrous tree) next to the altar." So what do you see here? That the Sanhedrin needed to sit next to the altar. As it is written, "Judges and officers," and it is juxtaposed with "you shall not plant for yourself an Asherah." It talks about the judges next to the law of idolatry to teach you that a bad judge is like putting an idolatrous tree next to the altar. "Next to the altar of the Lord." "And therefore," so therefore when it says "in the place," it has to be talking about next to the Divine Presence. Where is that? On the Temple Mount. How do we know that? Because we know already that the Divine Presence—the judges had to be next to the Divine Presence. "And therefore it is written, 'And they sat in the Chanut and judged,' because even though the Chanut they made was on the Temple Mount." Ah, the Chanut was also on the Temple Mount. So they didn't move down; they just moved across, a little outside of the sacred area so they wouldn't be next to the Divine Presence. "Nevertheless, it was close to the Divine Presence, like the Lishkat HaGazit." Okay, very good. So therefore, we have a rule: the place of the Sanhedrin, we always know it has to be a place that is close to the Divine Presence, and therefore you can't tell me Jerusalem. It has to be closer, in the Temple Mount section that was close to the sacred area.
And if you will say: "Behold, this strictness regarding the place for other capital offenses, not just for the rebellious elder, for the verse is written only concerning the rebellious elder." That verse that the Gemara quoted was talking about one specific death penalty. When you have a rebellious elder (zaken mamre), that is an elder who rebels against the ruling of the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin said it is forbidden, and he goes along and says it is permitted. So what do we do to the rebellious elder? We kill him. So maybe a rebellious elder has to be on the Temple Mount, but how do you know every death penalty? The verse you brought, "in the place," is specific to one case. How could you know from a rebellious elder to everything else? That's Tosafot's question. And Tosafot answers: "And it can be said: We derive that as long as the Great Sanhedrin is in its proper place, as prescribed next to the altar, then 'you shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates' to judge capital cases." The verse explicitly—"judges and officers"—is talking about what? "In the place"—the Sanhedrin in their place. When the Sanhedrin are in their place for the case of a rebellious elder, let's say, then "you shall appoint judges and officers in all your gates." Then put judges of 23 in every city. They would be able to judge capital cases because you had rabbis sitting in the Sanhedrin sitting on other cases that needed to be judged there. So since we have a juxtaposition in the Torah, the verse of the rebellious elder, "judges and officers," as long as this is happening, then "you shall appoint judges and officers." Once they moved, then the capital cases for other matters also ceased. Blessed is the Lord forever, Amen and Amen.