ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 105
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah ...
1. ... lists *two* Gozrei Gezeiros (Admon ben Avishalom and Chanan ben
Gada'i), omitting Chanan ha'Mitzri because he does *not consider him
important* - whereas the Tana of the Beraisa includes him in his list
because he *does*.
(b) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yossi quotes the Gozrei Gezeiros, who penalize
someone who cuts down another person's sapling (in its first year) to the
tune of two silver Ma'ah. For cutting down a two year old tree - they would
have charged him four silver Ma'ah.
2. ... calls them 'Gozrei Gezeiros' does not argue with the Tana of the
Beraisa, who refers to them as 'Daynei G'zeilos' - because in fact, they
used to issue decrees concerning theft (and related issues).
(c) The author of the Beraisa which includes Nachum ha'Madi in the list of
Gozrei Gezeiros is - Rebbi Nasan.
(a) Rebbi Pinchas Amar Rebbi Oshaya informs us that there were three hundred
and ninety four Batei-Dinim in Yerushalayim - by Batei-Din, he means a
Sanhedrin Ketanah, consisting of twenty-three Dayanim.
(b) The other three institutions that he included in his list of which there
were that number - are Batei-Keneisiyos, Batei-Medrash and Batei-Sofrim
(c) Although there were that many Batei-Din in Yerushalayim - there were
only three Gozrei Gezeiros.
(a) The source of the Gozrei Gezeiros in Yerushalayim's income - was the
T'rumas ha'Lishkah (the leftovers of the boxes in the Beis-Hamikdash, which
will be explained later).
(b) The problem with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi, who is initially quoted as
saying that if they did not agree with that amount, they would receive more
is - that in that case, we would be dealing with Resha'im, who demand from
public funds more than they need in order to live.
(c) What Rav Yehudah Amar Rav really said was - that if that sum was
insufficent for their needs, then one would give them more, even against
(a) When Karna judged disputes, he would take a Sela from each litigant. We
know that the Pasuk "ve'Shochad Lo Sikach" applies even if it is with the
express intention of judging the litigant who paid it, fairly, according to
the Halachah - because when it is a matter of judging wrongly, we already
have a Pasuk (in Shoftim) "Lo Sateh Mishpat".
(b) Assuming that a Dayan takes money from both litigants, the Tana says ...
1. ... in the Mishnah in Bechoros 'Diynav Beteilin' - when he takes the
money in the form of bribery.
(c) The three conditions that Karna fulfilled when taking money from the
litigants was - 1. he took from both litigants; 2. he took S'char Batalah
(and not bribery-money); 3. he made it clear to the litigants that he was
merely taking from them the Zuz that he would have earned in his profession
as a wine-tester.
2. ... in a Beraisa 'Mechu'ar ha'Dayan' - when he takes it in the form of
'S'char Batalah', but it is not clear to the litigants that this is the
(d) When, before judging, Rav Huna would say to the litigants 'Havu Li Gavra
de'Dali li ba'Charika'i' - he meant to say that they should pay for a man to
water his fields for him.
(a) Rebbi Avahu mocked the judges who took bribery - most people, he
explained, would pay a doctor to cure their sore eyes (even though they had
no guarantee that his cure would succeed. Yet, for a P'rutah, these people
are willing to cause themselves to become blind, as the Torah writes in
Mishpatim "Ki ha'Shochad Ye'aver Divrei Chachamim ... ".
(b) Considering that fools and wicked people are not eligible to judge, when
the Tana of the Beraisa, with reference to the Pasuk "Ki ha'Shochad Ye'aver
Einei Chachamim ... " said 'Kal ve'Chomer le'Tipshim'... 'Kal va'Chomer
li'Resha'im' - he meant that even the wisest man who takes bribery, will
become blind before his death, and that even if a great Tzadik does so, he
is bound to become foolish before becoming insane, and he will certainly
become blind at that stage.
(a) Rav Nachman bar Kohen explains the Pasuk "Melech ba'Mishpat Ya'amid
Eretz ve'Ish Terumos Yaharsenah"? like this - a Dayan should be like a king,
who is wealthy and who does not therefore, need to turn to others for
assistance, and not to a Kohen collecting in the granaries.
(b) Rabah bar Rav Shiloh disqualifies a Dayan who regularly borrows from the
people of his town from judging - provided that is, he never reciprocates.
(c) Rava was a Dayan in Mechuza, even though he often borrowed from Bei bar
Meryon without reciprocating - because he did that, not because he needed
him, but rather in order to boost bar Meryon's esteem in the eyes of the
people (since they would look up to people who had dealings with Rava and
whom Rava trusted).
(a) Rava bases the Torah's prohibition of a Dayan who accepts bribery to
judge the person who gave it on the fact - that they become like one person,
and a person cannot see that he is ever wrong. In fact, the word 'Shochad'
is an acronym of 'she'Hu Chad'.
(b) Rav Papa prohibits a judge from judging ...
1. ... a close friend - because he will not be able to find fault with him.
(c) Abaye say that if the townspeople love a Talmid-Chacham - it is not due
to his fine personality, but because he is lax in his obligation to rebuke
2. ... someone that one dislikes - because he will not be able to find
anything in his favor.
(d) Rava maintained that the residents of Mechuza (the town where he lived)
used to love him until he became a Dayan. What he said about them after he
became a Dayan ...
1. ... initially was - that those who won their cases loved him, whereas
those who lost them hated him.
2. ... ultimately was - that when they eventually saw how today's winner was
tomorrow's loser (and vice-versa), they either all hated him or all loved
(a) W learn from the fact that the Pasuk writes "ve'Shochad Lo Sikach",
rather than "u'Betza Lo Sikach" - that bribery is not confined to monetary
gain, but extends to 'Shochad Devarim'.
(b) 'Shochad Devarim' is - bribery that comprises abstract benefits, as
opposed to monetary ones.
(c) As an example of Shochad Devarim, we cite what happened to Shmuel. As
Shmuel was crossing a bridge - someone offered him his hand (to help him
across). It transpired that he wanted Shmuel to judge his case, which Shmuel
declined to do because it was Shochad Devarim.
(d) Ameimar refused to take on the case of someone who removed a feather
from his cloak, and so did Mar Ukva, when a prospective litigant removed
some spittle from his path. Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi refused to take on
the case of his own share-cropper - because he brought him his own basket of
fruit (which he would have brought him anyway), a day early, because he
happened to be in town to ask him to judge his case.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi cursed those who accepted bribery - when
during the course of the case (that he had declined to take on), he found
himself automatically siding with his share-cropper. If that is what
happened to him, he thought, in spite of the fact that he declined to take
the fruit, and even if he had, it would have been his own fruit that he was
taking, then imagine how real bribery must influence the judge who accepts
(b) A similar incident occurred with Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha, the Kohen
Gadol. He refused to take on the case of somebody who came to him to be
judged - on the grounds that he brought him his Reishis ha'Gez (the first
shearings - which the Torah obligates to give to a Kohen), when there were
plenty of other Kohanim to whom he could have given it, simply because he
happened to be going to see him anyway, in order to ask him to judge his
(a) Rav Anan declined to accept the case of that man who sent him small
fish. Based on an incident in Melachim (that happened with Elisha), the man
nevertheless prevailed upon him to accept the fish as a gift. We learn from
the reference to 'Bikurim' there - (which cannot be understood literally -
because Elisha was not a Kohen [see also Tosfos]) that if someone brings a
gift to a Talmid-Chacham, it is as if he had given Bikurim to a Kohen.
(b) When Rav Anan sent the man to him to be judged - Rav Nachman wrongly
assumed that he must be his relative.
(c) The ramifications of that assumption were - that a case involving a
Talmid-Chacham and his relatives takes precedence over cases involving other
people, because of the Asei of Kavod Torah "es Hashem Elokecha Tira"
(a) Bearing in mind that a second case awaiting Rav Nachman's attention
concerned Yesomim - Rav Nachman was now faced with a dilemma whether to call
the above case first or that of the Yesomim (who also take precedence over
others - see Agados Maharsha).
(b) Rav Nachman decided - that the Asei of Kavod Torah takes precedence over
other Mitzvos Asei.
(c) As a result of that decision - the man's opponent (seeing the honor that
Rav Nachman was extending to him), became tongue-tied.