Sanhedrin 87a — the Talmud in English

For it is too difficult" -

the verse speaks of the distinguished one of the court

that the rebellious elder is an expert and was ordained to sit in the Sanhedrin, excluding a student who has not attained the level of issuing rulings, who does not become a rebellious elder. "

For you" -

this is a counselor

that the rebellious elder disagreed with the Great Court concerning the intercalation of the year, which is called a secret and counsel.

And so it says

that we find that concerning a counselor it is written “for you,” as it is stated [Nahum 1:11

From you has gone forth one who devises evil against the Lord, a counselor of worthlessness.” "

A matter" -

this is a halakha

that even if he disagreed with them only concerning a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, he becomes a rebellious elder. "

For judgment" -

this is the law

that also concerning a matter learned through a gzera shava

he becomes a rebellious elder. "

Between blood and blood" -

between menstrual blood

or

childbirth blood

or

flux blood

if the rebellious elder disagreed concerning a law relating to one of these types of blood. "

Between law and law" -

between capital laws

or

monetary laws

or

laws of lashes

forty lashes. "

Between affliction and affliction" -

between human afflictions

or

house afflictions

or

garment afflictions. "

Words" -

these are herem, valuations, and consecrations

for from the fact that it did not say “a matter of dispute” but “words of disputes,” it is understood that it comes to include when they disagreed concerning matters of herem, valuations, and consecrations, which take effect through utterance of the mouth. "

Disputes" -

this is the administering of the sota

which comes through the dispute between the sota and her husband,

and the decapitation of the heifer

whose neck is broken because the slain person was killed through a quarrel,

and the purification of the leper

for afflictions come through a quarrel involving slander. "

Within your gates" -

this is gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field

which belong to the poor, concerning which it is written, “and they shall eat within your gates.” "

And you shall arise"

implies that until now they had been sitting, namely

from the court

that the court with which the elder disagreed in his city must arise from its fixed seat and go to ask the court in Jerusalem. "

And you shall ascend" -

teaches

the verse

that the Temple is higher than

all

the Land of Israel

for concerning the whole Land of Israel it says, “and you shall ascend.”

And

likewise

the Land of Israel is higher than all the lands

and below it will be explained from where we learned this. "

To the place" -

teaches

the verse

that the place is determinative

for making the rebellious elder liable to death: only if he rebelled against their words when they were sitting in their place, in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, is he liable to death. But if he found them outside their place, and there they instructed him, and afterward he rebelled against their words, he does not become a rebellious elder.

And the Gemara discusses:

Granted

that what the beraita said, that

the Temple is higher than

all

the Land of Israel

is satisfactory, for we learn this

from what is written "

and you shall ascend."

But

what the beraita said, that

the Land of Israel is higher than all the lands—from where does it have this?

And the Gemara answers: the source for this is from what

is written [Jeremiah 23:7]

“

Therefore, behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and they shall no longer say: As the Lord lives, Who brought up

the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, but rather: As the Lord lives, Who brought up and Who brought the offspring of the house of Israel from the northland and from all the lands to which I had banished them, and they shall dwell upon their soil.”

We have here that the verse uses the language of “ascent” concerning all the lands in relation to the Land of Israel, because it is higher than all of them.

The Sages taught: A rebellious elder is not liable

to death

unless

the disagreement was

over a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose inadvertent violation is a sin-offering, the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says:

the disagreement must be

over a matter whose essence is from words of Torah

whose essence is explicit in the Torah

and whose interpretation is from the words of the Sages

as the Sages interpreted the details of the mitzva.

Rabbi Shimon says: Even

if the disagreement is only over

one precision among the precisions of the Sages

he becomes a rebellious elder.

And the Gemara explains:

What is Rabbi Meir’s reason?

Because he

derived

through a gzera shava, “

matter” -

matter”:

here it is written “

For if a matter is too difficult for you for judgment,”

and there it is written

in the passage of the bull for the communal error [Leviticus 4:13], “

and a matter was hidden from the eyes of the congregation” -

just as there

the community brings a sin-offering bull only if it erred in

a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose inadvertent violation is a sin-offering, so here

concerning a rebellious elder, specifically

a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose inadvertent violation is a sin-offering.

And Rabbi Judah

his reason is: because it is stated in the passage of the rebellious elder,

according to the Torah that they shall teach you,”

which implies that he is not liable

until there is "

Torah"

namely, that its essence is from words of Torah,

and

also "

that they shall teach you"

whose interpretation is from the words of the Sages.

And Rabbi Shimon

his reason is: because it is stated concerning the rebellious elder, “and you shall act according to the matter

that they shall tell you

from that place,”

which implies everything that they tell you,

even the slightest matter,

even one precision from the words of the Sages.

Rav Huna bar Hinena said to Rava: Explain this beraita to me according to Rabbi Meir

Explain the beraita above to me according to Rabbi Meir’s view: how is it possible that in all these matters listed there there should be one whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose inadvertent violation is a sin-offering?

Rava said to Rav Pappa: Go explain it to him

Go out and explain it to him. And so Rav Pappa explained: the beginning of the beraita: "

For if it is too difficult" -

the verse speaks of the distinguished one of the court. "

For you" -

this is a counselor who knows how to intercalate years and establish months

that the disagreement concerned the intercalation of the year, in a case like the disagreement below -

As we learned

in tractate Eduyot [7:7]:

They testified

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias:

the year may be intercalated throughout the entire month of Adar

for until the end of the month of Adar the court is permitted to intercalate the year and add a second Adar to it, if they saw that there was a need for this.

And why did they need to testify about this?

Because

there were

other Sages who

say

that only

until Purim

may the year be intercalated, and not afterward, therefore Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias came and testified that the year may be intercalated during the entire month of Adar.

Now this disagreement concerns a prohibition involving karet -

For if this side

if the Great Court ruled according to the view of Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias that the year is intercalated, despite their intercalating it only after Purim, and the rebellious elder disagrees with them, it follows that he

is permitting leaven on Passover

for he permits eating leaven on Passover, which is a prohibition involving karet, since according to his ruling Passover takes place at a different time.

And if this side

if the Great Court ruled the opposite, that the year is not intercalated, and he disagrees with them

he is permitting leaven on Passover

even then he permits eating leaven on Passover. "

A matter" -

this is a halakha; these are the laws of

the

eleventh

day of the days of flux.

Every woman has an eighteen-day cycle for seeing her menstrual blood, composed of the seven “days of menstruation” and eleven “days of flux.”

A woman who sees blood, even if she saw only one drop of blood, is impure for seven days.

Likewise, if the seeing continued for seven consecutive days and the blood stopped at the end of the seventh day, she may immerse immediately in the evening and is immediately pure.

These seven days are called “days of menstruation.”

At the end of the seven days of menstruation, the “days of flux” begin. These days are defined in the Torah as “when it is not the time of her menstruation,” meaning that the woman is not accustomed to seeing blood again during them after she has already seen it previously during the seven days of menstruation.

It is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that the number of days of flux is eleven.

The law of the days of flux is as follows:

If the woman saw blood for only one day during one of these days, she is “observant of one day corresponding to one day”: that is, she observes the following day in purity corresponding to the day of impurity, and if she does not see blood on it, she immerses immediately on that day and is pure.

The immersion may take place immediately at the beginning of the day, because observing part of the day in purity is sufficient; but if she sees blood again during the day, she is retroactively impure and the immersion was not effective for her. Therefore, she is still forbidden to have relations with her husband until evening.

The same law applies if she saw for two consecutive days: she observes the third day in purity and immerses on that day.

In both of these cases the woman is called a “minor zava.” But if the seeing of blood continued for three days within the eleven days of flux, she becomes a “major zava,” and she must count seven clean days free of blood; only on the seventh day may she immerse in order to become pure for her husband. In addition, she must bring an offering on the eighth day so that she may eat consecrated food and enter the Temple.

After the eleven days of flux, the days of menstruation return again: whenever she sees blood on one of the following days, the seven days of menstruation begin from then, and afterward the eleven days of flux come again, and so forever.

It was stated:

one who sees blood at the end of the days of zavah on day

ten—

Rabbi Yohanan said:

the seeing on day

ten

its status is

like

the seeing on day

nine

of the days of zavah.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

the seeing on day

ten

its status is

like

the seeing on day

eleven

of the days of zavah.

And the Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yohanan said: the tenth is like the ninth—

Just as the ninth requires safeguarding

for if she saw on the ninth day, she must safeguard the tenth day in purity corresponding to the ninth day,

so too, the tenth requires safeguarding

so, if she saw on the tenth day, she must safeguard the eleventh day, despite the fact that the tenth is not fit to cause a major zavah condition, for even if she sees for three consecutive days, she will not be a major zavah, because the third day is already among the days of menstruation, and is not fit to join the two preceding days that were among the days of zavah.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: the tenth is like the eleventh—

Just as the eleventh does not require safeguarding

for if she saw on the eleventh day, she does not need to safeguard the following day, because it is already not among the days of zavah,

so too, the tenth does not require safeguarding

for she does not need to safeguard the eleventh day corresponding to it, but immerses on that very day, because the law of “safeguarding one day corresponding to one day” was stated only with regard to seeing that can cause a major zavah condition, whereas seeing on the tenth cannot cause a major zavah condition.

And if the rebellious elder and the Sages disputed the laws of the eleventh day in the same dispute in which Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disputed, then this concerns a prohibition punishable by karet, because if she does not safeguard one day corresponding to one day, she remains a menstruating woman, and the one who has intercourse with her is liable for karet.