Sanhedrin 87a (פז.) — the Talmud in English

For if a matter be too difficult" —

The verse is speaking of an extraordinary sage of the court

That is, the rebellious elder is an expert who was ordained to sit on the Sanhedrin, excluding a student who has not reached the level of issuing halakhic rulings, who cannot become a rebellious elder. "

For you" —

This is the counselor

Because the rebellious elder disagreed with the Great Sanhedrin concerning intercalating the year, which is called a secret and counsel.

And so it says

That we find the word “for you” written in connection with a counselor, as it is stated (Nahum 1:15):

“From you has emerged one who plots evil against the Lord, one who counsels wickedness.” "

A matter" —

This is a halakha

Even if he disagreed with them only concerning a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, he becomes a rebellious elder. "

For judgment" —

This is law

Even when it is a matter derived by means of a gzera shava,

he becomes a rebellious elder. "

Between blood and blood" —

Between menstrual blood

or

blood of childbirth

or

blood of a discharge,

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

Between one law and another" —

Between capital laws

or

civil laws

or

laws of lashes,

the forty lashes. "

Between one plague and another" —

Between plagues afflicting people

or

plagues afflicting houses

or

plagues afflicting garments. "

Matters" —

These are dedications involving prohibitions, valuations, and consecrations,

For since it does not say “a matter of dispute,” but rather “matters of dispute,” it implies that the verse comes to include cases in which they disagreed concerning matters of dedications involving prohibitions, valuations, and consecrations, which take effect through verbal declaration. "

Disputes" —

This is the drinking of the sota

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

and the decapitation of the heifer,

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

and the purification of the leper,

since the afflictions come through the quarrel of evil speech. "

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"

This implies that until now they had been seated; that is,

from the court,

The court with which the elder disagreed in his city must rise from its permanent seat and go to inquire of the court in Jerusalem. "

And you shall ascend" —

The verse teaches

that

the Temple is higher than

all

the Land of Israel,

as “and you shall ascend” is stated with regard to the whole Land of Israel.

And

likewise

the Land of Israel is higher than all other lands,

as will be explained below from where we learn this. "

To the place" —

The verse teaches

that

the place is determinative,

making the rebellious elder liable to death. He is liable to death only if he contradicted the ruling of the Great Sanhedrin while they were seated in their place, in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. But if he found them outside their place, and they issued a ruling to him there, and he subsequently contradicted their ruling, he does not become a rebellious elder.

The Gemara discusses this:

Granted,

with regard to what the beraita stated, that

the Temple is higher than

all

the Land of Israel,

it is understandable that we learn this

from that which is written, "

and you shall ascend."

But

with regard to what the beraita stated, that

the Land of Israel is higher than all other lands, from where does it derive this?

The Gemara answers: The source is

that which is written (Jeremiah 23:7): "

“Therefore, behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when 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 brought the offspring of the house of Israel from the land of the north and from all the lands to which I had driven them, and they shall dwell upon their own land.’”

We learn from this that the verse uses the language of “ascending” with regard to 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 dispute was

concerning

a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose unwitting violation requires a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The dispute must be

concerning a matter whose essence is from words of Torah,

whose fundamental principle is explicit in the Torah,

but whose interpretation is from the words of the Sages,

as the Sages interpreted the details of the mitzva.

Rabbi Shimon says: Even

if the dispute is only concerning

one detail among the details instituted by the Sages,

he becomes a rebellious elder.

The Gemara explains:

What is the rationale of Rabbi Meir?

It is because he

derived

through a gzera shava from the word "

matter" —

“matter,”

it is written here, "

For if a matter be too difficult for you for judgment,"

and it is written there,

in the passage concerning the communal bull brought for an error in a matter (Leviticus 4:13): "

And the matter was hidden from the eyes of the congregation" —

Just as there,

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

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

in the case of a rebellious elder, only

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

And Rabbi Yehuda

has this rationale: Because it is stated in the passage concerning a rebellious elder, "

according to the Torah that they shall teach you."

This implies that he is not liable

until there is "

Torah,"

that is, its essence is from the words of Torah,

and

also

“they shall teach you,”

whose interpretation is from the words of the Sages.

And Rabbi Shimon

has this rationale: Because it is stated concerning a rebellious elder, “And you shall act according to the matter

that they shall declare to you

from that place.”

This implies that it applies to everything that they declare to you,

even the slightest matter,

even one detail from the words of the Sages.

Rav Huna bar Hinnana said to Rava: Explain this beraita to me according to Rabbi Meir’s view

Explain the above beraita to me according to Rabbi Meir’s opinion: How is it possible that in all the matters listed there there should be a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose unwitting violation requires a sin-offering?

Rava said to Rav Pappa: Go and explain it to him.

Go and explain it to him. And Rav Pappa explained as follows: At the beginning of the beraita: "

For if a matter be too difficult" —

The verse is speaking of an extraordinary sage of the court. "

For you" —

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

as the dispute concerned the intercalation of a year, in a case like the following dispute:

As we learned

in tractate Eduyot (7:7):

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Pappayas testified:

that

the year may be intercalated throughout the entire month of Adar,

meaning that until the end of the month of Adar, the court is permitted to intercalate the year and add a second Adar if it sees a need to do so.

And why did they need to testify about this?

Because

there were other Sages who

said that

they say

that only

until Purim

may the year be intercalated, but not afterward; therefore Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Pappayas came and testified that the year may be intercalated during the entire month of Adar.

And this dispute concerns a prohibition involving karet:

For if this side,

if the Great Sanhedrin ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Pappayas that the year is intercalated, despite having intercalated it only after Purim, and the rebellious elder disagreed with them, it follows that

he is permitting leaven on Passover,

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

And if this side,

if the Great Sanhedrin ruled the opposite, that the year is not intercalated, and he disagreed 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 discharge.

Every woman has an eighteen-day cycle for seeing menstrual blood, consisting of seven “menstruation days” and eleven “discharge days.”

A woman who sees blood—even if she saw only a single drop—is impure for seven days.

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

These seven days are called “menstruation days.”

At the conclusion of the seven menstruation days, the “discharge days” begin. The Torah defines these days as “when it is not the time of her menstruation,” meaning that the woman is not accustomed to see blood again during them after having already seen it during the preceding seven menstruation days.

It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the number of discharge days is eleven.

The law of the discharge days is as follows:

If the woman saw blood on only one day during these days, she is a “one-day discharge sufferer,” meaning that she observes the following day in purity corresponding to the day of impurity; if she does not see blood on it, she immerses immediately 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. However, if she sees blood again during the day, she is retroactively impure and the immersion was invalid. Therefore, she remains forbidden to engage in relations with her husband until evening.]

The same law applies if she saw blood 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 discharge sufferer.” But if the sighting of blood continued for three days during the eleven discharge days, she becomes a “major discharge sufferer.” She must count seven clean days free of blood, and 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 in order to eat sacrificial food and enter the Temple.

After the eleven discharge days, the menstruation days begin again. Whenever she sees blood on one of the days that follow, seven menstruation days begin from that point, followed by another eleven discharge days, and so on forever.

It was stated:

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

tenth

Rabbi Yohanan said:

the sighting on the

tenth

its status is

like

the sighting on the

ninth

of the days of zavah.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:

the sighting on the

tenth

its status is

like

the sighting on the

eleventh

of the days of zavah.

And the Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yohanan said: The tenth is like the ninth—

Just as the ninth requires guarding

that if she saw blood on the ninth day, she must observe the tenth day in purity, corresponding to the ninth day,

so too, the tenth requires guarding

so too, if she saw blood on the tenth day, she must observe the eleventh day, despite the fact that the tenth day is not capable of causing zavah gedolah. For even if she sees blood on three consecutive days, she will not be a zavah gedolah, since the third day is already among the days of niddah and is not fit to join the two preceding days, which 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 guarding

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

so too, the tenth does not require guarding

that she does not need to observe the eleventh day corresponding to it; rather, she immerses on that very day, because the law of “one who observes one day corresponding to one day” was stated only with regard to a sighting that can cause zavah gedolah, whereas the sighting on the tenth day cannot cause zavah gedolah.

And if the dispute between the rebellious elder and the Sages concerning the laws of the eleventh day was the same dispute as that between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, then this involves a prohibition punishable by karet, because if she does not observe one day corresponding to one day, she remains a niddah, and the man who has relations with her is liable to karet.