More Discussions for this daf
1. Who get's Sereifah? 2. Madi'ach and Nidach 3. מדיחי עיר הנדחת בסקילה ר"ש אומר בחנק
 DAF DISCUSSIONS - SANHEDRIN 50
1. Avram Goldstein asks:

Good morning -

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the assumption that the Gemara takes for granted at least twice on today's daf - that a madiach is worse than the nidach. Hence for Rabbanon, Skilah is worse than Sayif, and for Rav Shimon Chenek is worse than Sayif (with the 2 of them arguing about what punishment the madiach gets).

Why is that assumption correct? What happened to Ein Sheliach l'Dvar Aveirah which is rooted in the principle of Divrei ha'Rav v'Divrei ha'Talmid Divrei Mi Shom'in?

We aren't talking about a case in which the Machati - the madiach - is forcing (Ones)the victims into an action; if so, using the Rambam's famous analysis - they would have had to give up their lives, but if they didn't do that, they still wouldn't be executed for the crime.

But since we're executing the nidachim, that means that they're doing the action voluntarily.

So with the Divrei Mi Shom'in principle, why is the madiach considered worse than the nidachim?

Thank you and kol tuv,

Avram Goldstein

Ramat Beit Shemesh

2. The Kollel replies:

1)The Rambam (Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 5:1) writes that if somebody entices another Yisrael to to worship Avodah Zarah, the enticer receives Sekilah even though neither he nor the enticed actually worshipped idols. The Kesef Mishneh writes that this is based on the Mishnah (beginning of 67a) which says that the Meisis gets Sekilah even thiugh no one worshipped idols in the end. We learn from this that it depends on the intention, not on the result.

2) It certainly is true that the enticed should have listened to Hash-m, and should not have listened to the Meisis. However, when the Madi'ach put the idea of worshipping idols into his head, that gave the Nidach a very big Yetzer ha'Ra to do so. The Madi'ach did not do it because of a Yetzer ha'Ra but rather because of a malicious desire to persuade other people to sin. He knew that there are always weaker characters in the public who fall for temptation, and he was deliberately taking advantage of them.

3) This is a timely topic, since Rosh Hashanah is almost upon us and we are preparing for Yom ha'Din. The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah (17a) teaches that one of the worst things a person can possibly do is be "Machti Es ha'Rabim," to tempt others to transgress the Torah. An example is Yeravam ben Nevat, who enticed much of Klal Yisrael to worship idols. These people remain in Gehinom forever because their deliberate aim was to go against any trace of Kedushah. People who did not try to make others sin, but just gave way to their own bad desires, receive a more limited Onesh.

Ketivah v'Chatimah Tovah,

Dovid Bloom

3. The Kollel adds:

Baruch she'Kivanenu! Your question and my answer were both written by one of the Rishonim!

The Ri'az (cited in Mesivta edition of the Gemara, 50a, #7) in Kuntres Ha'Ra'ayos asks in the name of his grandfather, the Tosfos Rid: Why is it obvious to the Gemara that the crime of the Madi'ach is worse than that of the Nidach? Why do we not say "Divrei ha'Rav v'Divrei ha'Talmid, Divrei Mi Shom'im"?

The Ri'az answers that the transgression of the Madi'ach is not only that the Nidach did an Aveirah because of him, but also because he himself, the Madi'ach, submits to Avodah Zarah, as the Gemara states below (67a), "The Madi'ach is one who says, 'Let us go and worship idols.'"

Therefore, the Madi'ach both sins himself and also makes the public sin, and so his crime is worse than the Nidach, who only sins himself but does not cause others to sin.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

4. The Kollel adds:

1) It should certainly be mentioned that your question is very similar to that discussed by the Gemara above 29a. Rabbi Simlai said there that the snake, who persuaded Chava to eat from the Etz Ha'dat, could have made up a lot of arguments; he could have argued "Divrei Harav v'Divrei Hatalmid, Divrei Mi Shomin".

2) Tosfos there asks: if so, every Maisit could make this argument?! Tosfos answers that there is a difference between the snake and between every other Maisit. The snake had not been commanded against enticing. In contrast, every other Maisit has received a commandment against what he is doing [see below 63b "The warning for the Maisit is from Devarim 13:12 'And all of Yisrael will hear and fear']. Therefore as soon as he is Masit he transgresses.

3) One can explain that Tosfos means that the snake could have argued "I thought that Chava would not listen to me" [see Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat SM'Y 182:2 that the person who sent someone else to do an Avierah can say 'I thought he would listen to me']. In contrast, every other Maisit cannot say that, because once the Torah commanded us not to entice others, this means that the very act of Maisit is forbidden even if nobody listened to the enticement, since the Maisit is going against what the Torah desires.

[see Teshuvot Chavot Yair #166, cited by Metivta 29a]

Shavua Tov

Dovid Bloom

5. Shmuel D Berkovicz asks:

According to this, why doesn't a maisis and maidiach get tliah according to the rabanan?

6. The Kollel replies:

How do we know that if he is maisis and madiach to Avoda Zara he does not get t'liah?

Dovid Bloom

7. Shmuel Berkovicz asks:

There's no mekor that a maisis gets tliah. And the tzafnas panaich and chasdai dovid both write that he doesn't get tliah

8. The Kollel replies:

Where do the tzofnas panaich and Chasdei Dovid write this? Dovid

9. Shmuel Berkowitz asks:

צפנת פענח תנינא פ"ה ה"א חסדי דוד פרק י (בסופו) וע"ע בחידושי רי פערלא ז"ל על הרסג ח"ג עמוד ס