Sanhedrin - Daf 8

• If Moshe was punished for implying he could resolve all difficult questions

Moshe told the judges to bring any difficult case to him, “and I will hear it.” Rebbe Chanina said: על דבר זה נענש משה – Moshe was punished for this statement (implying he could answer any question, rather than saying the difficult cases should be brought before Hashem), and was not taught the laws of inheritance before the בנות צלפחד asked him about inheriting their father, and he needed to present their question before Hashem. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak objects that Moshe never implied he could answer any question; he only said "ושמעתיו" – and I will hear it, meaning if I know the answer, I know it, and if not, I will go and learn it. Rather, ראויה פרשת נחלות שתיכתב על ידי משה רבינו – the passage of the laws of inheritance should have been written by Moshe Rabbeinu (and taught to him together with the rest of the Torah), אלא שזכו בנות צלפחד ונכתב על ידן – but צלפחד’s daughters merited, and it was taught through [their inquiry].

• Requiring 23 judges for a monetary case of מוציא שם רע: חוששין ללעז, or כבודן של ראשונים

In the Mishnah on Daf 2a, the Chochomim required twenty-three judges for מוציא שם רע, where a husband accuses his wife of adultery before nisuin, thus forfeiting her kesubah, and receiving the death penalty if confirmed by witnesses. Rebbe Meir only requires three judges, like any monetary case. Eight explanations are given for this machlokes. In the first two, the current court case is only about her kesubah. (1) Ulla says: בחוששין ללעז קמיפלגי – they argue about whether we are concerned for gossip about the case spreading, possibly causing witnesses to the adultery coming forward, changing the case to דיני נפשות and requiring twenty-three judges. The Chochomim are concerned about לעז, and require twenty-three judges immediately, and Rebbe Meir is not concerned about לעז. (2) Rava says: בחוששין לכבודן של ראשונים קמיפלגי – they argue about whether we are concerned for the honor of the first judges. The husband said witnesses would testify about the adultery, so twenty-three judges gathered for דיני נפשות, but no עדים appeared, and the judges disbanded. The husband requested they should rule on her kesubah, for which three judges would suffice. Still, the Chochomim are concerned for the honor of the דיינים who originally gathered, and the דיני ממונות requires all of them.

• If התראה for capital punishment must include the specific  מיתה one would receive

Abaye gives a third explanation of the machlokes about the requisite דיינים for "מוציא שם רע". The case is דאתרו בה סתם – [the witnesses] warned [the adulteress] generally about the potential capital punishment, without specifying which type of execution. The Tannaim argue if she would receive the death penalty with such התראה: In a Baraisa, the Tanna Kamma says one does not receive the death penalty עד שיודיעוהו שהוא חייב מיתה בבית דין – until [those warning him] inform him that he will be liable to execution by Beis Din for the transgression. Rebbe Yehudah adds: עד שיודיעוהו באיזה מיתה הוא נהרג – he is not killed unless they inform him with which type of execution he would be killed. Rav Pappa gives a fourth explanation, that the adulteress is an אשה חבירה – a learned woman, to whom no התראה was given, and the Tannaim argue if she would receive the death penalty. This parallels the machlokes between the Rabbonon and Rebbe Yose bar Yehudah, who said a חבר does not require any התראה to be punished, לפי שלא ניתנה התראה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד – because the התראה requirement was only given to distinguish between unintentional and intentional transgressions.