class 6

suggest way like rishonim have elsewhere (sanhedrin) that mufla = regular member of bet din, but the stama in the bavli contradicts.
as had in sifra, can be like rishonim said elsewhere.
sifra: if mufla not present, no good, bec said "ad sheyoru kulam"

(why not say, not only regular bet din, but even non regular member, this mufla? but this is a big chiddush that there is a guy not part of regular bet din. dont assume such a person can exist. they conjectured such a person exist, not min haminyan, based opn sanhedrin, which we will see later)

why brayta use mufla: (short summary from last semester:) 1st mishna horayot:
3b, second line, amar rabbi yonatan, 100 who sat to rule. yerushlami has same phrase.
all miforshim: how have 100 judges. max 71?! gave a solution, maybe will repeat later.
sheneemar, kol adat yisrael yishgu, ad sheyoru kulam.
gemara attacks, attacks...
and originally, alll these attacks were really supports for rabbi yonatan.
check the tosefta halacha 3. in beginning. says: chomer behoraah over dinei nefashot... horaya, ad sheyoru chulam. by dinei nefashot, by majority.

horaah= to be mechayav to bring korban par haalem davar, (perek 4 in vayikra): ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו
a unique aveira. usual aveira, you are doing something. eg: lo taaseh kol melacha;
by horaah, built by 2 elements. there is a bet din and a kahal. bet din must give a decision, horaah. and community, rov or all make the מעשה. 
this is הוראה. the mishna says clearly in the 2nd perek daf ז:, ain chayavin ele an hallem davar im shigegat hamaaseh. now dealing with elements of the horaah. need be given by all the court.
who is yoru chulam? rabbi yonatan, 100 who sat. who are the 100? this means דינים + תלמידים. these students in the three rows were already reuyim li
horaah, gedolei yisrael.

if one says toin atem, not a horaah.
another cond that members of sanhedrin should be present. if only partial mebership present, all sources (tosefta, mishna) is antoher prob. so issue of being present (to create quorum of 70 or 71). voting is even students, all present in the meeting.

rava, even gamir velo savir. but dont want to digress too far.

now, back to our brayta.

source #3:
lo haya mufla shel bet din sham, 
(acc to our explanation, only dayan)
o amar echad mehem toim 
(even talmidim)

here, lang is not so clear. if dfidnt listen to dr steinfeld's lectures, that ehced mehem is referring to mufla.
tana of mishna is careful, and changes the order, starts with eched mehem, including talmidim.
and lo haya mufla shel bet din, here it is clear only a dayan.

so mishna is prob a later part of tosefta, and is changing the order.
and yerushalmi says this mishna is rebbe.

source #4: tosefta.
horu bet din veeched mehem aino sham, peturin, verabbi amar, ad sheyehe mufla shebahen.

mistaber to say that first part of tosefta agreed with rabbi, and rabbi is explaining. rebbi coming to exclude the talmidim.

instance of plural mufla to answer a question raised in class:
gemara, 7a, last line: hecha dami, if he is a mufla and they are not muflaim...amar rav papa:mulfim shnehem.
look at rishonim, see if everyone has same girsa. 

look at daf 9a, rabenu baruch, 3rd line from long lines has text "beshavin" as opposed to "muflim shnehem."
dikdukei sofrim: this is part of girsah
ktav yad paris: also beshavim.
nafka mina bec ginsburg, mufla is special status, and there were more than one. and wondering why didnt check rishoinim and kitvei yad. maybe discuss later re this sugya.

back to daf 3. serious prob. amar rav yonatan..100... present gem asks many q's and tiyuvta dirabbi yonatan tiyuvta. reject rabbi yonatan. then gem says, veele mai kol adat yisrael. if *all* there yes, if not, not.
so what is change from rabbi yontatn? (source #7)
change is *ikka* presence, rather than yoru, paskining.

4b: first rashi. amar lahem toim atem. patur bec need ad sheyoru kulam.
prob that goes against conclusion, bec sugya rejected tiyuvta. rashi against the gemara!? rashi forgot the prev gemara?
big confusion here, all acharonim deal with this, and how come rashi seems not to have known.

rashi says leeyl. referring to r' yonatan. 
(could say that tiyuvta not there. but rashi did not listen to our shiurim)
but maybe rashi had a diff girsa than we have before us. is it possibility. 
always very important. if rishon doesnt support gemara, what is reason for it.

check 7a in the rosh. see the rishonim so honest.
says I dont understand. leaves it with tzarich iyun, without trying pilpul.

5th line from the bottom. "rav papa says beshavin..." then says, velo berira li. what is a mufla. if assume is something special. all dayan rauy lihoraah and mufla more than that. rauy lihoraah, is gamir vesavir, knows all talmuda. like shimon ben azzai. what is he missing to be called a mufla (that rav papa says that these were shavin to be muflin). 
"efshar to say mufla is someone who is rauy lihoraah."

but acc to us, acc to sifra, everything is clear.

source #10.
famous brayta. one place occurs in sanhedrin tosefta. 
originally no machlokot in yisrael.
(hard to understand. against human nature. rather had machloket, but all were resolved. go to sanhedrin. 1st machloket about smicha. zugot had diff opinions.) all of a sudden comes period of time, unable to decide. and somebody has a probl, goes to bet din of city or if not present of neighboring city. if they know, tell him, else go to... keep going up go to bet din of lishkat hagazit. and if know tell, otherwise rule and goes out. he and mufla shebahem goes to upper court.
what is mufla? answer acc to us simple. speaking about one of the dayanim.

this brayta brought in parallel sources. one of the sources is tosefta chagiga/ one of manuscript, erfort. says muflag, with a ג. based on this, a person, rabinowitz, in lishonenu, (periodical for heb language) that should be muflag. found in roman, greek nomo filex: responsible to make sure laws are implemented.
albeck against him, shows mufla original.
sources 11, 12, 13
lakach saris eched. zeh mefla shel bet din.
in source 2 adds: why call him saris? bec mesares the halacha.

found in end of melachim, and in yirmiya. 
speaking about time of churban. sar hatabachim takes these people away.
13: makes a counting of who taken.
umin hair lakach saris echad.

saris is a special person. who says saris = mufla??
(diff bet yirmiyahu perek 52 and melachim, about 5 vs 7 roey penei hamelech)
melachim: saris= minister of securitry.

source #11: saris = mufla shel bet din, instead of reading rest of bet din
source #12: same. and why? bec mesares et hahalacha.
(if say gadol hador, turns around is not compliment)
how many ppl need stand by sefer torah? one is instead of moshe rabenu, sarsur. middleman. transfers torah to jewish people. saris is diff word. not a positive thing.

when historians speak.
what is mufla shel bet din? Gulak said: (he''s a real scholar, writiings important today. deals with issue of karakaot.) purpose of mufla to be mevarer sfaikot and connection bet smaller and high court (based on brayta above). Seems denigrating, to be sarsur for halacha.

bamidbar rabba very late. beresihit early, vaqiqra early. bamidbar rabba late. has to do with rav moshe hadarshan.
this bal medrash saw gemara, things mufla is a special guy. and shir hashirim rabba, only adding, how come put together mufla and saris. same issue of sarsur. maybe meant in positive way. both assure means a special tafkid. trying to explain that saris=mufla. but parallel source is yerushalmi.
has same text, but no mention of mufla. (source #13).
yerushalmi wants to make all these people part of sanhedrin. to show that yermiyahu and melachim had sanhedrin of 70/71. but no connection to the mufla.
echa rabba early.
shir hashirim rabba not from the earliest. 

diff ester rabbas. 1st one is early.
(yerushalmi: 4th century
bamidbar rabba maybe 11th century)

source #14
even  gedola, zeh mufla shemsayem et hahalacha.
?albeck best edition of bereshit rabba
chilufei nushchot
mesares rahter than mesayem
minchad yehuda=alback, says Oxford missing last line, even  gedola...mufla
oxford aleph, another manuscript, have this whole line only on the margin.

ktab yad אב, only veeven gedola al pi habeer. 
lekach tov (one of the midrashim) has: vehaeven gedola: gadol shebahem.

so missing from some manuscripts. and probably nusach if in there is like lekach tol. gedola, gadol shebahem.
for exampole, in sanhedrin. gamru et hadavar, they brought in the accused. the gadol of them would pronounce the judgement. later they assumed, on the basis of bavli that was mufla, so translated to mufla.

so changes could be explainaed by a development.
one more midrash: source #15. shir hashirim rabba.
al yechsar hamezeg. no ess than 23 in sanhedrin.
davar acher: mufla shouldnt be missing.
davaer acher, shouldnt be mssing sanhedrin that mixes the halacha.

many assume mufla here means special guy.
mixinmg is 1/3. 23 is 1/3 of sanhedrin.
thats fine. except for horaya.
there a mufla, a dayan, should not be missing (except for talmidim). thus assuming he understood original meaning of mufla.