Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 15, scan section 9

holds good. The elders who had to lay their hands upon sacrifices [Lev. * Ali this is explained in Tract Baba Kama. 2 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. iv. 15], and also in the case of the heifer [Deut. xxi. 3] — accord- ing to R. Simeon, three are needed, and according to R. Jehu- dah, five. At the performance of the ceremony of Halitzah and denial, three; to appraise the value of the plants of the fourth year (which must be redeemed), and the second tithe, of which the value in money is to be appraised, three; to appraise the value of consecrated articles, three; in cases of Arakhin (vows of value, men or articles), if movable property, three — accord- ing to R. Jehudah, one of them must be a priest; and if real estate, ten, and one of them a priest; and likewise to appraise the estimated value of men [Lev. xxvii.]. Crimes (which may bring capital punishment), twenty-three; in the case of Lev. xx. 15, twenty-three, as verse 16 reads; " Then shalt thou kill the woman and the beast " ; and also in the preceding verse: " The beast also shall ye slay." And the same is the case with the stoning of an ox, of which it reads [Ex. xxi. 29] : " The ox shall be stoned, and the owner . be put to death " — which means, as for the death of its owner twenty-three are needed, so also for the stoning of the ox. The wolf, the lion, the bear, the tiger, the bardls,* and the serpent are killed by the judgment of twenty-three. R. Eliezer, however, maintains: Every one who hastens to kill them is rewarded. But R. Aqiba says: Twenty-three are needed. A whole tribe, or a false prophet, or a high-priest, if they have to be judged for a crime which may bring capital punish- ment, a court of seventy-one judges is needed. The same num- ber of judges is needed to decide upon battles which are not commanded by the Scriptures, and also for enlarging the city of Jerusalem by annexing its suburbs or free land; and the same is the case if it is necessary to enlarge the courtyard of the Tem- ple. Also, the same number of judges is needed for appointing supreme councils to each tribe. A misled town [Deut. xii. 14] must also be condemned by seventy-one. However, a town which stands on the boundary cannot be condemned ; nor three of them at one time at any place, but only one, or two. The Great (Sanhedrin) consisted of seventy-one, and the small of twenty-three. Whence do we deduce that the great council must be of seventy-one ? From [Num. xi. 16] : " Gather unto me seventy men." And add Moses, who was the head of them — hence seventy-one ? And whence do we deduce that a small one must be twenty-three? From [ibid. xxxv. 24 and 25]: "The * According to some, the hyena : to others, another sort of a preying beast. TRACT SANHEDRIN (SUPREME COUNCIL). 3 congregation shall judge " ; " And the congregation shall save."* We see that one congregation judges, and the other congrega- tion saves — hence there are twenty ; as a congregation consists of no less than ten persons, and this is deduced from [ibid. xiv. 27], " To this evil congregation," which was of the ten spies, except Joshua and Caleb. And whence do we deduce that three more are needed ? From [Ex. xxiii. 2]: " Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil" — from which we infer that you shall follow them to do good. But if so, why is it written at the end of the same verse, " Incline after the majority, to wrest judg- ment "?t This means, the inclination to free the man must not be similar to the inclination to condemn ; as to condemn a majority of two is needed, while to free, the majority of one suflfices. And a court must not consist of an even number, as, if their opinion is halved, no verdict can be established ; there- fore one more must be added. Hence it is of twenty-three. How many shall a city contain that it shall be fit for a supreme council ? One hundred and twenty families. R. Nehe- miah, however, maintains: Two hundred and thirty — so that each of them should be the head of ten families, as we do not find in the Bible rulers of less than ten. GEMARA: Are not robbery and wounds civil cases ? Said R. Abuhu: The Mishna means to explain the term "civil cases" by robbery and wounds; but to the admitting of debts or loans, three judges are not needed. And that so it should be understood, both expressions were needed; as, if it stated civil cases only, it would include loans, etc. ; and if the expres- sion " robbery," etc., only, one might also say the same is the case with loans, etc.; and the expression "robbery," etc., is because the main point wherein three judges are prescribed by the Scriptures is in cases of robbery [Ex. xxii. 7] : " Shall the master of the house be brought unto the judges." And con- cerning wounds, it is the same whether a wound be in one's body or in his pocket (money), and therefore it begins with civil cases, and explains that cases like robbery are meant, and not common ones, etc. But whence are common loans excluded, that they do not need three ? Did not R. Abuhu say: If two persons have judged in a matter of civil law, all agree that their * Leeser translates, "to deliver," the meaning of which is to save, as it is adopted in the original text. t Leeser's translation here is incorrect, not only according to the Talmud, but also to tht punctuation of the verse. 4 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. judgment is of no value ? Therefore we must say that the Mishna means to exclude loans and admission of debts — to ex- clude from three established ]\xdgtz\ but three common men are needed. And the reason is what R. Hanina said: Biblically, investigation is needed of crimes as well as of civil cases. As it is written [Lev. xxiv. 22]: " One manner of judicial law shall ye have." But why was it said that civil cases do not need in- vestigation ? In order not to lock the door to borrowers. And Rabha explained this statement as meaning that in two kinds of civil cases — loans, etc. — three common people are needed ; but in cases of robbery, etc., three established judges. And R. Aha b. R. Ekha said : Biblically, even one is fit to decide civil cases, as it is written [ibid. xix. 15]: "In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor. " But the rabbis enacted three, in order to prevent men of the market, who are ignorant of law, to under- take to judge cases. But is it not the same with three common men ? Are they not men of the market ? If three undertake to judge a case, it is highly probable that at least one of them knows something of law. But if so, let two who should make an error in judging not be responsible ? If this should be en- acted, then all the market people would undertake to decide upon things. But what is the difference between Rabha and R. Aha b. R.