Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 15, scan section 21

to death, for he is a murderer." From which we infer that only when he himself smote is he to be put to death: but he is not to be killed for the death by his ox. " The wolf, the lion,'' etc. Said Resh Lakish: This is in case they have killed some one; but if not, it is not a meritorious act to kill them. [Hence we see that he holds that these beasts can be considered the property of one who domesticates them.] R. Johanan, however, maintains: In any case, it is a meritorious act to kill them. [Hence he holds that they cannot be domesti- cated, and are considered ownerless.] There is an objection from our Mishna: R. Eliezer says: Every one who hastens to kill them is rewarded — which is correct according to R. Johanan, who may explain the word " re- warded" — with the skin of the animal; but according to Resh Lakish, who said, only when they have killed, there is a rule that when so it was, the rabbis considered them as if they were already sentenced to death by the court, and in such a case it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them. What, then, means Eliezer by the expression " he is rewarded " ? It means that he will be rewarded by Heaven. There is a Boraitha in accordance with Resh Lakish, as follows: An ox, as well as other animals or wild beasts which kill, must be judged by twenty-three. R. Eliezer, however, maintains : An ox which has killed, by twenty- three ; but as to all wild beasts, he who hastens to kill them will be rewarded by Heaven. ** R. Aqiba says,'' etc. Is it not the same as the first Tana ? They differ in the case of a serpent. " A whole tribe," etc. Let us see what sin a whole tribe may commit. Shall we assume that it has violated the Sabbath ? We know that there is a difference between an individual and a majority only in the case of idolatry; but in the other command- ments there is no difference, according to the Scripture. And if it means that the whole tribe was accused of idolatry, and they should be judged as a majority, then our Mishna is neither in accordance with R. Jashiah nor with R. Jonathan of the fol- lowing Boraitha: How many people must be in the city which shall be misled ? From ten to one hundred. So is the decree of R. Jashiah. R. Jonathan, however, maintains: From one hundred up to the majority of the tribe. Now we see that even Jonathan says the majority, but not the whole tribe. Said R. Mathna: It means the Prince of the tribe only. As R. Ada b. Ahaba explains [Ex. xviii. 22]: " Every great matter" means, TRACT SANHEDRIN (SUPREME COUNCIL). 35 the matter of a great man ; so also here, by the whole tribe is meant the head of it. Rabhina, however, said: The Mishna speaks of a case in which the whole tribe was accused of idolatry your difficulty being, do we then judge them as a majority ? We may say, Yea! although their punishment is similar to that of an individual who is to be stoned. And this is in accordance with R. Hama b. Jose, who said in the name of R. Oseah : It is written [Deut. xvii. 5]: "Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman who has committed this wicked thing, unto thy gates" — which means only an individual, but not the whole city, to thy gates. The same is the case with a whole tribe; only an individual can be brought to the gates to be stoned, but not the whole tribe. (Hence they are judged by seventy-one, as a majority.) '* False prophet,'' etc. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Jose b. Hanina: From an analogy of expression — "presume" — which is to be found in the case of a false prophet [Deut. xviii. 20] and in the case of a rebelling elder [ibid. xvii. 12]. As in the latter case seventy-two are needed, so also in the former. But is not the expression " presumptuously" used in the cited verse concerning death, of Avhich the verse reads; and death is judged by seventy-three only? Therefore said Resh Lakish: The analogy is in the expression " Dobhor, "which is mentioned in both the verses cited. "High-priest,'' etc. Whence is this deduced ? Said Ada b. Ahaba: From the above-cited Ex. xviii. 22, which is explained as the matter of a great man. " To decide upon battles," etc. Whence is this deduced? Said R. Abuhu: From [Num. xxvii. 21]: "And before Elazar the priest shall he stand ... he and all the children of Israel with him, and all the congregation." " He" means the king. "All Israel with him " means the priest who was anointed to be the leader of the war. " And all the congregation " means the Sanhedrin. But perhaps the cited verse means that only for the just-mentioned persons the Urim is allowed to be used ; but not for common men. And the question, Wherefrom is it taken that seventy-one are needed to decide about battles ? remains. Therefore it must be said, as R. Aha b. Bizna in the name of R. Simeon the Pious said: A harp was placed over the bed of David, and when midnight arrived a north wind used to blow in it, so that the harp would play by itself and awake David, who used to get up and occupy himself with the Torah until the 36 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. morning star arose. And thereafter the sages of Israel used to enter to him, saying: Lord our king, thy nation Israel needs food. And to his answer: Go, then, and make business amoni^ yourselves, they answered him: A handful of food can never satisfy a lion, and a pit can never be filled with the earth taken out from it. Whereupon David decided : They shall go to a battle. Then they consulted Achithophel, took also advice from the Sanhedrin, and asked the Urim, etc. R. Joseph said : Whence do we know from the Scripture that such was the custom ? From [I Chron. xxvii. 34]: " And after Achithophel (came) Yehoyada, the son of Benayahu, and Ebyathar; and the captain of the king's army was Joab. Achi- thophel was the counsellor, as it reads [II Sam. xvi. 23]: " And the counsel of Achithophel, which he counselled in those days." Yehoyada means the Sanhedrin, as it is written of his father Benayahu [I Chron. xviii. 17]: "And Benayahu, the son of Yehoyada, was over the Kerethites and the Pelethites," which means the Sanhedrin, to whom Yehoyada his son was the head after Benayahu. And why was the Sanhedrin named Kerethites and Pelethites ? Because the literal meaning of the two terms in Hebrew is "cutting" and " wonder " ; and the Sanhedrin, with their decisions, used to cut off and do wonderful things. " And Ebyathar " means the Urim Vethumim; and then comes " the captain of the king's army, Joab," which means war. And R. Itz'hak b. Ada, and according to others B. Abudimi, said that [Ps. Ivii. 9] " Awake, psaltery and harp, I will wake up the morning dawn," is a support to R. Aha b. Bizna's statement. " For enlarging the city," etc. Whence is this deduced ?