Sanhedrin 16a — the Talmud in English

Rav Mattana said: Here

here

with a prince

of a

tribe who sinned

in one of all the transgressions in the Torah for which the death penalty by a court is required,

we are dealing,

the Mishna is speaking.

And the reason that he is judged by the Great Sanhedrin, despite his being an individual, is that

who,

but

did Rav Adda bar Ahava not say

that what we learned later in the Mishna, that a high priest is judged by the Great Sanhedrin, is because it is stated:

“Every great matter they shall bring to you,”

and we expound:

the matter of a “great” person,

an important man, such as the high priest, shall be brought for judgment before the Sanhedrin. If so,

this

prince

also is “great”

he is,

and therefore he is judged by the Great Sanhedrin.

And the Gemara brings the words of Ulla, who explains differently: The Mishna is not speaking of a tribe or of a prince who sinned, but of a dispute that arose between one tribe and another concerning matters of inheritances and the boundaries of their lands, for this matter is judged by the Great Sanhedrin.

Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Elazar:

Our Mishna is speaking

of those coming

to be judged

concerning matters of inheritances.

And the reason that this matter must be judged by seventy-one is:

and like the beginning

of the division of the inheritances

of the Land of Israel. What,

just as at

its beginning,

the land was divided into the inheritances of the tribes by Joshua and the elders, who were

seventy-one. So too,

in later generations, they shall judge matters of inheritances

by seventy-one.

And the Gemara challenges: If so, why should we not say this as well:

If so,

just as

at its beginning,

the land was divided by

lots

of lottery,

and the Urim and Thummim, and all Israel [as explained in tractate Bava Batra, page 122].

as explained in tractate Bava Batra, page 122,

So too,

in later generations, we shall decide the laws of inheritances specifically by means of

lots, the Urim and Thummim, and all Israel.

And this is surely not correct!

Therefore the Gemara rejects Ulla’s words and says:

Rather, it is clear,

the correct explanation is

as Rav Mattana,

that the Mishna is speaking of a prince of a tribe who sinned.

But Ravina returns to explain that the Mishna is speaking of a tribe that was led astray to idolatry.

Ravina said: Actually

the explanation of our Mishna is

of a tribe that was led astray.

And

this

that is difficult for you,

but

do we judge him with the court of the many!?

Are they not more than one hundred according to Rabbi Yashya, and more than the majority of the tribe according to Rabbi Yonatan—

your answer is:

Yes!

Indeed, this is the law, that

even though we execute

him

by

the judgment of

an individual,

by stoning, nevertheless,

by the court of the many,

the Great Sanhedrin, are the ones who

judge him,

and not a court of twenty-three.

And what Rabbi Yashya and Rabbi Yonatan said means that in a city larger than one hundred, or in an entire tribe, they are not judged by the sword but by stoning. The tanna of our Mishna agrees with them in this. Rather, he maintains that a tribe that worshiped idolatry is judged by the Great Sanhedrin, and Rabbi Yashya and Rabbi Yonatan also agree with this law.

And the reason that a tribe that worshiped idolatry is judged by the Great Sanhedrin is:

Did he not,

but did he not

Rabbi Hama bar Yosei say in the name of Rabbi Oshaya:

It is stated in the Torah [Deuteronomy 17] concerning a man or woman who worshiped idolatry:

“And you shall take out that man or that woman

who did this evil thing to your gates, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them with stones, and they shall die.” And we expound:

a man and a woman

individuals

you shall take out to your gates,

to the court in each and every gate of the city, that is, a Small Sanhedrin,

but you shall not take out

the

entire city,

which worshiped idolatry,

to your gates,

but to the great court in Jerusalem, that is, the Great Sanhedrin.

And this exposition that Rabbi Oshaya expounded concerning an apostate city,

here,

concerning a tribe that was led astray,

also

let us expound as follows:

“A man and a woman you shall take out to your gates, but you shall not take out

the

entire ‘tribe’ to your gates,

but to the Great Sanhedrin.”

We learned in our Mishna: “They do not judge, and so on,”

“nor a false prophet”

and so on, except by a court of seventy-one.

And the Gemara discusses this:

From where are these words?

From where do we learn that a false prophet is judged by seventy-one?

And the Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: It is derived,

the matter is learned by a

“willfully, willfully” from the rebellious elder.

Concerning a false prophet it is stated [Deuteronomy 18]: “But the prophet who will act willfully to speak a word in My name,” and concerning the rebellious elder it is stated [Deuteronomy 17]: “And the man who will act willfully.” And we expound:

Just as there,

just as the rebellious elder

is with seventy-one,

he is liable to death only if he rebels [renders a ruling contrary to what the court ruled] against a court of seventy-one in the Chamber of Hewn Stone,

so too here,

the false prophet is judged

by seventy-one.

And the Gemara challenges: This verse of

“willfully”

concerning the rebellious elder,

when it is written,

the place where it is stated,

in execution,

concerning the court that will judge his liability to be killed,

is where it is written!

As it is stated in the passage of the rebellious elder: “And the man who will act willfully, not listening, and so on, and that man shall die.”

And

behold,

execution,

the law of the rebellious elder’s death,

by twenty-three,

by twenty-three

he

is judged, and not by seventy-one! For among all those mentioned in the Mishna who are judged by seventy-one, a rebellious elder is not listed.

And what they said, “a rebellious elder by seventy-one,” applies only to the manner of his rebellion, that he is liable only if he rebels against the ruling of the great court of seventy-one. If so, how can one learn by the gzera shava of “willfully, willfully” the law that a false prophet’s death is by seventy-one, from the rebellion of the rebellious elder, when the verse of “willfully” stated concerning the rebellious elder refers to the law of his stoning, and his stoning is by twenty-three?

Rather, Reish Lakish said: We learned,

we learned by the gzera shava of

“word, word” from his rebellion

of the rebellious elder. For concerning the death of a false prophet it is stated, “A man will act willfully to speak a word,” and concerning the rebellion of the elder it is also stated, “And you shall act according to the word.” Just as the rebellion of the elder is against the ruling of seventy-one, so the death of a false prophet is by seventy-one.

And the Gemara challenges Reish Lakish: After we learned by the gzera shava from the rebellion of the rebellious elder against a ruling of seventy-one that the death of a false prophet is by seventy-one, if so:

Then let it return,

and let the death of

the rebellious elder be enough, and let us learn “willfully, willfully” from the false prophet.

And let us say: Just as a false prophet is killed by seventy-one—for we learned this from the law of his rebellion against a ruling of seventy-one—so too a rebellious elder should be killed by seventy-one.

And the Gemara answers: Only the teaching of the gzera shava

“word, word,” he learned,

the tanna received it from his teachers. But the teaching of the gzera shava

“willfully, willfully,” he did not learn,

he did not receive it from his teachers. And a person does not derive a gzera shava on his own, even if the verse appears superfluous so that one might expound from it, since he does not know whether it is indeed superfluous, for perhaps it is needed for another exposition.

We learned in our Mishna: “They do not judge, and so on,”

“nor a high priest”

except by a court of seventy-one.

And the Gemara discusses this:

From where are these words?

From where do we learn that a high priest who committed one of the transgressions for which death is required is judged by seventy-one?

And the Gemara explains:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said, for the verse says,

It is stated in the Torah, in the passage concerning the appointment of the Sanhedrin [Exodus 18]:

“Every great matter they shall bring to you,”

that is, to Moses, who occupied the place of seventy-one. And we expound:

the matter of a

man

great,

a person possessing authority, such as a prince or a high priest, they shall bring to you, to a court of seventy-one.

But the Gemara brings a tanna of a beraita who does not expound this way.

It was raised as an objection

from that which was taught:

“A great matter”

is

a difficult matter,

which the Sanhedrin do not know how to decide, and they shall bring it to Moses.

You say, a difficult matter—

or

perhaps it is

not

a difficult matter

but the matter of a great person.

That is, they should bring the judgment of a great person to Moses?

When it says

at the end of that same passage

“The difficult matter they shall bring to Moses,” a difficult matter is stated.

It is therefore proven that the intention is a difficult matter. [

And below it will be explained why, according to his view, two verses are needed to teach us that they brought the difficult matter to Moses.]

And from here there is a difficulty against Rav Adda bar Ahava, who expounds “the matter of a great person.”

And the Gemara answers:

He,

Rav Adda bar Ahava,

said [his teaching] in accordance with this tanna.

Like the tanna of another beraita, and therefore he established the words of the tanna of our Mishna according to that tanna.

For it was taught,

we learned in a beraita:

“A great matter”—

the matter of a great person.

From where

do you say, the matter of a great person?—

Or

perhaps

it is not

the matter of a great person

but “the difficult matter”? When it says

in another verse, “The

difficult matter

they shall bring to Moses,”

, a difficult matter

has already been

stated, and what do I establish

what is stated as

“a great matter,”

as

the matter of a great person.

And this too is the exposition of the tanna of our Mishna.

And the Gemara challenges the tanna of the first beraita:

And this tanna,

who says that “a great matter” means a difficult matter,

why do I need two verses!?

Why did the Torah write two verses to teach us that the difficult matter should be brought to Moses?

And the Gemara answers: There is no superfluous verse here, because

one,

one verse, the first,

is merely for instruction,

for instructing the judges that they should bring the difficult matter to Moses.

And one,

is stated

for implementation,

for the Torah recounts that they indeed did so, and brought the difficult matter to Moses.

And now the Gemara challenges the tanna of the second beraita:

And the other one,

how does he expound from the redundancy of the verses? Are they not nonredundant, since one is stated for instruction and one for implementation?

And the Gemara answers: Nevertheless, there is a basis here for the exposition, because

if so,

that both verses refer to the difficult matter, let it write

either “great, great”

in both verses,

or “difficult, difficult”

in both verses.

What is the meaning of “great,” and what is the meaning of “difficult,”

why did the verse change its wording?

Learn from it two things,

the verse comes to teach us that a great matter is not a difficult matter, but the matter of a great person, and they brought him to Moses. And it is proven that the judgment of a great person is judged by seventy-one.

Rabbi Elazar inquired

asked

Rabbi Elazar: The ox of a high priest

that killed a person—

by how many

judges is it judged? Do we

compare it to the death of its owner,

do we compare it to the law of the death of its owner, the high priest, for the Torah wrote, “The ox shall be stoned and its owner shall also be put to death,” and just as he is judged by seventy-one, so too his ox,

or perhaps,

perhaps we should say,

we compare it to the death of an ordinary owner.

We compare it to the death of other owners—by twenty-three.

And the question was not resolved.

Abaye said: Since he raised the question concerning his ox,

from the fact that Rabbi Elazar was uncertain only concerning his ox, with regard to which there is a basis for comparing it to him, for the Torah wrote, “The ox shall be stoned and its owner shall also be put to death,”

by implication

you learn from these words of his

that concerning his property

of the high priest, if he has a monetary lawsuit,

it is obvious to him

to Rabbi Elazar that it is not judged by seventy-one, but by three, like all monetary cases.

And the Gemara challenges:

Is it obvious!?

What did Abaye come to teach us, and why was it necessary to learn this from Rabbi Elazar’s words? After all, only concerning the ox that is stoned did the Torah compare the property to the owner .

And the Gemara answers that this is not entirely obvious—

What might you have said

we might have had an initial assumption to say:

Since it is written, “every great matter,”

let us expound

“all the matters of a great person”

even monetary cases would require the Great Sanhedrin.

He teaches us

Abaye teaches us that the monetary cases of the high priest are judged by three.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And they do not take out”

to an optional war except by the authority of a court of seventy-one.

And the Gemara discusses this:

From where are these words

from where is this law learned?

Rabbi Abahu said: For the verse says

It is stated in the Torah: “And the Lord said to Moses, Take Joshua son of Nun, and so on, and place your hand upon him, and stand him, and so on,”

“and he shall stand before Eleazar the priest”

“and he shall ask him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord; by his word they shall go out and by his word they shall come in, he and all the children of Israel with him, and all the congregation.” And we expound:

“He”—

this is a king,

for Joshua was a king,

“and all the children of Israel with him”—

this is

a priest

anointed for war,

for all the children of Israel go out with him to war,

“and all the congregation”—this is the Sanhedrin.

And the Gemara rejects Rabbi Abahu’s proof: It does not follow from the meaning of the verse that the king must obtain permission from the Sanhedrin; rather, the king, the priest anointed for war, and the Sanhedrin stand before Eleazar to inquire through the Urim and Thummim.

But perhaps,

it is possible that

it is to the Sanhedrin that the Merciful One said this,

that the Torah commands the Sanhedrin

to ask,

that they should ask

through the Urim and Thummim,

that is, the Torah comes to teach us that one asks through the Urim and Thummim only if he is a king, a priest anointed for war, or the Sanhedrin, but not an ordinary person; and there is no proof from this verse for the law of our Mishna, that they go out to war only by the authority of seventy-one.

And the Gemara retracts this exposition, and they learn this law from King David, who took permission from the Sanhedrin. And the Gemara brings a beraita that describes at length the ways and practices of King David when he went out to war.

Rather, like that

as

Rav Aha bar Bizna said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Hasida: A harp was suspended above David’s bed

and its openings were toward the north.

When midnight arrived—

a northern wind would blow upon it,

for at midnight a northern wind blows,

and the harp was

the harp

playing by itself. Immediately David would rise and engage in Torah

as he said [Psalms 119], “At midnight I arise,”

until the column of dawn arose.

When the column of dawn arose—

the Sages of Israel entered before him and said to him: Our master, the king! Your people Israel require sustenance. He said to them

David:

“Go and support yourselves from one another.” They said to him: The handful does not satisfy the lion,

that is, scant sustenance is insufficient to satisfy the people,

“and the pit is not filled from its excavated earth,”

that is, one who removes a clod from a dug pit and then throws it back into the pit does not fill it; and the analogy is that there is insufficient sustenance to fill the needs of the poor, and sustenance must be brought from another place, just as earth from another place is needed to fill the pit,

he said to them

David:

“Go and spread your hands against the troop,”

that is, go out in military troops to bring sustenance from another land.

Immediately they consult

which route they should take and how they should arrange the army’s position and the tactics of war

with Ahitophel,

who was David’s counselor,

and take counsel with the Sanhedrin,

they obtain permission from the Sanhedrin, as we learned in our Mishna,

and inquire through the Urim and Tumim

concerning the word of God, whether they will succeed

Rav Yosef said: What is the verse:

From which verse is this learned: the counselor, the Sanhedrin, and the Urim and Tumim