Sanhedrin 16b — the Talmud in English

? It is stated in the Book of Chronicles [I 27], in the chapter where David’s officers and advisers are listed:

“And after Ahithophel, Benaiah son of Jehoiada,”

[see note ]

“and Abiathar, and the army commander for the king” —

“Joab.”

Thus, the order is: Ahithophel, Benaiah, Abiathar, and Joab.

Ahithophel is the adviser

— he was the one who gave advice to David,

and so it says

[II Samuel 16]:

“And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he advised in those days

etc.

And Benaiah son of Jehoiada—this is the Sanhedrin

— for he was the mufla and head of the Sanhedrin ,

Abiathar—these are the Urim and Thummim

— for David consulted him until the war of Absalom.

Before Rav Yosef finishes expounding the verse in Chronicles, he brings another verse to prove that the Sanhedrin precedes the Urim and Thummim.

And so it says

[I Chronicles 18]:

“And Benaiah son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and over the Pelethites,”

and we expound “over” as meaning above them and before them.

Now Rav Yosef finishes expounding the verse, “And after Ahithophel.”

And why were they called

— the Urim and Thummim —

Karti and Fleti?

And we expound:

Karti, because they cut off their statements

— they uttered precise and final statements, neither subtracting nor adding;

and Fleti, because their deeds were wondrous; and afterward, the army commander for the king —

Joab

— to lead the men of war.

Thus, King David consulted the Sanhedrin before they went out to a discretionary war.

Now they expound from another verse that the harp would awaken him to rise before dawn.

Rav Yitzhak son of Rav Adda said, and

some amoraim

say it

in the name of

Rav Yitzhak son of Avudimi: What is the verse?

From which verse is this expounded? As it is stated [Psalms 57]:

“Awake, my glory; awake, harp and lyre; I shall awaken the dawn.”

We learned in our Mishna:

One may not add to the city

or to the Temple courtyards except by the authority of a court of seventy-one.

And the Gemara discusses it:

From where are these words?

From where is the law of adding to Jerusalem and to the Temple courtyards by the authority of seventy-one learned?

And the Gemara explains:

Rabbi Shimi bar Hiyya said: The verse says:

The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moses:

“According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle

[the version of the Bach:

“and the pattern of all its vessels”]

so shall you do.”

And we expound “so shall you do”

for the future generations.

And just as the Tabernacle was made by the authority of Moses—which is in the place of the Great Sanhedrin—so too for the future generations, the addition of the sanctity of the city and the courtyards is by the authority of seventy-one.

And the Gemara raises an objection: If so, from this verse we should learn that just as he anointed all the vessels of the Tabernacle with anointing oil, as explained in the section of the erection of the Tabernacle [Exodus 40], so too for the future generations the vessels become sanctified by anointing with anointing oil.

Rava objected

from what we learned in a beraita:

All the vessels that Moses made—

their anointing sanctified them

with the sanctity of the body, to be vessels of service.

From that time onward,

after the first vessels had been anointed, they did not anoint any other vessels; rather,

their service,

if they began to serve with them,

consecrates them,

bringing them into the sanctity of vessels of service.

And this is difficult:

But why?

Why do they not require anointing?

Let us say

— let us expound —

“so shall you do” —

for the future generations.

And the Gemara answers:

It is different there,

the law of anointing is different, since

the verse says, “And he anointed them, and sanctified

them.”

“Them”

is an expression of limitation, and it comes to say that only them did he sanctify

through anointing, but not the future generations through anointing.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But perhaps

it is possible to expound:

“Them,”

the vessels that Moses made, were sanctified only

through anointing

and not through service,

and

if

for the future generations,

it would be possible to sanctify

either

or

through anointing, either

or

through service;

why did they expound that for the future generations they can be sanctified only through service?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: The verse says

[Numbers 4], “all the vessels of service

with which they will serve in the sanctuary.”

“They will serve” is stated in the future tense, to teach you that

Scripture made their sanctification dependent

— their sanctity —

on service

and not on anointing.

And the Gemara raises an objection: If so, the limitation that we expounded—“them” through anointing and not the future generations—is a superfluous limitation, since we expounded it from “with which they will serve”;

rather,

if so,

why do I need “them”?

And the Gemara answers:

Were it not for “them,”—

I would have thought

we would say that

for the future generations

they sanctify through both,

through anointing and through service.

Through anointing,

for it is written, “so shall you do,”

and through service, for it is written, “with which they will serve.”

Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “them,”

to expound that only

them

did he sanctify

through anointing—

but not the future generations through anointing.

We learned in our Mishna:

And one may not establish Sanhedrins

for the tribes except by the authority of a court of seventy-one.

And the Gemara discusses it:

From where do we know it?

From where do we learn this law?

And the Gemara explains:

As

just

as we find with Moses, that he established

— he appointed —

courts

at Jethro’s advice, as it is stated in the section of Jethro [Exodus 18:24]: “And Moses chose capable men from all Israel, and appointed them as heads over the people.”

And Moses stands in the place of seventy-one,

for he was a judge and adjudicator according to the command of the Holy One, blessed be He , and his judgment is like the judgment of the Great Sanhedrin.

Now the Gemara brings a beraita in which expositions of the verses are taught, establishing judges in every city and city.

It is stated in the Torah at the beginning of the section of Judges [Deuteronomy 16:18]: “Judges and officers shall you appoint for yourself in all your gates that the Lord your God gives you, for your tribes.”

The Sages taught: From where is it established that they appoint judges for Israel?

The verse says, “Judges, etc., shall you appoint.”

Officers for Israel,

who strike with sticks, by order of the judges, one who does not listen ,

from where

is it established that they appoint them?

The verse says, “Officers shall you appoint.”

Judges for each tribe and tribe—from where

is it established that they appoint them?

The verse says: “

Judges

and officers shall you appoint for yourself

for your tribes.”

Officers for each tribe and tribe—from where

is it established that they appoint them?

The verse says: “

Officers

shall you appoint for yourself

for your tribes.”

Judges for every city and city—from where?

The verse says: “Judges in all

the

gates.” [the version of the Vilna Gaon]

the version of the Vilna Gaon ]

Officers for every city and city—from where?

The verse says: “

Officers

in all

your gates.” [as above]

as above ]

Thus we have learned with regard to judges and officers: for each tribe and tribe, and for every city and city.

Rabbi Judah says:

One court,

appointed over all of them,

and this is the Great Sanhedrin,

as it is stated, “you shall appoint for yourself.”

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

It is stated in the Torah,

“for your tribes, and they shall judge

the people with righteous judgment”; and we expound, “for your tribes—they shall judge.”

It is a mitzva for

the court of the

tribe to judge its tribe,

and the members of this tribe should not go to be judged in the court of another tribe.

We learned in our Mishna:

And one may not make a condemned city

except by the authority of a court of seventy-one.

The Gemara asks:

From where are these words,

from where do we learn that the law of a condemned city is judged by a court of seventy-one?

And the Gemara explains:

Rabbi Hiyya

Hama

son of Yosei said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: For the verse says,

it is stated in the Torah concerning a man who served idolatry [Deuteronomy 17]:

“And you shall take out that man or that woman

that woman

to your gates.” And we expound:

A man and a woman

— individuals —

you take out to your gates,

to the court in every city and city;

but you do not take out

the

entire city to your gates,

but rather to the Great Court in Jerusalem.

We learned in our Mishna:

One may not make a condemned city on the frontier,

which is near the border.

And the Gemara discusses it:

What is the reason

that one may not make a condemned city in a city that is on the border of the Land of Israel?

And the Gemara explains: It is stated in the Torah in the section of the condemned city [Deuteronomy 13]: “Men, worthless fellows, went out from your midst, and led the inhabitants of their city astray.” And we expound:

“From your midst,”

in the center of the land,

the Merciful One said—

and not from the frontier.

We learned in our Mishna: One may not make a condemned city, etc.,

“and not three,”

but they may make one or two.

And the Gemara explains the reason:

For it is written

there, in the section of the condemned city: “When you hear in one of your cities.” And we expound:

“One,” and not three.

And that which we learned:

“But they may make one or two,”

from where is there an inclusion of two?

The Gemara answers: For it is written

“your cities,”

in the plural.

And as is explained in the following beraita.

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah “one,” and we expound:

“One, and not three.”

You say, “one,” and not three; or perhaps it means “one,” and not two!?

When it says, “your cities”—

two are stated,

which are made condemned cities.

How, then, do I fulfill “one”?

In order to expound:

“One,” and not three.

The details of this law are explained in the statements of Rav, Rabbi Yohanan, and Resh Lakish.

Sometimes

at times

Rav said: In one court,

as long as the members of this Sanhedrin are alive,

it is that one may not make

three condemned cities;

but

however,

with two or three courts,

when these died and others were appointed in their place,

they may make

three condemned cities.

And sometimes,

at times,

Rav said: Even with two or three courts—

one may never make them.

What is Rav’s reason?—

Because of baldness.

So that the Land of Israel should not become bald. That is, so that there should not be a desolate place in the Land of Israel.

Resh Lakish said: They taught

that three may not be made

only

when all three of them are

in one place,

such as in the Galilee or in Judea.

But in two or three places—

they may make them.

Rabbi Yohanan said: They may not make

three in the Land of Israel

because of baldness.

But they may make two.

The two themselves—only if one is in the Galilee and one is in Judea; but if both are in the Galilee or both are in Judea, they may not make them.

It follows that according to Resh Lakish they may make even three if they are distant from one another, whereas if they are near, they may make two but not three. And Rabbi Yohanan disagrees with him in two matters: first, that they may not make three even in distant cities; and second, that they may not make two if they are near one another.

It was taught

in a beraita

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: They may not make three condemned cities in the Land of Israel

[and the language of the beraita implies throughout the entire Land of Israel—thus, proof for the first law of Rabbi Yohanan],

but they may make two, for example: one in Judea and one in the Galilee. But two in Judea and two

or two

in the Galilee, they may not make

[that is, if both are in Judea or both are in the Galilee, they may not make them; and this is Rabbi Yohanan’s second law].

And one adjacent to the frontier, even one—

they may not make.

What is the reason?

Because of

perhaps the gentiles will hear and destroy the Land of Israel.

And the Gemara raises an objection: Why is the reason “perhaps the gentiles will hear, etc.” necessary—

Let it follow

— it is possible to derive this from what we expounded,

for “from your midst,” the Merciful One said,

from within the Land of Israel,

and not from the frontier.

And the Gemara answers:

It is Rabbi Shimon!

This beraita is according to Rabbi Shimon’s method,

for he expounds the reason of the verse.

According to him, one should say as follows: Why did the Torah write “from your midst”? In order to expound “and not from the frontier,” for the reason that perhaps the gentiles will hear and destroy the Land of Israel.

We learned in our Mishna:

A great Sanhedrin was

of seventy-one. From where [do we derive] that the great [Sanhedrin] is of seventy-one? As it is stated: “Gather for Me seventy men from the elders of Israel, with Moses above them.” Rabbi Judah says: seventy.

And the Gemara now explains the derivations of the Sages and Rabbi Judah, and the reason for their dispute.

And it discusses:

What is the reason of the Rabbis, who say

in the Mishna “

‘and Moses above them’?”

And the Gemara explains:

The verse said “

Gather for Me seventy men, etc.’

‘and stand there.’