Sanhedrin 16b (טז:) — the Talmud in English

It is stated in the Book of Chronicles, in the chapter listing the officers and advisers of David:

“And after Ahithophel, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada,” [

see note ] ]

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

“Joab,”

which shows that the order was Ahithophel, Benaiah, Abiathar, and Joab.

Ahithophel—this is the adviser

who gave counsel to David,

and similarly it says [II Samuel 16]:

“

And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counseled in those days

and so on.”

And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada—this is the Sanhedrin

who was the outstanding scholar and head of the Sanhedrin ,

Abiathar—these are the Urim and Tumim

whom David consulted until the war with Absalom.

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

And similarly it says [

I Chronicles 18]:

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

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

Rav Yosef now finishes expounding the verse: “And after Ahithophel.”

And why were they called

the Urim and Tumim

Cherethites and Pelethites?

And we expound:

Cherethites, for they make their words decisive,

as they state precise and final rulings, neither subtracting nor adding;

and Pelethites, for their deeds are extraordinary; and afterward, the army commander for the king—

Joab,

to lead the men of war.

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

The Gemara now expounds another verse, from which it is derived that the harp would awaken him to study before dawn.

Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Adda, said, and

some amoraim

say it

in the name of

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi: What is the verse?

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

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

We learned in our Mishna:

The city

and the Temple courtyards may be expanded only on the authority of a court of seventy-one.

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters

derived? From where do we learn the law that Jerusalem and the Temple courtyards may be expanded on the authority of seventy-one?

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Shimi bar Ḥiyya said: The verse states,

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” ]

and so shall you do.”

And we expound “and so shall you do”

for future generations.

Just as the Tabernacle was made on the authority of Moses—who had the status of the Great Sanhedrin—so too, for future generations, the expansion of the sanctity of the city and the courtyards is carried out on the authority of seventy-one.

The Gemara raises an objection: If so, let us learn from this verse that just as Moses anointed all the vessels of the Tabernacle with the anointing oil, as explained in the section concerning the erection of the Tabernacle [Exodus 40], so too for future generations the vessels should be sanctified through anointing with the anointing oil.

Rava raises an objection

from what we learned in a beraita:

With regard to all the vessels that Moses made—

their anointing sanctified them,

with the sanctity of the body, making them service vessels.

From that point onward,

after the first vessels had been anointed, no other vessels were anointed; rather,

their service,

if they began to be used,

initiates them,

bringing them into the sanctity of service vessels.

This is difficult:

And why

do they not require anointing?

Let us say,

let us expound:

“And so shall you do”—

for future generations.

The Gemara answers:

There it is different,

the law of anointing is different, since

the verse states: “And he anointed them, and sanctified

them.”

“Them”

is an expression of exclusion, and it teaches that only those vessels were sanctified

through anointing, but future generations were not sanctified through anointing.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But perhaps

it is possible to expound as follows:

“Them,”

the vessels made by Moses, were sanctified only

through anointing

and not through service;

but

if the reference is

to future generations,

it should be possible to sanctify them

either

through anointing or

either

through

service.

Why, then, did they expound that in future generations they can be sanctified only through service?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Pappa said: The verse states [Numbers 4]: “All the service vessels

that they will use

in sacred service.”

“They will use” is stated in the future tense, teaching you that

the verse made their sanctity dependent

on their being sanctified

through service,

and not through anointing.

The Gemara raises an objection: If so, the exclusion that we expounded—“them,” through anointing and not future generations—is superfluous, since we have expounded it from “that they will use”;

rather,

if so,

why do I need “them”?

The Gemara answers:

Were it not for “them”—

I would have thought

that

future generations

would sanctify vessels through both methods,

through anointing and through service.

Through anointing,

as it is written, “And so shall you do,”

and through service, as it is written: “that they will use.”

Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “them,”

to expound that only

them

did He sanctify

through anointing—

but future generations were not sanctified through anointing.

We learned in our Mishna:

And Sanhedrins are not established

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

The Gemara discusses this:

From where do we derive it?

From where do we learn this law?

The Gemara explains:

Just

as

we find with regard to Moses, that he established

and appointed

courts

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

And Moses had the status of seventy-one,

for he was a judge and adjudicator by the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, and his judgment had the status of the judgment of the Great Sanhedrin.

The Gemara now cites a beraita in which verses are expounded to establish judges in every city and every city.

The Torah states at the beginning of the section concerning judges [Deuteronomy 16]: “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 derived that judges are established for Israel?

The verse states: “Judges, and so on, shall you appoint.”

Officers for Israel,

who strike with rods, at the direction of the judges, anyone who does not obey,

from where

is it derived that they are established?

The verse states: “Officers shall you appoint.”

Judges for each tribe and each tribe, from where

is it derived that they are established?

The verse states:

“Judges

and officers shall you appoint for yourself

for your tribes.”

Officers for each tribe and each tribe, from where

is it derived that they are established?

The verse states:

“Officers

shall you appoint for yourself

for your tribes.”

Judges for every city and every city, from where?

The verse states: “Judges in every

the

gate.” [

the version of the Vilna Gaon ]

Officers for every city and every city, from where?

The verse states:

“Officers

in every

gate.” [

as above ]

Thus, we have learned that judges and officers are established for each tribe and each tribe, and for every city and every city.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

One

court is 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:

The Torah states:

“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 before the court of another tribe.

We learned in our Mishna:

And a city condemned

may be dealt with only on the authority of a court of seventy-one.

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters

derived? From where do we learn that the law of a condemned city is adjudicated by a court of seventy-one?

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Ḥiyya [

Ḥama ]

bar Yosei said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: For the verse states,

the Torah states concerning a man who worshipped idolatry [Deuteronomy 17]:

“And you shall bring out that man or that woman

to

your gates.” And we expound:

“A man and a woman,”

individuals,

you bring out to your gates,

to the court in each and every city;

but you do not bring out

the

entire city to your gates,

but rather to the Great Court in Jerusalem.

We learned in our Mishna:

A condemned city may not be established at the border,

meaning one that is close to the boundary.

The Gemara discusses this:

What is the reason

that a condemned city may not be established in a city located at the border of the Land of Israel?

The Gemara explains: The Torah states in the section concerning a condemned city [Deuteronomy 13]: “Men, scoundrels, emerged 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 border.

We learned in our Mishna: A condemned city may not be established, and so on,

and not three;

but one or two may be established.

The Gemara explains the reason:

As it is written

there, in the section concerning a condemned city: “When you hear [that it occurred] in one of your cities.” And we expound:

“One,” and not three.

As for what we learned:

“But one or two may be established,”

from where is there an inclusion of two?

The Gemara answers: As it is written:

“Your cities,”

in the plural.

And this is as explained in the following beraita.

The Sages taught:

The Torah states “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 indicated,

which may be made into condemned cities.

How, then, do I understand “one”?

It is to expound:

“One,” and not three.

The details of this law are discussed in the statements of Rav, Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Reish Lakish.

Sometimes

he would

say: Rav said: With one court,

as long as the members of this Sanhedrin remain alive,

it is that they may not establish

three condemned cities;

but

in

two or three courts,

after these have died and others have been appointed in their place,

they may establish

three condemned cities.

And sometimes,

he would

say: Rav said: Even with two or three courts—

they may never establish [three condemned cities].

What is Rav’s reason?—

Because of baldness.

This is so that the Land of Israel should not be made bald, that is, so that there should not be a desolate area in the Land of Israel.

Reish Lakish said: They taught

that three may not be established

only

when all three are

in one place,

for example, in the Galilee or in Judea.

But in two or three places—

they may be established.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They may not establish

three in the Land of Israel

because of baldness.

But two may be established.

As for the two themselves, this applies specifically when 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 be established.

It follows that according to Reish Lakish, even three may be established if they are far from one another, whereas if they are close, two but not three may be established. Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with him in two respects: first, three may not be established even in cities that are far apart; and second, two may not be established if they are close.

It was taught

in a beraita

in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan: Three condemned cities may not be established in the Land of Israel [

the wording of the beraita implies that this applies throughout the Land of Israel—this is proof of the first ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan ],

but two may be established, for example, one in Judea and one in the Galilee. But two in Judea and two

or two

in the Galilee may not be established [

that is, if both are in Judea or both are in the Galilee, they may not be established; this is Rabbi Yoḥanan’s second ruling ].

And one adjacent to the border, even one—

may not be established.

What is the reason?

Because

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

The Gemara raises an objection: Why is the reason “perhaps the gentiles will hear and so on” necessary?

But let it be derived,

for it is possible to expound this from what we have already expounded,

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

from within the Land of Israel,

and not from the border.

The Gemara answers:

It is Rabbi Shimon!

This beraita follows the view of Rabbi Shimon,

who expounds the reason for the verse.

According to him, it should be said as follows: Why did the Torah write “from your midst,” to expound “and not from the border”? It is because perhaps the gentiles will hear and destroy the Land of Israel.

We learned in our Mishna:

A Great Sanhedrin was

composed of seventy-one. From where [do we derive] that the Great Sanhedrin is composed of seventy-one? As it is stated: "Gather for Me seventy men from the elders of Israel, and Moses over them." Rabbi Judah says: seventy.

The Gemara now explains the exegeses of the Rabbis and Rabbi Judah, and the reason for their dispute.

And it asks:

What is the reason of the Rabbis, who say

in the Mishna, "

And Moses was over them"?

And the Gemara explains:

The verse says, "

Gather for Me seventy men, etc'

and stand there."