Sanhedrin 17b (יז:) — the Talmud in English

And what of a snake

, whose severity consists in the fact

that it kills

a person or an animal,

and

thereby it

increases ritual impurity

in the world—impurity imparted by a corpse and impurity imparted by carcasses—and nevertheless, when it itself dies, it is pure, as a snake is not one of the eight creeping animals that impart impurity upon their death?

A creeping animal

of lesser severity,

which neither kills nor

imparts

increased impurity—is it not all the more so that it should be pure?

However, this kal va-chomer is rejected:

That is not so!

That is not the correct criterion. The fact that a snake kills and increases impurity is not a “severity”; rather,

it is analogous to an ordinary thorn,

for a snake resembles an ordinary thorn in its bite, as a puncture from a thorn can also kill and increase impurity, and nevertheless a thorn is pure.

The Gemara now cites another ruling concerning the laws of the Sanhedrin.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Any city in which there are not two

judges who know

how to speak

seventy languages

and

one additional judge

who

knows

how to hear

and understand seventy languages,

they do not establish a Sanhedrin in it.

And in

a city,

Beitar, there were three

who knew how to speak,

and in

the city of

Yavne

there were

four,

and these were:

Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Akiva, and Shimon HaTimni [

he is not called Rabbi, since he was not ordained, because he had not reached old age], who

would judge before them

and answer the questions of the elders

by

sitting on the

ground,

and not on the bench like the other elders.

The Gemara cites a beraita that states that three who know how to speak seventy languages are required, and this presents a difficulty to Rav’s statement that two suffice.

Meytivi

against Rav, based on what we learned in a beraita:

The third,

a Sanhedrin session in which there are three who speak seventy languages is

wisdom,

whereas

the fourth—

there is none superior to it.

It follows that three are required.

The Gemara answers:

He,

Rav,

said that

it is like

this tanna. As it was taught

in another beraita:

The second,

a Sanhedrin session in which there are two judges who know how to speak seventy languages is

wisdom,

whereas

the third—

there is none superior to it.

Since the Gemara mentioned that Shimon HaTimni judged before the Sages on the ground, it cites other tanna’im who judged before the Sages, as well as additional titles by which tanna’im and amora’im were known.

Whenever we learned

“they study before the Sages,”

the reference is to the amora

Levi,

who studied

from Rabbi

Yehuda HaNasi.

Whenever we learned

“they judge before the Sages,”

the reference is to

Shimon ben Azzai, Shimon ben Zoma, Hanan HaMitzri, and Hananya ben Hakinai,

who had not reached old age, and would sit on the ground and discuss halakha before the Sages.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak recited

it as follows: Whenever we learned “they judge before the Sages,” they are

five,

and these are:

Shimon

ben Azzai,

and Shimon

ben Zoma,

and Shimon

HaTimni,

Hanan

HaMitzri,

and Hananya

ben Hakinai. That is, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak adds Shimon HaTimni.

“Our Rabbis in Babylonia

are

Rav and Shmuel.

“Our Rabbis in Eretz Yisrael”—

Rabbi Abba. “

The great judges”

is

Karna.

“The judges of Eretz Yisrael”—

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.

“The judges of Pumbedita”—

Rav Pappa bar Shmuel.

“The judges of Neharde’a”—

Rav Adda bar Minyomi. “

The elders of Sura”—

Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda.

“The elders of Pumbedita”—

Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina.

“The sharp-minded ones of Pumbedita”—

Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava.

“The amora’im of Pumbedita”—

Rabba and Rav Yosef.

“The amora’im of Neharde’a”—

Rav Ḥama.

“The Neharde’ans teach”—

Rami bar Barabi. “

They say in the house of Rav”—

Rav Huna.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But he said,

for

Rav Huna said: They say in the house of Rav.

It follows that Rav Huna is not “they say in the house of Rav,” since he transmitted rulings in the name of “they say in the house of Rav.”

The Gemara answers:

Rather,

whenever we learned “they say in the house of Rav,” it is a title for

Rav Hamnuna.

“They say in the West”—

Rabbi Yirmeya.

“They sent from there”—

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina.

“They laughed

[they laughed]

about it in the West”—

Rabbi Elazar.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But

in the sugya in the chapter “One Who Is Not Liable to Monetary Judgment,” we find:

“They sent from there,”

they sent a ruling from Eretz Yisrael,

according to the words of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina,

“the source, etc.” It follows that “they sent from Eretz Yisrael” is an explanation of the view of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, and is not Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina himself.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, reverse it;

the reading is the reverse: “

They sent from there”—

Rabbi Elazar.

Whereas

“They laughed about it in the West”—

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina.

We learned in our Mishna:

And how many must there be in the city for it to be fit for a Sanhedrin—

one hundred and twenty.

The Gemara analyzes this:

One hundred and twenty

residents of the city—

what is their function!?

What are they needed for? That is, what is the reason that there must be one hundred and twenty people in the city for it to be fit for a Sanhedrin?

The Gemara explains:

Twenty-three

men

corresponding to the lesser Sanhedrin.

And

another

three rows

who sit before the Sanhedrin, each row consisting

of twenty-three

students. The purpose of their sitting there is that if it becomes necessary to add to the judges—for example, if twelve find the defendant liable and eleven find him innocent—the students are ordained and added to the Sanhedrin.

That is

together

ninety-two,

ninety-two.

And

another

ten

batlanim

of the synagogue,

who are free from all labor in order to be available in the synagogue morning and evening; without them, it is not called a city.

That is one hundred and two,

one hundred and two.

And

another

two scribes,

who write in the court the words of those who acquit and those who find liable, and sit before the judges at all times,

and

another

two attendants,

the court’s assistants, to flog one who is liable and summon the litigants to court,

and

another

two litigants,

who must be judged,

and

another

two witnesses,

,

and

another

two plotting witnesses,

for without them the witnesses would not fear giving false testimony,

and

another

two witnesses against the plotting witnesses,

so that if a litigant is found liable based on the witnesses’ testimony and hires false witnesses to disprove the original witnesses, these two can disprove the plotting witnesses, and thus they will fear falsely discrediting the original witnesses,

that is

together

one hundred and fourteen,

fourteen.

And another two charity collectors, who collect money from the residents of the city, and another three who distribute charity to the poor of the city—for the law is that charity is collected by two and distributed by three—that makes one hundred and nineteen, and another person who is a physician, a bloodletter, a scribe, and a teacher of children.

And it was taught,

as we learned in a beraita:

Any city that does not have these ten things—

a Torah scholar is not permitted to reside in it;

and these are: First,

a court that administers lashes and punishments;

second,

a charity fund that is collected by two;

third,

and distributed by three;

fourth,

and a synagogue;

fifth,

, and a bathhouse;

sixth,

and a bathroom;

seventh,

a physician

to circumcise infants; eighth,

and a bloodletter

to let blood; ninth,

and a scribe

to write scrolls; tenth,

and a teacher of children.

In the name of Rabbi Akiva they said,

his students:

Even

if it does not have

varieties of fruit,

a Torah scholar is not permitted to reside in it,

because varieties of fruit brighten the eyes.

This completes the calculation of the one hundred and twenty residents required for the city to be fit for a Sanhedrin.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Neḥemya says: Two hundred and thirty, corresponding to the officers of tens.

A third opinion is taught in a beraita, and it is the opinion of Rabbi.

It was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi says: