Sanhedrin 18a (יח.) — the Talmud in English

A city in which there are

two hundred seventy-seven

residents is fit to have a Sanhedrin.

This is because he holds in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya. And he adds another forty-seven to his number. This is so that they will be able to add judges when they divide into twelve who find him liable and eleven who find him not liable. [At that point, they add two more judges. If these two find him liable, there will then be fourteen who find him liable as opposed to eleven who find him not liable, and the ruling will be decided for liability. And if these two find him not liable, there will then be thirteen who find him not liable as opposed to twelve who find him liable, and the ruling will be decided in his favor. But if these two judges divide, with one finding him liable and the other finding him not liable, and there is no decision for liability on the basis of two judges, nor for acquittal on the basis of one, they add two more judges. If they again divide, they add two more, and so on, but no more than forty-seven, until they total seventy together with the original judges, since a Sanhedrin may not have more than seventy judges. Therefore, Rabbi adds forty-seven to Rabbi Neḥemya’s calculation.]

The Gemara raises an objection:

But wasn’t it taught

in another beraita:

Rabbi says: Two hundred seventy

and eight?

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult.

There is no contradiction between the two beraitot.

This

the first beraita, which holds that another forty-seven are added, is in accordance with Rabbi

Yehuda,

who holds that the Sanhedrin consists of seventy judges. Whereas

this

beraita that we learned is in accordance with

the Rabbis,

who hold that the Sanhedrin consists of seventy-one judges; therefore, another forty-eight are added.

The Gemara now cites a beraita that enumerates the officers whom Moses appointed following Jethro’s advice.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the Torah that Jethro advised Moses: “And you shall appoint over them officers of thousands, officers of hundreds, officers of fifties, and officers of tens.”

Officers of thousands

means one officer for every thousand people. Since the Children of Israel numbered six hundred thousand men on foot, there were

six hundred

officers of thousands.

Officers of hundreds

numbered

six thousand.

Officers of fifties

numbered

twelve thousand.

Officers of tens

numbered

six myriad

sixty thousand.

It follows

that there were

judges of Israel

in total:

seventy myriad and eight thousand six hundred.

We shall return to you, chapter “Civil Laws.”

Mishna:

The High Priest —

judges,

they appoint him as a judge on the Sanhedrin in order to judge other people,

and

likewise the Sanhedrin

judges him

for an offense that he committed.

And likewise, if the High Priest knows testimony concerning others, he

testifies

about them,

and

likewise others

testify against him,

concerning him.

A High Priest

performs halitza

with his brother's wife when his brother dies childless, in order to permit her to marry outside the levirate bond,

and halitza is performed with his wife

if the High Priest dies childless, in which case his brother performs halitza with his wife,

and

likewise

yibbum is performed with his wife.

But he,

the High Priest,

does not perform yibbum

with his brother's wife who falls to him for yibbum,

because he is forbidden to marry a widow.

The Torah wrote in the passage concerning the High Priest [Leviticus 21]: “He shall not become impure for his father or his mother, and from the Sanctuary he shall not go out.” Rabbi Meir expounds that the Torah's intention is to say, “He shall not leave his sanctity”; that is, he must distance himself from anything unbecoming, so that he will not come to ritual impurity, and even at the funeral of his father and mother he must create a distance and a safeguard so that he will not touch impurity imparted by a corpse. Rabbi Yehuda, however, expounds the verse “and from the Sanctuary he shall not go out” to mean that the High Priest does not accompany his deceased relatives at all. [According to the Gemara's conclusion, these expositions are merely an asmakhta, and the prohibition is a rabbinic concern, both according to Rabbi Meir and according to Rabbi Yehuda.]

If one of his dead relatives dies,

one of his seven close relatives, namely: his father, his mother, his son, his daughter, his brother, his sister, or his wife,

he does not go out after the bier

to accompany them as an ordinary person would; rather, he goes only at a distance, in the following manner:

they are concealed,

the bearers of the bier leave through one alley and enter another alley, at which point they are concealed from him, since he cannot see them,

and

then

he is revealed

in the alley from which the bearers of the bier have already departed.

They are revealed and he is concealed;

whenever the bearers of the bier are revealed in an alley, he must be concealed from them and may not enter it until they have passed from it into another alley.

And

in this manner, in which he has recognizable markers in the city's alleys, he

goes out with them as far as the entrance to the city gate.

From there onward he does not go out, because he has no recognizable markers there to enable the required distancing. These are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not leave the Sanctuary, because it is stated: “And from the Sanctuary he shall not go out.”

This ruling applies to the High Priest's seven close relatives, because there is concern that, due to his great grief over their deaths, he may come to touch the corpse. But he does go out after the bier of others who are not his relatives.

In the time of the Mishna, it was customary to observe mourning practices when returning from the burial of the deceased: the people would pass before the mourners, who stood and received words of consolation. The Mishna teaches that the High Priest does not walk mixed together with all the people in order to console the mourners; rather, he walks in a dignified manner.

And when he consoles

the

others, the manner

of

all the people is that they pass one after another,

in order to say words of consolation to the mourner.

And

if it is the High Priest

the appointed one,

the deputy of the priests, he would

place himself between him and the people.

The appointed one would walk to his right, the people to his left, and he would be in the middle.

And when he is consoled by others,

when one of his relatives dies and the people come to his home and form a row to console him,

all the people say to him: “May we be your atonement,”

may you be atoned for through us. That is to say, may it be God's will that we be in your place, for anything that might befall you.

And he says to them: “May you be blessed from Heaven.”

However, he may not eat the first meal of his mourning from his own food. His neighbors and acquaintances bring him food, and this is called the meal of recovery; it is eaten while sitting on the ground, as is customary among mourners. The High Priest, however, does not sit on the ground, out of respect for his dignity. Rather, his friends who brought the meal sit on the ground, to show that they grieve together with him and mourn together with him, while he reclines honorably on a bench.

And when they provide him with

the meal of recovery —

all the people

who come to console him

recline on the ground, while he reclines on the bench.

The Mishna now continues with the laws concerning a king and the laws of kingship until the end of the chapter.

The king —

does not judge,

he is not appointed to the Sanhedrin to judge others,

, nor is he judged

the Sanhedrin does not judge him.

He does not testify

concerning others,

nor do others testify against him.

Likewise, he

does not perform halitza

with his brother's wife, because it would be demeaning for him to come to the court and have his brother's wife spit before him.

Nor is halitza performed with his wife,

when the king dies childless, the king's brother does not release his wife through halitza, since they do not perform yibbum with his wife, because one may not marry the widow of a king; therefore, the king's brother also does not perform halitza with her.

He does not perform yibbum

with his brother's wife, because it would be demeaning for him to establish his brother's name,

nor is yibbum performed with his wife,

as explained, since one may not marry the widow of a king.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If he wishes

the king to waive his honor

in order to perform halitza or yibbum —

he is remembered for good, for

he waives his honor in order to fulfill the mitzva of yibbum or halitza.

They said to him

the Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda:

We do not heed him

we do not agree to this, because “a king who waives his honor—his honor is not waived.”

And one may not marry the widow

of the king, or his divorcee.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

a commoner may not marry the widow of a king, but

a king may marry the widow of a king. For so we find with regard to David, who married

the

widow of Saul, as it is stated

[Nathan the prophet said to David in II Samuel 12]: “So said the Lord, God of Israel: I anointed you as king over Israel,

and I gave you the house of your master and the wives of your master into your bosom.”

Thus, it was permitted for a king to marry the widow of another king.

The Gemara will explain what the Sages replied to Rabbi Yehuda's proof.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

“The High Priest judges.”

The Gemara asks:

Is it obvious!?

What novelty is there in this? Why would it enter one's mind that the High Priest does not judge?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, there is no novelty in this statement. Rather, the novelty is in the continuation of the Mishna, which says

“they judge him,”

and this

was necessary for it,

as the tanna needed to teach us this, since it might have entered one's mind that he should not be judged out of concern for the affront to his honor when he is brought to trial before a court.

The Gemara asks:

This,

the law that they judge him,

is also obvious,

for

if we do not judge him,

if they do not judge him,

how can he judge!?

How can he judge others if he himself is not judged?

And

it is

written

[Zephaniah 2]:

“Gather yourselves and gather,”

examine your deeds, as one gathers straw, and afterward examine the deeds of others.

And Reish Lakish said: “Adorn yourself”

first,

and afterward adorn others.

If so, if they do not judge him, how can he judge others?

The Gemara answers:

Rather,

the Mishna teaches us that the High Priest judges and is judged because

since

incidentally

it wanted to teach

later in the Mishna

“A king does not judge, nor is he judged,”

therefore

the tanna also taught: “The High

Priest judges and is judged.”

This teaches that the law of the High Priest differs from the law of a king.

The Gemara offers another answer: The Mishna came to teach that if he violated a negative commandment, that is, an offense punishable by lashes, he is judged by three judges , as is any other person. This contains a novelty, as will be explained.

And if you wish, say:

this law

comes to teach us,

the Mishna comes to teach us

as it is taught in a beraita: “If the High Priest killed a person,”

if he killed

intentionally —

he is executed. Unintentionally —

he is exiled

to a city of refuge.

And one who violates

a

positive and a negative commandment

[the Gemara will explain].

is like a commoner in all his matters.

The Gemara now explains the words of the beraita, as well as the novelty in the Mishna's statement that “they judge him.”

We learned in a beraita:

“If he acted intentionally, he is executed.”

The Gemara asks:

It is obvious;

what is the novelty in this?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, there is no novelty in this. Rather, the law that

if he acted unintentionally he is exiled was necessary for it,

it needed to teach this, and incidentally to the law of an unintentional act it taught the law of an intentional act.

The Gemara asks:

This,

that if he acted unintentionally he is exiled,

is also obvious;

what is the novelty in this?

The Gemara answers: This is not obvious, because

it was necessary

for the tanna to teach it, since it might have entered one's mind that a High Priest is not exiled, since we learned that when a High Priest kills, he never leaves the city of refuge, as will be explained; therefore, it is possible that he also does not go into exile there.

It might enter your mind to say:

I might have reasoned and said:

Since it is written

in the passage concerning one who kills unintentionally

“And he shall dwell there until the death of the High Priest,”

therefore

let me say:

it is possible to say:

Anyone who has a remedy through returning,

an ordinary killer, who has a remedy that enables him to leave the city of refuge when the High Priest dies,

shall be exiled

he should initially go into exile. But

one who has no remedy through returning,

one who has no remedy enabling him to leave there, namely the High Priest,

shall not be exiled,

he should not initially go into exile, since the Torah limited the exile by saying: until the death of the High Priest.

The Gemara now cites the law that a High Priest who killed unintentionally and was exiled has no remedy enabling him to leave the city of refuge:

For

it is

taught

we learned in our Mishna: