Sanhedrin 35a — the Talmud in English

And it is written [

II Samuel 21 ]

“And Rizpah daughter of Aiah took the sackcloth, and spread it for herself upon the rock at the beginning of

the harvest.”

For the sons of Saul who had been hanged were exposed, and she covered them.

And it is written [

Numbers 25 ]

“And the Lord said to Moses: Take all the heads of the people.”

And the Gemara discusses:

If the people sinned, what did the heads of the people sin?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

Indeed, the heads of the people did not sin, and they were not judged for this. Rather, thus

the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Divide them into courts.

So that the heads of the people would be divided among several courts in order to judge the sinners.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason

they needed to judge the sinners in several courts?

If you say it was because one does not judge

capital cases of

two

people

on one day.

But Rav Ḥisda said: They taught

that two people are not judged on one day

only when there are two deaths,

so that the court would be occupied only with one matter, and involvement with two different deaths would not prevent it from searching as thoroughly as necessary.

But when there is one death

for one transgression,

they do judge!

And in the incident of the worship of Baal Peor, there was one death for all of them, by stoning, for one transgression of idolatry!

Rather,

they needed to establish several courts for this purpose,

so that the anger would subside from Israel.

For when the Holy One, blessed be He, sees that everyone is occupied with being zealous for His honor, then His anger subsides.

We learned in the Mishna:

Monetary cases are concluded on that same day, whether for acquittal or for liability. Capital cases are concluded on that same day for acquittal, and on the following day for liability.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these matters

that capital cases require an overnight stay before the decision of the judgment?

Rabbi Ḥanina said: For the verse says [

Isaiah 1 ] concerning Jerusalem, in the past

“

“I was full of justice; righteousness lodged in her.”

They would seek justice and let the judgment remain overnight. However,

“but now murderers.”

They do not seek justice and do not let the judgment remain overnight, and therefore they are called murderers. And it is proven that the judgment must remain overnight, and that capital cases may not be decided on that same day.

And Rava said: From here [

Isaiah 1 ]

“Vindicate the oppressed”—

vindicate a judge who delays,

who postpones

his judgment,

letting it remain overnight so that the judgment will emerge truthfully.

And the other one,

Rabbi Ḥanina, holds that the verse says

“Vindicate ‘the oppressed,’”

strengthen the robbed person,

and not “the oppressor,”

the robber.

And this is the case, for example, when one person sued his fellow to return his loan to him, and the latter claims that he gave him collateral for the loan and that the collateral deteriorated: the court first attends to the lender’s claim and takes the money from him, and only afterward judges the borrower’s claim concerning the collateral.

And the other one,

Rava, who derived the matter from “Vindicate the oppressed,”

this

verse of

“I was full of justice”—what does he do with it?

As Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Yitzḥak [said].

For Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Any fast on which charity is left overnight,

when charity is not given to the poor on the day of the fast itself,

it is as though he sheds blood.

For the eyes of the poor are directed toward the charity that is ordinarily distributed on the day of the fast, and they remain hungry.

As it is stated: “I was full of justice; righteousness

lodged in her, but now murderers.”

And these matters

apply when they were accustomed to give the poor on a fast

bread,

bread,

and dates,

which can be eaten immediately, and the poor await them in order to eat them at the end of the fast.

But with money, wheat, and barley—

we have no concern.

For if they were accustomed to distribute money, or wheat and barley, to the poor—things that are not ready for immediate eating—the poor do not rely on eating from them at the end of the fast, and therefore there is no great burden in delaying the giving until tomorrow.

We learned in the Mishna:

Therefore, capital cases are not judged on the eve of Shabbat.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason?

And it explains:

Because it is not possible.

For

how should he act?

Perhaps you will say:

Let him judge it on the eve of Shabbat,

let them begin judging on the eve of Shabbat,

and let him conclude his judgment [

for acquittal] on that same day,

on the eve of Shabbat—

It is impossible to do so, for there is concern

perhaps they will find a reason for liability, and

then

they will need to leave the judgment overnight,

on the night of Shabbat.

Perhaps you will say:

Let him judge it on the eve of Shabbat,

and if they find a reason for liability, let them leave the judgment overnight on the night of Shabbat,

and let him conclude it on Shabbat, and let him execute him on Shabbat—

It is impossible to do so, for

execution does not override Shabbat.

Perhaps you will say:

And let him execute him at night,

on the night after Shabbat—

It is impossible to do so, for

“before the sun,”

while the sun is shining,

is required.

Perhaps you will say:

And let him conclude his judgment on Shabbat, and let him execute him on the first day of the week,

on Sunday.

It is impossible to do so, for

you would thereby cause his judgment to suffer,

after his judgment had been concluded for death on Shabbat.

And perhaps you will say:

Let us judge him on the eve of Shabbat, and conclude it on the first day of the week,

and execute him on that same day, and there would not be suffering of the judgment in this, because as long as the judgment has not been concluded, the accused awaits rescue—

It is impossible to do so, for

their reasons will be forgotten.

When the judges come to conclude the judgment on Sunday, perhaps they will forget their reason for imposing liability on Friday.

And the Gemara raises an objection: Is it possible to say that they will forget,

even though the two scribes of the judges stand before them and write the words of those who acquit and the words of those who impose liability?—

And the Gemara answers:

Granted, in the mouth,

the reason that the judges stated for imposing liability,

they write

the scribes of the judges, and they will remember the foundation of the reason; but

the heart of people,

the thought of the heart to establish the reason in a settled manner,

people forget,

they can forget.

Therefore, it is not possible

to judge on the eve of Shabbat and conclude on Sunday.

The Gemara now brings a discussion between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish concerning the burial of a neglected corpse on Shabbat, although this matter does not pertain here, since at the end of the discussion the question will be asked whether execution by the court should override Shabbat, which is related to the matter before us.

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Let the burial of a neglected corpse override Shabbat by means of a kal va-chomer

from the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat.

And if the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat—

the burial of a neglected corpse overrides it, from

a special teaching,

“and for his sister,”

as the Gemara explains:

As it was taught:

It is stated in the Torah concerning a nazirite, that he is forbidden to become impure with impurity from a corpse, and the Torah added that even for his relatives who died, he may not become impure.

And the beraita discusses: The verse said concerning a nazirite [

Numbers 6 ]

“For his father and for his mother, for his brother and for his sister,

he shall not become impure for them when they die.” “

For his sister,”

what is it coming to teach?

For this verse is superfluous, since the Torah had already said, “He shall not approach any dead person,” and it did not exclude his relatives from the prohibition. Therefore, the tan­ n a y asks what this superfluous verse comes to teach us.