Sanhedrin 35a (לה.) — the Talmud in English

And it is written [

II Samuel 21 ]

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

harvest.”

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 asks:

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

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

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

the Almighty said to Moses: Divide them into courts.

The heads of the people were to be divided among several courts in order to judge the sinners.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason

they needed to judge the sinners in several courts?

If you say it was because one does not judge

in a single court capital cases involving

two

people

on the same day,

but didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: They taught

that two people are not judged on the same day

only when the two are subject to different deaths,

so that the court would be occupied exclusively with a single matter, and its involvement with two different forms of death would not prevent it from conducting the full investigation.

But when they are subject to one death

for one transgression,

they do judge them!

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

Rather,

they needed to establish several courts

so that the wrath would subside from Israel.

For when the Almighty sees that everyone is occupied with zealously defending His honor, His wrath subsides.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And the Gemara asks:

From where are these matters

that capital cases require an overnight stay before the verdict is issued?

Rabbi Ḥanina said: The verse states [

Isaiah 1 ] concerning Jerusalem, in its former state,

“

“I was filled with justice; righteousness would lodge in her.”

They would seek justice and defer the judgment overnight. But now,

“and now, murderers.”

They do not seek justice and do not defer the judgment overnight, and therefore they are called murderers. This proves that the judgment must be deferred overnight, and that a capital case may not be concluded on the same day.

And Rava said: From here [

Isaiah 1 ]

“Vindicate the oppressed”—

vindicate a judge who delays,

who postpones

his judgment,

deferring it so that the judgment will emerge according to the truth.

And the other one,

Rabbi Ḥanina, maintains that the verse says

“Vindicate the ‘oppressed,’”

strengthen the robbed party,

and not the “robber,”

the robber himself.

That is, for example, when one person sues another, demanding that he return his loan, and the latter claims that he gave him collateral for the loan and that the collateral deteriorated: the court first addresses the lender’s claim and takes the money from him, and only afterward adjudicates 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 filled with justice”—what does he do with it?

He interprets it in accordance with what Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said.

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

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

is as though one sheds blood.

For the poor anticipate the charity that is ordinarily distributed on the day of the fast, and they remain hungry.

As it is stated: “I was filled with justice; righteousness

would lodge in her, and now, murderers.”

And this applies

when the practice was to give the poor on a fast

bread

—bread—

and dates,

which can be eaten immediately, and the poor anticipate them so that they can eat them at the end of the fast.

But with regard to money, wheat, and barley—

we have no concern.

If the practice was to distribute money, wheat, or barley to the poor, which are not intended for immediate consumption, the poor do not rely on eating them at the end of the fast; therefore, there is no great hardship in delaying the distribution until the following day.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

And it explains:

Because it is not possible.

For

how should one proceed?

Suppose you say:

Let us judge him on the eve of Shabbat,

beginning the deliberations on the eve of Shabbat,

and let us conclude his case [

for acquittal ] on the same day,

on the eve of Shabbat—

It is impossible to do so, because there is concern

that perhaps they will find a reason for conviction, and

then

they will need to defer the judgment overnight,

on Friday night.

Suppose you say:

Let us judge him on the eve of Shabbat,

and if they find a reason for conviction, let them defer the judgment overnight,

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

It is impossible to do so, because

execution does not override Shabbat.

Suppose you say:

Let us execute him at night,

on the night following Shabbat—

It is impossible to do so, because

“before the sun,”

while the sun is shining,

is required.

Suppose you say:

Let us conclude his case on Shabbat and execute him on the first day of the week,

on Sunday.

It is impossible to do so, because

you would thereby cause a delay in his judgment,

after his case had been concluded as one involving the death penalty on Shabbat.

And suppose you say:

Let us judge him on the eve of Shabbat, conclude his case on the first day of the week,

and execute him that same day, so that there would be no delay in the judgment, since as long as the judgment has not been concluded, the defendant awaits rescue—

It is impossible to do so, because

they may forget their reasons.

When the judges come to conclude the case on Sunday, it is possible that they will have forgotten their reasons for convicting him on Friday.

And the Gemara challenges: Is it possible to say that they will forget

even though the two scribes of the court stand before them and write down the words of those who acquit and the words of those who convict?—

The Gemara answers:

Granted, as for what is in the mouth,

the reason that the judges stated for convicting him, the court scribes

write it down,

and they will remember the foundation of the reasoning; but

as for what is in the heart,

the mental process by which they establish the reasoning coherently,

people

can forget.

Therefore, it is not possible

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

The Gemara now brings a discussion between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish concerning the burial of a met mitzva on Shabbat, although this matter is not relevant here, because at the end of the discussion the question will be raised whether a court execution overrides Shabbat, which is relevant to the matter before us.

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Should the burial of a met mitzva not override Shabbat by means of a kal va-homer

from the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat?

And if the Temple service, which overrides Shabbat—

the burial of a met mitzva overrides it, from

a special derivation,

“and for his sister,”

as the Gemara explains:

As it is taught:

The Torah states with regard to a nazirite that he may not become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, and the Torah further states that even for his close relatives who died, he may not become impure.

And the beraita analyzes: The verse states with regard to 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 does the Torah come to teach?

This verse is superfluous, since the Torah has already stated, “He shall not approach any dead person,” without excluding his relatives from the prohibition. Therefore, the tanna asks what this seemingly superfluous verse comes to teach.