Sanhedrin 36a (לו.) — the Talmud in English

What of a festival, which is set aside because of an individual offering,

if we say that vows and freewill offerings may be sacrificed on a festival, nevertheless

murder does not set it aside. An individual offering that sets aside a festival—does it not follow all the more so that murder should not set it aside!

This works according to the one who says that vows and freewill offerings may not be sacrificed on a festival,

since an individual offering does not set aside a festival. It is possible to interpret “from My altar” as referring to an individual offering that sets aside neither Shabbat nor a festival, and the kal va-chomer would thus remain valid.

But according to the one who says that vows and freewill offerings may be sacrificed on a festival,

according to whom an individual offering does set aside a festival, it is impossible to expound the kal va-chomer. For according to him, the verse “from My altar you shall take him to die” cannot be understood. -

What can be said?

Rather, Rava said

this is the conclusion of his statement: Necessarily, the verse “from My altar you shall take him to die” completely uproots the kal va-chomer. For

it is not necessary to say that according to the one who says that vows and freewill offerings may be sacrificed on a festival,

it is impossible to expound the kal va-chomer,

as “from My altar” is not fulfilled at all,

not even with regard to an individual offering.

Rather, even according to the one who says that vows and freewill offerings may not be sacrificed on a festival,

according to whom it would be possible to say that the verse “from My altar” refers to an individual offering, to which the kal va-chomer does not apply,

the verse says: “from My altar”—

My special altar.

And what is that? The daily offering,

which is the primary of the offerings.

And the Merciful One said

[Exodus 21]

“From My altar you shall take him to die.”

It was stated in the Mishna:

In cases of monetary law, and in cases of ritual impurity and purity,

the deliberation begins with the greatest judge, out of respect for him.

Rav said: I was present

[I was]

among the members of Rabbi’s court,

among the judges of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi,

and

when they deliberated cases of monetary law,

they began with me

[the count began with me], and they asked me first, even though I was not the greatest among them.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But we

stated in our Mishna—in cases of monetary law—

“we begin with the greatest,” did we not?

The Gemara answers:

Rabba, son of Rava, said, and some say

that this answer was given by

Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Valles:

No proof may be brought from Rabbi’s court, because

the arrangement of Rabbi’s court was different: In all their arrangements, they began from the side,

in every case they deliberated before him, they began with the judges seated at the side and not with the greatest, because of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s humility.

Since one statement of Rabba—or, according to some, of Rav Hillel—had been mentioned, the Gemara cites another statement of theirs.

And Rabba, son of Rava, said, and some say Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Valles: From the time of Moses

our master

until Rabbi, we have not found Torah and greatness in one place,

there was no period between Moses our master and Rabbi in which the Torah and greatness of all Israel were held by one person..

The Gemara wonders:

And

if

not,

was this not the case!?

There was Joshua,

who was greater in Torah and greatness than all Israel in his generation, was there not!?

The Gemara answers: Although Joshua possessed Torah and greatness, he was not alone in his generation, for in that generation

there was Eleazar

son of Aaron the kohen, who was also great in wisdom. The Gemara again asks:

But there was Pinhas,

after his father Eleazar died, when he became the High Priest and the sage of the generation; consequently, Torah and greatness were found with him in one place?

The Gemara answers: There

were elders

who had received the Torah from Joshua, such as Otniel, Ibtzan, and Boaz, and they lived many years after him.

The Gemara asks:

But there was Saul,

the king?

The Gemara answers: In his time

there was Samuel,

who was great in Torah.

The Gemara wonders:

But Samuel died

during Saul’s lifetime, and if so, Saul remained alone in his generation in Torah and greatness?

The Gemara resolves this: The statement that we said—that Torah and greatness were not found in one place—refers to

all his years—

that is what he

means,

namely, throughout all his years. From the beginning of their greatness, they were the possessors of Torah and greatness in that generation, for from the time Moses and Rabbi established their academies, there was no one like them in Torah and greatness. Saul, however, had Samuel with him at the beginning of his greatness.

The Gemara again asks:

But there was David,

the king, who was greater than all Israel in Torah and greatness?

The Gemara answers: There

was

with him

Ira the Jairite,

who was his teacher, and was his equal in Torah.

But Ira died

during David’s lifetime, and David remained alone as one who was great in Torah and greatness?

The Gemara again answers:

We are speaking of all his years,

whereas Ira was with David at the beginning of David’s greatness.

The Gemara asks:

But there was Solomon,

the king, who was greater in Torah and kingship than all Israel in his generation?

The Gemara answers: In Solomon’s generation

there was Shimei, son of Gera,

who was his equal in Torah!

The Gemara asks:

But

in the end Solomon

killed him,

he killed Shimei, and remained alone as the possessor of Torah and greatness?

The Gemara again answers:

We are speaking of all his years.

The Gemara asks:

But there was Hezekiah,

the king of Judah, who was greater in Torah and greatness than all Israel?

The Gemara answers: In Hezekiah’s days

there was Shebna,

who was appointed over Hezekiah’s household, and whose academy was larger than Hezekiah’s. [As stated above, 26a, Hezekiah had eleven thousand followers, while Shebna had thirteen thousand.]

The Gemara wonders:

But he was killed;

Shebna was killed by Sennacherib, and Hezekiah remained alone in his generation?

The Gemara again answers:

We are speaking of all his years.

The Gemara asks:

But there was Ezra,

the scribe, who was the High Priest and outstanding in Torah and greatness above all Israel?

The Gemara answers: In the time of Ezra the scribe,

there was Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah,

who governed the land of Judea and was greater than Ezra in greatness.

Thus the statement of Rabba—or, according to some, Rabbi Hillel—is established: We have not found Torah and greatness in one place from the time of Moses our master until Rabbi.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: I too say,

following the approach of Rabba—or, according to some, Rabbi Hillel—

from the time of Rabbi until Rav Ashi, we have not found Torah and greatness in one place.

The Gemara asks:

And

if

not

was there someone like him,

but there was Huna bar Natan?

The Gemara answers:

Huna bar Natan was completely subordinate

he deferred to the opinion

of Rav Ashi,

and therefore Rav Ashi was considered alone in his generation.

It was stated in the Mishna:

In cases of capital law, deliberation begins from the side.

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters derived,

what is the source of this halakha that one does not begin with the greatest in cases of capital law, but from the side?

Rabbi Aha bar Pappa said: The verse states, “You shall not answer after the majority,”

and the Sages expounded the wording of the verse as though it said

“You shall not answer after the great one”

[with the letter yod omitted]. This implies that the lesser judge may not answer and disagree with the words of the greatest of the judges. Therefore, if they begin with the greatest, the lesser judges will no longer be able to contradict his words; consequently, they begin from the side and conclude with the greatest.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: From here,

[I Samuel 25:13] In the account of Nabal the Carmelite, who rebelled against David, it is stated:

“And David said to his men, ‘Gird every man

his

sword,’ and every man girded

his

sword, and David also girded his sword,”

which implies that David rendered the decision after his men.

Rav said: A person may teach his student

one of the judges may study with his student a case that came before the court

and deliberate with him in cases of capital law,

showing him the position of those who find the defendant liable and the position of those who find him not liable. If the student reaches the same conclusion as one of the sides, the student’s view is included in the judgment.

The Gemara raises an objection:

It was taught:

Cases of

ritual purity and impurity

are decided on the basis of a single judge. But if there is a dispute, the disputants must be counted, and the matter is decided according to the majority of opinions. If on one side there were

a father and his son,

although they are relatives and therefore disqualified in other judicial contexts, both are valid, and likewise if two of the judges were

a teacher and his student, they are counted as two,

and are considered two opinions. But in cases that require by Torah law at least three judges, such as

cases of monetary law, cases of capital law, and cases of lashes,

and the acceptance of testimony for

the sanctification of the new month and the intercalation of the year,

if two judges were

a father and his son,

or

a teacher and his student, they are counted as only one,

and are not considered two judges.

It is thus explained in the beraita that the student’s opinion does not join with that of the master in determining the verdict, and this is difficult for Rav.