Sanhedrin 36b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

When Rav said

that the opinion of the student may be joined with that of his teacher in determining the judgment in capital cases, this refers to students

such as Rav Kahana and Rav Asi,

who do not determine the ruling according to the reasoning of their teacher, since all their learning from their teacher was

for Rav’s received tradition they needed,

they needed to learn from their teacher the tradition that he had received from his teacher,

but

if

for Rav’s reasoning

—the explanation and additional understanding of their teacher—

they did not need,

because they knew how to explain and interpret through their own understanding.

Therefore, even if their teacher tells them the following incident before the court and teaches them what he heard from his teachers concerning this matter, they will not determine the ruling like their teacher’s determination because of his words; rather, only after they clarify the roots of the reasonings according to their own understanding will they issue the judgment through their own understanding, and they are thus considered like a student who determines the matter through his own understanding and not according to his teacher.

But in cases of impurity and purity, the student’s opinion is joined even if all his knowledge, both in halakha and in reasoning, is from his teacher.

Rabbi Abbahu said: Ten matters

that we learned in the Mishna

there are

in which there is a distinction

between monetary cases and capital cases, and none of them apply to an ox that is stoned,

for it is not comparable to capital cases in any of them,

except

for this, that its judgment must be determined by

twenty-three.

From where are these matters derived,

from where is it established that there is a distinction between the capital case of a person and the case of an ox that is destined to be stoned?

Rav Aha bar Pappa said: For the verse says [

Exodus 23:6]

“You shall not pervert the justice of your poor in his dispute,”

and this is the explanation of the verse: above [2a], the Gemara expounded from the verse [there, 23:2], “You shall not follow the majority for evil; after the majority you shall incline,” that one does not follow the majority of a single judge toward liability, but only toward acquittal.

And as a continuation of this, the verse says, “You shall not pervert the justice of your poor,” to teach that specifically

the justice of your poor you shall not incline

according to a single judge toward liability,

but you shall incline the justice of an ox that is stoned,

so that if there is a majority of a single judge to hold it liable to stoning, it is killed on his account.

And the Gemara raises an objection to the words of Rabbi Abbahu: “There are ten matters between monetary cases and capital cases.” Is it the case that

ten

matters there are?

There are nine.

And the Gemara is astonished at the questioner: Why do you think that there are nine matters?

But ten it teaches,

for ten matters were enumerated in the Mishna.

And the questioner explains his question:

Because not everyone is fit, and twenty-three is one matter — for the reason that a mamzer is disqualified from judging capital cases is that a Sanhedrin of twenty-three is required, concerning which it is said, “and they shall bear with you” [as explained below].

And for this reason we objected: if so, there are only nine matters between monetary cases and capital cases, and not ten?

And the Gemara answers:

And the Gemara answers:

There is another one,

there is an additional distinction that was not mentioned in the Mishna:

for it was taught: One does not seat in the Sanhedrin

to judge capital cases one who is

old —

because he has forgotten the distress of raising children and does not have compassion,

or

likewise

a eunuch or one who has no children,

for they do not have compassion like one who has children. But for monetary cases, they seat an old man and one who has no children. It follows that there are ten legal distinctions between monetary cases and capital cases.

Rabbi Judah adds even

one whom they know to be

cruel;

they do not seat him on the court.

And their opposites apply in the case of an inciter,

when they come to judge an inciter to idolatry, they seat even old and cruel judges, because

the Merciful One said: “You shall neither pity nor conceal him.”

It was taught in the Mishna:

Everyone is fit to judge monetary cases.

And the Gemara discusses it: “Everyone”—what does this come to include?

Rav Judah said: It comes to include a mamzer,

for although he is not fit to enter the congregation,

he is fit to judge monetary cases.

And the Gemara raises an objection to the words of Rabbi Judah:

We already learned it once,

for we already learned [above, 27b]:

Anyone who is fit to judge capital cases is fit to judge monetary cases, and there is one who is fit to judge monetary cases but is not fit to judge capital cases.

And we discussed it,

concerning what was said: “There is one who is fit to judge monetary cases but not capital cases,”

what does this come to include,

who is the one concerning whom this law was stated?

And Rav Judah said: It comes to include a mamzer,

for concerning him it was said that he is fit for monetary cases but not for capital cases.

And this is difficult concerning the words of Rav Judah: why did he need to derive from two places that a mamzer is fit for monetary cases?

And the Gemara answers:

One comes to include a convert,

and one comes to include a mamzer.

And it is necessary,

the Mishna needed to explain that both a mamzer and a convert are fit to judge monetary cases.

Because

if it had taught us

only

a convert

who is fit to judge monetary cases, there would be room for error and to explain that specifically a convert

who is fit to enter the congregation

may judge,

but as for a mamzer, perhaps not

he should judge; therefore it stated that a mamzer too is fit.

And

likewise

if it had taught us

only that the

mamzer

is fit for monetary cases, there would be room for error and to explain that specifically a mamzer

who comes from a fit drop,

for his father and mother are Israelites, is fit to judge,

but a convert, who does not come from a fit drop,

for he was born of a gentile woman,

perhaps not

he should judge.

For this reason,

it is necessary;

the Mishna needed to explain that both a convert and a mamzer are fit to judge monetary cases.

We learned in the Mishna:

And not everyone is fit to judge capital cases.

Just as “everyone is fit to judge monetary cases” was stated in order to include that a mamzer is fit, so “not everyone is fit to judge capital cases” came to exclude a mamzer.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason?

For Rav Yosef taught: Just as a court

must be

cleansed with righteousness, so

it must be

cleansed of every defect,

so that there should not be on the Sanhedrin a judge who has a bodily defect or a blemish of lineage.

Ameimar said: What is the verse,

where is this matter hinted at in the verse, as it is stated [Song of Songs 4:7]:

“You are all

beautiful, my beloved, and there is no blemish in you.”

And the Gemara is astonished: From where is it to be learned from this verse to disqualify a judge who has a blemish of lineage?

And perhaps

specifically one who has

a literal bodily defect

is disqualified from judging?

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: The verse says [

Numbers 11:16]

“And they shall stand there with you,”

which implies from the word

“with you”

that the judges must be

like you.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And perhaps there

the Torah required the judges in Moses’ time to be complete and free of every disqualification

because

they needed to be fit for the indwelling of the

Divine Presence,

but other judges are fit even if they are disqualified by lineage.

Rather, Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: The verse says, [

Exodus 18:22] “

and they shall lighten your burden

and they shall bear it with you,”

and this verse speaks of Jethro’s advice to join judges with him in order to lighten his burden. And from the word

“with you,”

we expound that the judges must be

like you, they shall be,

and not disqualified by lineage.

Mishna:

A Sanhedrin —

whether the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one or the lesser Sanhedrin of twenty-three —

was

seated

like

a

half-circular threshing floor,

that is, in a semicircle, and this was

so that

the members of the Sanhedrin would

see one another.

And two scribes of the judges would stand before them,

before the Sanhedrin,

one on the right

of the Sanhedrin

and one on the left

of it.

And they write

the two scribes

the words of

the judges

who acquit,

“So-and-so acquitted, and for this reason,” and

the

words of the judges

who hold liable.

Rabbi Judah says:

Three

scribes stand before them:

One

of

them writes

only

the words of those who acquit.

And one

of

them writes

only

the words of those who hold liable.

And the third writes

both

the words of those who acquit and

both

the words of those who hold liable.