Sanhedrin 36b (לו:) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara resolves:

When Rav said

that the opinion of a student may be combined with that of his teacher in reaching a decision in capital cases, he was referring to students

such as Rav Kahana and Rav Asi,

who did not reach their ruling based on their teacher’s reasoning, since all their learning from their teacher was

for Rav’s received teachings they needed him,

as 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 him,

as they knew how to explain and interpret matters on their own.

Therefore, even if their teacher were to relate the following incident to them before the court and teach them what he had heard from his teachers concerning this matter, they would not rule as their teacher ruled because of his words. Rather, only after clarifying the roots of the reasoning according to their own understanding would they issue the ruling on their own, and they are consequently considered like a student who reaches a decision independently and not according to his teacher.

But in cases of ritual impurity and purity, the student’s opinion may be combined even if all his knowledge, both of halakha and of reasoning, comes from his teacher.

Rabbi Abbahu said: Ten matters

that we learned in the Mishna

are

distinctions

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

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

except

that its judgment must be decided by

twenty-three.

From where are these matters

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

Rav Aḥa bar Pappa said: As the verse states [

Exodus 23:6 ]

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

and this is the explanation of the verse: Earlier [2a], the Gemara expounded from the verse [ibid., 23:2], “You shall not follow the majority for evil; you shall incline after the majority,” that one does not follow a majority of one judge to find the defendant liable, but only to find him not liable.

As a continuation of this, the verse states, “You shall not pervert the judgment of your poor,” to teach that only

the judgment of your poor you may not pervert

by following a single judge in finding him liable;

but you may pervert the judgment of an ox that is to be stoned,

so that if there is a majority of one judge to find it liable to stoning, it is put to death on that basis.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Abbahu’s statement that there are ten distinctions between monetary cases and capital cases: Are there

ten

distinctions?

There are nine.

The Gemara is astonished at the questioner: Why do you think there are nine distinctions?

But ten are taught,

as ten matters were enumerated in the Mishna.

The questioner explains his objection:

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

Since this is so, we ask:

If so, there are only nine distinctions between monetary cases and capital cases, not ten?

The Gemara resolves:

There is another one,

there is an additional distinction not mentioned in the Mishna:

As it was taught: One does not seat on the Sanhedrin

to judge capital cases someone who is

old —

because he has forgotten the suffering involved in raising children and does not have compassion,

or

likewise

a eunuch or one who has no children,

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

Rabbi Yehuda adds even

one known to be

cruel;

he is not seated on the court.

And their counterparts 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 him nor conceal him.”

It was taught in the Mishna:

Everyone is fit to judge monetary cases.

The Gemara discusses this: “Everyone”

comes to include what?

Rav Yehuda said: It comes to include a mamzer,

for although he is not fit to enter the congregation, he is fit to judge monetary cases.

The Gemara raises an objection to the words of Rabbi Yehuda:

We already learned this once,

as we already learned above [27b]:

Anyone 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 deliberated about it,

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

what does this come to include,

who is the person to whom this law refers?

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

as it is stated with regard to him that he is fit for monetary cases but not for capital cases.

This presents a difficulty concerning the words of Rav Yehuda: Why was it necessary to derive in two places that a mamzer is fit to judge monetary cases?

The Gemara resolves:

One is to include a convert,

and one is to include a mamzer.

And it is necessary,

the Mishna needed to teach 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, one might have erred and interpreted this to mean that specifically a convert

who is fit to enter the congregation

may judge,

but as for a mamzer, say that he may not;

therefore it teaches that a mamzer is also fit.

And

likewise,

if it had taught us

only that the

mamzer

is fit for monetary cases, one might have erred and interpreted this to mean that specifically a mamzer

who comes from a fit drop,

as his father and mother are Jewish, is fit to judge,

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

as he was born to a gentile woman,

say that he may not

judge.

For this reason,

it is necessary;

the Mishna needed to teach 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” comes to exclude a mamzer.

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 blemish,

so that there is no judge on the Sanhedrin who has either a physical blemish or a blemished family lineage.

Ameimar said: What is the verse,

where is this matter alluded to in the verse, which states [Song of Songs 4:7]:

“You are all

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

The Gemara asks: From where is it to be learned from this verse that a judge with a blemished family lineage is disqualified?

Perhaps

only one who has

an actual physical blemish

is disqualified from judging?

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: The verse states [

Numbers 11:16 ]

“And they shall stand there with you,”

the word

“with you”

indicates that the judges must be

similar to you.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Perhaps there

the Torah required judges in the time of Moses to be 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 have a disqualified family lineage.

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The verse states, [

Exodus 18:22 ] “

and they shall bear with you,”

“and they shall bear with you,”

and this verse speaks of Jethro’s counsel to appoint judges together with him to ease his burden. And from the word

“with you,”

we derive that the judges must be

similar to you,

and not of disqualified family lineage.

Mishna:

The Sanhedrin—

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

was

seated

like

a

semicircular configuration,

that is, in a semicircle, and this was

so that

the members of the Sanhedrin

could see one another.

And the two scribes of the judges stood 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 find liable.

Rabbi Yehuda 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 find liable.

And the third writes

both the

words of those who acquit and

the

words of those who find liable.