Sanhedrin 3b — the Talmud in English

“of property” ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

“which is not paid at the outset” —

therefore

the tanna also taught half-damage, since it is “property which is not paid at the outset,”

which does not pay the principal but less, and both are equal in this, that they are “property which is not paid at the outset”; therefore the tanna taught them together, even though with half-damage there is no novelty in the Mishna.

And since

because

he wished to teach half-damage,

he also taught damage.

We learned in the Mishna: “With three”

and they are experts,

And the Gemara discusses:

Three—whence do we know it?!

From which verse in the Torah do we learn that it is necessary to judge with three experts?

And the Gemara explains:

For the Sages taught:

It is written in the Torah, in the section of the guardians [Exodus 22]: “

And he shall be brought

the owner

of the house to the powers,” [

here “the powers” is an expression for a judge],

here there is

one judge

one.

And it is further written [there]: “

Before the powers shall come the matter of both of them,”

here there are two.

And it is further written [there]: “

whom the powers shall condemn”—here there are three; the words of Rabbi Yoshiya.

Rabbi Yonatan says: The first,

the first verse

was stated first, and we do not expound “firsts,”

the first verse cannot be expounded from it for the number of judges, since it is expounded to inform us of the substance of the law: that expert judges are required, because the expression “powers” means greatness and authority.

Rather,

from which exposition do we know that three are required? From the verse

“Before the powers shall come the matter of both of them,”

here there is one,

and from the verse “

whom the powers shall condemn”—here there are two, and

since

a court is not even-numbered,

that they do not establish a court with an even number, for a “leaning” court is required [with the opinion of the majority deciding], as it is stated, “After the majority to incline”; therefore

they add one more judge to them—here there are three.

And now the Gemara discusses the dispute between Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan: whether they dispute in a general dispute throughout the entire Torah, whether “firsts are expounded or firsts are not expounded.”

Let us say,

should we say that

they dispute whether “firsts are expounded”—

For one master says,

Rabbi Yoshiya

holds: firsts are expounded,

the first verse too may be expounded.

And one master says,

Rabbi Yonatan

holds: firsts are not expounded.

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

It is not necessary to say so; rather,

everyone,

according to all opinions throughout the entire Torah,

holds: firsts are not expounded.

And as for Rabbi Yoshiya’s expounding here the first verse, “And the owner of the house shall be brought to the powers,”

he would say to you,

Rabbi Yoshiya

would explain

that here this verse necessarily comes to be expounded for the counting of the judges;

for if so,

if it does not come to be expounded from it,

let the verse say,

it should have written in the ordinary wording, “

And the owner of the house shall be brought to the judge.” What,

why did Scripture alter its wording and say

“to the powers”? Learn from it, for counting,

to learn from it the number of judges, and to include the verse among the three verses from which we learn that three judges are required.

And now the Gemara explains what Rabbi Yonatan answers to Rabbi Yoshiya’s claim:

And Rabbi Yonatan

holds that there is no alteration of wording, and that which the Torah said “to the powers,”

it adopted the common expression,

the expression spoken among people,

as people say,

as people say: “

One who has a legal claim,

a claim,

let him approach the judge.”

That is, people do not call the judge “a magistrate,” but “a judge,” and “powers” too is an expression for a judge; therefore there is no alteration of wording from which to expound.

And therefore

they dispute

whether the “powers” in the first verse may be expounded or not, even though throughout the entire Torah they hold that “firsts are not expounded.”

It follows that Rabbi Yonatan holds that there are two verses concerning two judges, and the third is learned from the principle that “a court is not even-numbered.” It is implied that Rabbi Yoshiya, who holds that three verses are required, holds that it is possible to establish an even-numbered court; for if not, why did the Torah write an additional verse to include the third? Rather, it is implied that if it had written two, we would establish a court of two. Therefore the Gemara asks—

And

does

Rabbi Yoshiya not hold

that it is necessary to make

a leaning court,

so that there will be one judge whose opinion decides if one judge acquits and the second obligates?!

That is, although fewer than three cannot be established according to Rabbi Yoshiya, since he learned that at least three are required from the three “powers” written in the section, would Rabbi Yoshiya nevertheless permit judging with an even-numbered court, of four or six?

But it was taught,

we have learned in a beraita that the Torah expounds that specifically a leaning court must be established: for it was taught,

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, says: What does it come to teach

what is the Torah’s intent in the verse, “And you shall not answer concerning a dispute

to incline, after the majority to incline”? —

The Torah said: Make for yourself a leaning court!

It follows that a leaning court is required.

And the Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoshiya does not hold like Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean [and in his view the verse “to incline after the majority to incline” is expounded for another exposition, below in the Gemara]; rather,

he holds

Rabbi Yoshiya

like Rabbi Yehuda, who says,

the number of judges of the Sanhedrin is

seventy,

which is an even number [even].

And as

we learned

in our Mishna:

The Great Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one,

these are the words of the Sages,

and Rabbi Yehuda says:

of

seventy.

It follows that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is possible to establish an even-numbered court, although it is possible that the seventy judges will be divided equally, thirty-five against thirty-five.

But the Gemara asks: surely Rabbi Yehuda himself holds that “a court is not even-numbered.”

Say that you heard it from Rabbi Yehuda

that it is possible to make an even-numbered court only

in the Great Sanhedrin,

because

the verses are written,

as it is stated in the Torah “seventy men,” which is an even number. But

with other courts,

with other courts, in which the number of judges is not explicitly stated,

did you hear it from him—did we hear from Rabbi Yehuda that an even-numbered court may be established in them!? And how did they say that Rabbi Yoshiya holds like Rabbi Yehuda?

And should you say

perhaps you wish to answer that Rabbi Yoshiya holds that according to Rabbi Yehuda

it makes no difference,

there is no distinction in the matter, but we learn from the Great Sanhedrin that in all courts an even-numbered court may be established—this is not correct, for we find a Mishna and a beraita concerning other courts, in which Rabbi Yehuda agrees that an even-numbered court is not made.

But we learned,

we learned in our Mishna:

The laying on of hands of the elders,

the judges of the Sanhedrin, upon the bull for an unwitting matter of the community,

and the decapitation of the heifer are with three, the words of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Yehuda says: with five.

And we said

in a beraita:

What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason

for requiring five in these cases? Since it is stated in the section of the bull for an unwitting matter, “And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bull,” and Rabbi Yehuda expounds: “

And they shall lay their hands,”

a plural expression;

here there are two. “

The elders”

is a plural expression;

here there are

two more,

and

since

a court is not even-numbered,

therefore

they add one more to them; here there are five.

It follows that Rabbi Yehuda himself holds that a court is not even-numbered.

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yoshiya—

is stronger than Rabbi Yehuda.

That is, Rabbi Yoshiya strengthened his words more than Rabbi Yehuda.

For whereas Rabbi Yehuda, with regard to the Great Sanhedrin, does not hold it,

only regarding it does he hold that a leaning court is not necessary,

but with regard to other courts,

in all other courts,

he does hold it,

he holds that a leaning court specifically is required.

But

whereas

Rabbi Yoshiya,

even

with regard to other courts as well he does not hold it.

But the Gemara asks: how will Rabbi Yoshiya expound the verse “to incline”? [For granted, Rabbi Yehuda expounds it with regard to all other courts except the Sanhedrin.]

Rather, this “to incline,”

which implies that a leaning court is required,

what will he do with it,

what will Rabbi Yoshiya expound from it?

And the Gemara answers:

He establishes it

he applies the verse

to capital cases,

where a court of twenty-three, which is the Lesser Sanhedrin, when it judges capital cases, must be a leaning court.

But with regard to monetary cases, not

is it necessary that the court be a leaning court; rather, it is possible to judge also with an even-numbered court, of four or six and the like.

But now the Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Yonatan, the judgment is decided according to the majority of opinions, since a leaning court is required, the opinions are divided, and the decision is according to the majority. But according to Rabbi Yoshiya, who does not require a leaning court, and the requirement of at least three judges is learned from the three verses containing “powers,” if so, let us say that in order to acquit or obligate, the opinion of all three judges will be required!?

Rather,

if so,

that which we learned,

that which we learned in the Mishna [below 29a]:

Two say, “Acquitted,” and one says, “Liable,”

he is

acquitted.

Two say, “Liable,” and one says, “Acquitted,”

he is

liable,

because we follow the majority. Does

let us say

that this Mishna is

not according to Rabbi Yoshiya?

And the Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoshiya too agrees that we follow the majority, and the opinion of all three is not necessary.

Even if you say,

it is possible to say that this Mishna is according to

Rabbi Yoshiya,

for he too holds that the decision of the majority suffices,

and he derives it,

and he learns this

through

a derivation of

a kal va-chomer from capital cases:

What,

just as

capital cases, which are more stringent,

nevertheless the decision does not require the opinion of all twenty-three judges required for capital cases, but

the Merciful One said: Go after the majority,

so that the opinions of the majority of the judges among them suffice for the decision,

monetary cases,

which are less stringent,

is it not all the more so!

Certainly we follow the majority, and the opinions of all three judges are not required!

And in summary: Rabbi Yoshiya holds that a leaning court is required only for capital cases, since only regarding them is “to incline” stated in the verse, and not for monetary cases. And the decision of the majority is a decision also in monetary cases, by a kal va-chomer from capital cases.

We learned in the Mishna: Monetary cases with three.

And the Gemara brings a beraita, containing Rabbi’s position, who holds that they are judged with five.

The Sages taught: Monetary cases with three.

Rabbi says: With five

they begin to judge,

so that the judgment may be concluded with three.

So that there will be a decisive majority [three judges], and we will follow the majority.

But the Gemara asks—

Is that so,

and if the case begins

with three, does it not conclude with two,

who constitute a majority decision?

And the Gemara explains:

This is what he is saying

Rabbi:

because

it is necessary

that the conclusion of the judgment

must be

with three.

And the Gemara infers:

Apparently, he holds

Rabbi,

when three are written,

the three instances of “powers” written in the Torah

are written with regard to the conclusion of the judgment,

and not with regard to the judging itself; therefore it is necessary to begin with five, so that the majority decision will be, at the very least, with three.

Rabbi Abbahu gestures with astonishment

at this reasoning:

But from now,

if you hold that the verses speak with regard to the conclusion of the judgment, then

the Great Sanhedrin

should need

to be, at the time of the beginning of the judgment,

one hundred forty-one, so that the judgment may be concluded with

a majority of

seventy-one.

And

so

the Lesser Sanhedrin should need

to be at the time of the beginning of the judgment

forty-five, so that the judgment may be concluded

at the very least

with

a majority of

twenty-three.

And we do not find that Rabbi disputes in these cases as well.

Rather,

necessarily Rabbi agrees, since

“Gather for Me seventy men

to judge,”

the Merciful One said,

it is evident that

from the time of gathering there shall be

seventy,

seventy and not one hundred forty-one. And likewise concerning the Lesser Sanhedrin, for the Torah said,

“

And the congregation shall judge, and the congregation shall acquit,”

its meaning is

from the time of the judging of the congregation,

from the beginning of the trial the number shall be twenty-three [a judging congregation and an acquitting congregation].

And if so, Rabbi Abbahu argues,

so too

in monetary cases: what the Torah wrote, “

And the owner of the house shall be brought to the powers,”

its meaning is that

from the time of approaching

three are required, and five are not required! [According to Rabbi Yonatan, “Before the powers shall come the matter of both of them”—from the time of coming, two; and since a court is not even-numbered, they add one more to them ].

And according to Rabbi Yonatan, “The case of both parties shall come before the judges”—from the time of coming, there are two; and since a court may not be evenly divided, one more is added to them.

And if so, the question returns: what is Rabbi’s reason for requiring five judges at the beginning of the judgment?

And the Gemara answers:

Rather, this is Rabbi’s reason:

because he expounds the verse

“whom the powers shall condemn,”

“they shall condemn” is in the plural;

there are two.

“Powers” is stated below,

at the end of the section, “whom the powers shall condemn,”

and “powers” is stated above,

“Before the powers shall come the matter of both of them.”

Just as

the powers that are stated

below

are

two [

for “they shall condemn, powers” is stated in the plural],

so too

“powers” stated in the verse

above

is

two.

Here there are four.

And

since

there is no evenly numbered court, they add another one to them; behold, here are five.