Sanhedrin 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

What is the meaning of “also a mitzva”?

What is the meaning of the word “mitzva”

that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said?

It is a mitzva to say to them,

to propose to them:

“If you want a judgment, have a judgment; if you want a compromise, have a compromise.”

This is what Rav ruled, and this is how Rav Huna, his student, conducted himself.

The Gemara raises an objection: If so,

this is the opinion of the first tanna!

After all, the first tanna also said that after the conclusion of the judgment it is forbidden to compromise, implying from his words that before the conclusion of the judgment it is permitted to compromise. And it likewise implies that a compromise is proposed to them. If so, in what way does the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa differ from that of the first tanna? [After all, the beraita implies that they disagree.]

The Gemara answers:

There is a difference between them;

there remains a difference between them with regard to the matter of

“a mitzva.”

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa holds that

there is

a mitzva

for the judges to propose a compromise to the litigants.

And the first tanna holds

that this is not a mitzva, but merely

an option

available to the judges to propose a compromise to them.

But the Gemara raises another objection:

This is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya!

After all, the words of the first tanna are identical to those of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as both hold that before

the conclusion of the judgment a compromise is proposed to the litigants, whereas after the conclusion of the judgment, you are not permitted to compromise!

The Gemara answers:

There is a difference between them;

there is a difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya with regard to the following statement:

“Once you have heard their arguments and you know toward which side the judgment is inclined, you are not permitted to say to them: Go and compromise.”

Only Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya holds this way, whereas the first tanna holds that it is still permitted to compromise until the conclusion of the judgment—that is, until the court says: “So-and-so, you are liable,” or: “So-and-so, you are exempt.”

From this point, we have four differing opinions concerning compromise.

A. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa holds [and the halakha follows him] that it is a mitzva to propose a compromise.

B. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya holds that it is permitted to propose a compromise, but only until the judge knows toward which side the judgment is inclined.

C. The first tanna holds that it is permitted to propose a compromise even until the conclusion of the judgment.

D. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, holds that it is entirely forbidden to compromise.

Earlier, the Gemara cited several expositions by the tannaim of the verse, “But he who blesses the one who takes a portion blasphemes the Lord,” and now the Gemara says:

And

these tannaim

disagree

with

Rabbi Tanḥum ben Ḥanilai.

For Rabbi Tanḥum ben Ḥanilai said: This verse was stated

the verse, “But he who blesses the one who takes a portion,”

only with regard to the incident of the Golden Calf,

when Aaron made a compromise between himself and the Jewish people, and permitted himself to compromise by making the Golden Calf for the Jewish people.

And for what reason did he do so?

As it is stated [

Exodus 32

“And Aaron saw, and he built an altar before it.” ]]

And we expound “he built” as an expression of understanding, and “an altar” as an expression of slaughter, meaning that he saw Ḥur slain—

What did he see?

Aaron

saw, said Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet in the name of Rabbi Elazar:

he saw

Ḥur,

son of Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron,

slaughtered before him.

He had been killed before Aaron’s eyes because the Jewish people had killed him when he refused to make the Golden Calf for them.

Aaron made a compromise, and

said

in his heart:

“If I do not listen to them,”

if I refuse the Jewish people’s request to make the Golden Calf,

“now they will do to me”

they will now do to me

as

like

they did to Ḥur,

and they will kill me as they killed Ḥur.

“And there will be fulfilled through me”

what the prophet laments concerning the burning of the Temple:

“If

a priest and a prophet are killed in the Sanctuary of the Lord,”

for if they kill Aaron, who was a priest and a prophet, then

“they will never have a remedy,”

as the Lord will not wish to forgive them. Therefore Aaron reasoned:

“It is preferable that they make the Golden Calf,”

that they make the Golden Calf, and then

“perhaps they will have a remedy through repentance.”

They will have a remedy, as the Holy One, blessed be He, will forgive them when they repent.

Earlier, the Gemara cited the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, who derives from the verse, “He who releases water is the beginning of strife,” that a compromise made before the quarrel exempts one from the strife.

The Gemara asks: How will the other tannaim—who do not expound the verse in this manner—expound this verse?

And these tannaim,

the verse

“He who releases water is the beginning of strife”—what do they expound from it?

The Gemara answers that they expound it

in accordance with the statement of Rav Hamnuna.

For Rav Hamnuna said: A person’s judgment does not begin with judgment concerning

when a person is judged in the World-to-Come, upon his death, they do not begin by judging him for another matter,

but

his judgment begins

with regard to words of Torah,

because he did not occupy himself with Torah when he had the opportunity,

as it is stated: “He who releases water,”

one who casts off from himself the yoke of Torah, which is compared to water, is

“the beginning of strife,”

and for this his judgment begins.

The Gemara now explains Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya’s statement that strife is comparable to water, which is why he expounded the verse, “He who releases water is the beginning of strife,” with regard to judges, that they should release and cast away the “water.”

Rav Huna said: This quarrel

the quarrel

resembles

it resembles

the stream of a watercourse,

the flow of water that emerges from a river when it rises above its banks. At first, the water seeps through in a thin stream by means of a hole it creates in the embankment of earth standing beside the river to prevent the flooding of the fields. If the small hole through which the water emerges is not blocked at the beginning of its formation, then

once it has widened, it has widened!

The thin stream continues to expand into a mighty current until it can no longer be blocked.

This is the parable. The lesson is that a quarrel begins with small, insignificant matters, but if it is not released and cast away, it expands and spreads until it becomes impossible to stop.

The Gemara brings another parable concerning quarrel [and according to Tosafot, this is another exposition of the verse, “He who releases water is the beginning of strife”]—

Abaye the Elder said:

A quarrel

resembles

it resembles

the planks of a bridge,

wooden planks of a bridge. At first, when they are placed there, they move and sway, but ultimately,

once it stands, it stands.

When people step on them repeatedly, they become stronger and fixed in their place. This is the parable.

The lesson is that at first a quarrel is not strong, but when the parties engage in increasing amounts of strife, and each one stands firm by his own opinion, the quarrel grows stronger.

“Heard and ignored, delayed three, seven, songs, is the sign” .

The Gemara now brings another exposition of the verse, “He who releases water is the beginning of strife,” and demonstrates that a saying commonly spoken by people is alluded to in a verse.

The Gemara recounts: There was

a certain

man

who would say repeatedly

who was accustomed to say the following maxim:

“Fortunate is one who goes and ignores;

the person who hears his disgrace and remains silent, and becomes accustomed to remaining silent,

a hundred evils pass him by.”

Through his silence, he is spared a hundred evils that would have befallen him had he been tempted to enter into a quarrel.

When Samuel heard this statement,

Samuel said to Rav Yehuda: A verse is written!

It is an explicit verse:

“He who releases water is the beginning of strife.”

And we expound “releases” as an expression of opening, while we have already said above that the flow of water is compared to quarrel. One who initiates a quarrel—“the beginning of strife.” And we expound “strife” as an abbreviation for “a hundred judgments.” Judgment is an expression of evils and troubles. Alternatively, “strife” has the numerical value of one hundred, and it is the beginning of a hundred judgments.

Since we have said that statements commonly spoken by people are explicitly stated or alluded to in verses, the Gemara brings further examples of this.

A certain

man

who would say repeatedly

who was accustomed to say:

“For two and three, a thief is not killed!”

For two or three thefts, the thief is not punished, but ultimately he will be punished. That is, if a thief commits a transgression two or three times and punishment has not yet come upon him, he should not be surprised, because ultimately he will be struck for the final offense.

Samuel said to Rav Yehuda: A verse is written,

it is an explicit verse:

“Thus said the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke it.”

And we expound the verse rhetorically: Is it for four that I will not return the punishment to him?!

A certain

man

who would say repeatedly

who was accustomed to say:

“Seven pits for the whole man.”

There are seven open pits at the feet of a whole and upright man, and the Lord will save him from all of them.

“And one for the evildoer.”

But there is one pit for those who commit evil, into which they fall immediately.

Samuel said to Rav Yehuda: A verse is written

it is an explicit verse:

“For a righteous man falls seven times and rises, but the wicked stumble through evil,”

and we expound “evil” in the singular; therefore, the wicked person will fall through one.

A certain

man

who would say repeatedly

who was accustomed to say:

“One who leaves the court having had his cloak taken,

one from whom the court took his garment to pay his debt,

let him sing a song and proceed on his way.”

He should go on his way cheerful and happy, and sing a song. That is, he should not grieve, but rejoice that the theft has been removed from his possession.

Samuel said to Rav Yehuda: A verse is written,

it is an explicit verse:

“And also all this people shall come to its place in peace,”

these are Jethro’s words in his advice to Moses to appoint judges to judge the people. And we expound from the words “all this people” that this includes even one who is found liable, and he too will come to his place in peace.

A certain

man

who would say repeatedly

who was accustomed to say:

“She dozes, and the basket falls.”

When a woman dozes, the basket on her head, in which she places her work implements, such as a spindle, falls. This is the parable, and the lesson is that because she is lazy, her work is not evident.

Samuel said to Rav Yehuda: A verse is written

it is an explicit verse:

“Through laziness the roof sinks,

and through slackness of hands the house leaks.” The meaning is that when a person is lazy and does not repair a small breach in the roof of the house, “the roof sinks”; and through slackness of hands, when he does not repair a small hole in his roof, the house leaks.

A certain

man

who would say repeatedly

who was accustomed to say:

“The man in whom I trusted

the man in whom I placed my trust

raised his fist at me and stood.”

He raised his fist against me. This is the parable, and the lesson is that my lover became my enemy.

Samuel said to Rav Yehuda: A verse is written

it is an explicit verse:

“Even my friend in whom I trusted,

who ate my bread, has magnified his heel against me.” The meaning is that my beloved, in whom I trusted and whose life I sustained by giving him my bread, set great ambushes against me to trap me.

A certain

man

who would say repeatedly

who was accustomed to say:

“When our love was strong,

when the love between my wife and me was intense,

we could lie on the width of a sword;

we had room to lie even in a narrow place, as wide as a sword [by way of exaggeration],

but now that our love is not strong,

now that our love is no longer intense,

a bed sixty cubits wide

a bed sixty cubits wide

is not enough for us,”

it does not suffice for us [by way of exaggeration].

Rav Huna said: Verses are written

this matter can be learned from verses:

Initially,

at first, when the love of the Holy One, blessed be He, for the Jewish people was intense,

it is written: “And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the cover of the Ark,”

as the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses that He would cause His Presence to rest upon the Ark, and from there the word of the Lord would come to him.

And it was taught in a beraita,

we learned in a beraita:

“The Ark was nine,”

the height of the Ark was one and a half cubits, which equals nine handbreadths,

and the cover

that was upon it was

one handbreadth high.

Here you have ten

handbreadths. The length of the Ark was two and a half cubits. Thus, the resting of the Divine Presence and His meeting with Moses took place in a small space ten handbreadths high.

And it is written [

the Maharshal’s version

“And ultimately it is written”],

in the House that Solomon built,

“And the House that King Solomon built for the Lord was sixty cubits in length, twenty cubits in width, and thirty cubits in height.” And ultimately,

when they sinned, at a time when the love between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Jewish people was no longer as intense as before,

it is written: “Thus said the Lord: The heavens are My throne and the earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me?” and so on.

What house can you build for Me in which I can confine My Presence?

We learned above that Rabbi Ḥanin derives “tagoru” in the sense of entering, and now the Gemara proves that it denotes bringing in.

What indicates that this expression, “do not tagoru,” denotes gathering in,

that it carries the meaning of bringing in?

Rav Naḥman said: The verse states: “And you shall not drink wine, and you shall not gather it in.”

Do not bring it in from the field into the house; thus, it denotes bringing in.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: From here,

from this verse:

“She prepares her food in the summer; she gathers her food at the harvest.”

The ant is not lazy; during the harvest season it gathers and brings in the kernels that fall from the harvest, for the cold days.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: From here,

from this verse:

“He who gathers in summer is a discerning son.”

For the discerning son gathers and brings in grain during the summer, when its price is low, for the winter, when it is expensive.

Now the Gemara cites statements of tannaim and amoraim to warn the judge about the great responsibility he bears to judge a true judgment.

Truth, money, fear—a mnemonic.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said:

Any judge who judges a true judgment

in accordance with its truth,

causes the Almighty

to cause the Divine Presence to rest among Israel, as it is stated: “God stands in the divine congregation; among the divine beings He judges.”

But any judge who does not judge a true judgment in accordance with its truth

he

causes

the Divine Presence to withdraw from Israel,

as it is stated: “Because of the oppression of the poor, because of the groaning of the needy, —

now I will arise, says the Lord.”

The Almighty says that He will withdraw from them.

And

further

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: A judge should always see

himself as taking

from

this litigant and giving to

the other litigant

unlawfully—

the Holy One, blessed be He, takes from him

from the judge

his soul, as it is stated: “Do not rob the poor because he is poor, and do not crush the needy at the gate

that is, at the time of judgment

because the Lord will take up their cause and despoil those who despoil them of life.”

And we expound “despoil” as referring to taking, while “life” means that He will take their souls.

And

further

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: A judge should always see

his

self as though a sword were placed between his thighs ,

and Gehenna were open beneath him.