Le Grand Sanhédrin était composé de soixante et onze juges, et le moindre sanhédrin, de vingt-trois. D'où vient le fait que le Grand Sanhédrin se composait de soixante et onze? De (Nombres 11:16): "Rassemblez-moi soixante-dix hommes des anciens d'Israël," et Moïse sur eux, [à savoir. (Ibid 17): "Et ils vous supporteront"—avec vous], soit soixante et onze. R. Yehudah dit: Soixante-dix. [Il explique «avec vous» comme «semblable à vous», et non qu'il doit s'asseoir avec eux pour juger. La halakha n'est pas conforme à R. Yehudah.] Et d'où vient le fait que le moindre se composait de vingt-trois? De (Ibid. 35: 24-25): "Et la congrégation jugera ... et la congrégation sauvera." La congrégation juge [c.-à-d., Dix règles coupables], et la congrégation sauve [c.-à-d., Dix règles innocentes], faisant vingt. [c'est-à-dire, nous en déduisons qu'il doit y en avoir vingt. S'ils sont divisés, dix sont coupables et dix, innocents.] Et d'où vient le fait qu'une «congrégation» est dix? De (Ibid. 14:27): «Combien de temps pour cette mauvaise congrégation» (des espions), Yehoshua et Calev étant exclus (des douze). Et d'où proviennent les trois autres? De (Exode 23: 2): "Ne soyez pas après plusieurs pour le mal", je comprends que je devrais être avec eux pour de bon. Pourquoi, alors, faut-il me dire (Ibid.): "Après plusieurs incliner"? (À apprendre :) Ce n'est pas parce que votre inclination au bien (acquittement) est votre tendance au mal (condamnation). Votre inclination pour le bien est avec (une majorité de) un; votre inclination pour la maladie nécessite (une majorité de) deux (au-delà du minimum de dix). Et comme nous ne pouvons pas avoir un beth-din divisé, nous en ajoutons un autre, faisant vingt-trois. [Le verset est compris ainsi: "Ne soyez pas après plusieurs pour le mal", condamner par une majorité d'un sur ceux qui jugent l'acquittement; mais "après plusieurs incliner"—avec deux, même pour un malade, quand il y en a deux de plus pour condamnation que pour acquittement. Par conséquent, il en faut forcément vingt-trois. Car il ne peut y avoir moins de dix décisions d'acquittement—à savoir: «Et la congrégation sauvera», de sorte que la conviction ne peut pas être obtenue avec moins de douze. ("et puisque nous ne pouvons pas avoir un beth-din divisé" :) Beth-din ne peut pas être pair; car si (c'était, et) ils étaient séparés (dans leur décision), nous aurions la moitié contre la moitié, de sorte que «votre inclination pour de bon est avec un» ne pourrait pas obtenir. Par conséquent, un juge supplémentaire est ajouté, faisant vingt-trois.] Et combien doit-il y en avoir dans une ville pour qu'elle se qualifie pour un sanhédrin (sur vingt-trois)? Cent vingt. [La Gemara explique: Vingt-trois, le petit sanhédrin; trois rangées de vingt-trois chacune siégeant devant eux, à ajouter aux juges si cela s'avère nécessaire (voir 4: 4); dix «oisifs» (c'est-à-dire dix qui sont oisifs de tout travail et qui s'assoient constamment dans la maison d'étude; deux scribes pour enregistrer les paroles de ceux qui se prononcent pour l'acquittement et ceux qui se prononcent pour la condamnation; deux chazanim, sextons de Beth-Din ( la charité étant recueillie par deux et distribuée par trois); une lettre de sang, un scribe; et un enseignant de jeunes enfants— faisant cent vingt.] R. Nechemiah dit: Deux cent trente, correspondant à des "officiers des dizaines" [c'est-à-dire vingt-trois dizaines —de sorte que chaque juge soit un officier de dix, moins que cela n'étant pas considéré comme «autorité». La halakha n'est pas conforme à R. Nechemiah.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Sanhedrin
ומשה על גביהן הרי שבעים ואחד – for the Biblical verse states (Numbers 11:17): “they shall bear [the burden of the people] with you, [and you shall not bear it alone],” and they will be with you.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin
Introduction
After having learned in the first five mishnayoth of the chapter how many judges were needed for each type of case, the sixth mishnah gives Biblical proof texts for these numbers.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Sanhedrin
רבי יהודה אומר: שבעים – Who expounds on the word אתך/with you, that are similar to you, and not that you will sit with them in judgement. But the Halakha does not follow Rabbi Yehuda.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin
This mishnah basically contains exegetical (midrashic) proofs for the greater Sanhedrin of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Sanhedrin
עדה שופטת – ten who make liable/guilty
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin
The greater Sanhedrin was made up of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three. From where do we learn that the greater Sanhedrin should be made up of seventy one? As it says, “Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel” (Num. 11:16), and when Moses is added to them there is seventy one. Rabbi Judah says: “Seventy.” The greater Sanhedrin was composed of seventy one judges to correspond to the seventy elders plus Moses mentioned in Numbers 11:16. According to Rabbi Judah, the seventy elders included Moses, and therefore the greater Sanhedrin was only to be composed of seventy one.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Sanhedrin
עדה מצלת – ten who acquit, and learn from this that there needs to be twenty for if they divided it, there would be ten making liable and ten acquitting.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin
From where do we learn that the little Sanhedrin should be made up of twenty three? As it says, “The assembly shall judge”, “The assembly shall deliver” (Num. 35:24-25), an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers, thus we have twenty. And from where do we know that an assembly has ten? (1) As it says, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation?” (Num. 14:27) [which refers to the twelve spies] but Joshua and Caleb were not included. And from where do we learn that we should bring three others [to the twenty]? By inference from what it says, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil” (Ex. 23:2), I conclude that I must be with them to do well. Then why does it say, “[To follow] after the many to change judgment” (Ex. 23:2). [It means that] your verdict of condemnation should not be like your verdict of acquittal, for your verdict of acquittal is reached by the decision of a majority of one, but your verdict of condemnation must be reached by the decision of a majority of two. The court must not be divisible equally, therefore they add to them one more; thus they are twenty three. The exegesis used to derive the number 23 for the little Sanhedrin is much more complicated. Firstly, from the verses in Numbers 35:24-25, which refer to an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers the condemned from being punished, the Rabbis derive that capital cases require the potential to have both a full “assembly” that judges (convicts) and a full assembly that delivers (acquits). Although this is certainly not the simple meaning of this verse, this is the way it is understood in our mishnah. An assembly is taken to mean a group of ten, as proven from the use of the word in Num. 14:27. If two “assemblies” are required than we need at least twenty on a court to adjudicate capital cases. In order to exegetically prove that we need another three, the mishnah turns to Exodus 23:2 and a potential redundancy between the two halves of the verse. The first half states that one should not follow a majority of people in order to do evil, and therefore we could learn that one should follow the majority to do good. However, this is understood to also be the explanation of the second half of the verse, which states that one should follow the majority, clearly to do good. In order to solve this supposed redundancy the mishnah says that the majority needed to convict is not the same as the majority needed to acquit. In order to acquit we only need a majority of one and in order to convict we need a majority of two. The verse is therefore explained in the following manner: when it says “, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil”, it means do not follow a majority of one to convict. When it says “[To follow] after the many to change judgment”, it means you should follow a majority of two to acquit. We have now arrived at the number twenty-two, since if an assembly (10) convicts we will need another assembly of 12 to acquit. In order not to have a court that is even and therefore might not arrive at any decision, they add one more judge.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Sanhedrin
הטייתך לרעה על פי שנים – This is how the verse (Exodus 23:2) should be read: “You shall neither side with the mighty/multitude to do wrong” – to make guilty via a [majority of] one , so that there would be more than those who acquit; “but to pervert it in favor of the mighty” – with two, even for evil, so that there would be two more declaring guilty than those who acquit. Therefore, perforce, we require twenty-three [judges], for less than ten [judges] who acquit =, we don’t have to say, for it it is written (Numbers 35:25): “And the assembly shall protect (the manslayer from the blood avenger),” and further, we do not find that “guilt” is less than twelve.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin
And how many should there be in a city that it may be fit to have a Sanhedrin? A hundred and twenty. Rabbi Nehemiah says: “Two hundred and thirty, so that [the Sanhedrin of twenty three] should correspond with them that are chiefs of [at least] groups of ten. In order for a city to be worthy or large enough to merit a little Sanhedrin, which according to mishnah five had to be appointed by the greater Sanhedrin, it had to have 120 permanent inhabitants. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, it had to have 230 inhabitants, ten for each judge. According to Rabbi Nehemiah this is so each judge can act as a chief of at least ten people, which is the smallest judicial appointment according to Ex. 18:21.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Sanhedrin
ואין בית דין שקול – We don’t make pairs in Jewish courts, for it they would split tdown the middle, it would be half and half – and we would not find giving a verdict according to the majority of votes by a majority of one for good; hence, we add to them one other [judge] so that there would be twenty-three.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Sanhedrin
Questions for Further Thought: • Why is a greater majority required for conviction than acquittal?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Sanhedrin
מאה ועשרים – The Gemara explains that twenty-three judges is a Small Sanhedrin. And three rows of twenty-three apiece sit before them, for if there was a need increase [the number of] judges, they would add from them, and there would be ten idle individuals [available]. These ten individuals are idle from all work and always sit in the House of Study. And two scribes [are available] who write the words of those who acquit and those who find guilty. And two men who announce the order of proceedings, sextons of the Jewish court who flog the guilty and invite the opponents in court, the two opponents [themselves], and two witnesses and two conspiring witnesses and two witnesses who find the previous witnesses to be conspiring, and two treasurers/managers [of the charity], and a third to distribute the tzedakah/charity, since charity is collected by two and distributed by a third, and an artisan doctor [whose task it is] to draw blood, and a scribe, and a teacher of children which [all together] equals one-hundred and twenty.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Sanhedrin
מאתים ושלשים כדי שרי עשרות – since that is twenty three groups of ten, whereby each judge would be the prince of ten, for less than the princes of ten, we would not find rulership. But the Halakha does not follow Rabbi Nehemiah.
