Wielki Sanhedryn składał się z siedemdziesięciu jeden sędziów, a mniejszy sanhedryn z dwudziestu trzech. Skąd pochodzi, że Wielki Sanhedryn składał się z siedemdziesięciu jeden? Z (Lb 11:16): „Zbierzcie mi siedemdziesięciu mężów ze starszych Izraela”, a nad nimi Mojżesza [tzn. (Tamże 17): „I będą z tobą nosić”—razem z tobą], co daje siedemdziesiąt jeden. R. Juda mówi: Siedemdziesiąt. [Wyjaśnia „z tobą” jako „podobny do ciebie”, a nie, że musi siedzieć z nimi w sądzie. Halacha nie jest zgodna z R. Judą]. A skąd wynika, że mniejsze składały się z dwudziestu trzech? Z (tamże 35: 24-25): „A zbór będzie sądził… a zbór ocali”. Zgromadzenie sędziów [tj. Dziesięć reguł jest winnych], a kongregacja ratuje [tj. Dziesięć reguł jest niewinnych], czyniąc dwadzieścia. [tj. Wyprowadzamy z tego, że musi być dwadzieścia. Jeśli są podzieleni, dziesięciu jest winnych, a dziesięciu niewinnych.] A skąd wynika, że „zgromadzenie” to dziesięć? Od (tamże 14:27): „Jak długo to złe zgromadzenie” (szpiegów), Jehoszua i Kalew zostaną wykluczeni (z dwunastu). A skąd te trzy dodatkowe wyprowadzenia? Z (Księga Wyjścia 23: 2): „Nie chodźcie po wielu na złe”, rozumiem, że powinienem być z nimi na dobre. Dlaczego więc trzeba mi mówić (tamże): „Po wielu skłonić się”? (Do nauczenia :) Nie tak, jak skłonność do czynienia dobra (uniewinnienie) jest skłonnością do zła (przekonanie). Twoja skłonność do dobra jest (w większości) jednym; Twoja skłonność do choroby wymaga (większości) dwóch (ponad minimum dziesięciu). A ponieważ nie możemy mieć podzielonego bet-din, dodajemy kolejny, uzyskując dwadzieścia trzy. [Werset jest rozumiany w ten sposób: „Nie szukaj wielu za chorych”, aby skazać większością głosów jednego nad tymi, którzy orzekają o uniewinnienie; ale „po wielu do pochylenia”—z dwojgiem, nawet dla chorych, kiedy jest ich więcej za skazanie niż za uniewinnienie. Dlatego koniecznie potrzeba dwudziestu trzech. Nie może być mniej niż dziesięć wyroków uniewinniających—a mianowicie: „A zbór ocali”, tak aby przekonanie nie było możliwe przy mniej niż dwunastu. („a ponieważ nie możemy mieć podzielonego bet-dina” :) Bet-din nie może być parzyste; bo gdyby (tak było i) zostały rozdzielone (w ich decyzji), mielibyśmy połowę na połowę, tak aby „Twoje skłonności do dobra są u jednego” nie mogły zostać osiągnięte. Dlatego dodaje się dodatkowego sędziego, czyli dwudziestu trzech.] A ile musi być w mieście, aby kwalifikowało się do sanhedrynu (dwudziestu trzech)? Sto dwadzieścia. [Gemara wyjaśnia: dwadzieścia trzy, mały sanhedryn; trzy rzędy po dwadzieścia trzy, każdy siedzący przed nimi, z których można dodać do sędziów, jeśli będzie to konieczne (patrz 4: 4); dziesięciu „próżniaków” (tj. dziesięciu, którzy są bezczynni w pracy i stale siedzą w domu nauki; dwóch skrybów, którzy zapisują słowa tych, którzy rządzą za uniewinnienie, i tych, którzy rządzą za skazaniem; dwóch chazanim, sekstonów bet-dina , do nakładania ran, jeśli jest to wymagane, i wzywania stron sporu; dwóch stron procesowych; dwóch świadków; dwóch, którzy ogłaszają ich zomeminami („intryga”); dwóch, którzy ogłaszają zomemin, zomemin; dwóch (charytatywnych) zbieraczy i trzeci, aby rozdać dobroczynność ( dobroczynność zbierana przez dwóch i rozdzielana przez trzech); list krwi, pisarz; i nauczyciel małych dzieci— co daje sto dwadzieścia.] R. Nechemiasz mówi: Dwieście trzydzieści, co odpowiada „oficerom dziesiątek” [tj. dwudziestu trzem dziesiątkom —tak, aby każdy sędzia był dziesięcioosobowym urzędnikiem, a mniej niż ten nie był uważany za „autorytet”. Halacha nie jest zgodna z R. Nechemiaszem.]
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.
