Sanhedrin 16

בנשיא שבט שחטא עסקינן מי לא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה כל הדבר הגדל יביאו אליך דבריו של גדול האי נמי גדול הוא

we are dealing with the Nasi of a tribe who has sinned. Doesn’t Rav Adda bar Ahava say: The verse states: “They shall bring every great matter to you” (Exodus 18:22), meaning: Matters of a great one, i.e., in any case where a great person is accused of a transgression whose punishment is death, he is tried by the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges. And this Nasi of the tribe is also a great one, so his trial is by seventy-one judges.

עולא אמר רבי אלעזר בבאין על עסקי נחלות וכתחילתה של ארץ ישראל מה תחילתה שבעים ואחד אף כאן שבעים ואחד

Ulla said that Rabbi Elazar said a different explanation: The mishna discusses a case where two tribes came to adjudicate a dispute about matters of inheritance, i.e., territory claimed by each tribe on the border between them, and this dispute is handled by the Great Sanhedrin consisting of seventy-one judges, as was done at the beginning of the settlement in Eretz Yisrael during the time of Joshua. Just as the beginning, the initial division, was performed by seventy-one Elders of the congregation, so too here, when there is a dispute about the borders determined by that initial division, the case is adjudicated by the seventy-one judges of the Great Sanhedrin.

אי מה תחילתה קלפי אורים ותומים וכל ישראל אף כאן קלפי אורים ותומים וכל ישראל אלא מחוורתא כדרב מתנה

The Gemara asks: If this logic is employed, then just as the beginning was performed by casting lots [kalpei], with the Urim VeTummim, and with all of the Jewish people present, so too here, in a dispute between tribes, there should be a need for lots, the Urim VeTummim, and the presence of all of the Jewish people. Since this is not required by halakha, it is apparent that a border dispute between tribes need not be adjudicated using the same procedures as the original division of the inheritances. Consequently, there is no reason to require seventy-one judges. Rather, it is clear that this must be explained in accordance with the explanation of Rav Mattana, who says that the mishna is discussing the Nasi of a tribe who has sinned.

רבינא אמר לעולם בשבט שהודח ודקא קשיא לך בדינא דרבים דיינינן ליה אין אף על גב דקטלינן ביחיד בי דינא דרבים דיינינן ליה

Ravina said: The mishna is actually discussing a tribe that was subverted and which engaged in idol worship, and with regard to that which poses a difficulty for you, the question of whether we judge such a tribe with the halakha of a multitude, it can be answered: Yes, although we execute them as individuals by stoning, and their money is not confiscated, nevertheless we judge them in a court of the multitude, i.e., each one of them is tried by the Great Sanhedrin.

מי לא אמר רבי חמא ברבי יוסי אמר רבי אושעיא והוצאת את האיש ההוא או את האשה ההוא וגו׳ איש ואשה אתה מוציא לשעריך ואי אתה מוציא כל העיר כולה לשעריך הכא נמי איש ואשה אתה מוציא לשעריך ואי אתה מוציא כל השבט כולו לשעריך

Ravina continues: Doesn’t Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Yosei, say that Rabbi Oshaya says: The verse that discuses an individual who serves idol worship states: “And you shall take out that man or that woman who did that evil thing to your gates, even the man or the woman, and you shall stone them until they die” (Deuteronomy 17:5), and it is inferred: You take out a man or a woman to your gates to judge them in the court that is located at the gates of the city, which is a lesser Sanhedrin, but you do not take out an entire city to your gates; rather they are to be judged by the large court. Here also with regard to a tribe that has sinned: You take out a man or a woman to your gates, but you do not take out the entire tribe to your gates; rather they are judged by a court of seventy-one.

לא את נביא השקר מנהני מילי

§ The mishna teaches that a false prophet may be judged only by the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?

אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אתיא הזדה הזדה מזקן ממרא מה להלן בשבעים ואחד אף כאן בשבעים ואחד

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy, with the meaning of presumptuousness stated in the context of a false prophet learned from presumptuousness stated in the context of a rebellious elder. With regard to a false prophet the verse states: “But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die” (Deuteronomy 18:20), and with regard to a rebellious elder it states: “And the man that acts presumptuously, by not listening to the priest that stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or to the judge, that man shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:12). Just as there, with regard to a rebellious elder, he is presumptuous against a court of seventy-one judges, so too here, with regard to a false prophet, he is judged by a court of seventy-one judges.

והא הזדה כי כתיבא בקטלא הוא דכתיבא וקטלא בעשרין ותלתא הוא אלא אמר ריש לקיש גמר דבר דבר מהמראתו

The Gemara challenges: But when presumptuousness is written with regard to a rebellious elder, it is written with regard to the death penalty, and a death sentence may be issued by a court of twenty-three judges. Rather, Reish Lakish said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy, with the meaning of the term word stated in the context of a false prophet learned from the term word, used when describing the rebellious elder’s rebellion. The rebellious elder transgresses by violating the mitzva: “And you shall do according to the word that they will tell you” (Deuteronomy 17:10), and with regard to the false prophet the verse states: “Who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name” (Deuteronomy 18:20). Just as the rebellious elder rebels against a court of seventy-one judges, so too, a false prophet who speaks a word that is not in the name of God is sentenced to death by a court of seventy-one judges.

ולהדר זקן ממרא ולגמר הזדה הזדה מנביא השקר דבר דבר גמיר הזדה הזדה לא גמיר

The Gemara asks: And let the halakha of a rebellious elder return, and let it be derived by means of a verbal analogy, with the meaning of presumptuousness stated in the context of a rebellious elder learned from presumptuousness stated in the context of a false prophet, to indicate that a rebellious elder is also sentenced by a court of seventy-one judges. The Gemara answers: This tanna derives halakhot through the verbal analogy comparing the terms word and word, but he does not derive halakhot through a verbal analogy between the terms presumptuousness and presumptuousness, as he did not receive it as an authentic tradition.

ולא את כהן גדול מנהני מילי אמר רב אדא בר אהבה דאמר קרא כל הדבר הגדל יביאו אליך דבריו של גדול

§ The mishna teaches that the High Priest may be judged only by the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Adda bar Ahava says that the verse states: “They shall bring every great matter to you” (Exodus 18:22). This means that Moses, or the Great Sanhedrin with seventy-one judges, which served the parallel role to that of Moses, adjudicates all matters relating to a great one, i.e., the High Priest.

מיתיבי דבר גדל דבר קשה אתה אומר דבר קשה או אינו אלא דבריו של גדול כשהוא אומר את הדבר הקשה יביאון אל משה הרי דבר קשה אמור

The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: The verse states: “They shall bring every great matter to you,” which is interpreted to mean that a difficult matter is judged by the Great Sanhedrin. The baraita asks: Do you say that the verse is actually referring to a difficult matter, or is it only referring to the matters relating to a great one? The baraita answers: When it states in a different verse that Moses implemented Yitro’s advice: “They brought the difficult matter to Moses” (Exodus 18:26), a difficult matter is stated explicitly. As Moses was following the directive of Yitro, it is therefore apparent that the term “great matter” is referring to a difficult matter.

הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא דבר גדל דבריו של גדול אתה אומר דבריו של גדול או אינו אלא דבר הקשה כשהוא אומר הדבר הקשה הרי דבר קשה אמור הא מה אני מקיים דבר גדל דבריו של גדול

The Gemara answers: Rav Adda bar Ahava states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that other tanna, as it is taught in a different baraita: The meaning of “great matter” in the verse is matters relating to a great one. The baraita asks: Do you say that it is referring to matters relating to a great one, or is it only referring to a difficult matter? The baraita explains: When it says further on: “They brought the difficult matter to Moses,” a difficult matter is stated, so how do I realize the meaning of “great matter”? It is referring to matters relating to a great one.

והאי תנא תרי קראי למה לי חד לצואה בעלמא וחד לעשייה ואידך אם כן לכתוב או גדול גדול או קשה קשה מאי גדול ומאי קשה שמע מינה תרתי

The Gemara asks: And as for this tanna in the first baraita who maintains that “great matter” and “difficult matter” are referring to the same halakha, why do I need two verses to express the same idea? The Gemara answers: One is for the command in general, and one is to state that the execution of the matter was carried out correctly. And why does the other tanna not accept this explanation? The Gemara explains: He would claim that if so, if both verses were actually referring to the same thing, let it write either “great” in one verse and great in the other, or difficult in one verse and “difficult” in the other. What is the significance of writing “great” in one verse and what is the significance of writing “difficult” in the other? Conclude two conclusions from it; one verse is referring to difficult matters and the other to matters relating to a great one.

בעי רבי אלעזר שורו של כהן גדול בכמה למיתת בעלים דידיה מדמינן ליה או דילמא למיתת בעלים דעלמא מדמינן ליה אמר אביי מדקא מבעיא ליה שורו מכלל דממונו פשיטא ליה

Rabbi Elazar asked: If the ox of a High Priest killed a person, by how many judges is it sentenced? Do we compare it to a trial that could result in the death of its owner, the High Priest, which would have to be judged by seventy-one judges, or perhaps we compare it to a trial that could result in the death of owners in general, which could be judged by twenty-three judges? Abaye said: Since he asked the question only with regard to the High Priest’s ox, where there is a specific reason to say that its judicial proceedings should have the same halakhot as those concerning its owner, by inference it can be derived that it was obvious to him that court hearings related to the High Priest’s other property may be deliberated by an ordinary court.

פשיטא מהו דתימא הואיל וכתב כל הדבר הגדל כל דבריו של גדול קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Why should it not be so? The Gemara answers: Abaye needed to clarify this, lest you say that since it writes: “Every great matter,” one might have thought that the verse is referring to all matters relating to a great one, meaning that any case involving the High Priest is adjudicated by the Great Sanhedrin. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that this is not the halakha.

אין מוציאין וכו׳ מנהני מילי אמר רבי אבהו דאמר קרא ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמד

§ The mishna teaches that the king may bring the nation out to an optional war only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges, i.e., the Great Sanhedrin. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Abbahu says: It is as the verse states with regard to the appointment of Joshua: “And he shall stand before Elazar the priest, and he shall ask counsel of the Urim before the Lord; by his word they shall go out, and by his word they shall come in, he and all of the children of Israel with him and all of the congregation” (Numbers 27:21).

הוא זה מלך וכל בני ישראל אתו זה משוח מלחמה וכל העדה זה סנהדרי

Rabbi Abbahu analyzes the end of the verse. With regard to the word “he,” this is the king, referring to Joshua and to any other leader who brings the nation out to war. With regard to the word “him” in the verse “And all of the children of Israel with him,” this is the priest anointed for war, who was anointed specially to stand and instruct the people before the war (see Deuteronomy 20:2). “And all of the congregation”; this is the Sanhedrin. Consequently, the king can embark on an optional war only if the Great Sanhedrin is present and grants authority to him.

ודילמא לסנהדרי הוא דקאמר להו רחמנא דלישיילו באורים ותומים

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps this mention of the Sanhedrin simply means that the Merciful One says that the Sanhedrin may ask a question of the Urim VeTummim, as may the king or the priest anointed for war, as opposed to an ordinary person; but with regard to the decision to go to war, perhaps the king may do so without the agreement of the Sanhedrin.

אלא כי הא דאמר רב אחא בר ביזנא אמר רבי שמעון חסידא כנור היה תלוי למעלה ממטתו של דוד כיון שהגיע חצות לילה רוח צפונית מנשבת בו והיה מנגן מאליו מיד היה דוד עומד ועוסק בתורה עד שעלה עמוד השחר כיון שעלה עמוד השחר נכנסו חכמי ישראל אצלו

Rather, the proof is like that which Rav Aḥa bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: A lyre hung above David’s bed, and once midnight arrived, the northern midnight wind would blow on it and cause the lyre to play on its own. David would immediately rise from his bed and study Torah until the dawn arrived. Once dawn arrived, the Sages of Israel would enter to advise him with regard to the various concerns of the nation and the economy.

אמרו לו אדונינו המלך עמך ישראל צריכין לפרנסה אמר להן לכו והתפרנסו זה מזה אמרו לו אין הקומץ משביע את הארי ואין הבור מתמלא מחולייתו אמר להם לכו פשטו ידיכם בגדוד

One time they said to him: Our master the king, your nation, Israel, requires sustenance. King David said to them: Go and sustain one another, i.e., provide each other with whatever is lacking. The Sages said to him in response, citing a parable: A single handful [hakometz] of food does not satisfy a lion, and a cistern will not be filled merely from the rain that falls directly into its mouth, but other water must be channeled in. So too, the nation cannot sustain itself using its own resources. King David then told them: Go and take up arms with the troops in battle in order to expand our borders and provide our people with the opportunity to earn a livelihood.

מיד יועצין באחיתופל ונמלכין בסנהדרין ושואלין באורים ותומים אמר רב יוסף מאי קרא

The Sages immediately sought advice from Ahithophel to determine whether or not it was appropriate to go to war at that time and how they should conduct themselves; and they consulted the Sanhedrin in order to receive the requisite permission to wage a war under those circumstances; and they asked the Urim VeTummim whether or not they should go to war, and whether or not they would be successful. Rav Yosef says: What is the verse from which this aggada is derived?

ואחרי אחיתפל בניהו בן יהוידע ואביתר ושר צבא למלך יואב אחיתופל זה יועץ וכן הוא אומר ועצת אחיתפל אשר יעץ וגו׳ ובניהו בן יהוידע זו סנהדרין אביתר אלו אורים ותומים

It is: And after Ahithophel was Benaiah, son of Jehoiada; and Ebiathar; and the general of the king’s army, Yoav (see I Chronicles 27:34). The individuals named in this verse correspond to the roles in the aggada as follows: Ahithophel is the advisor whose counsel they sought first with regard to going to war, and so it says: “Now the advice of Ahithophel, which he counseled in those days, was like that of a man who inquires of the word of God; so was the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom” (II Samuel 16:23). And Benaiah, son of Jehoiada corresponds to the Sanhedrin, since he was the head of the Sanhedrin, and Ebiathar corresponds to the Urim VeTummim, as Ebiathar, son of Ahimelech the priest would oversee inquiries directed to the Urim VeTummim (see I Samuel 23:9).

וכן הוא אומר ובניהו בן יהוידע על הכרתי ועל הפלתי ולמה נקרא שמן כרתי ופלתי כרתי שכורתין דבריהן ופלתי שמופלאין מעשיהן ואחר כך שר הצבא למלך יואב

And so it says with regard to the position of Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, as head of the Sanhedrin: “And Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, was over the Kereti and over the Peleti” (II Samuel 20:23). And why was the Sanhedrin called Kereti and Peleti? It was called Kereti because they were decisive [shekoretin] in their pronouncements. It was called Peleti because their actions and wisdom were wondrous [shemufla’in], as Peleti and mufla’in share the same root. According to the order of the verse, upon being instructed by King David to go to war, the Sages first consulted with Ahithophel, then with the Sanhedrin, and then they would ask the Urim VeTummim; and only thereafter was the general of the king’s army, Yoav, given the command to ready the army for battle.

אמר רבי יצחק בריה דרב אדא ואמרי לה אמר רבי יצחק בר אבודימי מאי קרא עורה כבודי עורה הנבל וכנור אעירה שחר

Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rav Adda, and some say Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avudimi, said: What is the verse from which it is derived that David’s lyre would awaken him at midnight? “Awake, my glory; awake, harp and lyre; I will awaken the dawn” (Psalms 57:9). This means that the self-playing lyre has already awoken, and now I must engage in Torah study until dawn.

ואין מוסיפין על העיר מנהני מילי אמר רב שימי בר חייא אמר קרא ככל אשר אני מראה אותך את תבנית המשכן וכן תעשו לדורות הבאין

§ The mishna teaches: They may extend the city of Jerusalem or the courtyards of the Temple only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: The verse states: “According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its vessels, and so shall you do” (Exodus 25:9). “And so shall you do” means for future generations; just as the Tabernacle was fashioned in all of its details according to Moses’ instructions, so too later, the Temple is fashioned according to the instructions of the Great Sanhedrin, whose members stand in place of Moses.

מתיב רבא כל הכלים שעשה משה משיחתן מקדשן מיכן ואילך עבודתן מחנכתן ואמאי נימא וכן תעשו לדורות הבאין

Rava raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to all of the utensils that Moses fashioned, their anointment with the sacred oil is what consecrates them, rendering them fit for service in the Tabernacle. From that point forward, i.e., in future generations, there is no need for anointment, but rather their service in and of itself dedicates them, meaning that when they are used for the first time in sacred service they become consecrated. Rava explains the objection: And why is this so? Let us say instead that since the verse states: “And so shall you do,” this teaches that it must be done for future generations as in the Tabernacle, and therefore anointment with sacred oil should be required in the Temple as in the Tabernacle.

שאני התם דאמר קרא וימשחם ויקדש אתם אותם במשיחה ולא לדורות במשיחה

The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse states: “And it came to pass on the day that Moses completed erecting the Tabernacle that he anointed it and sanctified it and all its vessels, and the altar and all its vessels, and he anointed them and he sanctified them” (Numbers 7:1). The verse emphasizes that he sanctified “them,” and from this it is inferred that only those utensils need sanctification by anointment, but for future generations there is not a requirement of sanctification by anointment.

ואימא אותם במשיחה ולדורות אי במשיחה אי בעבודה אמר רב פפא אמר קרא אשר ישרתו בם בקדש הכתוב תלאן בשירות

The Gemara asks: And say instead: Those vessels require sanctification specifically by anointment, but for future generations it could be done either by anointment or by service. Rav Pappa says: The verse states with regard to this: “And they shall take all service vessels with which they shall serve in the sanctuary” (Numbers 4:12). The verse renders it dependent upon service, meaning that the service is what sanctifies them.

אלא אתם למה לי אי לאו אתם הוה אמינא לדורות במשיחה ובעבודה דהא כתיב וכן תעשו כתב רחמנא אתם אותם במשיחה ולא לדורות במשיחה

The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the extra word “them”? This emphasis seems superfluous. The Gemara answers: Had the verse not added the word “them,” I would say: For future generations the sanctification is accomplished by anointment and by service together, as it is written: “And so shall you do.” Therefore, the Merciful One writes “them,” to teach: They alone are consecrated by anointment, but for future generations the vessels are not consecrated by anointment.

ואין עושין סנהדראות כו׳ מנא לן כדאשכחן במשה דאוקי סנהדראות ומשה במקום שבעים וחד קאי

§ The mishna teaches that they may appoint a lesser Sanhedrin for the tribes only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this matter? The Gemara answers: It is as we find with regard to Moses, who established lesser courts for all of the people (see Exodus 18:25–26), and Moses stands in place of the seventy-one judges on the Great Sanhedrin. Consequently, a lesser Sanhedrin that stands at the head of a tribe is appointed by the Great Sanhedrin.

תנו רבנן מניין שמעמידין שופטים לישראל תלמוד לומר ׳שפטים תתן׳ שטרים לישראל מניין תלמוד לומר ׳שטרים תתן׳ שופטים לכל שבט ושבט מניין תלמוד לומר ׳שפטים לשבטיך׳ שוטרים לכל שבט ושבט מניין תלמוד לומר ׳שטרים לשבטיך׳

The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that society must establish judges for the Jewish people? The verse states: “You shall place judges and officers over you in all of your gates that the Lord your God gives you for your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment” (Deuteronomy 16:18). From where is it derived that society must also establish officers for the Jewish people? The same verse states: “You shall place judges and officers.” From where is it derived that society must also establish judges not only for the entire Jewish people but also for each and every tribe? The verse states: “You shall place judges and officers…for your tribes.” From where is it derived that society must also establish officers for each and every tribe? The same verse states: “You shall place judges and officers…for your tribes.”

שופטים לכל עיר ועיר מניין תלמוד לומר ׳שפטים לשעריך׳ שוטרים לכל עיר ועיר מניין תלמוד לומר ׳שטרים לשעריך׳ רבי יהודה אומר אחד ממונה על כולן שנאמר ׳תתן לך׳ רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר ׳לשבטיך ושפטו׳ מצוה בשבט לדון את שבטו

From where is it derived that society must also establish judges for each and every city? The verse states: You shall place judges and officers…for your gates, as the gate of the city is the seat of the elders of the city and its judges. From where is it derived that society must also establish officers for each and every city? The verse states: You shall place Judges and officers…for your gates. Rabbi Yehuda says: You must also have one court appointed over all of them, as it is stated: “You shall place over you,” meaning that there must be a single institution that is responsible for all of these appointments. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Another halakha is derived from the verse: “For your tribes, and they shall judge.” This teaches that it is a mitzva for a tribe to judge the sinners from within its tribe, and not to delegate the responsibility to other tribes.

ואין עושין עיר הנדחת מנא הני מילי אמר רבי חייא בר יוסף אמר רבי אושעיא דאמר קרא והוצאת את האיש ההוא או את האשה ההיא איש ואשה אתה מוציא לשעריך ואי אתה מוציא כל העיר כולה לשעריך

§ The mishna states that a city may be designated as an idolatrous city only in accordance with the ruling of the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy-one judges. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef says that Rabbi Oshaya says: As the verse states with regard to one who engages in idol worship: “And you shall take out that man or that woman who did that evil thing to your gates” (Deuteronomy 17:5), and it is inferred: You take out a man or a woman to your gates for the lesser Sanhedrin to judge them, but you do not take out the entire city to your gates; rather, they are to be judged by the Great Sanhedrin.

אין עושין עיר הנדחת בספר מאי טעמא מקרבך אמר רחמנא ולא מן הספר

§ The mishna teaches that the court may not designate a city as an idolatrous city if it is on the frontier. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “Certain worthless people have gone out from your midst and have led astray the inhabitants of their city” (Deuteronomy 13:14). The Merciful One states that this halakha applies when they come from your midst, meaning from within your country, but not from the frontier.

ולא שלש ערי הנדחת דכתיב אחת אבל עושין אחת או שתים דכתיב עריך תנו רבנן אחת אחת ולא שלש אתה אומר אחת ולא שלש או אינו אלא אחת ולא שתים כשהוא אומר ׳עריך׳ הרי שתים אמור הא מה אני מקיים ׳אחת׳ אחת ולא שלש

§ The mishna teaches: And three adjoining cities may not be designated as idolatrous cities. The source for this ruling is as it is written: “If you shall hear concerning one of your cities that the Lord your God has given you” (Deuteronomy 13:13), and not three cities. The mishna continues: But the court may designate one city, or two adjoining cities as idolatrous cities. The source for this is as it is written: “Your cities,” in the plural. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “One,” from which it is inferred: One, but not three. Do you say that the meaning is one, but not three, or rather, is this not the meaning of the verse, that it is one, but not two? The baraita explains that this cannot be. When the verse states: “Your cities,” two are stated. How do I realize the meaning of: “One”? One, but not three.

זימנין אמר רב בבית דין אחד הוא דאין עושין הא בשנים ושלשה בתי דינין עושין וזימנין אמר רב אפילו בשנים ושלשה בתי דינין לעולם אין עושין מאי טעמא דרב משום קרחה אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא במקום אחד אבל בשנים ושלשה מקומות עושין רבי יוחנן אמר אין עושין משום קרחה

At times Rav said: It is in one court that they may not designate more than two adjoining cities as idolatrous cities, but in two or three courts they may designate them. And at times Rav said: Even in two or three courts they may never designate them. What is the reasoning of Rav? It is due to desolation, to ensure there will not be large swaths of uninhabited land in Eretz Yisrael. Reish Lakish says: They taught only that the court may not designate three adjoining cities as idolatrous cities in one region, but in two or three regions they may designate them. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They may not designate them, due to desolation.

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן אין עושין שלש עיירות מנודחות בארץ ישראל אבל עושין אותם שתים כגון אחת ביהודה ואחת בגליל אבל שתים ביהודה ושתים בגליל אין עושין וסמוכה לספר אפילו אחת אין עושין מאי טעמא שמא ישמעו נכרים ויחריבו את ארץ ישראל

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 14:1) in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The court may not designate three adjoining cities as idolatrous cities in Eretz Yisrael, but they may designate two, such as one in Judea and one in the Galilee. But they may not designate two in Judea or two in the Galilee. And if the city is near the frontier, they may not designate even one. What is the reason for this? Perhaps the gentiles will hear that there is a city on the border that is desolate, and they will seize the opportunity to invade and destroy Eretz Yisrael.

ותיפוק לי דמקרבך אמר רחמנא ולא מן הספר רבי שמעון היא דדריש טעמא דקרא

The Gemara asks: But let him derive this halakha from the fact that the Merciful One states: “From your midst,” from which it is inferred: But not from the frontier. The Gemara answers: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he interprets the reason for the mitzva in the verse and draws halakhic conclusions based on that interpretation.

סנהדרי גדולה היתה מאי טעמייהו דרבנן דאמרי ומשה על גביהן אמר קרא והתיצבו שם

§ The mishna teaches that the Great Sanhedrin was composed of seventy-one judges, and that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it was composed of only seventy, as Moses gathered seventy men of the Elders of the Jewish people, and according to Rabbi Yehuda, Moses himself was not counted as part of the group. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who say that when Moses gathered seventy men, he was at the head of the court and is therefore counted among them? The verse states: “And the Lord said to Moses: Gather Me seventy men from the Elders of Israel, whom you know to be the Elders of the people and officers over them, and bring them to the Tent of Meeting and they shall stand there