Sanhedrin 16
בִּנְשִׂיא שֵׁבֶט שֶׁחָטָא עָסְקִינַן. מִי לָא אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: ״כׇּל הַדָּבָר הַגָּדֹל יָבִיאוּ אֵלֶיךָ״ – דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל גָּדוֹל? הַאי נָמֵי גָּדוֹל הוּא.
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.
עוּלָּא אָמַר: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּבָאִין עַל עִסְקֵי נְחָלוֹת, וְכִתְחִילָּתָהּ שֶׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מָה תְּחִילָּתָהּ שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, אַף כָּאן – שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד.
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.
אִי, מָה תְּחִילָּתָהּ קַלְפִּי, אוּרִים וְתוּמִּים, וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל – אַף כָּאן קַלְפִּי, אוּרִים וְתוּמִּים, וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל? אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְרַב מַתְנָה.
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.
רָבִינָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם בְּשֵׁבֶט שֶׁהוּדַּח, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ – בְּדִינָא דְּרַבִּים דָּיְינִינַן לֵיהּ? אִין, אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָטְלִינַן בְּיָחִיד, בֵּי דִינָא דְּרַבִּים דָּיְינִינַן לֵיהּ.
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.
מִי לָא אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: ״וְהוֹצֵאתָ אֶת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַהִוא וְגוֹ׳״? אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה אַתָּה מוֹצִיא לִשְׁעָרֶיךָ, וְאִי אַתָּה מוֹצִיא כָּל הָעִיר כּוּלָּהּ לִשְׁעָרֶיךָ. הָכָא נָמֵי: אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה אַתָּה מוֹצִיא לִשְׁעָרֶיךָ, וְאִי אַתָּה מוֹצִיא כׇּל הַשֵּׁבֶט כּוּלּוֹ לִשְׁעָרֶיךָ.
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.
לֹא אֶת נְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי?
§ 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?
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אַתְיָא ״הֲזָדָה״ ״הֲזָדָה״ מִזָּקֵן מַמְרֵא, מָה לְהַלָּן בְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד – אַף כָּאן בְּשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד.
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.
וְהָא ״הֲזָדָה״ כִּי כְּתִיבָא, בִּקְטָלָא הוּא דִּכְתִיבָא, וּקְטָלָא בְּעֶשְׂרִין וּתְלָתָא הוּא! אֶלָּא, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: גָּמַר ״דָּבָר״ ״דָּבָר״ מֵהַמְרָאָתוֹ.
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.
וְלֶהְדַּר זָקֵן מַמְרֵא, וְלִגְמַר ״הֲזָדָה״ ״הֲזָדָה״ מִנְּבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר? ״דָּבָר״ ״דָּבָר״ גְּמִיר, ״הֲזָדָה״ ״הֲזָדָה״ לָא גְּמִיר.
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.
וְלֹא אֶת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״כׇּל הַדָּבָר הַגָּדֹל יָבִיאוּ אֵלֶיךָ״, דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל גָּדוֹל.
§ 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.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״דָּבָר גָּדֹל״ – דָּבָר קָשֶׁה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר דָּבָר קָשֶׁה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל גָּדוֹל? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״אֶת הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה יְבִיאוּן אֶל מֹשֶׁה״, הֲרֵי דָּבָר קָשֶׁה אָמוּר.
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.
הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״דָּבָר גָּדֹל״ – דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל גָּדוֹל. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל גָּדוֹל, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא דָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה״, הֲרֵי דָּבָר קָשֶׁה אָמוּר. הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״דָּבָר גָּדֹל״? דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל גָּדוֹל.
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.
וְהַאי תַּנָּא, תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי לְמָה לִי? חַד לְצַוָּאָה בְּעָלְמָא, וְחַד לַעֲשִׂיָּיה. וְאִידַּךְ? אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב אוֹ ״גָּדוֹל״ ״גָּדוֹל״, אוֹ ״קָשֶׁה״ ״קָשֶׁה״. מַאי ״גָּדוֹל״ וּמַאי ״קָשֶׁה״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
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.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שׁוֹרוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, בְּכַמָּה? לְמִיתַת בְּעָלִים דִּידֵיהּ מְדַמֵּינַן לֵיהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא לְמִיתַת בְּעָלִים דְּעָלְמָא מְדַמֵּינַן לֵיהּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִדְּקָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ שׁוֹרוֹ, מִכְלָל דְּמָמוֹנוֹ פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ.
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.
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וְכָתַב ״כׇּל הַדָּבָר הַגָּדֹל״, כׇּל דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל גָּדוֹל – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
אֵין מוֹצִיאִין וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְלִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן יַעֲמֹד״.
§ 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).
הוּא – זֶה מֶלֶךְ, ״וְכׇל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִתּוֹ״ – זֶה מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה, ״וְכׇל הָעֵדָה״ – זֶה סַנְהֶדְרֵי.
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.
וְדִילְמָא לְסַנְהֶדְרֵי הוּא דְּקָאָמַר לְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא, דְּלִישַׁיְּילוּ בְּאוּרִים וְתוּמִּים?
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.
אֶלָּא, כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: כִּנּוֹר הָיָה תָּלוּי לְמַעְלָה מִמִּטָּתוֹ שֶׁל דָּוִד. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ חֲצוֹת לַיְלָה, רוּחַ צְפוֹנִית מְנַשֶּׁבֶת בּוֹ וְהָיָה מְנַגֵּן מֵאֵלָיו. מִיָּד הָיָה דָּוִד עוֹמֵד וְעוֹסֵק בְּתוֹרָה עַד שֶׁעָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר, נִכְנְסוּ חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶצְלוֹ.
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.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֲדוֹנֵינוּ הַמֶּלֶךְ, עַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל צְרִיכִין לְפַרְנָסָה. אָמַר לָהֶן: לְכוּ וְהִתְפַּרְנְסוּ זֶה מִזֶּה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵין הַקּוֹמֶץ מַשְׂבִּיעַ אֶת הָאֲרִי, וְאֵין הַבּוֹר מִתְמַלֵּא מֵחוּלְיָיתוֹ. אָמַר לָהֶם: לְכוּ פִּשְׁטוּ יְדֵיכֶם בִּגְדוּד.
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.
מִיָּד יוֹעֲצִין בַּאֲחִיתוֹפֶל, וְנִמְלָכִין בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין, וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בְּאוּרִים וְתוּמִּים. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי קְרָא?
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?
״וְאַחֲרֵי אֲחִיתֹפֶל בְּנָיָהוּ בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע וְאֶבְיָתָר וְשַׂר צָבָא לַמֶּלֶךְ יוֹאָב״. ״אֲחִיתוֹפֶל״ – זֶה יוֹעֵץ, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַעֲצַת אֲחִיתֹפֶל אֲשֶׁר יָעַץ וְגוֹ׳״. וּ״בְנָיָהוּ בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע״ – זוֹ סַנְהֶדְרִין. ״אֶבְיָתָר״ – אֵלּוּ אוּרִים וְתוּמִּים.
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).
וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּבְנָיָהוּ בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע עַל הַכְּרֵתִי וְעַל הַפְּלֵתִי״. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָן כְּרֵתִי וּפְלֵתִי? כְּרֵתִי – שֶׁכּוֹרְתִין דִּבְרֵיהֶן, וּפְלֵתִי – שֶׁמּוּפְלָאִין מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן. וְאַחַר כָּךְ ״שַׂר הַצָּבָא לַמֶּלֶךְ יוֹאָב״.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אֲבוּדִימִי: מַאי קְרָא? ״עוּרָה כְבוֹדִי עוּרָה הַנֵּבֶל וְכִנּוֹר אָעִירָה שָּׁחַר״.
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.
וְאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״כְּכׇל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אוֹתְךָ אֵת תַּבְנִית הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְכֵן תַּעֲשׂוּ״ – לְדוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִין.
§ 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.
מֵתִיב רָבָא: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה, מְשִׁיחָתָן מְקַדַּשְׁתָּן. מִיכָּן וְאֵילָךְ, עֲבוֹדָתָן מְחַנַּכְתָּן. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא ״וְכֵן תַּעֲשׂוּ״ לְדוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִין!
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.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיִּמְשָׁחֵם וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתָם״ – אוֹתָם בִּמְשִׁיחָה, וְלֹא לְדוֹרוֹת בִּמְשִׁיחָה.
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.
וְאֵימָא: אוֹתָם בִּמְשִׁיחָה, וּלְדוֹרוֹת – אִי בִּמְשִׁיחָה אִי בַּעֲבוֹדָה? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אָמַר קְרָא ״אֲשֶׁר יְשָׁרְתוּ בָם בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״, הַכָּתוּב תְּלָאָן בְּשֵׁירוּת.
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.
אֶלָּא ״אֹתָם״ לְמָה לִי? אִי לָאו ״אֹתָם״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לְדוֹרוֹת בִּמְשִׁיחָה וּבַעֲבוֹדָה, דְּהָא כְּתִיב ״וְכֵן תַּעֲשׂוּ״. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֹתָם״ – אוֹתָם בִּמְשִׁיחָה, וְלֹא לְדוֹרוֹת בִּמְשִׁיחָה.
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.
וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין סַנְהֶדְרָאוֹת כּוּ׳. מְנָא לַן? כִּדְאַשְׁכְּחַן בְּמֹשֶׁה, דְּאוֹקִי סַנְהֶדְרָאוֹת, וּמֹשֶׁה בִּמְקוֹם שִׁבְעִים וְחַד קָאֵי.
§ 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִין שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין שׁוֹפְטִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שֹׁפְטִים תִּתֵּן״. שֹׁטְרִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שֹׁטְרִים תִּתֵּן״. שׁוֹפְטִים לְכׇל שֵׁבֶט וְשֵׁבֶט מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שֹׁפְטִים לִשְׁבָטֶיךָ״. שׁוֹטְרִים לְכׇל שֵׁבֶט וְשֵׁבֶט מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שֹׁטְרִים לִשְׁבָטֶיךָ״.
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.”
שׁוֹפְטִים לְכׇל עִיר וָעִיר מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שֹׁפְטִים לִשְׁעָרֶיךָ״. שׁוֹטְרִים לְכׇל עִיר וָעִיר מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שֹׁטְרִים לִשְׁעָרֶיךָ״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד מְמוּנֶּה עַל כּוּלָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תִּתֶּן לְךָ״. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: ״לִשְׁבָטֶיךָ וְשָׁפְטוּ״ – מִצְוָה בַּשֵּׁבֶט לָדוּן אֶת שִׁבְטוֹ.
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.
וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְהוֹצֵאתָ אֶת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא אוֹ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה הָהִיא״. אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה אַתָּה מוֹצִיא לִשְׁעָרֶיךָ, וְאִי אַתָּה מוֹצִיא כָּל הָעִיר כּוּלָּהּ לִשְׁעָרֶיךָ.
§ 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.
אֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת בַּסְּפָר. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״מִקִּרְבֶּךָ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא מִן הַסְּפָר.
§ 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.
וְלֹא שָׁלֹשׁ עָרֵי הַנִּדַּחַת, דִּכְתִיב: ״אַחַת״, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם, דִּכְתִיב: ״עָרֶיךָ״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אַחַת״ – אַחַת וְלֹא שָׁלֹשׁ. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: אַחַת וְלֹא שָׁלֹשׁ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אַחַת וְלֹא שְׁתַּיִם? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״עָרֶיךָ״, הֲרֵי שְׁתַּיִם אָמוּר. הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אַחַת״? אַחַת וְלֹא שָׁלֹשׁ.
§ 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.
זִימְנִין אָמַר רַב: בְּבֵית דִּין אֶחָד הוּא דְּאֵין עוֹשִׂין, הָא בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה בָּתֵּי דִינִין – עוֹשִׂין. וְזִימְנִין אָמַר רַב: אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה בָּתֵּי דִינִין לְעוֹלָם אֵין עוֹשִׂין. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? מִשּׁוּם קׇרְחָה. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת – עוֹשִׂין. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין עוֹשִׂין מִשּׁוּם קׇרְחָה.
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.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין עוֹשִׂין שָׁלֹשׁ עֲיָירוֹת מְנוּדָּחוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָם שְׁתַּיִם, כְּגוֹן אַחַת בִּיהוּדָה וְאַחַת בַּגָּלִיל. אֲבָל שְׁתַּיִם בִּיהוּדָה וּשְׁתַּיִם בַּגָּלִיל – אֵין עוֹשִׂין. וּסְמוּכָה לַסְּפָר – אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת אֵין עוֹשִׂין. מַאי טַעְמָא? שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁמְעוּ גּוֹיִם וְיַחְרִיבוּ אֶת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.
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.
וְתִיפּוֹק לִי דְּ״מִקִּרְבֶּךָ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא מִן הַסְּפָר? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּדָרֵישׁ טַעְמָא דִּקְרָא.
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.
סַנְהֶדְרִי גְּדוֹלָה הָיְתָה. מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי וּמֹשֶׁה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִתְיַצְּבוּ שָׁם
§ 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
