Torah Community Connections

Week 112 - Tuesday - 15 January 2002

SANHEDRIN: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 2

Cases of impurity or purity, they begin from the greatest; capital cases, they begin from the side. All are fit to judge monetary suits, and not all are eligible to judge capital cases, but only priests, Levites, and Israelites who marry to the priesthood.

Kehati

This mishnah continues to teach the differences between monetary suits and capital cases.

If a person comes to ask the Court regarding cases of impurity or purity - and similarly laws of permitted and forbidden foods; according to another version, the Mishnah reads "The laws of monetary matters, impurity and purity," they begin from the greatest - the greatest of the judges states his opinion first, for it is a quality of scholars not to speak before someone who is greater than he is; but capital cases, they begin from the side - they first ask the most junior of the judges who sit on the side to state his opinion, while the most senior judge, who sits in the middle, expresses his opinion only at the end; the reason is that if the most senior judge were to state his opinion first, junior judges would not dare to disagree with him, and would rely on his opinion. This is not to be feared in monetary suits and cases of purity and impurity.

All - even the ger (stranger) provided his mother is a Jewess and even the mamzer (see Deut. 23:3), are fit to judge monetary suits, and not all are eligible to judge capital cases - the Gemara explains the reason for this: it is written, "so shall they make it easier for you and bear the burden with you" (Ex. 18:22), "with you" was understood to mean "similar to you," i.e., the judges shall be of proper lineage as you; thus, not all are eligible to judge capital cases, but only priests, Levites, and Israelites - of proper lineage - who - are eligible to - marry - their daughters - to the priesthood - to priests.

SANHEDRIN: CHAPTER 4: MISHNAH 3

The Sanhedrin was as half of a round threshing floor, so that they could see one another. And the two scribes of the judges stand before them: one to the right and one to the left, and they write the words of those for acquittal and of those for conviction. Rabbi Yehudah says, Three: one writes the words of those for acquittal, and one writes the words of those for conviction, and the third writes the words of those for acquittal and the words of those for conviction.

Kehati

This mishnah teaches the order of seating of the Sanhedrin and how the deliberations of the judges are recorded.

The Sanhedrin - both the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one members and the Small Sanhedrin of twenty-three, was as half of a round threshing-floor - sat in a semicircle, so that they could see one another - so that each judge could see all the other judges. They would not sit in a full circle, because the litigants and the witnesses had to speak before all the judges, so that all would see them and closely follow their words.

And the two scribes of the judges stand before them: one to the right and one to the left, and they write the words of those for acquittal and of those for conviction - Rashi interprets this to mean that two of them write the words of those for acquittal and another two write the words of those for conviction, so that if one errs, the other will write the correct version. According to Rambam, however, "One writes the words of those for acquittal, and one writes the words of those for conviction" (Hil. Sanhedrin 1:9).

Rabbi Yehudah says, Three - scribes were in the Sanhedrin; one writes the words of those for acquittal and one writes the words of those for conviction, and the third writes the words of those for acquittal and the words of those for conviction - according to Rashi, the First Tanna requires each clerk to record both the words of those for acquittal and for conviction; Rabbi Yehudah disagrees saying that would make much work for the two clerks and they might err.

Therefore - according to his opinion - there were three scribes, one writing only the words of those for acquittal, one writing only the words of those for conviction, and a third to record both views; since none would have too much to do, they would not condense their records, and they would not err. And if one of them nevertheless erred, the records of the third one would provide the correct version. [According to Rambam, the First Tanna, also requires each clerk to record either the views of those in favor of acquittal or conviction.] Rabbi Yehudah, however, holds that a third scribe was needed to record both views, so that there would be two clerk-witnesses for those in favor of acquittal, and two clerk-witnesses for those in favor of conviction (Rambam: Commentary to the Mishnah). The halakhah follows the First Tanna

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives