ת"ש דאמר ר' יוסי בר חנינא אחד מן התלמידים שזיכה ומת רואין אותו כאילו חי ועומד במקומו ואמאי נימא אילו הוה קיים הדר ביה השתא מיהא לא הדר ביה
On the following day, they rise early and assemble. He who was for acquittal declares, I was in favour of acquittal and I stand by my opinion. He who was for condemnation says, I was in favour of condemnation and I stand by my opinion. He who was in favour of condemnation may argue in favour of acquittal. But he who was in favour of acquittal may not retract and argue in favour of conviction. Now surely, on the 'the following day' the decision is to be promulgated!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then why not retract in favour of conviction.
');"><sup>13</sup></span> — But on thy view, are there no deliberations on the 'the following day'? Therefore the reference of the Mishnah is merely to the period of the deliberations.
Peninei Halakhah, Women's Prayer
In order to unveil the divine ideal in this world, revelation must occur through two complementary facets. Every individual creature is limited, and therefore cannot grasp divine perfection, but the people of Israel as a collective allows divine perfection to be manifest in the world. This indicates the tremendous importance of a unified Israel, because only the Jewish people, in all its components, can receive the Torah and with it rectify the world. Just as there is a difference between souls, so do the words of the Torah have multiple meanings, as it is written: “God said one thing from which I have heard two” (Tehilim 62:12) and: “Indeed, My word is like fire, like a hammer shattering rock” (Yirmiyahu 23:29). The Sages extrapolate, “Just as this hammer fragments into sparks, so too each and every statement that came from God’s mouth refracts into seventy languages” (Shabbat 88b). “Just as this hammer is divided into many fragments, so one verse of scripture generates many meanings (Sanhedrin 34a). Likewise, it is said about the disagreements between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai, and all other rabbinic disputes, “These and those are the words of the living God” (Eruvin 13b).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sefer HaChinukh
That the one who advocated innocence at the beginning of capital cases not advocate guilt: That one of the judges not go after the opinion of another greater judge or even after the opinion of the majority, because he trusts him - to make liable or to make innocent - if the matter is not understood to him in his mind. And if it is a case that is dependent upon a decree of scripture (gezerat hakatuv), a gezerah shava or a hekesh (the latter two being exegetical inferences based on similar wording in two sections), he must know it himself and not rely and trust one of the [other] judges or the majority; as it is stated (Exodus 23:2), "and you shall not answer about a dispute to incline." [This is] meaning to say, do not say something about a dispute to incline - meaning only from the side of leaning towards the words of a great judge or towards the majority - and not from the side of your understanding. Or if you want to be silent from [saying] that which is in your heart about the case and [instead] to incline after their words, do not do so. And the language of the Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:2 is "'You shall not answer about a dispute to incline' - that you not say, 'It is enough for me that I be like Rabbi x,' but rather, say what is in your heart. Maybe, monetary cases are also like this? [Hence] we learn to say, 'to lean after the majority.'" And within this very negative commandment is included that the one who advocates innocence in capital cases not go back and advocate guilt; as it stated, "and you shall not answer about a dispute to incline" - meaning to say, "let not your words be inclined towards guilt" (Sanhedrin 34a). And so, too, included is that we do not open towards guilt in capital case. And the explanation then comes, "and you shall not answer about a dispute to incline," meaning to say, the opening of your words should not be for guilt. As per force, we must explain it about the beginning of the case, since it is impossible to say that it warns that you not answer guilt about about the whole case. As, if so, no man would ever be prosecuted.
