Quoting%20commentary for Sanhedrin 32:18

סנהדרי גדולה היתה: מ"ט דרבנן דאמרי ומשה על גביהן אמר קרא (במדבר יא, טז) והתיצבו שם

[teaching,] an individual man or woman thou mayest bring to thy gates,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to the court at thy gates which consists of twenty-three. ');">³³</span> but not a whole town.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter before a court of seventy-one. ');">³⁴</span> A CITY ON THE BORDER MAY NOT BE CONDEMNED. Why? — Because the Torah says: From the midst of thee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIII, 14. ');">³⁵</span> but not [a city] on the border.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 83, n. 4. ');">³⁶</span> NOR CAN THREE CITIES BE CONDEMNED. For it is written, Concerning one of the cities.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIII, 13. ');">³⁷</span> Yet one or two may be condemned, as it is written, of thy cities.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Undefined plurals mean at least two,' is a Talmudic rule. ');">³⁸</span> Our Rabbis taught: [Concerning] one [of the cities]: 'one', excludes three. You say that it excludes three; but why not assume that it excludes even two? — When it states, 'thy cities', two then are indicated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 12. ');">³⁹</span> hence, how do I explain 'one'? — That one [or two] cities may be condemned, but not three. At times Rab said that a single court cannot condemn three cities, but that [that number] may be condemned by two or three courts; at others he maintained that [three cities] can never be condemned, even by two or three courts. What is Rab's reason? — Because of 'baldness'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., depopulation. ');">⁴⁰</span> Resh Lakish said: They [sc. the Rabbis] taught this [only if the cities are] in a single province,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'place'; e.g., Judea and Galilee. ');">⁴¹</span> but if they lie in two or three different provinces, they may be condemned. R. Johanan holds that they may not be condemned [even in that case], for fear of 'baldness'. [A Baraitha] was taught which is in agreement with R. Johanan: We cannot condemn three cities in Eretz Yisrael; but we may condemn two [if situated in two provinces] e.g one in Judea and one in Galilee; but two in Judea or two in Galilee may not be condemned; and near the border, even a single city cannot be condemned. Why? Lest the Gentiles become aware of it and destroy the whole of Eretz Yisrael.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Sanh. XIV. ');">⁴²</span> But may not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a border city may not be condemned. ');">⁴³</span> be deduced from the fact that the Divine law wrote, From the midst of thee, [implying], but not from the border? — He [the author of the Baraitha] is R. Simeon, who always interprets the Biblical law on the basis of its meaning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 111. ');">⁴⁴</span> THE GREAT SANHEDRIN etc. What is the reason for the Rabbis maintaining that MOSES WAS OVER THEM?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the court consisted of seventy besides Moses. ');">⁴⁵</span> — Scripture says, That they may stand there

Explore quoting%20commentary for Sanhedrin 32:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.