Sanhedrin 176

בן סורר ומורה שרצו אביו ואמו למחול לו מוחלין לו

[ii] if the father and mother wished to pardon a 'stubborn and rebellious son',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after all the necessary warnings had been given. ');">¹</span>

זקן ממרא שרצו בית דינו למחול לו מוחלין לו וכשבאתי אצל חבירי שבדרום על שנים הודו לי על זקן ממרא לא הודו לי כדי שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל תיובתא

they may do so, and [iii] the [local] <i>Beth din</i> may pardon a rebellious elder, if they desire it. But when I went to my colleagues of the South,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., R. Meir, R. Judah and R. Jose among others, v. Halevy, op. cit., II, p. 180]. ');">²</span>

תניא אמר רבי יוסי מתחילה לא היו מרבין מחלוקת בישראל אלא בית דין של שבעים ואחד יושבין בלשכת הגזית ושני בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה אחד יושב על פתח הר הבית ואחד יושב על פתח העזרה ושאר בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה יושבין בכל עיירות ישראל

they agreed to the [first] two but not to the rebellious elder, that contention might not increase in Israel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this is the reason, it proves that he is executed even if he based his ruling on tradition and they on reason. ');">³</span>

הוצרך הדבר לשאול שואלין מבית דין שבעירן אם שמעו אמרו להן ואם לאו באין לזה שסמוך לעירן אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו באין לזה שעל פתח הר הבית אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו באין לזה שעל פתח העזרה

This is all [unanswerable] refutation.

ואומר כך דרשתי וכך דרשו חבירי כך למדתי וכך למדו חבירי אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו אלו ואלו באין ללשכת הגזית ששם יושבין מתמיד של שחר עד תמיד של בין הערבים

It has been taught; R. Jose said; Originally there were not many disputes in Israel, but one <i>Beth din</i> of seventy-one members sat in the Hall of Hewn Stones, and two courts of twenty-three sat, one at the entrance of the Temple Mount and one at the door of the [Temple] Court, and other courts of twenty-three sat in all Jewish cities. If a matter of inquiry arose, the local <i>Beth din</i> was consulted. If they had a tradition [thereon] they stated it; if not, they went to the nearest <i>Beth din</i>. If they had a tradition thereon, they stated it, if not, they went to the <i>Beth din</i> situated at the entrance to the Temple Mount; if they had a tradition, they stated it; if not, they went to the one situated at the entrance of the Court, and he [who differed from his colleagues] declared, 'Thus have I expounded, and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have they taught.' If they had a tradition thereon, they stated it, and if not, they all proceeded to the Hall of Hewn Stones, where they [i.e., the Great Sanhedrin] sat from the morning tamid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daily continual burnt offering. ');">⁴</span>

ובשבתות ובימים טובים יושבין בחיל נשאלה שאלה בפניהם אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו עומדין למנין רבו המטמאים טמאו רבו המטהרין טהרו

until the evening talmid; on Sabbaths and festivals they sat within the hel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A place within the fortification of the Temple (Jast.). They changed their locale, lest they should appear to be giving judgments, which is forbidden on these days. ');">⁵</span>

משרבו תלמידי שמאי והלל שלא שמשו כל צרכן רבו מחלוקת בישראל ונעשית תורה כשתי תורות

The question was then put before them: if they had a tradition thereon, they stated it; if not, they took a vote: if the majority voted 'unclean' they declared it so; if 'clean' they ruled even so. But when the disciples of Shammai and Hillel, who [sc. the disciples] had insufficiently studied, increased [in number], disputes multiplied in Israel, and the Torah became as two Toroth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pl. of Torah. There being many conflicting rulings. ');">⁶</span>

משם כותבין ושולחין בכל מקומות כל מי שהוא חכם ושפל ברך ודעת הבריות נוחה הימנו יהא דיין בעירו משם מעלין אותו להר הבית משם לעזרה משם ללשכת הגזית

From there [the Hall of Hewn Stones] documents were written and sent to all Israel, appointing men of wisdom and humility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of lowly knee.' ');">⁷</span>

שלחו מתם איזהו בן העולם הבא ענוותן ושפל ברך שייף עייל שייף ונפיק וגריס באורייתא תדירא ולא מחזיק טיבותא לנפשיה יהבו ביה רבנן עינייהון ברב עולא בר אבא:

and who were esteemed by their fellowmen as local judges. From there [sc. the local <i>Beth din</i>] they were promoted to [the <i>Beth din</i> of] the Temple Mount,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a vacancy occurred through death. ');">⁸</span>

חזר לעירו ושנה: ת"ר אינו חייב עד שיעשה כהוראתו או שיורה לאחרים ויעשו כהוראתו

thence to the Court, and thence to the Hall of Hewn Stones.

בשלמא יורה לאחרים ויעשו כהוראתו מעיקרא לאו בר קטלא הוא והשתא בר קטלא הוא אלא שיעשה כהוראתו מעיקרא נמי בר קטלא הוא התינח היכא דאורי בחלב ודם דמעיקרא לאו בר קטלא הוא והשתא בר קטלא הוא אלא היכא דאורי בחייבי מיתות ב"ד מעיקרא נמי בר קטלא הוא

They sent word from there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Palestine. This expression always refers to R. Eleazar b. Pedath (supra 17b). ');">⁹</span>

מעיקרא בעי התראה השתא לא בעי התראה

Who is destined for the world to come? He who is meek, humble, stooping on entering and on going out, and a constant student of the Torah without claiming merit therefor. [Thereupon] the Rabbis cast their eyes upon R. 'Ulla b. Abba [as endowed with all these qualities].

מסית דלא בעי התראה מאי איכא למימר מעיקרא אי אמר טעמא מקבלינן מיניה השתא אי אמר טעמא לא מקבלינן מיניה:

IF HE RETURNED TO HIS TOWN AND TAUGHT AGAIN etc. Our Rabbis taught: He is not liable unless he [himself] acts upon his ruling, or states his ruling to others, who act thereon. Now, as for stating his ruling to others, who act upon it, it is well: before [receiving the decision of the Great <i>Beth din</i>] he was not liable to death, [since he personally committed no wrong] whilst now he is [for flouting its authority]. But [as for the proviso that] he himself must act upon his ruling — even before [the decision was rendered in the Hall of Hewn Stones] he was liable to death! Now, there is no difficulty if his ruling referred to forbidden fat and blood, since before he was not liable to death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An offence in connection with these does not involve capital punishment. ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חומר בדברי סופרים מבדברי תורה האומר אין תפילין כדי לעבור על ד"ת פטור חמש טוטפות להוסיף על דברי סופרים חייב:

whilst now he is. But if he ruled &nbsp; &nbsp; on a matter involving the death penalty at the hands of <i>Beth din</i>, he would have been liable to death even before! — Before, he needed a formal warning;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra pp. 494-5. ');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר ר' אלעזר אמר ר' אושעיא אינו חייב אלא על דבר שעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע ואין לנו אלא תפילין אליבא דרבי יהודה

now he does not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is punished not for actually committing the offence, but for flouting Beth din. ');">¹²</span>

והאיכא לולב דעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע

But what of a mesith, for whom no warning is required?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he acted as an inciter to idolatry, but maintained that his words did not purport thus, and the Great Beth din ruled that they did, it is shewn that he was liable to death even before and without a warning, which is unnecessary for a mesith. ');">¹³</span>

בלולב מאי סבירא לן אי סבירא לן דלולב אין צריך אגד האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי ואי סבירא לן דצריך אגד גרוע ועומד הוא

— Before, had he stated a reason [excusing or justifying his action], it might have been accepted; but now, even if he stated a reason, it would not be accepted.

והאיכא ציצית דעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. <font>THERE IS GREATER STRINGENCY IN RESPECT TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE SCRIBES THAN IN RESPECT TO THE TORAH</font>. [THUS,] IF ONE [A REBELLIOUS ELDER] SAYS, THERE IS NO PRECEPT OF TEFILLIN, <font>SO THAT A BIBLICAL LAW MAY BE TRANSGRESSED, HE IS EXEMPT</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since all know that the Bible commands the wearing of tefillin, the words of the elder will be ineffective. ');">¹⁴</span>

בציצית מאי סבירא לן אי סבירא לן דקשר העליון לאו דאורייתא האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי ואי סבירא לן

[BUT IF HE RULES THAT THE TEFILLIN MUST CONTAIN] FIVE COMPARTMENTS, <font>THUS ADDING TO THE WORDS OF THE SCRIBES</font>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who required only four in the head-tefillin. ');">¹⁵</span> HE IS LIABLE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Eleazar said in R. Oshaia's name: He is liable only for a matter of which the fundamental law is Biblical, whilst its interpretation is of the Scribes, and in which there is room for addition, which addition, however, is the equivalent of subtraction. Now, the only precept [fulfilling these conditions] is that of tefillin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fundamental law of wearing tefillin is Biblical. By Rabbinic interpretation, the head-tefillin must contain four compartments, with inscriptions in each. Hence it is possible to rule that it should consist of a greater number. But if this is done, the tefillin is unfit, so that the addition amounts to subtraction of its fitness. ');">¹⁶</span> Now, this statement was made according to R. Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 87a. where R. Meir, R. Judah, and R. Simeon are in dispute. ');">¹⁷</span> But is there not the lulab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The palm branch, which was to be taken with other species of plant life on the Festival of Tabernacles. ');">¹⁸</span> the fundamental law of which is Biblical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 40. ');">¹⁹</span> the interpretation Rabbinical,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that it must be taken together with three other species, viz., the citron, myrtle, and willow. ');">²⁰</span> there being room for addition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., more than three species can be added. ');">²¹</span> which addition amounts to subtraction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if there are more than three species in all, the combination is invalid for the fulfilment of the precept. ');">²²</span> — Now, what is our opinion? If we hold that the lulab need not be bound [with the other two species],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The citron, though taken together with the other species, is not bound with them. ');">²³</span> each stands apart.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the combination is quite valid. ');">²⁴</span> Whilst if we maintain that the lulab needs binding, it is defective from the very outset.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as soon as more than the three species are bound together, the combination is invalid. But in the case of phylacteries, when four compartments are made, the head-tefillin is valid; when a fifth is added, it becomes invalid. ');">²⁵</span> But is there not the law of fringes, the basic precept of which is Biblical,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 38f. ');">²⁶</span> the interpretation Rabbinical, there is room for addition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By placing more than the requisite number of threads. ');">²⁷</span> whilst such addition amounts to subtraction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the fringes become invalid thereby. ');">²⁸</span> — What is our opinion? If we maintain that the upper knot is not required by Biblical law, they are separate from each other;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fringes are inserted through a hole and knotted near the edge of the garment. It is disputed whether this is really necessary by Biblical law. If not, then even when made the fringes are regarded as hanging apart and distinct. Consequently, if five instead of four were inserted and knotted, four fulfil the precept, whilst the fifth may be disregarded entirely, without rendering the rest invalid. ');">²⁹</span> whilst if we hold