Sanhedrin 71

מה יום טוב שנדחה מפני קרבן יחיד אין רציחה דוחה אותו קרבן יחיד שהוא דוחה את יום טוב אינו דין שלא תהא רציחה דוחה אותו

If a festival, which is superseded by a private offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a private offering may be brought on a Festival, though it entail labour unconnected with the preparation of food for human consumption, v. Ex. XII, 16. ');">¹</span>

הניחא למאן דאמר אין נדרים ונדבות קריבין ביום טוב אלא למאן דאמר נדרים ונדבות קריבין ביום טוב מאי איכא למימר

is not abrogated for an execution;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in regard to work there is no difference between Sabbaths and Festivals save as regards the preparation of food. ');">²</span>

אלא אמר רבא לא מיבעיא למ"ד נדרים ונדבות קריבין ביום טוב דהא לא מתקיים מעם מזבחי כלל

then a private offering, which supersedes the festival, is surely not to be suspended by an execution? Now, on the view that vows and free-will offerings [i.e., private offerings] may not be sacrificed on festival days, it is correct;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the preceding argument is fallacious, being based on a false premise (v. Bezah, 19a). — This is still part of Raba's reasoning. ');">³</span>

אלא אפילו למאן דאמר נדרים ונדבות אין קריבין ביום טוב הכתיב מעם מזבחי מזבחי המיוחד לי ומאי נינהו תמיד ואמר רחמנא (שמות כא, יד) מעם מזבחי תקחנו למות:

but on the view that vows and free will offerings may be sacrificed on Festivals, what can you say?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The premise being correct, the deduction is likewise correct, viz., that an execution cannot supersede a private offering. How then can the verse, Thou shalt take him from mine altar, be reconciled with this conclusion? ');">⁴</span>

דיני ממונות הטמאות והטהרות כו': אמר רב אנא הואי במניינא דבי רבי ומינאי דידי הוו מתחלי ברישא והא אנן מתחילין מן הגדול תנן

Therefore Raba said: [Abaye's reasoning is unacceptable] not only on the view that vows and free-will offerings can be sacrificed on a festival, — since in that case, [the verse] From mine altar etc. has no applicability at all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, as shown above, if Abaye's reasoning be accepted, execution does not suspend even private offerings: to what then can from mine altar etc.' refer? ');">⁵</span>

אמר רבה בריה דרבא ואיתימא רבי הלל בריה דרבי וולס שאני מניינא דבי רבי דכולהו מנינייהו מן הצד הוו מתחלי

— but even if it be held that vows and free-will offerings cannot be sacrificed on festivals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to which view the Scriptural verse might refer to private offerings; yet even so, Abaye's deduction is unacceptable. ');">⁶</span>

ואמר רבה בריה דרבא ואיתימא רבי הלל בריה דר' וולס מימות משה ועד רבי לא מצינו תורה וגדולה במקום אחד

For, is it not written: From mine altar, [implying,] my altar, viz., that which is peculiarly mine;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., public offerings in which the individual, as an individual, has no part. ');">⁷</span>

ולא הא הוה יהושע הוה אלעזר והא הוה פנחס הוו זקנים

and which altar is that? the Tamid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the altar on which the daily offering was made. ');">⁸</span>

והא הוה שאול הוה שמואל והא נח נפשיה כולהו שניה קאמרינן

And thereon the Divine Law writes, Thou shalt take him from mine altar that he may die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the Bible expressly negatives the deduction a minori proposed by Abaye. ');">⁹</span>

והא הוה דוד הוה עירא היאירי והא נח נפשיה כולהו שניה קאמרינן

IN CIVIL SUITS, AND IN CASES OF CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS etc. Rab said: I was once one of the voters in the school of Rabbi, and it was with me that the voting began.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with the Sikarikon (robber) law, a title to a piece of property held by such for twelve months. Cf. Git. 59a. ');">¹⁰</span>

והא הוה שלמה הוה שמעי בן גרא והא קטליה כוליה שניה קאמרינן

But did we not learn, WE COMMENCE WITH THE ELDEST? — Rabbah the son of Raba — others state, R. Hillel the son of R. Wallas — said: The voting in the school of Rabbi was different [from the usual form], because in all their voting they began with the side [benches].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to Rabbi's humility. ');">¹¹</span>

הא הוה חזקיה הוה שבנא והא איקטיל כולהו שניה קאמרינן והא הוה עזרא הוה נחמיה בן חכליה

Rabbah the son of Raba — others state, R. Hillel the son of R. Wallas — also said: From Moses until Rabbi we do not find sacred learning and [secular] greatness combined in the one [person]. But do we not? Was it not so in the case of Joshua? — [No, for] there was Eleazar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His colleague, equal to him in wisdom. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אף אני אומר מימות רבי עד רב אשי לא מצינו תורה וגדולה במקום אחד ולא והא הוה הונא בר נתן הונא בר נתן מיכף הוה כייף ליה לרב אשי:

But what of Phinehas? — There were the Elders.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who shared his authority with him. ');">¹³</span>

דיני נפשות מתחילין מן הצד: מנא הני מילי אמר ר' אחא בר פפא אמר קרא (שמות כג, ב) לא תענה על ריב לא תענה על רב

But was not Saul such? — No, [with him] was Samuel. But did not Samuel die [before him]? — We are referring to his whole life-time. But did not David [combine these possessions]? — There was Ira the Jairite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Chief Minister to David. II Sam. XX, 26. Cf. M.K. 16b which speaks of his great learning. ');">¹⁴</span>

רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מהכא (שמואל א כה, יג) ויאמר דוד לאנשיו חגרו איש [את] חרבו ויחגרו איש [את] חרבו ויחגור גם דוד את חרבו

But he died [before David]! — We are referring to his whole life-time. Was not Solomon [such a man]? — [No, for] there was Shimei son of Gera.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. II Sam. XIX, 18, where his great influence is indicated. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב שונה אדם לתלמידו ודן עמו בדיני נפשות מיתיבי הטהרות והטמאות האב ובנו הרב ותלמידו מונין להם שנים דיני ממונות ודיני נפשות ודיני מכות קידוש החדש ועיבור שנה אב ובנו הרב ותלמידו אין מונין להן אלא אחד

But he [Solomon] slew him! — We are referring to his whole life-time. Was there not Hezekiah? — [with him] was Shebnah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose college was larger than Hezekiah's. V. supra 26a. ');">¹⁶</span> But he was slain [during Hezekiah's life-time]! — We are referring to his entire life-time. But was this not true of Ezra? — No, for [with him] was Nehemia the son of Hachalia. R. Adda b. Ahabah said: I similarly affirm that since the days of Rabbi until R. Ashi we do not find learning, and high office combined in the same person. But do we not: was there not Huna b. Nathan?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Zeb. 19a. which refers to his intimate friendship with the Persian King, Yezdegerd. [According to Sherira's Epistle, he was exilarch in the time of R. Ashi.] ');">¹⁷</span> — Huna b. Nathan was certainly subordinate to R. Ashi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [He surrendered one by one his prerogatives to R. Ashi, v. Blank, REJ. XXX, 51.] ');">¹⁸</span> WHEREAS IN CAPITAL CHARGES, WE COMMENCE WITH [THE OPINION OF] THOSE ON THE SIDE BENCHES. Whence is this derived? R. Aha b. Papa said: Scripture states, Thou shalt not speak<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Answer'. ');">¹⁹</span> 'al rib [in a case]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_20">²⁰</a> — [i.e.,] thou shalt not speak 'al rab, against the chief [of the judges]. Rabbah b. Bar Hana deduced it in R. Johanan's name from the following verse, And David said unto his men, gird ye on every man his sword; and they girded on every man his sword, and David also girded on his sword.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Sam. XXV, 13. I.e., the question whether Nabal the Carmelite's act was to be treated as rebelliousness against the king was here discussed and a vote taken in the form of girding on the sword. David was the last to express his opinion. ');">²¹</span> Rab said: In capital charges one may instruct his disciple,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the laws relating to such cases, and the pros and cons for conviction. ');">²²</span> and pronounce judgment with him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The master and the disciple have each a separate vote. ');">²³</span> An objection was raised: 'In cases of cleanness and uncleanness, a father and his son, or a master and his disciple count as two;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since such cases could at the outset be decided by a single person, the need for voting arises only in the event of a controversy. ');">²⁴</span> but in monetary cases, capital cases of flagellation, the sanctification of the month and the intercalation of the year, a father and his son, or a master and his disciple count only as one'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since these cases require at the very outset a fixed number of judges. Tosef. Sanh. IV. ');">²⁵</span>