Talmud for Numbers 35:29

HALAKHAH: “Money matters are judged by three [judges],” etc. From where comes this? These shall be the laws of procedure to you,¹¹Num. 35:29. The chapter covers the rules of levitic cities, laws of property, and of the homicide, criminal law. I would say that both civil cases and criminal cases are subject to the rules of verification and examination¹²Mishnah 4:1. Examination refers to cross-examination relating to questions which answer to “who”, “when”, and “where”. Interrogation refers to answers to “how”. The distinction between the two is in regard to rules about discrepancies in testimony between different witnesses, Mishnah 5:1. The verse makes it clear that the rules also apply to lawsuits about subjects not covered by the detailed list in the Mishnah..

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily²⁸Since the prohibition of making fire is implied in the Fourth Commandment in any reasonable interpretation. Therefore, making fire is a detail which can be used to characterize all work forbidden on the Sabbath.; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work²⁹Nothing is changed or produced by prostrating oneself; it is not obvious that it should be forbidden under any circumstances.. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: “He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned³⁰Ex. 22:19. This explains the punishment for idolatrous acts forbidden in the Second Commandment. This is the interpretation in all of talmudic literature (Babli Sanhedrin 60b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 310, dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 210.) (Nowhere in rabbinic literature does one find the more obvious explanation of Ex. 22:19: “Anyone sacrificing to the Elohim (God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world) shall be banned, only to YHWH (God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace) alone.” In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.}.” Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything³¹Since punishment for sacrificing is spelled out separately, any punishment for an act of idolatry must be given separately by the 9th rule, supporting R. Zakkai against R. Joḥanan., prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath³²In the Babli, Yebamot 6b, this is a Tannaïtic statement from the school of R. Ismael, appended to an argument also quoted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ויקהל.. What is the reason? It says here, “in all your settlements” and it says there, “these should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements³³Num. 35:29. The quote is correct in Šabbat..” Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned by necessity, it is as if it were mentioned unnecessarily³⁴Since the argument is based on Num. 35:29, not on Ex. 22:19, the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9th rule., and anything mentioned unnecessarily teaches.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily¹²⁹Since the prohibition of making fire is implied in the Fourth Commandment in any reasonable interpretation. Therefore, making fire is a detail which can be used to characterize all work forbidden on the Sabbath.; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work¹³⁰Nothing is changed or produced by prostrating oneself; it is not obvious that it should be forbidden under any circumstances.. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned¹²⁴Ex. 22:19. For this argument the reference to Elohim is taken to apply to idols. The masoretic vocalization applying a definite article must refer to God in His function as Judge, God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world, to Whom propitiatory sacrifices are forbidden; sacrifices are legitimate only if offered to YHWH, God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace. This is the interpretation adopted at the end of the paragraph. In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.. Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything¹³¹Since punishment for sacrificing is spelled out separately, any punishment for an act of idolatry must be given separately by the 9^th rule, supporting R. Zakkai against R. Joḥanan., prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath¹³²In the Babli, Yebamot 6b, this is a Tannaitic statement from the school of R. Ismael, appended to an argument also quoted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Wayyaqhel.. What is the reason? It says here, in all your settlements, and it says there, these . . should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements¹³³Num. 35:29.. Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned separately necessarily is as if it was mentioned separately not by necessity,¹³⁴Since the argument is based on Num. 35:29, not on Ex. 22:19, the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9^th rule. and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs¹³⁵It is axiomatic that the Torah contains no unnecessary statements. If an item is singled out and there is no apparent reason for this one has to conclude that anything to be inferred about this particular item applies to all similar cases..

Could one not judge him on Fridays, pass sentence on the Sabbath, and execute him after the Sabbath? If you say so, it turns out that his judgment is delayed⁵⁴This argument really implies that capital crimes be tried only by the Supreme Court whose decrees are final.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, could he not be judged on the Sabbath, have his sentence passed on the Sabbath, and be executed on the Sabbath? Temple service, which supersedes Sabbath prohibitions⁵⁵The Sabbath Temple service, as prescribed in Num. 28:10, requires slaughtering and burning. For any other purpose, these are deadly sins and capital crimes if done on the Sabbath., is pushed aside by obligatory executions, since it is said, from My altar take him to be executed⁵⁶Ex. 21:14. The verse is read, not as a denial of asylum for any murderer, but as a commandment to immediately execute a Cohen even if he was officiating when convicted of murder. (The non-Cohen would commit a deadly sin by touching the altar.). Therefore the Sabbath, which is pushed aside by Temple service, logically should be pushed aside by obligatory executions⁵⁷The argument deserves no refutation since the relation “stronger than” underlying an argument de minore ad majus is not transitive (a stronger than b, b stronger than c does not imply a stronger than c. Babli Šabbat 132b; cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, London 1967, pp. 182–183.) The Babli, 35b, disproves the argument at length.. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This⁵⁸Mishnah 6. implies that courts may not sit on the Sabbath; what is the reason? It is said here, in all your dwellings⁵⁹Ex. 35:3, the prohibition to start a fire on the Sabbath., and it is said there, these shall be for you legal procedures for your generations in all your dwellings⁶⁰Num. 35:29, the law of homicide and murder. The argument (Babli 35b) goes as follows. Some capital crimes are punished by burning. Ex. 35:3, which has been shown to be applicable to court proceedings, forbids executing a convicted criminal who has to be burned. Therefore no capital punishment can be executed on the Sabbath.. Since there the verse refers to courts, so also here the verse refers to courts.

HALAKHAH: “Criminal courts apply in the Land,” etc. ⁷¹Tosephta Sanhedrin 3:10, Babli 7a.“Criminal courts apply in the Land and outside the Land, as it is written⁷²Num. 35:29.: This shall be for you a law statute for your generations, in all your dwellings. And why does the verse say⁷³Deut. 16:18., judges and marshals you shall appoint for yourself in all your gates, in the towns of the Land of Israel. Only that in the Land of Israel one installs judges in every town and outside the Land one appoints them by circuits.” It was stated: ⁷⁴Sifry Deut. 144, Babli Sanhedrin 16b. There and in the sources given in Note 71 the author is Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.
The difference between the anonymous Tanna of the first Tosephta and R. Dositheos b. Yannai / Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is that according to the first Tanna the claimant in a civil suit has the choice of the jurisdiction to file his suit whereas the dissenters restrict him to courts of his own tribe (L. Finkelstein, Commentary to Sifry).“Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai says, there is an obligation for every tribe to judge his own tribe, as it is written⁷³Deut. 16:18.: Judges and marshals you shall appoint for yourself in all your gates which the Eternal, your God, gives you for your tribes.”