Talmud su Deuteronomio 17:10

Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, at three places were Israel warned not to return to the land of Egypt, [as it is written:] for as you saw Egypt today you shall nevermore see them for ever³¹Ex. 14:14.. And the Eternal said to you, you shall never again return on this way³²Deut. 17:10.. And the Eternal will bring you back to Egypt on ships³³Deut. 28:68.. In all three cases they returned and in all three cases they fell. One in the days of Sanherib the king of Assyria, [as it is written]: woe on those who descend to Egypt for help³⁴Is. 31:3.. What is written after this? But Egypt is human and not god, and their horses are flesh, etc³⁴Is. 31:3.. And one in the days of Joḥanan the son of the bald; it shall be that the sword which you are fearing, there will reach you³⁵Is. 31:3.. And once in the days of the evil Trajanus.

They are not liable unless they void part and confirm part³²If they declared a biblical prohibition as void, nobody would follow them since even schoolchildren would know that this is wrong. But if they were to abolish traditional restrictions, they would be followed. This is explicit in Mishnah 3; cf. Babli 4a, Tosephta 1:7, Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Parašah 4(7).. Samuel said, only if they ruled that it was permitted; but not if they ruled that it was not prosecutable³³This is a commentary on the preceding sentence. Abolishing a biblical commandment entirely means declaring the prohibition as void; declaring it valid but unenforceable means partly confirming it.. They are not liable unless instruction was given from the ashlar hall³⁴The seat of the High Court; Sanhedrin Chapter 1, Note 345.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of this Tanna: From that place which the Eternal will choose³⁵Deut. 17:10.. Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they ruled unanimously³⁶The ruling triggers the obligation of a purification sacrifice only if it was unanimous, including the opinions of the law students sitting before the 72 members of the Court. Mishnah 4 requires in addition that the president of the court be present and voting [Babli 4b, Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Parašah 4(4).]. There³⁷Sanhedrin 1:2, Note 166. He holds that a ruling of the High Court to intercalate a month based on the testimony of laymen is valid only if it not only is unanimous in fact but also in reason. Concurrent opinions, reaching the same conclusion for different reasons, invalidate the judgment. Why is this not mentioned here? The text confirms the reading of the ms. in Roš Haššanah(2:6 58b l.25) against the one in Sanhedrin., Rebbi Zeˋira said, only if they all rule for the same reason. And here, what³⁸B has the usual formula, “and here he says so?”?

“From where that one adds another three, etc. It was stated: ³⁴¹Tosephta 7:1, Hagigah 2:9. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, in earlier times the ketubah of qualified women³⁴²Whose offspring were qualified to marry into the priesthood. In Temple times, this could serve as proof of qualification; cf. Qiddušin 4:4. was signed only by priests, Levites, or Israel whose daughters were qualified to marry into the priesthood. ³⁴³Most of the following text also is in the Babli, 88b. R. Yose, the collector of most of the material of Seder ˋOlam, represents a very idealized past. Rebbi Yose said, in earlier times there was no disagreement in Israel³⁴⁴A patently incorrect statement. The ancient rabbinic disagreement about the treatment of private sacrifices on holidays is the topic of Ḥagigah 2; the statement declares all non-rabbinic sects as non-Jewish. but the Synhedrion of 71 members were sitting in the free-stone hall³⁴⁵Adjacent to the Temple, built into the Herodian Temple wall, constructed from large rectangular stones without mortar.; two courts of three³⁴⁶Read: 23. However, A. Weiss (לשאלת טיב בית דין של שבעים ואחד, ספר היובל לכ׳ לוי גינצבורג, ע׳ קץ-רטז New York 1946) insists that the only courts of 23 in Jerusalem were committees of the court of 71. members each were sitting, one in the glacis³⁴⁷The space between the Temple wall and a smaller wall surrounding the Temple areas. and one on the Temple Mount³⁴⁸Outside any enclosure.; and a court of 23 was sitting in every town of the Land of Israel. If somebody had a question of religious practice, he went and asked it from the court in his town. If they had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked a court in their neighborhood. If these had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked from the court on the Temple Mount. If these had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked from the court on the glacis. If these had heard [the answer], they told him; otherwise they together entered the High Court in the free-stone hall since from there instruction came accepted in all of Israel, as it is said: From this place which the Eternal will choose³⁴⁹Deut. 17:10. Disobedience of a High Court ruling is only a capital crime if the ruling was delivered from “the place”, from a court sitting in a room partially on Temple grounds. When the High Court lost its standing as court of criminal appeals (Note 31) and left the free-stone hall, it also lost its ability to prescribe practice ex cathedra.. Even though the Synhedrion in the free-stone hall had 71 members, those present never numbered less than 23. If one of them had to leave, he was looking around; if 23 others were present, he would leave, otherwise he would not leave³⁵⁰Babli Soţah 45a.. They were in session from the daily morning sacrifice to the daily evening sacrifice. On Sabbaths and holidays, they were sitting in the study hall on the Temple Mount³⁴⁸Outside any enclosure.. If a question of practice came up, if they had heard the answer, they told them; otherwise they prepared to vote. If a majority was for acquitting, they acquitted. If a majority³⁵¹In his theory, on appeal only a simple majority is needed. was for a guilty verdict, they rendered a verdict of guilty. If a majority was for declaring pure, they declared pure. If a majority was for declaring impure, they declared impure. From the time that there were many students of Shammai and Hillel who did not study enough under their teachers, many disagreements arose and two doctrines developed³⁵²Babli Soţah 47b.. From there³⁵³The free-stone hall., they were sending to all towns in the Land of Israel; any time they found a person who was wise, meek, even-tempered, benevolent, pleasing, humble, good-hearted, with good intentions, and well endowed, they were placing him on the court of the Temple Mount³⁵⁴In all three Babylonian texts, the person is appointed judge in his town and the appeals courts replenished from sitting judges., from there to the court on the glacis, and from there to the High Court in the free-stone hall.