Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Deuteronomio 17:10: Jerusalem Talmud Sukkah, Jerusalem Talmud Horayot, Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin & Jerusalem Talmud Pesachim

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. 14:13.. And the Eternal said to you, you shall never again return on this way³²Deut. 17:16.. 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. 31:1.. 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 you³⁵Jer. 42:16.. 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?”?

Rebbi Zeˋira said, it says here “criminal” and it says there “criminal”, the prophet said it criminally²⁸⁴Deut. 18:22, the law of the false prophet. “Here” refers to the judge who refuses to obey the rulings of the Supreme Court, who acts criminally in his disobedience and is tried before the Supreme Court, Deut. 17:8–12.. Since about “criminal” used there, the verse speaks about a false prophet, also about “criminal” used here, the verse speaks about a false prophet²⁸⁵The verse does not speak about a false prophet but about a lower court judge who refuses to accept the authority of the Supreme Court. What is meant is that the procedural details given for the treatment of the rebellious judge also apply to the treatment of the false prophet. The argument is known as הֶקֵּשׁ “trap”. If the same word is used in two contexts, details found in one context and left indeterminate in the other can be transferred from one to the other. As a hermeneutic principle, heqqeš should be used only if the word in question is not loaded with additional meaning. But in Sifry Deut. 178, the expression “criminal” is interpreted to mean that the false prophet may be prosecuted only if criminal intent can be shown, not if he acted in error.
In the Babli, 16a, the argument is in the name of R. Yose ben Hanina.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, it says here “spoke” and it says there, that the prophet would speak in the Eternal’s name. Since about “spoke” used there, the verse speaks about a false prophet, also about “spoke” used here, the verse speaks about a false prophet.²⁸⁶It seems that the heqqeš should not be about the verb דִּבֵּר but the noun דָּבָר “pronouncement”, referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of the rebellious judge, Deut. 17:10, and the false prophet who pronounces in the Eternal’s name, Deut. 18:20.