Sanhedrin 027

26:
Our sources distinguish between two kinds of war: a political war [milchemet reshut] and a compulsory war [milĥemet mitzvah]. As will become apparent from the continuation, it may perhaps be better to understand the former as an offensive war whereas the latter might be a defensive war. The "milĥemet mitzvah" is a war undertaken in order to protect the lives of Jews who are being threatened by enemies who are attacking them. Participation in this kind of war is compulsory upon the whole adult population. The Mishnah [Sotah 8:7] stipulates (quoting Joel 2:16) that everyone is required to participate in a compulsory war, "even the bridegroom must leave his ĥuppah [nuptial chamber], even the bride must leave her room".

27:
The political war, on the other hand, was a war initiated by the State for the purposes of territorial expansion, plunder and so forth. King David's expedition against the Ammonites [II Samuel 11] can serve as an example (this was the expedition in which Uriah the Hittite lost his life in order that David might marry the pregnant Bathsheba). Such a war may only be embarked upon with the concurrence of three: the King (or head of state), a duly recognized prophet (representing the will of God), and the Sanhedrin – as mentioned in our present mishnah.

28:
The boundaries of the sacred enclosures of the Bet Mikdash were sanctified territory, as was the whole city of Jerusalem to a lesser extent. These sacred areas could only be expanded, to make more room available, by a decision of the Sanhedrin. The stipulation of our mishnah is based on a midrashic interpretation of a verse [Exodus 25:9] which understands the phrase "thus shall you do" as to mean "thus shall you do now, and in the future".

29:
We have already learned [shiur of April 1st last] that the Sanhedrin was looked upon as the major court of instance for determining the law, and judges from lesser courts would apply to this Supreme Court for instruction and teaching. Our mishnah now teaches that it was this same Supreme Court that authorized the composition of the courts of Twenty-Three, the courts that were authorized to try capital cases, Dinei Nefashot.

30:
The Torah [Deuteronomy 13:13-19] requires that where the entire population of a township was seduced to idolatry, the population must be put to death and all the property of the township must be completely burned and destroyed. The decision that such a calamity had befallen Israel and must be dealt with is reserved by our mishnah to the Sanhedrin alone. That the sages were very uncomfortable with the whole issue of the "seduced city" is apparent from the many midrashim that have grown up around the topic, whose sole intention is to circumscribe the very possibility that the mitzvah be effected at any time. As is usual in such cases, the textual basis for the midrash is rather tenuous. These midrashim are codified in our mishnah. The first circumscription is, of course, that the declaration that a township in Israel had become idolatrous and must be eliminated is reserved exclusively to the Sanhedrin. The second circumscription is that no township near the borders of Eretz-Israel could be declared idolatrous. This is based on the words of the Torah requiring the township that had been eliminated must remain "an eternal ruin" [verse 17]. It could not be the intention of the Torah that such destruction wreaked by Jews upon other Jews, however recalcitrant, should be an object of derision by the foreigners across the border! Another circumscription is the stipulation that three townships may not be eliminated – when they are in proximity to each other. And even the permission of our mishnah "but one or two is possible" is understood by the Gemara [Sanhedrin 16b] as meaning that the two townships must be in greatly separated areas of the country "such as one in Judah and one in the Galilee".

At the beginning of our discussion on the problematica of prophecy is wrote that there was no outward sign that a prophet could offer the general public to "prove" that he had a commission from God.

David Bockman writes:

I don't wholly agree with this. We know from Tanakh itself that there were guilds of prophets, sometimes even roaming bands of prophets. We see that Saul is mistaken for a prophet, and Bilaam goes into prophetic 'fits', that Moses' face somehow radiated or looked scary enough he had to cover it with a veil so as not to frighten the Israelites, and that a 'man' who appeared in fire to Samson's mother, was mistaken for a prophet. Add that to the stories of Elijah and Elisha in their dealings with people around them, and it seems clear that prophecy, per se, was not at all uncommon, and certainly not unknown.

How many of these people were 'true' prophets, and how many 'false'? I think it unfair to project back from Rabbinic times, after prophecy had officially ended, to the Biblical period when 'prophecy' abounded. It involved poetry, counseling, politics, musar, and not a small dose of theater. It also involved, sometimes, speaking aloud the tetragrammaton, which the run-of-the-mill Joe Blow simply did not do. Just his desire to speak/invoke God by name (considered a life-threateningly dangerous act if not done with purity of heart and motive) was the surest sign of authenticity (ne'um YHWH).

But the tannaim didn't know from all this. They had no parallel ancient near Eastern texts. They no longer worried about prophecy, except as an intellectual issue. And certainly regarding the make-up of the Sanhedrin for judging such people, they had authority to rule, should anyone have been foolish enough to proclaim himself or herself a prophet at this late time.