Sanhedrin 071

נושא: Sanhedrin

Sanhedrin 071

BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI

Click here to return to Sanhedrin archive catalogue.

כֵּיצַד מְאַיְּמִין אֶת הָעֵדִים עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת? הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן: "שֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מֵאֹמֶד, וּמִשְּׁמוּעָה, עֵד מִפִּי עֵד וּמִפִּי אָדָם נֶאֱמָן שָׁמַעְנוּ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אִי אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁסּוֹפֵנוּ לִבְדּוֹק אֶתְכֶם בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה. הֱווּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁלֹּא כְדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, אָדָם נוֹתֵן מָמוֹן וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם." שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְקַיִן שֶׁהָרַג אֶת אָחִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, "דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים", אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר דַּם אָחִיךָ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ – דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו. דָּבָר אַחֵר, דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, שֶׁהָיָה דָמוֹ מֻשְׁלָךְ עַל הָעֵצִים וְעַל הָאֲבָנִים. לְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יְחִידִי, לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁכָּל הַמְאַבֵּד נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ אִבֵּד עוֹלָם מָלֵא; וְכָל הַמְקַיֵּם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ קִיֵּם עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וּמִפְּנֵי שְׁלוֹם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ אַבָּא גָדוֹל מֵאָבִיךָ. וְשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִינִין אוֹמְרִים, הַרְבֵּה רְשׁוּיוֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם. וּלְהַגִּיד גְּדֻלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְכֻלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, וּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָבַע כָּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חַיָּב לוֹמַר, בִּשְׁבִילִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. "וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ, מַה לָּנוּ וְלַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת? וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר, 'וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד' וְגוֹ'. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ, 'מַה לָּנוּ לָחוּב בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה?' וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר, וּבַאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה:

How are the witnesses admonished in cases of Dinei Nefashot? They would bring them in and admonish them: "You might possibly speak from conjecture, from something that you heard, from another witness, or you might say that 'We heard it from a reliable source'. Possibly you are not aware of the fact that we shall subject your testimony to examination and scrutiny. You must understand that Dinei Nefashot is not like Dinei Mamonot. In Dinei Mamonot a person pays up and thus atones; but in Dinei Nefashot the blood of the accused and the blood of his offspring will be charged to you to all eternity. In the case of Cain who killed his brother we find it written that 'Your brother's blood cry out' and it does not say 'Your brother's blood cries out' – 'cry', not 'cries' – his blood and the blood of his offspring. (Another explanation: 'cry' [teaches that] his blood was splattered over the trees and stones.) This is why Adam was created alone: to teach that anyone who takes the life of one Jew is seen by Scripture as if he had taken the life of the whole world – and anyone who saves the life of one Jew is seen by Scripture as if he had preserved the whole world. Also, to preserve the peace between people, so that no person can say to another 'My ancestor is greater than yours'. Also, so that heretics shall not say that there are several deities in Heaven. Also to demonstrate God's greatness: a human being creates many coins from the same die and they are all identical; the Supreme King of Kings, the Holy One blessed is He, coins all people from Adam's die and not one looks like another. This is why every person must say 'The world was created just for me'. Possibly you might be wondering 'What am I getting myself into?': Scripture says: 'If he is a witness – having seen or known [of a crime] – if he does not testify…' Possibly you are wondering 'Why should we make ourselves liable for this person's life?': Scripture says: 'When wicked people die there is rejoicing'."

8:
We resume our discussion of the "Admonition of the Witnesses" at the point where the judges warn them that their evidence will be subjected to careful examination and close scrutiny. It is also at this point that the nature of our mishnah changes greatly. It is most unusual for a mishnah to contain aggadic material. I interpolate here a short excerpt from our Introduction. (Please use this link to access the complete Introduction.) I offer this interpolation for the benefit of those who might need to refresh their memory concerning the difference between the two basic types of Midrash.

The process by which the sages [rabbis] extrapolated these expansions of the written Torah that constitute the main corpus of Oral Torah is called Midrash ha-Torah or Midrash. This term comes from an original concept of 'delving into' or 'investigating' the Written Torah in order to extract from it its wider and deeper meaning and application. There are two forms of midrash: Midrash Halakhah and Midrash Aggadah. The latter is a form of midrash whose purpose is to extrapolate from the text of the Torah its ethical, social, historical and philosophical implications – and almost any other implications that do not fall into the former category. The former is a form of midrash whose purpose is to extrapolate from the text of the Torah its halakhic implications, binding religious behaviour-patterns.

Rabbi Yehudah, the president of the sanhedrin, who edited the Mishnah (at the start of the 3rd century CE) intended it to be a compendium of Midrash Halakhah. The major difference between his Mishnah and other recensions of halakhic midrash (such as the Mekhilta, Sifra and Sifré) is that the latter were always "tied" to the Biblical verses that they were elucidating; the Mishnah represented a novel format in which the results of Midrash were re-organized into logical segments according to topic. Our present Tractate for example, Sanhedrin, contains the results of Midrash ha-Torah on many different parts of the Torah, but all of them are connected with the theme of judges, the administration of justice and court procedure. I can think, offhand, of only two instances in the whole of the Mishnah where Aggadic (ethical, social, historical and philosophical exposition) material is introduced into the body of a mishnah; our present mishnah is the second. (I exclude the whole of Tractate Avot, which is completely different from all other tractates.) I do not know whether the Aggadic elements in our mishnah were part of the original text or a later interpolation. My guess is that the reference to Aggadic material in which the judges warn the witnesses that if they lie they will have blood on their hands is original, but that the rest of the Aggadic development is later "embellishment"; and later on we shall hazard a guess as to how this happened.

9:
The president of the court, addressing the witnesses in the name of the court, reminds them of the most basic difference between the two formats of jurisprudential procedure: Dinei Mamonot means that the misdemeanour is canceled and "paid for" by financial restitution. (Mamon means "money"). But in Dinei Nefashot, if the accused is found guilty of the charge leveled by the witnesses, he (or she) will pay with his (or her) very life! But, the witnesses are warned, it is not only the life of the accused that you will be taking away: you will be taking away the life of all their potential descendants who will remain unborn until the end of time!

10:
It is at this point that our mishnah breaks into Aggadah. I must point out that in the translation of our mishnah that I have given above there is one great and deliberate inaccuracy. The midrash (elaborative extrapolation) of Genesis 4:10 that is quoted is based upon a singularity in the Hebrew text. I have 'mistranslated' in order to indicate the nature of that singularity in English. In the original Hebrew of the Torah God remonstrates with Cain that his brother's "bloods" (plural) are crying out for Divine vengeance:

'Your brother's bloods cry out' and it does not say 'Your brother's blood cries out' – 'bloods', not 'blood' – his blood and the blood of his offspring.

In other words, the [anonymous] author of this midrash wishes to teach that when Cain killed Abel he not only took away Abel's life but also the multitudinous lives of all the descendants that he could have produced had he continued living – and their descendants and their descendants' descendants "to all eternity".

11:
If the Aggadic excursion of our mishnah ended at this point it might be possible to maintain that even the midrash on the death of Abel is part of the original text. However, immediately after this midrash, the text continues "Another explanation". This is a technical introduction that is "par for the course" in midrash. Having given one midrash of the text of the Torah, the collection then goes on to bring another – different – midrash on the same text. This is what happens in our present mishnah, and the rest of the text down to 'The world was created just for me' is an obvious interpolation.

12:
It is very easy to understand how this could come about. We are used to receiving and passing on material in written form. The modern computer, which we are using at this present moment, even permits us to copy texts and edit them almost at will. But we must bear in mind that originally all the material that comprises Torah she-b'al peh was just that – passed on by word of mouth, not by written text. The midrashim and the mishnayot were conned by rote. There were even people with prodigious capabilities of memory who learned by heart whole segments of this material; often, in the Bet Midrash, such people would be called upon to reproduce some segment of the material that they had learned. They were a kind of living repository of the text. Any attempt on their part to "interfere" with the material lodged in their memory, to "edit out" material not needed on a specific occasion could result in the complete breakdown of the system! Therefore, they always quoted material until the end of the original segment – even those parts of it that were unnecessary to the discussion in hand. It could well be that the "Tanna" ("memory man") of the Bet Midrash of Rabbi Yehudah, the editor of the Mishnah, is the cause for the inclusion here of this extraneous material.

13:

"Another explanation: 'bloods' teaches that his blood was splattered over the trees and stones":

i.e. the plural indicates that Abel's blood was shed in copious amounts.

"This is why Adam was created alone: to teach that anyone who takes the life of one Jew is seen by Scripture as if he had taken the life of the whole world – and anyone who saves the life of one Jew is seen by Scripture as if he had preserved the whole world."

This midrash is to be found in many recensions: Babylonian Talmud, Talmud of Eretz-Israel, Avot de-Rabbi Natan and Pirké de-Rabbi Eli'ezer; and it is quoted by many of the later authorities. However, there is one word which sometimes appears and sometimes does not. The version of this midrash that appears in the Babylonian Talmud [Sanhedrin 37a] for example reads as does our mishnah: "… anyone who saves the life of one Jew …" However, the version in the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Sanhedrin 24a] reads "… anyone who saves the life of one person …" And the implications are obvious. The other sources that I have alluded to also bring both versions of the text. Rambam [Moses Maimonides, North Africa 12th century CE], even quotes both versions! In Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Rotzé'ach [Homicides], he quotes the version containing the word "Jew", whereas in Hilkhot Sanhedrin 12:3 he quotes the more universalistic text. Most modern scholars are of the opinion that it is the universalistic text that is original.

"Also, to preserve the peace between people, so that no person can say to another 'My ancestor is greater than yours'"

– since everyone is descended from that same one ancestor.

"Also, so that heretics shall not say that there are several deities in Heaven"

– and that the ethnic and cultural differences between human beings are to be explained that they were originally created by diverse deities.

14:
After that Aggadic excursion we now return to the "Admonition of the Witnesses". A possible result of this rather daunting admonition could be that truly honest witnesses be so appalled at the enormity of the responsibility that they were taking upon themselves that the Admonition might have the opposite effect. The witnesses might withdraw their accusation, not because it was unfounded but because they were saying to themselves that "we need this responsibility like we need a hole in the head". Two antidotes to counter such thoughts are offered. Firstly: it is your duty to offer true testimony because the Torah says so!

"Scripture [Leviticus 5:1] says: 'If a person is a witness – having seen or known [of a crime] – and he does not testify, he shall be held sinful'."

Secondly, if this person is truly a murderer (or whatever) it is important that he pay the price.

15:
We have now completed Chapter 4, and next time we shall start on Chapter 5. I apologize for not having posted shiurim during this past week: it was one of those weeks! I hope that it will be possible for me to post more shiurim during the coming week.

Shabbat Shalom to everybody.

Click here to return to Sanhedrin archive catalogue.