Sanhedrin 131

1:
The 'he' of our mishnah is, of course, the unrepentant, insubordinate sage who was the subject of the two previous mishnayot. If he maintains his erroneous view despite the decision of the Great Sanhedrin he is to be condemned to die. The reisha [first section] of our mishnah seeks to establish that his death is the sole prerogative of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem; he may not be tried or executed by the original court (it was his refusal to accept the majority decision of the original court that caused the whole affair). Nor may he be tried or executed by the Great Sanhedrin that was established in Yavneh after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE (for with the destruction of the Bet Mikdash by Titus the Great Sanhedrin could no longer sit in the Gazit Hall within the precincts of the Bet Mikdash).

2:
It seems reasonably obvious that the exclusion of the Great Sanhedrin in Yavneh is yet another instance of the sages reducing the applicability of the law. Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai was a "left-winger" politically, meaning that he had consistently opposed the nationalist and fanatical opposition of the "right-wing" zealots to the Roman war machine – not because he favoured the Romans, but because he saw that the opposition was futile and that it could only end with the complete destruction of Judah's independence. (I use the terms "left" and "right" as an avowed anachronism simply because it seems to be the simplest way of conveying the political forces at work in Jerusalem during the great siege.) Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai was smuggled out of Jerusalem disguised as a corpse – for the fanatical zealots had forbidden all exit from the desperate city. (Even burial outside the city was forbidden; an exception was made in the case of Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai because of the veneration in which he was held by the public at large.) According to the story as told by the Gemara [Gittin 46b] Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai immediately presented himself before the Roman war lord and demanded "Give me Yavneh and its sages" – and his wish was granted! Modern historians surmise that Yavneh was, in fact, a Roman internment camp in which they kept "friendly" prisoners-of-war. Be that as it may, Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai established in Yavneh an alternative to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and insisted that all the functions of the latter were now the prerogative of the former. (That this was the case was finally established when the Shofar was sounded in Yavneh of Rosh ha-Shanah that fell on Shabbat; previously it had only been sounded on such circumstances in the Gazit Hall [see Rosh ha-Shanah 29b].) Thus the exclusion of the Great Sanhedrin in Yavneh as detailed in our mishnah must be deliberate.

3:
The explanation of the mention of the Bet Din of Yavneh as given by Rashi is completely untenable. We have already learned [Sanhedrin 079] that "forty years before the destruction of the Bet Mikdash" the Romans had deprived the Sanhedrin of its right to try capital cases [Sanhedrin 41a]. Rashi says that we must understand our mishnah as referring to a situation in which the case had been brought before the Sanhedrin sitting in the Gazit Hall, they had given their verdict, and the sage had returned to his home town and there openly defied the verdict of the Sanhedrin. Meanwhile, Jerusalem had been destroyed and the Sanhedrin had transferred its activities to Yavneh. He also explains that the reason why, under such circumstances, the court in Yavneh could not execute this imaginary sage is because it was not public enough (see later in the mishnah). This explanation is so far-fetched that even the Tosafot find themselves rejecting it [Sanhedrin 89a] – though for reasons other that the historical ones that we have recounted here.

4:
The seifa [last section] of our mishnah contains a maĥloket [halakhic difference of opinion] between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehudah bar-Ilai. Both sages are basing themselves on the text of the Torah in Deuteronomy 17:13 –

If you compare my translation with almost any other you will find that the others (including the authoritative translation of Onkelos into Aramaic) translate "and all the people shall hear of it, take fear, and stop acting brazenly". The Hebrew word ve-yira'u can be construed in either way. Rabbi Akiva understands the text as I have translated, and he therefore requires that the execution of the recalcitrant sage be held over until the next festival, Pesaĥ or Sukkot, when Jerusalem would be crowded with pilgrims and tourists, so that the affair will be given the maximum publicity: as many people as possible must "see it". Rabbi Yehudah bar-Ilai shows greater compassion. Once the man has been condemned to death by the Supreme Court (from which there is no appeal) he should be put out of his misery and dispatched immediately. The publicity which the text of the Torah obviously requires can be satisfied by sending out a report of the affair to all Israel. After all, the operative part of the text requires the people to "hear of it and take fear", not to actually witness it as Rabbi Akiva requires. (For what it is worth, the halakhah follows Rabbi Akiva.)

In our last shiur I wrote that in my view it is one of the tragedies of modern Judaism that the overwhelming majority of Jews (say, 90%) do not wear Tefillin every workday, do not wear tzitzit all the daylight hours and probably do not provide for themselves a set of the Four Species for Sukkot. This must have hit a raw nerve, because two participants have written to me, concerned at my use of the term "tragedy".

Juan-Carlos Kiel writes:

Even though we said Na'asé ve-nishma – first we will do and then we will hear, I can hardly take the lack of wearing Tefilin, Tzitziot or shaking the Hoshanot as one of the tragedies of modern Judaism. The tragedy of Judaism nowadays is – in my perception – that the performing of such rituals does not have any significance to most of us modern Jews, that the values of which those ritualistic forms were expresions – do not wake up any echoes in us. In my view those are forms that reflect values, I cry for the lost values. When the values have significance, the rituals can be performed out of identification.

And Jim Feldman writes:

I don't think that most self-identified Jews, comfortable with their Judaism, would concur with you. Here we are studying Mishnah together. Few of us are sages – at least in Judaism – but we retain the link and "teach it diligently to our children." But today and at least in many areas for the last hundred years, we are not driven to an all or nothing acceptance of any philosophy. While I recognize that the end of Judges is supposed to be a horror, I read: "There was no king in Israel and each man did that which was right in his own eyes," as the premise upon which freedom, capitalism, and democracy are based. We need not look back too far to realize what a "tragedy of modern Judaism" is. The overuse of superlatives is endemic, but the most wonderful example I have seen, and one with a small Jewish twist is this. I was at a small dinner of fellow faculty members here in Boston. Someone mentioned the "Boston Massacre", an event in 1775 which helped precipitate the US revolution against Britain. One of the guests, Helen Mahut, a Polish Jewish holocaust survivor and way-left liberal asked: "Boston Massacre? What was that?" A brief explanation was offered about a squad of Redcoats (English soldiers) cornered on a Boston street by an angry mob who were throwing snowballs with rocks at their core. The Redcoats panicked and opened fire. "How many died?" inquired Helen. The answer was 2 or 3. "Three is a massacre? To a Jew, three is a massacre?" We all broke up.

I respond:

While I appreciate (and love) the comments of both Juan-Carlos and Jim, I am unrepentant. Juan-Carlos is absolutely right, in my view, when he says that "the tragedy of Judaism nowadays is that the performing of such rituals does not have any significance to most of us modern Jews, that the values of which those ritualistic forms were expresions do not wake up any echoes in us". I agree, and therefore I wrote what I wrote.

Jim says that "we are studying Mishnah together. Few of us are sages – at least in Judaism – but we retain the link". Jim, are "we" part of the 90% or the 10%? In Judaism the rituals do not give external, tangible form to expressed religious truths. The religious truths gradually become apparent through the performance of the rituals. If the overwhelming majority of Jews today do not perform these rituals they can not become aware of the religious truths that they enshrine. To be sure, they can read about other people's experiences, but living a Jewish life is rather like swimming: we can read books about swimming from now until the crack of doom, but we will never know how to swim until we actually get into the water! When the vast majority of Jews do not find meaning in, do not evince interest in, certain basic rituals that is a tragedy – for them and for us.