Sanhedrin 002

9:
Our mishnah states that Dinei Mamonot are heard by a panel of three judges. The Gemara [Sanhedrin 3b] asks the obvious question: where does the idea that a Bet Din consists of three Dayyanim come from? While there are slight differences of interpretation of the Biblical source, all seem to agree that the basic starting-point is Exodus 22:6-8. The subject of these verses is suspected misappropriation by someone in whose charge is someone else's property (a loaned book, for example).

One term in this dry legalistic text stands out clearly to the Hebrew speaker. The normal term for 'judge' in Biblical Hebrew is "shofet". The Hebrew word "Elohim" is the term usually reserved for 'God'. However, since the root meaning of the word "Elohim" denotes 'power', it sometimes appears in the Biblical text with the meaning of "judge" or "leader". For instance, the parallelism of a verse like Exodus 22:27 makes it clear that the word "Elohim" in that verse is parallel to the word for "leader" ["You may not curse a judge, nor may you execrate a leader of your people"]. The validity of this interpretation of the verse is borne out by the commentary of Abraham Ibn-Ezra [Spain etc, 11th century CE]. Indeed, in the second chapter of Part One of the "Guide for the Perplexed", Rambam [Maimonides, North Africa, 12th century CE] writes – almost offhandedly – "Every Hebrew-speaking person knows that the word "Elohim" is equivocal: sometimes designating the Deity, sometimes angels and sometimes rulers and judges". (He says this in connection with his exegesis of Genesis 3:5 – and thereby hangs a very long tail that cannot detain us here!)

10:
In the verses at present under discussion [Exodus 22:6-8] it is quite obvious that the term "elohim" in these verses cannot refer to God and must refer to "judges" – not only because of the context, but also because of the plural verb in verse 8: "the one whom the judges condemn [plural]…" Now, one midrashic attempt would have the three-fold repetition of the egregious term 'elohim' as hinting at three judges. However, most other sages take a different tack: a case could, in theory be heard by two judges, but since we may not constitute a Bet Din [court of law] with an even number of judges, the minimum number possible is three.

11:
The principle of not constituting a Bet Din that has an even number of Dayyanim is based on Exodus 23:2. The accepted English translations of this verse are completely at variance with the rabbinic interpretation. Their rendition of the verse would be something like: "Do not follow the majority in condemnation and do not give answer according to the majority; follow the majority view". This interpretation, with its seeming internal contradiction, is explained as follows (I am heavily indebted to the commentary of Rashi [Western Europe, 11th century CE]): as a judge, do not say vote for the same verdict as the majority just because it is the majority; similarly, if questioned by the accused do not answer according to the majority just because it is the majority. So constitute the courts that a majority verdict is always possible." At any rate, the principle of "aĥarei rabbim le-hatot" is a principle of halakhic jurisprudence – and in order to fulfill this injunction one must always constitute a Bet Din in a manner that will make it possible to reach a majority view. In the case of three judges, given the possibility that the accused is either guilty or not guilty, the only two outcomes possible are either unanimity or a vote of two against one.

12:
While the text of our mishnah might be interpreted as being explanatory in nature – and the Gemara [Sanhedrin 2b] admits this possibility – the sages interpreted it as being incremental. They taught that the mishnah is not saying that "Dinei Mamonot are heard before three judges" and that means that "cases of theft or mayhem are heard before three" and so forth. They are of the opinion that the Gemara sees the expression "Dinei Mamonot" at the start of our mishnah as referring to one specific aspect of Dinei Mamonot: the recuperation of bad loans: if I have lent someone money and wish to ensure its repayment by producing evidence of the terms of the loan, this must be done before three judges.

13:
After stating that cases dealing with loans are heard before three judges, our mishnah continues that cases involving theft and mayhem are also heard before three judges. Two kinds of theft are recognized by Torah law: "genevah" refers to the surreptitious purloining of someone else's property, whereas "gezelah" (which is the term used in our mishnah) refers to robbery, such as is practiced by bandits in broad daylight. "Mayhem" as used in our mishnah is a term that indicates physical damage to one's person. The assailant must indemnify the wronged party on five counts: the physical damage sustained, the mental suffering caused, medical expenses incurred, convalescence costs and compensation for a sense of shame sustained – both during the assault and as a later result of it (having to appear in public with a black eye, for example). It is a court of three that must assess damages on all five counts.

To be continued.