דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלשָׁה. גְּזֵלוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת בִּשְׁלשָׁה. נֶזֶק וַחֲצִי נֶזֶק, תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה בִּשְׁלשָׁה. הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה וְהַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע בִּשְׁלשָׁה – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלשָׁה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ דִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת:
Civil suits are heard before three judges. Cases of theft or mayhem are also heard before three. Cases concerning claims for full or half damages, double indemnity and quadruple and quintuple indemnity are also heard before three. Charges of rape and seduction are heard before three – and charges of defamation also, according to the opinion of Rabbi Me'ir; the rest of the sages hold that charges of defamation are to heard before a panel of twenty-three judges, since they may develop into a capital charge.
14:
Our mishnah now goes on to state that "cases concerning claims for full or half damages, double indemnity and quadruple and quintuple indemnity are also heard before three heard by a panel of three judges". We shall examine these technical terms one by one.
15:
Exodus 21:28-32 states the law concerning damage caused by animals in one's charge. In ancient times, given a society whose economy was agriculturally based, there were obviously many more incidents of damage caused by livestock than we are witness to today. The law starts with a general statement (and my translation attempts to reflect the rabbinic interpretation of the text): "If a person's ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be killed and no profit may be derived from its carcass; the owner of the ox shall be fined." The ox here, obviously represents all animals and the goring represents any human fatality directly caused by an animal in someone else's charge. As Rashi, quoting midrash, points out: the Torah is merely using an "everyday" example. The term "fined" that occurs in this phrase is actually a rabbinic interpretation: the original Hebrew means "clean", and the sages understood it as meaning "cleaned out of his money" [see Rashi ad loc]. The Torah now continues: "However, if the human fatality were caused by an ox that has already gored [non-fatally] in the past, and its owners were warned but didn't keep it under proper guard, the ox shall be killed and its owner too shall be punished. (We have here, in this last phrase, a wonderful example of how the rabbinic interpretation of the text "softens it": the Hebrew original says quite plainly that the owner shall be killed together with the ox!) The "punishment" of the owner is explained in the next verse: "If the owner's life be ransomed [by a monetary fine], he shall redeem his forfeited life with the amount determined [by the court]."
16:
Thus we see that the Torah law recognizes one possibility as regards the animal and two as regards the animal's owner. Even if the animal is a "first time offender" it must be killed for fatally injuring a human being, but no action may be taken against the owner since there was no reason for him to assume that his ox would gore someone. However, if the ox had already "appeared in court" for non-fatal attacks on human beings, the owner must take every precaution to keep the ox under adequate surveillance. Thus, if such an ox gores someone to death not only is the ox responsible, but the owner also has indirectly caused that person's death, and must be punished.
17:
Rabbinic interpretation of these verses came up with the following (and note that it in some respects substantially different from the plain meaning ["peshat"] of the Biblical text). The owner of an animal that may be presumed harmless is liable for half the value of the damage caused, in order to encourage him to look after the animal. Once the animal has been "charged" for a third time it can no longer be viewed as harmless, and the owner is required to pay compensation at the full value of the damage sustained. The former is what our mishnah terms "half damages" and the latter is what our mishnah terms "full damages". In either case, the amount of the damages is to be assessed by a court of three.
18:
"Double indemnity" refers to punishment for theft. The thief is required to return to the original owner (and not the court) the full value of what was stolen with the addition of a fine to the value of 100%. In other words, if Reuven steals from Sarah to the value of one thousand shekels, he is required to reimburse Sarah to the value of two thousand shekels. The basis for this law is to be found in Exodus 22:1-3, which reads: "If a thief is discovered breaking in … he shall pay double…"
19:
That same Biblical text is the source for "quadruple indemnity" for stealing an animal of the flock and "quintuple indemnity" for stealing an animal of the herd. The basis for this law is to be found in Exodus 21:37, which reads: "If one steals and ox or a lamb and slaughters it or resells it, he shall indemnify fivefold for the ox and fourfold for the lamb…"
To be continued.
In our first shiur on Tractate Sanhedrin I asked for your indulgence and help "if I use any terms from systems of law other than the halakhic one" wrongly.
David Sieradzki is the first to come to my aid:
Let me offer a correction of (or at least advice regarding) a usage that I have heard you use on several occasions in a way that I found confusing: a "moot point." You have from time to time used the term to mean "a matter that is actively discussed." But for U.S. trained lawyers, the term usually means "a point that, because of intervening events or the passage of time, is no longer relevant to the outcome." Something that is "moot," therefore, usually would not be interesting to discuss, since it is no longer relevant to the outcome (even though the term "moot" does derive from an old word meaning "to discuss," it now refers to something that is relevant, if at all, only for purposes of discussion).
I respond:
In my English "a moot point" is a point not agreed upon by all discussants (and in the Middle Ages many villages even had a "Moot Hall" in which such points could be thrashed out until they were no longer moot. In your English, I now understand, a moot point is one that is no longer relevant. Oh boy! I suppose I shall have to try and remember this, since you are many and I am but one! However, I am reminded of a quip made by Oscar Wilde (I think): "The Americans and the English have everything in common except language!"
