## Sanhedrin Daf 2b

###### Sanhedrin 2b:1
[Sanhedrin 2b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/2b:1)

וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין שָׁקוּל, מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶם עוֹד אֶחָד. הֲרֵי כָּאן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** since there is a principle that **a court may not** be composed of **an even** number of judges, as such a court may be unable to reach a decision, therefore **they add another one to them,** and **there are twenty-three** judges **here.**


###### Sanhedrin 2b:2
[Sanhedrin 2b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/2b:2)

וְכַמָּה יְהֵא בָּעִיר וּתְהֵא רְאוּיָה לְסַנְהֶדְרִין? מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: מָאתַיִם וּשְׁלֹשִׁים, כְּנֶגֶד שָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And how many** men must **be in the city for** it **to be eligible for** a lesser **Sanhedrin? One hundred and twenty. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Two hundred and thirty, corresponding to the ministers of tens,** as outlined by Moses and Yitro in the wilderness (Exodus, chapter 18). That is to say, each member of the Sanhedrin can be viewed as a judge with responsibility for ten residents. If there are not enough men in the city to enable this calculation, it would not be honorable to appoint a Sanhedrin, as their members will each preside over less than the minimum of ten residents.


###### Sanhedrin 2b:3
[Sanhedrin 2b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/2b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** אַטּוּ גְּזֵילוֹת וְחַבָּלוֹת לָאו דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת נִינְהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מָה הֵן קָתָנֵי, מָה הֵן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת? גְּזֵילוֹת וְחַבָּלוֹת. אֲבָל הוֹדָאוֹת וְהַלְוָאוֹת – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna states that cases of monetary law are adjudicated by three judges, and that cases of robbery and personal injury must also be adjudicated by three judges. The Gemara asks: **Is that to say** that cases of **robbery and** personal **injury are not** cases of **monetary law?** Obviously they are; why did the mishna delineate them separately? **Rabbi Abbahu says:** The mishna **teaches** this clause employing the style: **What are these,** meaning that the expression: Cases of monetary law, is a description of a category, followed by the specification. Accordingly, the mishna should be read as follows: **What are these** cases of **monetary law** that are adjudicated by three judges? Cases of **robbery and** personal **injury. But** cases of **admissions,** where one party admits that he owes another money, **and** cases of **loans** that were not repaid are **not** included in this *halakha*.


###### Sanhedrin 2b:4
[Sanhedrin 2b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/2b:4)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי תְּנָא דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דַּאֲפִילּוּ הוֹדָאוֹת וְהַלְוָאוֹת. תְּנָא גְּזֵילוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת. וְאִי תְּנָא גְּזֵילוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת, וְלָא קָתָנֵי דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ הוֹדָאוֹת וְהַלְוָאוֹת. וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי גְּזֵילוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת – מִשּׁוּם דְּעִיקַּר שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּכְתִיבִי, בִּגְזֵילוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת כְּתִיבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this specification **is necessary, as had** the *tanna* **taught** only that cases of **monetary law** are adjudicated by three judges, **I would say that** this applies **even** to cases of **admissions and loans.** Therefore, to avoid this misunderstanding, **he taught:** Cases of **robbery and** personal **injury,** in order to clarify that only they are included in the *halakha*. **And had he taught** only cases of **robbery and** personal **injury and had not taught** cases of **monetary law, I would say** that **the same is true even** with regard to **admissions and loans,** that they are adjudicated in the same manner. **And** I would understand **this** fact, **that** the mishna **teaches** specifically cases of **robbery and** personal **injury,** by saying that these are mere examples and that the mishna mentions them **because** in the **primary** cases in which the requirement for **three** judges **is written** in the Torah, **it is written with regard to** cases of **robbery and** personal **injury.**


###### Sanhedrin 2b:5
[Sanhedrin 2b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/2b:5)

גְּזֵילוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים״. חֲבָלוֹת – מָה לִי חָבַל בְּגוּפוֹ, מָה לִי חָבַל בְּמָמוֹנוֹ! תְּנָא: מָה הֵן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת? גְּזֵילוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת. אֲבָל הוֹדָאוֹת וְהַלְוָאוֹת – לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains this assertion. With regard to cases of **robbery, as it is written** with regard to a bailee who accepted a deposit from another and then claims that it was stolen: **“The owner of the house shall come near the court [*ha’elohim*],** to see whether he has not put his hand upon his neighbor’s property” (Exodus 22:7). And with regard to cases of personal **injury,** they are adjudicated in the same manner as cases of robbery, because **what** difference **is** there **to me** if another **injured one’s body** and **what** difference **is** there **to me** if another **injured one’s property?** Therefore, in order to clarify that the *halakha* applies only to cases of robbery and injury, the *tanna* **taught: What are these** cases of **monetary law?** Cases of **robbery and** personal **injury. But** this *halakha* does **not** apply with regard to cases of **admissions and loans.**


###### Sanhedrin 2b:6
[Sanhedrin 2b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/2b:6)

וּלְמַאי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן שְׁלֹשָׁה, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁדָּנוּ דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין דִּינֵיהֶם דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And with regard to which** *halakha* are cases of admissions and loans unlike cases of robbery and injury? **If we say that we do not need** a court of **three** judges to adjudicate such cases, **but doesn’t Rabbi Abbahu say:** With regard to a court of **two** judges **that adjudicated** cases of **monetary law** of any type, which would include cases of admissions and loans, **everyone agrees** that **their judgment is not** a valid **judgment,** as a court with fewer than three judges is invalid?


###### Sanhedrin 2b:7
[Sanhedrin 2b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/2b:7)

אֶלָּא: דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן מוּמְחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is not the difference between the categories; **rather,** the difference is **that** for cases of admissions and loans **we do not require expert,** ordained judges who have studied extensively and received permission to judge; any three laymen can serve as a court for these types of cases. The mishna singled out cases of robbery and personal injury in order to indicate that for those cases expert judges are necessary.


###### Sanhedrin 2b:8
[Sanhedrin 2b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/2b:8)

מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר עֵירוּב פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת כָּתוּב כָּאן, לִיבְעֵי נָמֵי מוּמְחִין. וְאִי קָסָבַר אֵין עֵירוּב פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת כָּתוּב כָּאן, שְׁלֹשָׁה לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What does** the *tanna* **hold? If he holds** that **a merging of** Torah **portions is written here,** then **he should also require expert** judges for cases of admissions and loans. The passage from which the *halakha* requiring three judges is derived (Exodus 22:6–8) discusses several different *halakhot*. According to the understanding that these portions should be considered as merged, they are interpreted to indicate equivalence between those *halakhot*. **And if he holds** that **there is no merging of** Torah **portions written here,** meaning that the *halakhot* are to be derived only from verses that discuss them directly, then **why do I** need **three** judges for admissions and loans? The requirement for three judges is derived from the repetition of the word *elohim* three times in the context of cases of robbery and personal injury.


###### Sanhedrin 2b:9
[Sanhedrin 2b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/2b:9)

לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר: עֵירוּב פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת כָּתוּב כָּאן, וּבְדִין הוּא דְּלִיבְעֵי נָמֵי מוּמְחִין. וְהַאי דְּלָא בָּעֵינַן מוּמְחִין – מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the *tanna* **holds** that **a merging of** Torah **portions is written here, and by right** he **should have required expert** judges to judge cases of admissions and loans **as well. And this** fact, i.e., **that we do not require expert** judges for these cases, is **due to** the reasoning **of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: By Torah law, both** cases of **monetary law and** cases of **capital law** require **inquiry and interrogation** of witnesses in order to conclusively determine the time, place, and circumstance of the incident, with the purpose of finding any possible contradiction in the witnesses’ testimony.