## Sanhedrin Daf 36b

###### Sanhedrin 36b:1
[Sanhedrin 36b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/36b:1)

כִּי קָאָמַר רַב, כְּגוֹן רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי, דְּלִגְמָרֵיהּ דְּרַב הֲווֹ צְרִיכִי, וְלִסְבָרֵיהּ דְּרַב לָא הֲווֹ צְרִיכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **When Rav says** his statement, he is referring to not every student, but only those **such as Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, who needed** to learn **the** halakhic **traditions of Rav, but they did not need** to learn **the reasoning of Rav,** as they were capable of conducting their own analysis.


###### Sanhedrin 36b:2
[Sanhedrin 36b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/36b:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: עֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים יֵשׁ בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, וְכוּלָּן אֵין נוֹהֲגִין בְּשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, חוּץ מֵעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu says: There are ten ways** in which cases of **monetary law** are **different from** cases of **capital law,** as was taught in the beginning of the chapter, **and none of them is practiced with regard to** a court hearing concerning **an ox that is** to be **stoned,** as it is treated as a case of monetary law, **except for** the requirement that the animal be judged by **twenty-three** judges, like in cases of capital law.


###### Sanhedrin 36b:3
[Sanhedrin 36b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/36b:3)

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר פָּפָּא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״לֹא תַטֶּה מִשְׁפַּט אֶבְיֹנְךָ בְּרִיבוֹ״. מִשְׁפַּט אֶבְיוֹנְךָ אִי אַתָּה מַטֶּה, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט שֶׁל שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Rav Aḥa bar Pappa says: As the verse states: “You shall not incline the judgment of your poor in his cause”** (Exodus 23:6). He explains: **You may not incline the judgment of,** i.e., exert effort to find liable, **your poor, but you may incline the judgment of an ox that is** to be **stoned.** The reason for the procedural differences between cases of monetary law and cases of capital law is to render it more likely that one accused of a capital transgression will be acquitted. This is not a factor when judging the ox.


###### Sanhedrin 36b:4
[Sanhedrin 36b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/36b:4)

עֲשָׂרָה? הָא תִּשְׁעָה הָווּ! הָא עֲשָׂרָה קָתָנֵי! מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין, וְעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה – חֲדָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Are there really **ten** ways in which cases of monetary law are different from cases of capital law? **There are** only **nine** differences recorded in the mishna. The Gemara questions this: **But** the mishna **teaches ten** differences, not nine. The Gemara clarifies: Although there appear to be ten, there are in fact nine, **because** the *halakha* that **not all are fit** to judge cases of capital law **and** the *halakha* that **twenty-three** judges are required for cases of capital law **are one.** The reason not all are fit to judge cases of capital law is that the court of twenty-three is derived from the command to Moses: “And they shall bear the burden of the people with you” (Numbers 11:17), which indicates that only those “with you,” i.e., similar in lineage to Moses, can serve on that court (see 17a).


###### Sanhedrin 36b:5
[Sanhedrin 36b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/36b:5)

הָא אִיכָּא אַחֲרִיתִי, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין זָקֵן וְסָרִיס וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מוֹסִיף: אַף אַכְזָרִי. וְחִילּוּפֵיהֶן בְּמֵסִית, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״לֹא תַחְמֹל וְלֹא תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **But there is another** difference, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 7:5): The court **does not seat on the Sanhedrin** a very **old person or one who is castrated or one who has no children,** as those who did not recently raise children may lack compassion. **Rabbi Yehuda adds: Even a cruel person** is not eligible. The Gemara comments: **And the opposite of this** is the *halakha* **with regard to one who entices** others to engage in idol worship, **as the Merciful One states** concerning him: **“Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him”** (Deuteronomy 13:9).


###### Sanhedrin 36b:6
[Sanhedrin 36b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/36b:6)

הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת. הַכֹּל לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **all are fit to judge** cases of **monetary law.** The Gemara asks: **What is added** by the mishna’s employing the expansive term **all? Rav Yehuda says:** It serves **to include a child born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [*mamzer*]** in the category of those qualified to judge cases of monetary law.


###### Sanhedrin 36b:7
[Sanhedrin 36b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/36b:7)

הָא תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, וְיֵשׁ רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֵין רָאוּי לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַמְזֵר. חֲדָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי גֵּר, וַחֲדָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַמְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **But we** already **learn** this *halakha* **one time,** as it is taught in a *baraita*: **All who are fit to judge** cases of **capital law are fit to judge** cases of **monetary law, but there are those who are fit to judge** cases of **monetary law and are not fit to judge** cases of **capital law. And we discussed it: What is included** in the expansive term all employed by the *baraita*? **And Rav Yehuda says:** It serves **to include a *mamzer*.** The Gemara responds: **One** of the two sources serves **to include a convert,** who is qualified to judge only in cases of monetary law, **and one** of the two sources serves **to include a *mamzer*.**


###### Sanhedrin 36b:8
[Sanhedrin 36b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/36b:8)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גֵּר – דְּרָאוּי לָבֹא בַּקָּהָל, אֲבָל מַמְזֵר אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מַמְזֵר – דְּבָא מִטִּיפָּה כְּשֵׁרָה, אֲבָל גֵּר דְּלֹא בָּא מִטִּיפָּה כְּשֵׁרָה אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** both the mishna and *baraita* are **necessary,** as the *halakha* taught by one source cannot be derived from the *halakha* taught by the other source. **As, if** the *tanna* **taught us** the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to **a convert,** one could say that a convert is like a born Jew concerning this, **since** he is **fit to enter into the congregation,** i.e., marry a Jew of fit lineage, **but** with regard to **a *mamzer*,** who is not fit to enter into the congregation, **say** that he **cannot** serve as a judge. **And if** the *tanna* **taught us** the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to **a *mamzer*,** one could say that a *mamzer* is fit to judge, **as he came from seed** of **unflawed** lineage, **but** with regard to **a convert, who does not come from seed** of **unflawed** lineage, **say** that he **cannot** serve as a judge. Therefore, both sources are **necessary.**


###### Sanhedrin 36b:9
[Sanhedrin 36b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/36b:9)

וְאֵין הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבֵּית דִּין מְנוּקִּין בְּצֶדֶק, כָּךְ מְנוּקִּין מִכׇּל מוּם. אָמַר אַמֵּימָר, מַאי קְרָא: ״כֻּלָּךְ יָפָה רַעְיָתִי וּמוּם אֵין בָּךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **But not all are fit to judge** cases of **capital law;** the judges may be only priests, Levites, or Israelites who are of sufficiently fit lineage to marry their daughters to members of the priesthood. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? The Gemara explains: **As Rav Yosef taught: Just as the court is clean in justice, so too, it is clean of any blemish,** i.e., it does not include anyone of flawed lineage. **Ameimar says: What is the verse** from which it is derived? It states: **“You are all fair, my love; and there is no blemish in you”** (Song of Songs 4:7).


###### Sanhedrin 36b:10
[Sanhedrin 36b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/36b:10)

וְדִילְמָא מוּם מַמָּשׁ? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אָמַר קְרָא, ״וְהִתְיַצְּבוּ שָׁם עִמָּךְ״ – עִמָּךְ בְּדוֹמִין לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But perhaps** you should say that this is referring to **an actual blemish,** and is teaching that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin. **Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says:** It is not necessary to learn from this verse the *halakha* that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin, as **the verse states** in connection with the transfer of the Divine Spirit from Moses to the Elders: **“That they may stand there with you”** (Numbers 11:16). The term **“with you”** is explained to mean: **With similarity to you,** teaching that the members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, like Moses.


###### Sanhedrin 36b:11
[Sanhedrin 36b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/36b:11)

וְדִילְמָא הָתָם מִשּׁוּם שְׁכִינָה? אֶלָּא, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְנָשְׂאוּ אִתָּךְ״ – אִתָּךְ בְּדוֹמִין לָךְ לֶיהֱוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **But perhaps there,** those who were with Moses had to be free of any blemish **due to** the **Divine Presence,** which was going to rest upon them, but this is not a requirement for judges to serve on the Sanhedrin. **Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The verse states:** “So shall they make it easier for you **and bear the burden with you”** (Exodus 18:22). The term **“with you”** is explained to mean: **They shall be similar to you,** without blemish. This verse is referring to the appointment of regular judges, upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest, and teaches that all members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, and the verse from Song of Songs teaches that they must have unflawed lineage as well.


###### Sanhedrin 36b:12
[Sanhedrin 36b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/36b:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** סַנְהֶדְרִין הָיְתָה כַּחֲצִי גּוֹרֶן עֲגוּלָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ רוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וּשְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּינִין עוֹמְדִים לִפְנֵיהֶם, אֶחָד מִיָּמִין וְאֶחָד מִשְּׂמֹאל, וְכוֹתְבִין דִּבְרֵי מְחַיְּיבִין וְדִבְרֵי מְזַכִּין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין, וְאֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּיבִין, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A Sanhedrin** of twenty-three **was** arranged in the same layout **as half of a circular threshing floor, in order that** all the judges **will see one another** and the witnesses. **And two judges’ scribes stand before** the court, **one on the right and one on the left, and they write the statements of those who find** the accused **liable and the statements of those who acquit** the accused. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** There were **three** scribes. **One writes** only **the statements of those who acquit** the accused, **one writes** only **the statements of those who find** him **liable, and the third writes** both **the statements of those who acquit** the accused **and the statements of those who find** him **liable,** so that if there is uncertainty concerning the precise wording that one of the scribes writes, it can be compared to the words of the third scribe.