Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Shoshanna,

> I don't know if we are having a problem with terminology - ie that 
> the Torah didn't call it a "Sanhedrin"
>  



HH: I am having the same problem the Jewish Encyclopedia was having.


> Or a disbelief in the historic records that the Mishna and Talmud 
> recorded for us, including the records of where it was moved to, 
> under whose leadership, who were the heads, some of whom were Judges, 
> when the heads were "pairs" - nesiim and avot beit din, etc.
>
> We even know the NAMES of who headed various Sanhedrins.
>
> King David, by the way, WAS a prophet, and ALSO the head of the 
> Sanhedrin of his time.
>
> What, do you think any, all or some of  these facts were made up?
>
>
>
> Translated from the Talmud:
>
> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/sanhedrin1.html
>
> The Great (Sanhedrin) consisted of seventy-one, and the small of 
> twenty-three. Whence do we deduce that the great council must be of 
> seventy-one? From [Num. xi. 16]: "Gather unto me seventy men." And 
> add Moses, who was the head of them--hence seventy-one? And whence do 
> we deduce that a small one, must be twenty-three? From [ibid. xxxv. 
> 24 and 25]: "The congregation shall judge"; "And the congregation 
> shall save." 1 We see that one congregation judges, and the other 
> congregation saves-hence there are twenty; as a congregation consists 
> of no less than ten persons, and this is deduced from [ibid. xiv. 
> 27], "To this evil congregation," which was of the ten spies, except 
> Joshua and Caleb. And whence do we deduce that three more are needed? 
> From [Ex. xxiii. 2]: Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do 
> evil"--from which we infer that you shall follow them to do good. But 
> if so, why is it written at the end of the same verse, "Incline after 
> the majority, to wrest judgment"? 2 This means, the inclination to 
> free the man must not be similar to the inclination to condemn; as to 
> condemn a majority of two is needed, while to free, the majority of 
> one suffices. And a court must not consist of an even number, as, if 
> their opinion is halved, no verdict can be established; therefore one 
> more must be added. Hence it is of twenty-three.
>  



HH: This is one of the reasons I don't automatically trust the Talmud. 
Numbers 35:24-25 is not talking about two different judicial bodies. The 
rabbis often use Scripture to support their own ideas. This looks like 
an after-the-fact attempt to give a rationale for the composition of 
Sanhedrin that existed at a much later time, perhaps the first or second 
century of the common era.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard