Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] MICHAEL Re: Sanhedrin

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] MICHAEL Re: Sanhedrin
  • Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 14:18:46 -0500

No, this passage is to teach us that Yehoshafat included priests and Levites into the court system - not that the court system had ceased to exist.

Re your question would the Sanhedrin have made decisions on those prophets who were living in other nations? What prophets did not BEGIN their ministries IN Israel?

The record of how the tradition was handed down, is in the beginning of Pirkei Avot.

Shoshanna



Before anyone takes objection to this question, I would like to point
out that 2 Chronicles 19:8 states that Jehoshaphat appointed a court to
handle just these matters. This implies that a court of this nature did
not exist continuously from the time of Moses.

I apologize if anyone has answered the other questions I posed but I
haven't seen a reply and I would like to hear from you on this:
Would the Sanhedrin have made a decision on those prophets who were
living in other nations such as Israel during the divided kingdom or
Daniel in Babylon?

Were those judgments recorded in any surviving documents or would they
only be known in oral traditions? If they were known in oral traditions,
do you apply any historical methodology to determine which traditions
are authentic? Or is the assumption that any tradition not accepted by
modern Judaism is a false tradition?
My reason for asking these questions is that I see what appear to be
differing traditions within the Oral Law. At least, that is the
conclusion I come to when I read the opposing viewpoints presented in
the Mishna. Further, we know that the both the Essenes and Sadducees had
rather different interpretations of the Law. We do have a written record
of what the Essenes believed, at least on some matters. The disadvantage
to an oral tradition is that it is difficult to establish when it began.
I hope you understand that there is a distinction between historical
truth and truth. Your claims may be completely valid without being
capable being verified by any historical proof. You may conclude as a
matter of faith that it has been accurately handed down from Moses.
Since I don't share your faith, I need evidence that allows me to
evaluate the claim. I do respect you for your faith but I don't share
your background.
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy


Shoshanna Walker wrote:
What problem did Jewish Encyclopedia have, I forget.

Numbers 35 is talking about a court. It doesn't say if it is a local
court or the supreme court, but we KNOW it was a lesser Sanhedrin, or
local court, because:

There were local courts, and there was the supreme court which met in
the Beit HaMikdash. Great and lesser Sanhedrins.

The function of the Lesser Sanhedrins was SPECIFICALLY to judge
capital cases (except for capital punishment for high officials -
that goes to the Great Sanhedrin) - the judges of the Lesser
Sanhedrin only hear cases where the accused faces the death penalty.
It has no legislative, executive or administrative functions (but
they didn't have this authority if the Great Sanhedrin did not meet
in the Lishkat haGazit). Unlike the singular Great Sanhedrin there
are numerous Lesser Sanhedrins, one for each city that has a
population of at least 120 men.

That is how they knew that the court in these verses is the Lesser
Sanhedrin - there is no after the fact anything - this is where they
learned how many should sit in the lesser Sanhedrins.

Additionally there are two special Lesser Sanhedrins, one of which
meets at the entrance to the Holy Temple and the other which meets at
the entrance to the Temple mount. These last two courts serve a
special function in determining the law.

Why do you say "after the fact" - do you think that we didn't need
judges and courts "before the fact"? Anyway, what fact are you
talking about? And you didn't answer all my questions - do you
think that the Talmud and Mishna just made things up? Even peoples'
names?

Shoshanna






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

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew






--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 9/1/2006

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page