Q&A: A Question in the Laws of the Sanhedrin
A Question in the Laws of the Sanhedrin
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I studied with you at Matan a few years ago,
This year I’m teaching a bit of tractate Sanhedrin, and right now we’re on the topic of an evenly divided court, and a difficulty came up that I’d be happy to ask your opinion about: in Maimonides’ Laws of the Sanhedrin: “If the Sanhedrin was divided and they needed to ordain one more to add to their number, they ordain from the first…”
I saw that the commentators explain that the need to ordain one more is when one of them died—as Rashi explains in the passage on page 37a. But Maimonides’ wording, “if they were divided,” and likewise the emphasis, “to add to their number,” made me wonder whether perhaps Maimonides means it literally—that the Sanhedrin needs to add one more because they are divided in their views? And perhaps he is following Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that the Great Sanhedrin consisted of 70? In that case there would be a different decision mechanism in a tie?
Thank you very much in advance!
Answer
Hello L.,
Good to hear from you, and no less good to hear that you’re spreading Torah.
In chapter 1, halakha 3, Maimonides rules against Rabbi Yehuda (that there are 71). So that is unlikely.
The explanation is not forced, because he is speaking about a case where they were evenly divided, and such a scenario can happen only if their number was even. How can that happen in a Sanhedrin of 71? It is possible when one of them has no opinion (when he says, “I do not know”), or when one of them died. In the first case, in capital cases they add two more (because you need a margin of two for a decision), and therefore in a Sanhedrin of 23 the only remaining scenario is that one of them died. As for the Great Court, I don’t remember whether there is a special rule. Presumably in such a case as well they would ordain one more, or attach one more ordained judge to the Sanhedrin.
More power to you in Torah,