17:8
כי יפלא ממך דבר. עם השופט ידבר בעבור היות עדות שנים להמית המת וזה פי' בין דם לדם בין דם נקי לדם חייב:
Should something be too difficult for you Scripture here addresses the judge. The sense of the verse is: “If it be still hard to decide, after receiving the testimony of the two witnesses, whether to execute the accused…” (this is the meaning of between blood and blood: to decide whether the execution would be an act of innocent bloodshed, or culpable bloodshed).
17:9
ואל השופט. הוא המלך שכתב משנה התורה מיד הכהנים:
the magistrate here denotes the king, who has written a copy of the Torah
He teaches that this is not about zakein mamre but someone who disobeys the king
ומת האיש ההוא. בית דין ימיתוהו והטעם וכל ישראל ישמעו ויראו וכאשר הזכיר השופט באר המשפטים שהוא חייב לשמרם:
that man will die The Court will execute him, the reason being that All Israel should hear, and fear. Having mentioned the sovereign [comment on : 9], Scripture now lists the laws that he is obliged to keep.
Sanhedrin - Greek word, doesn't appear anywhere in Tenach.
ReplyDeleteHe has a point. But sometimes it was the Kohen Gadol.
irrelevant
ReplyDeleteMaybe is talking about the King's law, the concept taught by the Ran.
ReplyDeleteIt's a primal Kings law.
So what if it didn't? Most of chazal were multilingual
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you believe that they had a Sanhedrin in Biblical times - what was its referred to? The language of use was Hebrew, so what was the Hebrew name? There wasn't a masechet Sanhedrin in biblical times, and if there was it couldn't have been called Sanhedrin.
ReplyDelete2 Chronicles Chapter 19
ReplyDelete6 and said to the judges: 'Consider what ye do; for ye judge not
for man, but for the LORD; and [He is] with you in giving judgment.
7 Now therefore let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed
and do it; for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect
of persons, nor taking of bribes.'
8 Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and
the priests, and of the heads of the fathers' houses of Israel, for the
judgment of the LORD, and for controversies. And they returned to
Jerusalem.
9 And he charged them, saying: 'Thus shall ye do in the fear of the LORD, faithfully, and with a whole heart.
10 And whensoever any controversy shall come to you from your
brethren that dwell in their cities, between blood and blood, between
law and commandment, statutes and ordinances, ye shall warn them, that
they be not guilty towards the LORD, and so wrath come upon you and upon
your brethren; thus shall ye do, and ye shall not be guilty.
11 And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all
matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the
house of Judah, in all the king's matters; also the officers of the
Levites before you. Deal courageously, and the LORD be with the good.' {P}
Kohen gadol was chief over religious matters
Head of tribe worked for the King, forKing's matters (presumably state affairs, theft, torts etc)
Once again, so what? The Tanakh describes what they had during Tanakh times.
ReplyDeleteLol. It is the Torah literature of the day. It's not "so what". However, it supports ibn Ezra's contention.
ReplyDeleteTanakh isn't just a historical note book. It is practical and normative Torah.
ReplyDeletefrom Encyclopeia Judaica
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect of the conflict between the sources is that, whereas the tannaitic documents represent the Sanhedrin as being composed of Pharisaic scholars, headed by the foremost men of the sect – the nasi and av bet din – the Hellenistic accounts usually make the high priest, or the king, the president of the body. Thus Samaias and Pollion (that is, probably, Shemaiah and Avtalyon, or Shammai and Hillel) and Simeon b. Gamaliel, who are mentioned in Josephus, and Gamaliel I, who is cited in the Book of Acts, are referred to in these books merely as prominent members of the Sanhedrin, though in the tannaitic documents they are represented as the presidents of that body. In the Book of Acts, moreover, the Sanhedrin is depicted as being "one part Sadducees and the other Pharisees" (Acts, 23:6).
It wasn't called "Sanhedrin" in biblical times.
ReplyDeleteAlso, no mention of Knesset Gedolah in Ezra /Nehemiah.
Knesset gedolah had 120 members, not 70.
What is the relationship between these 2 bodies? Rav Goren asks this question. He concludes that the Knesset G was not the Sanhedrin. It was a private Bet din of Ezra.
I don't follow your argument. The Tanakh describes what existed in its own times. The system of authority may have evolved over time. The fact that they later called the reigning body the Sanhedrin (where in the pre-Greek/Alexander The Great era they probably did not call it that term) does not put its authority or status into doubt, nor that of its predecessors.
ReplyDeleteThe post above is about the Ibn Ezra, and presumably does not agree with his original intepretation.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that
a) at the very least, the name "sanhedrin" did not exist in Biblical times. However, there would presumably be a Hebrew name for this institution - considering it was so central to Jewish law. After all, we have names for sacrifices, Kings priests etc.
B) The text from 2 Divrei hayamim goes to some way in supporting Ibn Ezra's claims.
I personally didn't interpret the original post as agreeing or disagreeing with Ibn Ezra, merely citing him making an interesting statement. (Maybe agreeing?). Either way, to dispute his claim we would need to see some alternative explanations of others and examine why one view might make sense more than another. That hasn't really been delved into with this post.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the King has authority, "not the Sanhedrin or rabbis" can speak to the psychology of rabbis opposed to statehood. They have a vested interest in being and remaining the supreme communal authority!
"Tanakh isn't just a historical note book." I never claimed that it was.
ReplyDeleteThe point, perhaps, that I am making is that "ideal" conditions were in tanakh times and not tannaitic times.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure there has ever been an "ideal" time in Jewish history. That there was something innovative about the Sanhedrin (in its name and possibly within its details) does not discredit it as an institution. This was the format that the continuation of previous Torah authority evolved into.
ReplyDeleteWell at least in terms of our ability to connect with Hashem - we had neviim, Kings, urim v'Thummim , beit Hamikdash etc.
ReplyDelete