We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
בתי הדין במשנה: עיון מחודש במשנת סנהדרין פרק א.
- Authors
חיים שפירא
- Abstract
The first chapter of Mishnah Sanhedrin lists various matters – judicial, public and ritual – that are decided in different tribunals. It is commonly assumed that the chapter describes three types of courts: a court of three, a court of twenty three, and a court of seventy one. However, the Mishnah provides no details about these courts aside from the numbers of judges. This article argues that the theme and the organizing principle of this chapter are not courts of law but numeric panels of judges, and that one should not identify different types of courts with these panels. The redactor of this list gathered different halakhot that were originally cited in different places according to their topic and context and placed them here according to number of judges. The first part of the chapter (m. 1-3) lists matters that are decided in a panel of three, though it is clear that these matters were decided in different types of courts. Surprisingly, the Mishnah does not distinguish between these types of courts nor does it mention their nature. By looking at parallel sources one can fill in these details and identify the nature of the courts that adjudicate each type of case: courts of lay people, courts of experts, local courts, and the central High Court. The second part of the chapter (m. 4-6) lists matters that are decided in panels of twenty three and seventy one. The article shows that here, too, the organizing principle is numeric, not the type of court. While discussing the authority of the court adjudicating capital cases, the article exposes an historical development in this matter. The sources from the Second Temple period show that capital punishments were administrated by the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. The article argues that the Tannaim accepted this principle after the destruction of the Temple. The rabbis did not make a new law allowing urban courts of twenty-three to adjudicate cases of capital punishment until after Bar-Kokhva revolt. The article dwells on the background of this new law and discusses the controversy among the rabbis of Usha regarding the nature of urban Sanhedrin.
- Publication
Tarbiz, 2022, Vol 88, Issue 2, p139
- ISSN
0334-3650
- Publication type
Article