JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

an ecclesiastical court dealing with religious matters such as
divorce, and supervision of the dietary laws, and acting, with
the consent of all concerned, as a court of arbitration. In Israel
the term has come to mean the rabbinic court (as opposed to
the secular court known as the bet mishpat) which has, by act
of the Knesset, jurisdiction in matters of personal status in addition
to its normal religious function. This article deals with
the general meaning as found in rabbinic sources.
In Jewish Law
ORIGINS. The Bible records that Moses sat as a magistrate
among the people (Ex. 18:13) and, either on the advice of Jethro,
his father-in-law (Ex. 18:17–23), or on his own initiative
(Deut. 1:9–14), he later delegated his judicial powers to appointed
“chiefs of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens” (Ex.
18:21; Deut. 1:15) – reserving to himself jurisdiction in only
the most difficult, major disputes (Ex. 18:22 and 26; Deut.
1:17). It is therefore probable that Israel was one of those civilizations
in which the judicature preceded the law, and that
some of the later, codified law may have originated in judicial
precedents. The earliest reports of such legal decisions already
indicate a high standard of judicial practice and qualifications.
Judges had to be “able men, such as fear God, men
of truth, hating unjust gain” (Ex. 18:21) and “wise men, and
understanding and full of knowledge” (Deut. 1:13). They were
charged to “hear the causes between your brethren and judge
righteously between a man and his brother and the stranger,”
not be “partial in judgment,” but to “hear the small and the
great alike; fear no man, for judgment is God’s” (Deut. 1:16–17).
When the children of Israel settled in their land, the allocation
of jurisdiction on a purely numerical basis (“thousands,
hundreds, fifties, tens”) was to be replaced by allocation on
a local basis, i.e., that judges were to be appointed in every
town within the various tribes (Deut. 16:18 and Sif. Deut. 144;
Sanh. 16b). It is disputed whether this injunction to establish
courts in every town applied only in the land of Israel or also
in the Diaspora. Some hold that outside the land of Israel
courts ought to be established in every district, but need not
be established in every town (Mak. 7a); whereas others hold
that the injunction applies only in Israel, viz. “in all the settlements
that the Lord your God is giving you,” but not “in foreign
countries in which He has dispersed you” (Maim. Yad,
Sanh. 1:2). However, later authorities regard as obligatory the
establishment of a court in every community (cf., e.g., Arukh
ha-Shulḥan ḤM 1:18). In towns with less than 120 inhabitants,
there was only a court of three judges – three being the minimum
number – so that where opinions were divided, a majority
could prevail (Sanh. 3b; Yad. Sanh. 1:4). In towns with 120
inhabitants or more, the court should have 23 judges and be
designated as a “Sanhedrin Ketannah” (Sanh. 1:6; Yad, Sanh.
1:10). Courts of 23 judges also sat in the Temple precincts in
Jerusalem (Sanh. 11:2; Yad. Sanh. 1:3). The highest court was
the “Sanhedrin Gedolah” of 71 judges which sat in the Temple
(Lishkat ha-Gazit) in Jerusalem (Mid. 5:4; Sanh. 11:2; Yad,
Sanh. 1:3 and 14:12), corresponding to the 70 elders and offi-
bet din and judges
cers who took their place with Moses to “share the burden of
the people” (Num. 11:16–17).
The jurisdiction of the various courts was as follows.
(1) Courts of three judges exercised jurisdiction in civil
matters generally (Sanh. 1:1), including those which might involve
the imposition of *fines (Sanh. 1:1; Sanh. 3a). They also
had jurisdiction in matters of divorce (Git. 5b) and ḥaliẓah
(Yev. 12:1). A court of three judges was required for the conversion
of non-Jews (Yev. 46b); for the absolution from vows
(Ned. 78a; TJ, Ḥag. 1:8, 76c and Ned. 10:10, 42b); for the circumvention
of the law annulling debts in the Sabbatical year
(“prosbul”; Shev. 10:4; Git. 32b); for the non-release of slaves
after six years (Ex. 21:6; Mekh. Mishpatim 2; Yad, Avadim
3:9); for the enslavement of one who commits a theft and
does not have the means to pay for the principal (Ex. 22:2;
Yad, Sanhedrin 1:1; Genevah 3:11); and also for the taking of
any evidence, even in noncontroversial cases (Yev. 87b; Resp.
Ha-Meyuḥasot la-Ramban 113; Resp. Rashba vol. 1, no. 749).
Compulsory orders in matters of ritual would also require the
concurrence of three judges in order to be valid (Ket. 86a; Ḥul.
132b), as would the imposition of any sanction for disobedience
(Mordekhai Git. 384).
(2) Courts of 23 judges exercised jurisdiction in criminal
matters generally, including capital cases (Sanh. 1:4). They also
exercised jurisdiction in quasi-criminal cases, in which the
destruction of animals might be involved (e.g., Lev. 20:15–16;
Ex. 21:28–29; Sanh. 1:4). Where a case was originally of a civil
nature, such as slander, but might in due course give rise to
criminal sanctions, such as slander of unchastity (Deut. 22:14),
it was brought before a court of 23 (Sanh. 1:1); if the slander
was found to be groundless, the matter would be referred to
a court of three for civil judgment (Maim. Yad, Sanh. 5:3). According
to one view, the imposition of the penalty of *flogging
required a court of 23 (Sanh. 1:2), but the prevailing view
is that a court of three is sufficient (Sanh. 1:2; Yad, Sanh. 5:4),
as it is really a penalty that is not necessarily for criminal offenses
(see *Contempt of Court), as well as being the accepted
method of judicial admonition (makkot mardut).
(3) The court of 71 judges had practically unlimited judicial,
legislative, and administrative powers but certain judicial
and administrative functions were reserved to it alone. Thus,
the high priest (Sanh. 1:5), the head of a tribe (Sanh. 16a), and
presumably also the president of the Sanhedrin (nasi), could,
if accused of a crime, only be tried by the court of 71. Certain
crimes were also reserved to its jurisdiction, such as the
uttering of false prophecy (Sanh. 1:5), rebellious teaching by
an elder (“zaken mamre”; Sanh. 11:2; see *Majority Rule), and
the subversion of a whole town or tribe (Sanh. 1:5); and certain
death penalties had to be confirmed by it before being
carried out (such as of the rebellious son, the enticer to idolatry,
and false witnesses; Tosef., Sanh. 11:7). The *ordeal of a
woman suspected of adultery took place in the Great Court
at Jerusalem only (Sot. 1:4).
Among the administrative functions reserved to the
Great Sanhedrin were the appointment of courts of 23 (Sanh.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 513