| Differences in Legal Procedure distinguishing Capital from Non-Capital Cases | Title page | The Method of admonishing Witnesses in Capital Cases |
[ p. 75 ]
M.IV. 3. The Sanhedrin sat in the form of a semi-circle so that they might all see each other; and two judges’ clerks stood in front, one on the right and one on the left, taking down the evidence for the prosecution and the defence. R. Jehuda holds that there were three: one taking down evidence for the prosecution, the second for the defence, and the third taking down both. Before them sat three rows of disciples, each knowing his own place. If it became necessary to appoint another judge, he was appointed from the front row, while one from the second row took his place, and one from the third row that of the second. And for the third row one of the assembled audience was chosen. He did not sit in the place just vacated, but in a place for which he was suited.
T. VII. 8. When the “Prince” [^247] enters, all the people stand, and do not sit until he bids them do so. When the “father of the court” [^247] enters, they stand up on either side to make a passage for him, until he has come in and taken his place. When a member of the court enters, one after another stands up to make room for him until he has come in and taken his place. When the services of the children and disciples of the members of the court are required, [ p. 76 ] they pass over the heads of the assembled people. And although they say that it is not praiseworthy in a disciple of the wise to come in late, he may yet go out if necessity demand it, and come in again and take his place.
9. The children and disciples of the members of the court, if they can understand the proceedings, turn their faces to their fathers; if not, they turn their faces towards the assembled people. R. Eleazar, the son of R. Zadok, says: “Also at a feast, children are placed by the side of their fathers.”
10. When a member of the court comes in, his opinion is not asked until he has had time to make up his mind. Similarly a disciple should not be asked his opinion as soon as he comes in. If, on his entering, he finds the court occupied in some legal discussion, he may not break in upon their talk until he has sat down and discovered what is the subject with which they are occupied. If he should do so, it is of such a one that it is said: “There are seven marks of the clod, and seven of the wise man,” [^248] etc.
11. Seven rules of interpretation did the elder Hillel [^249] expound before the elders of Bethyra: the argument a fortiori, the analogy of expressions, the [ p. 77 ] generalization from one instance, the generalization from two instances, universal and particular terms, analogy drawn from another passage, and the conclusion to be drawn from the context. These seven rules did the elder Hillel expound before the elders of Bethyra.
VIII. 1. Every Sanhedrin in which are two members competent to speak, and all to comprehend, is worthy of being a Sanhedrin. If there are three, it is an average assembly; if four, a wise one.
The Sanhedrin was arranged in the form of a semicircle, so that they might all see each other. The Prince sat in the middle with the elders on his right and left. R. Eleazar, the son of Zadok, said: “When Rabban Gamaliel [1] sat in Jabne, my father and another sat on his right, and the other elders on his left.” And why does one sit in accordance with age on the right? Because of the reverence due to age.
2. There were three rows of disciples sitting in front of them: the most important first, the second in importance next, and the third in the last row. After this there was no fixed order, except that each should be placed four cubits away from his fellow.
The officers of the court, the defendant, the witnesses and their refuters, and the refuters of their refuters, used to stand within the front row, near the people. And it was always easy to know which was the defendant, since he was always stationed next to the chief witness.
| Differences in Legal Procedure distinguishing Capital from Non-Capital Cases | Title page | The Method of admonishing Witnesses in Capital Cases |
75:1 Except for the isolated passage, Hagiga 2. 2, there is no mention in the Mishnah of these two, the Nasi and Ab beth din. They probably did not exist till the Jabne period, i.e. after the destruction of Jerusalem. ↩︎