Sanhedrin

'Ulla, quoting R. Eleazar says: [This refers to the case of] a dispute over the division of land [where the procedure must be the same] as at the first [division] in Eretz Yisrael. As in the commencement,  [such a dispute was decided by a Court of] seventy-one, so does it stand for all time.  But if so, just as originally the division was made by means of the urn, the Urim and Tummim,  and in the presence of all Israel, so at all times there must be an urn, the Urim and Tummim, and the presence of all Israel! But clearly, the answer given by R. Mathna is the better one. Rabina says: I still maintain that the case in question is that of a tribe led astray into idolatry, and if you object that such should be judged after the manner of a multitude [I say,] True! though they are executed as individuals;  yet their trial must indeed be by a court competent to try a multitude.  For did not R. Hama son of R. Jose say in the name of R. Oshaia [in reference to the Scriptural passage]: Then shalt thou bring forth that man and that woman,  that an individual man or woman may be brought unto [the court at] thy gates,  but not a whole town?  Similarly in this case, only an individual man or woman canst thou bring forth to thy gates, but thou canst not bring forth a whole tribe. NOR THE FALSE PROPHET. Whence is this inferred? — R. Jose son of R. Hanina says: It is derived from [the analogy set up] by the word hazadah,  used both here,  and in reference to the rebellious elder.  Just as there, [the rebellious elder is to be put to death only if he has rebelled against a Sanhedrin of] seventy-one, so here too, [the false prophet is to be tried by a court of] seventy-one. But is not the expression 'hazadah' mentioned in reference to his execution,  which is determined by a court of twenty-three? — 17 Resh Lakish therefore said: It is derived from the use of dabar [word] employed here,  and in reference to his [the elder's] rebelliousness. But let us, in turn, deduce [that the execution of] the rebellious elder [is by seventy-one] by employing the analogy of hazadah written therein and in the case of the false prophet.  — He [the Tanna] had a tradition authorising the analogy of dabar, but not that of hazadah. NOR THE HIGH PRIEST. Whence is this derived? — R. Adda b. Ahabah said: Scripture states, Every great matter they shall bring unto thee.  [This means:] The matters [viz., delinquencies] of the great [man]. An objection is raised: A great matter [means] 'a difficult  case'. You say, 'a difficult case'; but perhaps it is not so, the meaning being 'the matters of the great man'? Since Scripture states further on, Hard causes [difficult cases] they brought unto Moses,  it is clear that difficult cases are meant. [Hence great matter means 'difficult case']? — His  view is that of the following Tanna. For it has been taught: Every great matter, means 'the matters of a great [man]'. You say so, but may it not mean, 'every difficult case'? When Scripture further refers to 'hard causes' [difficult cases], these have already been mentioned.  How then, do I interpret, 'great matter'? — 'The matters of the great [man].' But according to that Tanna,  why the need of both verses? — The one states the law itself; the other, its practice.  But the other [Tanna]?  — If so,  either 'great' should be employed in both passages, or 'difficult' in both. Why 'great' in one passage and 'difficult' in the other? We may infer therefrom the two meanings. R. Eleazar asked: How many judges are needed to judge the [goring] ox of the High Priest? Is it assimilated to the execution of his owner,  or is it assimilated to that of owners in general?  — Abaye said: Since he raised the question with regard to his ox, it seems that in regard to his other monetary cases, he is certain.  But is not this obvious? — No, for you might have supposed from the verse, Every great matter … that every matter of the great man  [is to be brought before the great Sanhedrin]. He [Abaye] therefore informs us [otherwise]. WAR OF FREE CHOICE etc. Whence do we deduce this? — Said R. Abbahu: Scripture states, And he shall stand before Eleazar the Priest [who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord. At his word shall they go out and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him even all the Congregation].  'He', refers to the King;  'And all the children of Israel with him,' to the Priest anointed for the conduct of war;  and, 'all the Congregation,' means the Sanhedrin.  But perhaps it is the Sanhedrin whom the Divine Law instructs to inquire of the Urim and Tummim?  — But [it may be deduced] from the story related by R. Aha b. Bizna in the name of R. Simeon the Pious: A harp hung over David's bed, and as soon as midnight arrived, a northerly wind blew upon its strings and caused it to play of its own accord. Immediately David arose and studied the Torah until the break of dawn. At the coming of dawn, the Sages of Israel entered into his presence and said unto him: 'Our Sovereign King, thy people Israel need sustenance.' 'Go and support yourselves by mutual trading,'  David replied, 'But,' said they, 'a handful does not satisfy the lion, nor can a pit be filled with its own clods.'  Whereupon David said to them: 'Go and stretch forth your hands with a troop [of soldiers].'  Immediately they held counsel with Ahitophel and took advice from the Sanhedrin  and inquired of the Urim and Tummim. R. Joseph said: What passage [states this]?