|
Updated: 2021.03.03
House of Deliberation (i.e., court of law); pl. בָּתֵּי דִין.
שֹׁפְטִ֣ים וְשֹֽׁטְרִ֗ים תִּֽתֶּן־לְךָ֙ בְּכָל־שְׁעָרֶ֔יךָ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ לִשְׁבָטֶ֑יךָ וְשָׁפְט֥וּ אֶת־הָעָ֖ם מִשְׁפַּט־צֶֽדֶק׃ 
“You must provide judges & police officers-of-the-court for yourselves in all of your community-courts
Conviction of capital cases required at least 2-3 eyewitnesses, who were also personally required to initiate the execution (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 17.6; see also The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu). Vs. 8-13 continues:
“8 If adjudication of a capital, property-damage or personal-injury case be too profound for you, matters of dispute within your gates, then you must arise and ascend to the place that that יְהוָ֥ה, your ël•ōh•imꞋ, shall be choosing. 9 You must come to the kō•han•imꞋ of the Lᵊwiy•imꞋ or the shō•pheitꞋ that shall be in those days. You must consult and they will relate to you the verdict of the case. 10 Then you must do according to the verdict that they relate to you from that place that יְהוָ֥ה your "
gods" shall be choosing. You must watchguard to do according to all that they יוֹרֽוּךָ. 11 According to הַתּוֹרָ֜ה that יוֹר֗וּךָ and according to the mi•shᵊpâtꞋ that they tell you, you shall be doing. Don't deviate from the verdict that they relate to you, neither to the right nor to the left. 12 So the ish who shall do contumaciously without hearkening to the kō•heinꞋ who stands there ministering for ־יְהוָ֣ה your ël•ōh•imꞋ, or the shō•pheitꞋ, so that ish must die, so you must burn-up wrong-doing from Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. 13 So all of the am shall shᵊm•aꞋ and be awestruck and not contumacious anymore.”
פְּסַק דִין is the ruling or verdict in either court and a גְּזַר דִין is the sentence (announcement of punishment) in either court.
In modern Israeli parlance, Beit Din has accumulated as many traditions as Judaism has different camps; a different interpretation in every camp of Judaism. Until the High Court ruling of 2021.03.01, Beit Din in Israel referred exclusively to an Ultra-Orthodox court of the Ra•bân•utꞋ; not any Israeli secular nor even any other Orthodox, court. A non-Kha•reid•imꞋ (not Ultra-Orthodox) court in Israel, is differentiated as a beit mi•shᵊpâtꞋ, and despised by both the Kha•reid•imꞋ and the Orthodox as a secular, gentile (or Roman or epikoros) and illegitimate (illegal) farce. This is a major reason why Kha•reid•imꞋ are able to so effectively order their public to routinely defy and riot against Israeli law.
Understanding how the structure from Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ became so degenerate and perverted requires a personal historical familiarity.
 |
 Ancient Egyptians' Heavenly Nile (Milky Way)—our own galaxy |
Millennia before Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ, Homo sapiens—sentients—gazed up at the night sky and puzzled the meaning of their life.
By the time of Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ, raised in the Palace household of Par•ōhꞋ, Egyptians had long regarded the Nile River as a mirror of the "Heavenly Nile River" in the night sky—what we call the "Milky Way" (our galaxy).
 |
 Khufu's funereal Atet (cBCE 2580) Berthold Werner, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons |
Egyptians (of Mōsh•ëhꞋ's upbringing) regarded death as a stopover between physical and eternal life.
Each heart, Egyptians surmised, was weighed for any accrued evil. This was an early concept of a heavenly judgment court, plainly needed to counterbalance injustice in the universe, given conspicuously unpunished wrongs during earthly life.
If the scales measured less than a feather's weight of evil, then the soul was permitted a night (i.e. underworld) voyage in an Atet barque from the world's earthly Nile to what they regarded as the eternal realm of the Heavenly Nile. Each star (or planet) in the night sky was believed to be the deified-soul of a previous H. sapien. These deifications were believed to explain rumblings and lightnings in mountains, mounds—or pyramids; which were, therefore, believed to be portals of deities. These superstitions persist today as innately sacred or holy mountain portals to a god.
בֵּית-דִין
שֶׁל
מַעְלָה — the Beit Din Above, heavenly Court (Aramaic: בֵּי דִּינָא רַבָּה). As the universe is the Creator-Singularity Existant's great laboratory preparing Ta•na"khꞋ-centric humans for post-mortal life in His eternal, non-physical domain, so mortal recognition of the necessity of earthly Bât•eiꞋ-Din mirrors a Higher, Ultimate Authority — surmised to function as the Supreme, Heavenly, Beit Din.
Originally, Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ purchased and operated his ranch on the outskirts of the Kᵊna•an•iꞋ city of Khë•vᵊr•ōnꞋ during a semi-nomadic era when extensive, region-wide grazing lands were unfenced with grazing rights fiercely enforced. As Patriarch of the family and owner of the ranch, Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ was succeeded by his son Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ,
then by his son, Ya•a•qōvꞋ-Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ.
Yi•shᵊm•â•eilꞋ
These successive ranch owners governed their family, along with an unknown but sizable and, as the family and ranch grew, ever-increasing number of household maids and ranch hands—regarded as members of the ranch household—like a tribal chief; i.e. as the sole Shō•pheitꞋ Nâ•siꞋ.
When needed, the ranch hands also served as their security; i.e. an independent, local, tribal-like, ranch-protection militia governed by the ranch owner.
Being semi-nomadic, the Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ family ranch included collateral pasturage rights to the surrounding grazing lands. Their semi-nomadic lifestyle required regional ranch chiefs with authority overseeing extensive grazing ranges during non-winter months (when herds and flocks were kept on the ranch, protected from the elements); as far as 3 weeks' herding outward (≈250 km ≈150 mi.) from the central ranch—in all directions, including ungrazed return loops. Thus, ranch owners in the semi-nomadic era were the regional governors, of large but sparsely-populated lands, of their day.
The ranch-owner to children and servant ranch hands and local army continued until it was interrupted by the Sojourn in Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim.
Life during the Bivouac bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbarꞋ was necessarily in-between a refugee-camp-like, semi-permanent, caravan bivouac encampment and a permanent settled village or city. Transferal from the former physical layout to the latter entailed restructuring the physical disbursement of the court system.
At Har Sin•aiꞋ, the nation-size population of 12 tribes (including the vastly larger number of extra-family household members plus the eiꞋrëv rav) was far too large for one man to resume the original paradigm of a sole Shō•pheitꞋ Nâ•siꞋ.
Mōsh•ëhꞋ 's father-in-law, YiꞋtᵊr•ō, originally suggested adapting the judicial structure of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ after the longstanding military structure familiar to tribal leaders (like YiꞋtᵊr•ō) throughout the Near East, and especially ingrained in Mōsh•ëhꞋ's Egyptian upbringing as a Prince in the Palace of Par•ōhꞋ.
Accordingly, Mōsh•ëhꞋ implemented YiꞋtᵊr•ō's recommendation to appoint Shō•phᵊt•imꞋ to adjudicate over 10s, 50s, 100s & 1000s under Mōsh•ëhꞋ's direction and authority. All of these lower courts were subordinate to "The Shi•vᵊimꞋ.
A principle adjudicator of the original Shi•vᵊimꞋ was the Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dōlꞋ (originally Mōsh•ëhꞋ 's brother, A•ha•rōnꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ), who was occasionally essential to consult the Ur•imꞋ wᵊ-Tum•imꞋ to resolve matters otherwise intractable. It would appear from later permutations, which certainly patterned themselves on these earlier traditions, that this comprised a body in which the Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dōlꞋ-functionary held an eminent position, subordinate to the פָּקִיד-functionary leadership of Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ.
The Shi•vᵊimꞋ + Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ totaled 71 to ensure there could be no tie. Further, the Shi•vᵊimꞋ functioned under the adjudication of 2 Jurists: a Junior-Chief Jurist (A•ha•rōnꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ & succeeding Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dōlꞋ) and Chief Jurist Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ (succeeded by Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bin-Nun and interrupted successors).
Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋChief Justice |
"The Shi•vᵊimꞋ" |
A•ha•rōnꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ |
The פָּקִיד (Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ, succeeded by Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bin-Nun, et al.)
"The Shi•vᵊimꞋ" (headed by a Sacerdotal Jurist (Kō•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dōlꞋ), becoming the Beit Din hâ-Gâ•dōlꞋ), which included
Note that in the original design of Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ, the פָּקִיד (Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ) exercised authority over the kō•heinꞋ. (This was usurped and reversed, ≈1½ millennia later, by Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ in BCE 167 by the authority of the Seleucid Sātrap An•tiꞋ•ŏkh•ŏs ŏ Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ.)
Contrary to Orthodox rabbis, all historians and legitimate scholars recognize that, while sᵊmikh•âhꞋ was passed from Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ to his successor, Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bin-Nun, it was then lost. Over the millennia, even multiple succeeding attempts to fabricate new sᵊmikh•âhꞋ were repeatedly lost.
En route to returning, reclaiming and resettling our Patriarch Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ's ranch and surrounding grazing ranges, on the outskirts of Khë•vᵊr•onꞋ, Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ had no alternative but to fight through hostile Kᵊna•an•imꞋ armies blocking their way; to subdue and absorb threatening Kᵊna•an•imꞋ villages and cities. Additionally, Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ built new villages and communities for their families as their warriors continued the campaign to reclaim and resettle our indigenous homeland.
Consequently, the original Justice system designed by YiꞋtᵊr•ō and Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ, which had been patterned after the military structure (10s, 50s, 100s, 1,000s), had to be adapted to changing topographical and demographical realities. Thus, the outlying courts subordinate to the central body of 71 Supreme Court Justices ( Shō•phᵊt•imꞋ) were redesigned as required by geographic location; with authority commensurate to regional hub cities (courts of 23 Shō•phᵊt•imꞋ) and their outlying villages (courts of 1-3 Shō•phᵊt•imꞋ).
During the period from Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bin-Nun to the deracination of the 10 Northern Tribes in BCE 722,
txt
txt
Since the original body of Shi•vᵊimꞋ seems to have comprised 69 Shō•phᵊt•imꞋ + a It thus seems likely that this Junior-Chief Jurist was later paralleled by the Av Beit Din and the Chief Jurist paralleled by the Rōsh Beit Din.
So, how did the #3 priest displace the #2 paqid-functionary? In the wake of the Hellenization of BCE 167, the Hellenist priestly element—the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ—wrested the position of Rōsh Beit Din from the paqid-functionary Royal House of BeitDawid and Pᵊrush•imꞋ. Thus, the #3 (Hellenist Greek) κλῆρος kō•han•imꞋ Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ displaced the #2 Hebrew פָּקַד-style leadership of Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ in complete disregard of #1 יְהוָׂה, the Sole King.
The #2 slot of Pâ•qidꞋ (Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ & successors) qqqq vs the #3 slot of the Hellenist- kō•heinꞋ-priest (A•ha•rōnꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ & successors) seems to have persisted, with interruptions, in the Tradition until the Hellenization of BCE 167 switched the predominance of the #2 and #3 positions—and lost track of the #1 position. The Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ kō•han•imꞋ, who ousted the Ōs•inꞋ (en route to extinction) installed themselves in the #2 position, displacing the Pâ•qidꞋ-functionary to #3. Thus, subsequent to BCE 167, the #2 RoshBeitDin became Hellenist Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ priestly while the #3 AvBeitDin became the Pâ•qidꞋ-functionary. Further, the new RoshBeitDin promoted itself to Nasi. Thus, the Sanhedrin was subverted to become led by the Hellenist Priestly Tzedoqim, demoting the Pâ•qidꞋ-functionary position to AvBeitDin.
These likely parallel the later adaptation upon Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ returning to recover the region of Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ's ranch and vast grazing lands in the NëgꞋëv around Khë•vᵊr•ōnꞋ:
Little has survived regarding how the military-inspired Court of Shi•vᵊimꞋ under Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ, layered by 10s, 50s, 100s & 1,000s, was adapted upon entering the Promised Land, to meet the permanent needs of geography, topography and population. Matters rising to national significance were adjudicated by Mōsh•ëhꞋ Bën-AmᵊrâmꞋ, the tie-breaker, with the Great Court of "The Shi•vᵊimꞋ."
When Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ settled the Levant, however, the judicial structure was adjusted to topography and settlement. The authority of the kō•han•imꞋ was almost exclusively tied to the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ. Thus, the Av Beit Din was a hë•dᵊyōtꞋ who adjudicated as the Junior Shō•pheitꞋ (under a Rōsh Beit Din, who was a kō•heinꞋ) in the National Beit Din hâ-Gâ•dōlꞋ (and, perhaps, District Beit Din ha-Qât•ânꞋ near the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ).
The בֵּית דִין is the Ta•na"khꞋ-based court, whose structure traces back in an unbroken chain to Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ (Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 18:19-26 and Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 16:18; 17:8-13; see also NHM note 27.1.2.) This is in contrast to the בֵּית Mi•shᵊpâtꞋ, which refers to the modern Israeli state court, regarded by "the religious" as "secular".
Modern court systems are still based on a meta-level plus three worldly levels of the Bât•eiꞋ Din framework instituted by Mōsh•ëhꞋ:
בֵּית-דִין
שֶׁל
מַעְלָה — the Beit Din Above, heavenly Court (Aramaic: בֵּי דִּינָא רַבָּה). As the universe is the Creator-Singularity's great laboratory preparing Ta•na"khꞋ-centric humans for post-mortal life in His eternal, non-physical domain, so mortal recognition of the necessity of earthly Bât•eiꞋ-Din mirrors a Higher, Ultimate Authority — surmised to function as a Heavenly Beit Din.
שִׁבְעִ֣ים אִישׁ֮ מִזִּקְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ (the 70 Elders of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ) + Mōsh•ëhꞋ, to break any tie = 71 — Paradigm for the בֵּית-דִין
הַגָּדוֹל.
Inaugurated by the sᵊmikh•âhꞋ of Mōsh•ëhꞋ, the בֵּית-דִין הַגָּדוֹל was the highest earthly court and original Supreme Court. The בֵּית-דִין הַגָּדוֹל was chaired by a Rōsh Beit Din, Vice-Chaired by an Av Beit Din and Executive Vice-Chaired by a Da•yânꞋ, completing a Tribunal Chair.
In BCE 167, the Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ Hellenized the Συνέδριον ("Great Sanhedrin"). Both, in their respective times, convened in לִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית on the wall promenade at the southeastern corner of the inner court of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, overlooking the Mi•zᵊbeiꞋakh.
After the Hellenization of BCE 167, the בֵּית דִין הַגָּדוֹל, was chaired by זוּגוֹת: namely, the נָשִׂיא and the אַב בֵּית דִּין, and supervised the lesser bât•eiꞋ-din throughout Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋ. Cf. also NHM note 5.22.3.
The ancient בֵּית דִין הַגָּדוֹל, which headed the sole court system in ancient Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ and YᵊhūdꞋâh, must be distinguished from today's highest civil court in modern Israel – which is independent of the Ra•bân•utꞋ. The modern civil בֵּית מִּשְׁפָּט הָעֶליוֹן (The High House of Adjudication) serves both as Israel's Supreme Appellate Court and as בג"צ (Israel's Highest Court of First Instance).
בָּתֵּי-דִין
הַקָּטָן (Lesser or Lower Houses of Adjudication) comparable to modern district courts, convened in the gate of every walled community, The בָּתֵּי-דִין
הַקָּטָן was also chaired by a Rōsh Beit Din, Vice-Chaired by an Av Beit Din and Executive Vice-Chaired by a Da•yânꞋ, completing a Tribunal Chair.
בָּתֵּי-דִין — The בֵּית-דִין was the local court, which convened in the gate of every village. The בֵּית-דִין had no Rōsh Beit Din, being chaired by three הֶדְיוֹט ( a private man, a layman, a common person; i.e. a non-priest), one of whom was designated the Av Beit Din one of whom served as Av Beit Din and 2 as lay Da•yân•imꞋ, completing the Tribunal.
Today's progeny בֵּית-דִין adjudicates questions of interpretations for the practice of Tor•âhꞋ, i.e. Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ and, within Israel, is, by current secular Israeli state law, under the supervision of the Ottoman- (Turkish-) ordained, Ultra-Orthodox Ra•bân•
Courts need not be composed of authorized judges only: any duly authorized judge could form a court by co-opting to himself the necessary number of laymen (Yad, Sanh. 4:11). Jewish Virtual Library, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/beit-din-and-judges-in-israel-from-bible-to-modern-times#2 ||
Devarim 16.18 shophetim in every community (gate). Rambam's "agency" predicated on acceptance of Biblical "principle" (i.e. ideals such as Justice and Truth justifying beit din & shophetim + shotrim). Breaching the principle of Principle would cut every connection between man and Torah/Existant. Halakhah v policy/principle. Art v computer. "Halakhah differs from other systems of law in that it does not permit policy considerations to adjudicate between competing theories or precedents. Nevertheless, in terms of public guidance, rabbinic authorities often do counsel, and correctly so, on the basis of what can best be described as "policy."" [meaning pc] Different fences/laws for differently-categorized (arrogant patronistic perceived levels of one's Torah knowledge) people. ||||
"Judges and court officers shall you place unto yourself in all your gates (Deuteronomy 16:17) is cited by numerous early authorities, including Rambam, Sefer ha-Mizvot, mizvot aseh, no. 176 and Hilkhot Sanhedrin 1:1; Sefer Mizvot Gadol, esin, no. 87; and Sefer ha-Hinnukh, no. 491, as establishing an obligation to institute ecclesiastic courts, or Batei Din, in every locale. Rambam, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 1:2, explicitly rules that the commandment is binding, not only in the Land of Israel, but in the Diaspora as well.1There is no suggestion in Rambam’s statement indicating that the commandment is no longer binding in our day. See Kiryat Sefer, Hilkhot Sanhedrin, chap. 5. See also Revid ha-Zahav, Exodus 22:7 and Netivot ha-Mishpat 1:1. J. David Bleich. Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol IV, Chapter I The Bet Din, An Institution Whose Time Has Returned. (Sefaria.org, 1995), https://www.sefaria.org/Contemporary_Halakhic_Problems%2C_Vol_IV%2C_Chapter_I_The_Bet_Din%2C_An_Institution_Whose_Time_Has_Returned?lang=bi ]
When the children of Israel settled in their land, the allocation of jurisdiction on a purely numerical basis ("thousands, hundreds, fifties, tens") was replaced by allocation on a local basis, and judges were appointed in every town within the various tribes (Deuteronomy 16:18; Sanhedrin 16b). ; Jewish Virtual Library, The Beit Din, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-beit-din ||
A somewhat different view is expressed by Ramban in his commentary on the Bible, Deuteronomy 16:18. Ramban asserts that the biblical command applies only to the appointment of judges who have been ordained, i.e., the recipients of the unbroken chain of semikhah, or ordination, originating in Moses’ conferral of ordination upon the judges appointed by him in the wilderness. Subsequent to the abrogation of semikhah during the period of Roman persecution, rabbinic courts enjoy limited authority as the “agents” of the judges of antiquity. Their authority, asserts Ramban, is rooted in rabbinic edict. Since such courts lack authority in biblical law, their establishment cannot be mandated by biblical law and, accordingly, Ramban concludes, “we are not at all biblically obligated with regard to the commandment concerning appointment of judges” (emphasis added). The implication is that the obligation continues in our day by virtue of rabbinic decree as a concomitant of the rabbinic legislation establishing the authority of non-ordained judges. Rabbenu Yerucham, Sefer Meisharim 1:4, explicitly declares that, in the absence of ordained judges, the obligation to establish Batei Din is rabbinic in nature. J. David Bleich. Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol IV, Chapter I The Bet Din, An Institution Whose Time Has Returned. (Sefaria.org, 1995), https://www.sefaria.org/Contemporary_Halakhic_Problems%2C_Vol_IV%2C_Chapter_I_The_Bet_Din%2C_An_Institution_Whose_Time_Has_Returned?lang=bi ]
Ramban’s assertion that appointment of judges is no longer biblically mandated is predicated upon his formulation of the antecedent premise that the “agency” of present-day rabbinic courts is rooted in rabbinic legislation. That view is also espoused by Ran, Sanhedrin 23a; Ramah, Sanhedrin 23a; Rashba, Gittin 88b; Ramban himself, Sanhedrin 23a; and Tur Shulḥan Arukh, Ḥoshen Mishpat 1:3. However, elsewhere, Yevamot 46b, s.v. shemat minah, Ramban concludes his comments with the remark that “it is possible” that the authority of non-ordained judges to act as “agents” of the ordained judges of an earlier era is biblical in nature. Cf. also the comments of Me’iri, Bet ha-Beḥirah, Baba Kamma 84b, also cited in Shitah Mekubeẓet, ad locum, to the effect that, absent such a rule, all biblical laws regarding jurisprudence would be abrogated and the world would be destroyed. If, even in our day, authority to sit in judgment continues to be rooted in biblical law, it then follows that establishment of Batei Din remains a biblical obligation. Cf., Imrei Binah, Ḥoshen Mishpat, chap. 1 and Encyclopedia Talmudit, III, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem, 5715), p. 162, note 366a. |||| J. David Bleich. Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol IV, Chapter I The Bet Din, An Institution Whose Time Has Returned. (Sefaria.org, 1995), https://www.sefaria.org/Contemporary_Halakhic_Problems%2C_Vol_IV%2C_Chapter_I_The_Bet_Din%2C_An_Institution_Whose_Time_Has_Returned?lang=bi ||
Talmud Yerushalmi Tractate Sanhedrin 20b Halakhah 1 Mishnah
דף כ,ב פרק ד הלכה א משנה אחד דיני ממונות ואחד דיני נפשות בדרישה ובחקירה שנאמר משפט אחד יהיה לכם מה בין דיני ממונות לדיני נפשות דיני ממונות בשלשה ודיני נפשות בעשרים ושלשה דיני ממונות פותחין בין לזכות בין לחובה ודיני נפשות פותחין לזכות ואין פותחין בחובה:
https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.20b.3?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
[There is] one of the דֵּינֵי for [matters of] mammon [property] and one of the דֵּינֵי for [matters of] נְפָשׁוֹת [breath, self] In an inquiry or investigation. It was said, "Mishpat ekhad shall you have". What is [the difference] between the דֵּינֵי for [matters of] mammon and the דֵּינֵי of נְפָשׁוֹת? The דֵּינֵי for [matters of] mammon are 3 but the דֵּינֵי of נְפָשׁוֹת are 23. The דֵּינֵי for [matters of] mammon adjudicate [פותחין; open a file] between the innocent and the guilty while the דֵּינֵי for [matters of] נְפָשׁוֹת adjudicate (appeals?) for the innocent but don't adjudicate in [matters of] guilt.
- "official position even in the lesser Sanhedrin of 23 members found in every city (Ruth Rabah 2; et al.)." 7th-9th century CE Ency. Jud. 3, c. 940.
Talmud Yerushalmi Tractate Sanhedrin 20b Halakhah 1 Gemara
דף כ,ב פרק ד הלכה א גמרא אמר ר' יוחנן בשביל לחוס על ממון ישראל אמרו האיך אתה יודע שזה חייב לזה. ר' חייה בר בא בעא קומי ר' יוסי היך עבדין עובדא א"ל כר' יוחנן דר' יוחנן אמר בשביל לחוס על ממון ישראל אמרו היאך אתה יודע שזה חייב לזה. זעירא בר חיננא בשם רבי חנינה ורבי יהודה
https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.20b.3?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
R. Yokhanan said in order to pity [matters of] mammon [property] of Israel, they said, How do you know who owes whom? Rabbi Khaya Bar Ba Ba'a Komi Rabbi Yossi Hich Abdin Ovda El Kar Yochanan Dr. Yochanan said in order to spare the money of Israel they said how do you know it is owed to it. Zeira Bar Hinana in the name of Rabbi Hanina and Rabbi Yehuda
Torah law v ["Sages"=Hellenist-Tzedoqim] Shamai rabbinic-fence law:
"the Gemara (Sanhedrin 3a) cites an opinion that, according to Torah law, one judge is sufficient, as we read (Vayikra 19:15), “With righteousness you (singular [x3]) shall judge your fellow.” According to that opinion, the Hellenist Tzedoqim decreed that there be three laymen because of a concern that an unqualified person might sit in judgment alone if one judge were sufficient. If three people sit in judgment, the Gemara states, there surely will be one among them who has heard the relevant laws from scholars. (The Gemara continues: Since the bottom line is that three judges are required, what difference does it make if they are required by Torah law or merely because it is a good idea? The Gemara answers: If a Bet Din of two members did sit in judgment, its judgment would not be valid if the Torah requires three, but it would be valid if the Torah requires only one judge.)" https://torah.or
" Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin
Folio 3a
שנאמר (ויקרא כד, כב) משפט אחד יהיה לכם ומה טעם אמרו דיני ממונות לא בעינן דרישה וחקירה כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווין
as it is stated: “You shall have one manner of law”. And what is the reason "they" said, 'monetary law we do not require inquiry and interrogation'? So as not to lock the door in the face of potential borrowers.
One manner of judgment shall you have.1 Why then did they [the Hellenist Tzedoqim] declare that monetary cases are not subject to this exacting procedure? In order not to 'bolt the door' against borrowers.2 But if non-Mumhin are competent to adjudicate in monetary cases, ought they not to be protected against any claim of compensation in case of their having an erroneous decision? — All the more then would you be 'bolting the door' against borrowers.
If it be so, [that cases of indebtedness require three, why does R. Abbahu say that the Tanna adds an explanatory clause, and not simply that] the Mishnah teaches two separate laws; viz. MONETARY cases are tried by three laymen3 whilst cases of LARCENY AND MAYHEM are tried by three Mumhin.3 Moreover, if the two clauses merely explain each other, why mention 'three' in each? — indeed, said Raba,4 the Tanna teaches two separate laws; and cases of indebtedness need no Mumhin for the reason given above by R. Hanina.
אלא מעתה טעו לא ישלמו כל שכן אתה נועל דלת בפני לווין
If that is so, err they should not pay you are all the more so locking the door in the face of borrowers;
R. Aha the son of R. Ika says: According to Scriptural law, even a single person is competent to try cases of indebtedness as it is said: In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.5 Three, however, are needed in case traffickers6 presume to act as judges. But even with the provision of three might they not all be traffickers? — It is, however unlikely that none of them should have any knowledge of the law. If this be so, they should be exempt from liability in case they erred? — But how much more would traffickers presume in such circumstances to act as judges!7 Wherein then lies the difference between Raba and R. Aha the son of R. Ika [since both agree that mere laymen are competent]? Their difference centres round the opinion of Samuel who said: 'if two [laymen] have tried a monetary case, their decision holds good. but they are called a presumptuous Beth din.' Whereas Raba8 does not agree with Samuel, R. Aha does agree with him."
https://halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_3.html
-->
A συνέδριον / σύνοδος, was originally a Roman Senate Assembly accountable to Rome–as in the senates of Sparta, Carthage, and even Rome–composed of local representatives. According to Josephus, ca. B.C.E. 57 the Roman governor, Gabinus, divided the Holy Land into 5 provinces, each under its own συνέδριον (Ant., XIV, v, 4) / σύνοδος (Wars, I, viii, 5).
Thus, under the influence of the ruling Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ (collaborators with the Hellenist Roman occupiers), the בֵּית דִין system became Hellenized and, to a great extent, blurred with the Hellenist Roman συνέδριον—completely divorcing it conceptually from the בֵּית דִין court system established by Mosh•ëhꞋ in Pâ•râsh•atꞋ Yi•tᵊr•ōꞋ (bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 18).
)From the Hellenization by An•tiꞋ•ŏkh•ŏs ŏ Ëp•i•phan•eisꞋ & Yәhō•shuꞋa Bën-Shim•ōnꞋ Jr. Bën-Tzâ•dōq′ ha-Kō•hein′ until Rab•ânꞋ Ga•mᵊl•i•eilꞋ Sr., the Av Beit Din remained the Junior (Pᵊrush•iꞋ) Complement of the ZūgꞋōt in the Hellenized Συνέδριον, where he became the Vice-President of the Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ-arrogated Hellenized definition of Nâ•siꞋ!
a hë•dᵊyōtꞋ (i.e. Pᵊrush•iꞋ) Shō•pheitꞋ in the Hellenist Era (i.e. post-BCE 167), whose position depended upon proximity to the Hellenized Tzᵊdōq•imꞋ "Temple" and the level of the Beit Din:
the hë•dᵊyōtꞋ (i.e. Pᵊrush•iꞋ) Junior Justice Shō•pheitꞋ Recessive Complement of the Zūg, subordinate to the Hellenist priest (i.e. Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ) Rōsh Beit Din Chief Justice Dominant Complement of the Zūg (of 70 Shō•phᵊt•imꞋ) in "The Shi•vᵊimꞋ " Συνέδριον — (the former Beit Din hâ-Gâ•dōlꞋ) Supreme Court.
the hë•dᵊyōtꞋ (i.e. Pᵊrush•iꞋ) Chief Justice Shō•pheitꞋ (of 23 Shō•phᵊt•imꞋ) of a District Beit Din ha-Qât•ânꞋ
a hë•dᵊyōtꞋ (i.e. Pᵊrush•iꞋ) Primary Shō•pheitꞋ (usually of 3 hë•dᵊyōtꞋ Pᵊrush•iꞋ) of a Local Beit Din.
The highest, or "Great," συνέδριον / σύνοδος, located in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim, comprised 71 members. Mid-level συνέδριον / σύνοδος, two of which were also located in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim, comprised 23 members. At the lowest level, the local בֵּית דִין comprised three members (based on Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 22:6–8; “In righteousness shall you judge your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:15) Sanh 3a; Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as he holds that fundamentally, even one judge may judge a case of monetary law. Sanh 3a); (§ The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the fundamental requirement for three judges? The Gemara answers: This is as the Hellenist Tzedoqim taught: The verse states: “The owner of the house shall come near the court, to see whether he has not put his hand upon his neighbor’s property” (Exodus 22:7), so there is one judge here. The following verse states: “The cause of both parties shall come before the court,” so there are two judges here. And that verse concludes: “He whom the court shall condemn shall pay double to his neighbor,” so there are three judges here, corresponding to the three mentions of the term “the court.” This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Sanh 3b). (It's unknown how many of these lower level בֵּית דִין were located in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim.)
Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ had to be Yᵊhud•imꞋ in good standing in the Jewish community—not apostates or goy•imꞋ, obviously—and conform to Shᵊm•otꞋ 18.21
אַנְשֵׁי-חַיִל, יִרְאֵי אֱלֹהִים; אַנְשֵׁי-אֱמֶת שֹׂנְאֵי בָצַע
and Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 1.13 ("Bet Din and Judges," EJ 4:720).
אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים; וִידֻעִים לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם
Until added in recent years (contradicting Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.1), Sho•phᵊt•imꞋ of a בֵּית-דִין had never been required to be rabbis. Indeed, rabbis never even existed until ca. B.C.E. 166!!!
Josephus documented the corrupt practice of the Ko•han•eiꞋ hâ-RëshꞋa (Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ) to convene illegal בֵּית דִין (Antiquities, xx, ix, 1).
While readers may be more familiar with the term "sanhedrin," this Hellenist term conceals the continuity of the בֵּית דִין system of adjudicating Oral Law (as proven by 4Q MMT). Since the Pᵊrush•imꞋ achieved predominance in the Beit Din ha-Jâ•dolꞋ ca. 20 C.E., Oral Law has comprised Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ. This Tor•âhꞋ shë-bᵊ•al pëhꞋ is documented in Ta•na"khꞋ as khuq•imꞋ + mi•shᵊpâtꞋ, an uninterrupted process dating from the time of Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ (see ABNC Live-LinkT Technology).
In modern Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, we distinguish between religious courts—Bât•eiꞋ Din—and modern secular courts, called Bât•eiꞋ mi•shᵊpâtꞋ. See also discussion in the "64 C.E.Proto-Christians" section of Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-LinkT (WAN) and note 5.22.3 in NHM.
Inextricably related, דִין (din; law) is also used with יוֹם (yom; day) in the sense of יוֹם הַדִין (Yom ha-Din; Law Day or "the" Day of Law, often confused with its synonym, "Day of Judgment"—יוֹם הַמִּשׁפָּט (Yom ha-Mi•shᵊpâtꞋ).
The original בֵּית דִין court system included, as its highest court, the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dolꞋ (the Great House of Law; Hellenized / de-Judaized (Hellenized) to 'Great Sanhedrin').
Only the בֵּית דִין could decide mi•shᵊpâtꞋ—and obedience of the mi•shᵊpât•imꞋ is explicitly and unambiguously commanded in Tor•âhꞋ hundreds of times!!!
To wrest these passages from their contextual dependence on a legitimate בֵּית דִין of Tor•âhꞋ-observant Jews, the Church translates mi•shᵊpâtꞋ simply as "judgment"—giving the false, and deceiving, impression that anyone can make such "judgments"!!!
Beside the well known Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dolꞋ, the בֵּית דִין system comprised, under the aegis of the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dolꞋ, Bât•eiꞋ-Din ha-Qâtân and, under the aegis of the Bât•eiꞋ-Din ha-Qâtân, Bât•eiꞋ-Din representing the various communities recognized as legitimate by the higher Bât•eiꞋ-Din. Both books of our Kha•vᵊr•utꞋâ plus "Bet Din and Judges," EJ are MUST reads.
It is only with this Judaic phrase 'בֵּית דִין' that the uninterrupted chain is obvious between the bât•eiꞋ-din established by Mosh•ëhꞋ, the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dolꞋ which operated in the Beit-ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ with the many bât•eiꞋ-din under its supervision, and the bât•eiꞋ-din which continue to operate today in the legitimate Orthodox Jewish community.
Beware of Christian deceivers operating outside of the legitimate Jewish community who self-proclaim themselves to be a "בֵּית דִין but have no connection to the legitimate Jewish community of any era, or to Israel. Setting up a so-called "beit din" to rival the historically authentic bât•eiꞋ-din is Displacement Theology!!!
Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu —Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu Bën-Dâ•widꞋ, the 16th Pâ•qidꞋ of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ ( Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ Bën-Dâ•widꞋ, the brother of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Dâ•widꞋ, being the first)—is a member in good standing, on the board, of the Yemenite Orthodox synagogue in Ra•an•anꞋâ(h), Israel—Mo•rëshꞋët Âv•otꞋ. The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ are the only followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa on the planet, and the only בֵּית דִין on the planet, determining and disseminating the teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa as the Mâ•shiꞋakh within the בֵּית דִין system of the legitimate (Orthodox) Jewish community and Israel.
Thus, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ (as distinguished from the wannabe pretenders of Displacement Theology who often pose as "Netzarim") are the only followers legitimately like historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and the historical Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ; and, it follows, the only legitimate followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, and the only true bearers of the authentic teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa.
All other so-called followers of 'Christ' (by whatever name, including those who call themselves 'Netzarim' or 'Paqid' but are not—none of these terms were even known in the modern era until I restored and published them; other users are blatant plagiarists and frauds) are deceptions of Displacement Theology syncretism ultimately deriving from the post-135 C.E. Roman pagan 'Jesus'.
We verify all legitimate Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ upon request. If you wish to verify whether someone is a legitimate Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ or a fraud, simply ask us in our Web Café.
Related to the dramatic difference between a בֵּית דִין and the fake Christian notion of an informal "judgment," former Christians often expect that a בֵּית דִין operates informally like several social club members approving a new member.
A בֵּית דִין, by contrast, is a formal court of law… with all of the formal legalities that entails: millennia of case law which have established rules of identification, standards of evidence, testimony of witnesses, etc.
You don't need to hire a lawyer to petition for recognition if and when the time comes, but you do want to approach the בֵּית דִין understanding that you must respect both the legalities and the sho•phᵊt•imꞋ to at least the same degree that is expected by a civil court. Changing from a gentile to a geir to•shâvꞋ is a legal change under Tor•âhꞋ law—and that requires meeting legal criteria established by the historically legitimate Judaic community over the millennia.
 |
 |
 |
