Behaaloscha, Bamidbar 11:16. Shivim Ish. How Many Judges in Sanhedrin?

ויאמר ה' אל משה אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם ושטריו ולקחת אתם אל אהל מועד והתיצבו שם עמך וירדתי ודברתי עמך שם ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך ושמתי עליהם ונשאו אתך במשא העם ולא תשא אתה לבדך 

The Rabanan in the Mishna in Sanhedrin 2a learn from our pesukim that Sanhedrin has 71 members- the seventy Moshe Rabbeinu was told to gather, plus Moshe himself. Avi Mori Zatzal asked, but Moshe Rabbeinu's judicial status was such that he, as an individual, was considered equal to the entire Sanhedrin, he had the judicial power of an entire Sanhedrin.   משה במקום שבעים וחד קאי (Sanhedrin 13b, 16a-b.)  So how do you learn from here that Sanhedrin must have seventy one members?  If Moshe was equal to an entire Sanhedrin, then that first Sanhedrin, which included Moshe, was the equivalent of 140 people, and a Sanhedrin without a Moshe should need 140 people! Also, he asked, how is it possible for Moshe to pasken alone? Only God Himself is called a “dan yechidi,” the One Who judges alone? Furthermore, there is a rule in capital cases that kulo chayov, pattur- that if all the members of the court find the defendant guilty, he is automatically declared innocent, because unanimity in a capital case is evidence of prejudice, a failure of serious legal dialogue, and also because "והצילו העדה" requires that the judges be capable of considering exculpatory factors until the moment of execution, and this mutually reinforcing court will be incapable of reconsidering their decision. So how could Moshe be dan by himself? There could not have been any give and take, any discussion, and so whatever decision he made would have been procedurally flawed!

My father said that the answer to both questions can be seen in the parsha of the Slav, the quail, that immediately precedes our passuk.

When the people complained that they had nothing to satisfy their desire for meat, Moshe said to Hashem, it is impossible to satisfy these people, "mei'ayin li bassar?" As Moshe said later, there isn’t enough meat in the world!  If I gave them all the fish in the sea, it wouldn’t be enough, where will I get it from, האנכי הריתי את כל העם הזה אם אנכי ילדתיהו כי תאמר אלי שאהו בחיקך כאשר ישא האמן את הינק?  Did I conceive this nation? Did I give birth to them? What did he mean to add with this last phrase? Even if he had “harisi” and “yeliditihu," what's impossible is impossible!

From Moshe’s words we see that "impossible" presenting an insurmountable barrier depends on your relationship with the person in need. When a child needs something, a father's reaction is that he will do whatever he can, no matter how difficult, no matter if what they need is "impossible", he will try to do the "impossible." As my father put it, "פאר א טאטע איז דאס ניט קיין תרץ." For a father, that is not an answer.  He used Basya bas Pharaoh as an example: when she saw the child in the water, she stretched out her hand, although her hand could not possibly have reached him. No matter! You do what you can, and you don't even weigh the possibility of success. So first, Moshe Rabbeinu said "what they want simply does not exist." The whole world is not enough to satisfy their desires and needs. Then he said, if they are asking for the impossible, how do they expect me to do it? Am I their father? 

So Hashem told him, "Until now, you were like a father to the people. When you judged them, you didn’t judge as a dayan, you judged as a father judges his children. A father doesn’t need hagadas eidus, he doesn’t need drisha ve'chakira, your whole-hearted and selfless empathy and boundless love for your people allowed you to judge them by yourself. But if you say that you are not their father, from now on you are only the gadol hador, and you can judge them as a dayan, as one of the seventy one.

With this we understand another thing. The instruction to Moshe to convene a Sanhedrin is placed in middle of the story of the People's complaint about not having meat to eat. There seems to be no reason for this apparently irrelevant interruption. Why does the Torah place the parsha of Sanhedrin here? The answer is that the way Moshe reacted and expressed himself in his response to the people's complaint was the reason he was told to gather a Sanhedrin and to join the Sanhedrin as one judge among the others. Until that point, he was dan not as a dayan but as a father. Moshe had gathered the Bnai Yisroel in Mitzrayim, he gave them courage and hope and identity, he brought them out, he split the Red Sea, he gave them the Torah. In National identity terms, we would call him the father of the nation. And more than that– he was a charismatic leader– the people see themselves as part of him, and he sees himself as part of them. Their individual existence is meaningless, as they exist only as reflections of each other; the state is a reflection of the personality of the leader. But when he said "they are asking for the impossible! Am I their father? Am I their mother?" he lost that status, and could only be dan as a dayan.

After I said this in a drasha, someone showed me that the Brisker Rov asks the kashe on the Gemara in Sanhedrin (if Moshe was equal to the other 70, then we should say that a Sanhedrin without Moshe should comprise 140 members, not only 71.) The Brisker Rov answers that we see that Moshe Rabbeinu's din changed from being a shakul as soon as Hashem told him to gather the 70 people. 

But– and this is very important– the Brisker Rov does not even hint at any explanation for this change. He simply states this as a fact: his analysis of the pesukim leaves no alternative but to say that Moshe Rabbeinu's status changed at precisely this point.  After stating this tremendous and perplexing chiddush, he does not even begin to discuss why this might be true.  Ovi Mori’s pshat improves the vort tremendously. The fact that people told him it is a Brisker vort is just because people have a yetzer hora to say “yeah, I saw that someone else says that already,” when in fact the other person just says a little nothing from the vort.


(The idea that a father, one who loves someone with all his soul, will do what he can even when solving the problem is impossible, is found in several places.  First, as my father said, from Bas Pharaoh.  I've heard this in the name of Reb Itzel Ponovezher as well.  In our parsha, we have the people who were tamei, and they came to Moshe and complained that they can't take it, they need to be able to be makriv the Korban Pesach- even though they knew very well that their taineh was futile.  Finally, we see that Iyov was punished for his silence at the Egyptian Wannsee Conference.  There was nothing he could have done.  Running away, like Yisro, would solve nothing.  But at least cry out! A man who suffers, screams, even though it doesn't help him a ki hu zeh.  Reb Chaim B showed me that this is said over in the name of the Sfas Emes- see his comment, and I saw it in the Lekach Tov quoted from "the gedolei Baalei Mussar.")


When I told this to HaRav Yitzchok Grodzinsky, a Rosh Kollel in Bnei Brak, the son of my father's Mashgiach in Slabodkeh-Lithuania, I remarked that what my father said was certainly not a pshat that a Brisker would say.  Harav Grodzinsky added that it was, in fact, davkeh a Slabodker mehalach, emblematic of the foundational mussar spirit of the Slabodkeh Yeshiva.

The original version of this post was written in 2008, during the year of aveilus for my father Zatzal.

Note:

Yehuda O, in the comments, said an interesting svara.  He said that even though Moshe Rabbeinu was shakul to the seventy of Sanhedrin, he wouldn't have a din Beis Din of three without two other people.  Another commenter directed us to the Shai LaTorah III:133, where he brings this in a shakla ve'taria from the Brisker Rov, his brother Reb Moshe, and his son Reb Dovid.  Yasher koach to both of you!

ויאמר ה' אל משה אספה לי שבﬠים איש מזקני ישראל אשר ידﬠת כי הם זקני הﬠם ושטריו ולקחת אתם אל אהל מוﬠר והתיצבו שם ﬠמך 

מרן הגרי׳׳ז זצ"ל הסתפק בהא דמשה במקום ﬠ"א, אם דין זה נאמר רק עד שנאמרה הך פרשה ד"אספה לי שבﬠים איש", שבזה נתמנו ﬠ' זקנים לסנהדרין או דגם אחרי פרשה זו ׳׳משה במקום שבﬠים ואחד

והביא ראיה מדברי הרמב"ם בהלכות מלכים פ"א הל"ג וז"ל אין מﬠמידין מלך בתחילה אלא ﬠ"פ בית דין של ע' זקנים. וﬠל פי נביא כיהושﬠ שמינהו משה ובית דינו וכו', עכ"ל. ומדכתב הרמב׳׳ם "משה ובית דינו" מוכרח מזה דאחרי שהוקם סנהדרין גדולה, לא היה משה במקום ﬠ"א, וזהו שהיה צריך לבית דינו כדי למנות את יהושﬠ ﬠכ"ד

והנה מרן זצ"ל אמר בשם אחיו הגר"מ זצ"ל להסתפק, אם הא דמשה במקום ﬠ"א, שייכא רק לבית דין של ﬠ"א, או דהיה לו גם דיך בית דין של שלשה. והביא ראיה מהא דאיתא בגמ' ראש השנה כ"ה ﬠ"ב "ואימא הכא נמי (דקידוש החודש יהא

ביחיד) אין לך מומחה לרבים בישראל יותר ממשה רבינו, וקאמר ליה הקב"ה עד דאיכא אהרן בהדך" יעוי"ש. הרי דלקידוש החודש דבﬠינן ג' לא מהני משה רבינו לבדו, ובﬠל כרחך דלא היה אלא במקום ﬠ"א, אבל לא במקום בית דין של ג'

ואין לומר דכשנאמרה פרשת קידוש החודש ﬠדיין לא היה משה במקום ﬠ"א דהנה כתב הרמב"ם בהלכות קידוש החודש פ"ה ה׳׳א "כל מה שאמרנו מקביﬠת ר"ח וכו, אין ,עושין אותו אלא סנהדרין וכו׳. שכך נאמר למשה ולאהרן החדש הזה לכם ראש חדשים שכך הוא פירוש הדבר ﬠדות זו תהיה מסורה לכם וכל הﬠומד אחריכם במקומבם׳׳ ﬠכ"ל. ומבואר מזה דמ"החודש הזה לכם" ילפינן דקידוש החודש מסור לסנהדרין, ובﬠ׳׳כ דכבר אז היה משה במקום ﬠ"א

והנה בזה דמשה במקום ﬠ"א, ודין בית דין של ג' לא היה לו נראה בטעמא דמילתא, דהוא משום דב"ד של ﬠ"א, הוי מﬠלות, ולכן שייך ﬠ"ז הא דמשה במקום ﬠ"א קאי. אולם דין בית דין של ג' הוא הלכה בהחפצא של הבית דין דבﬠינן שיהיה בשלשה דיינין, ולכן לא שייך ﬠ"ז הא דמשה במקום ﬠ"א, דבﬠינן ג' דיינין בדוקא

ולפי"ז י"ל דנהי דבית דין של ﬠ"א הוי "מﬠלות", אבל הרי בﬠינן גם שיהיה בית דין", וא"כ אף דמשה במקום ﬠ"א, אבל בﬠינן שיהיו שנים ﬠמו, כדי שיהיו" שלושה ויחול ﬠ"ז תורת "בית דין" וצ"ﬠ בזה

ואם כנים הם הדברים, א"כ יש לדחות ראית מרן זצ"ל, ממש׳׳כ הרמב׳׳ם "משה ובית דינו ﬠמו", דמש"כ הרמב"ם "ובית דינו׳׳ הכונה לﬠוד שנים ﬠמו. אכן הדין דמשה במקום ﬠ"א לא פקﬠ באמת גם אח"כ

אולם מלשון הרמבײם לא משמﬠ כן, ד'בית דינו" לכאורה הוא סנהדרין וֹכמש"כ הרמב"ם אח"כ

הגרמ"ד הלוי סאלאװײציק שליטייא