In this week’s Sidrah, we arrive at the stark reality that as Moshe Rabbeinu has grown older, his continued role as Halachic decisor and leader of Am Yisrael alone is called into question by none other than Moshe himself (see Sifrei BeMidbar 92). Thus, Hashem answers his call: “VaYomer Hashem El Moshe Esphah Li Shivim Ish MiZiknei Yisrael Asher Yadata Ki Heim Ziknei HaAm VeShoterav VeLakachta Otam El Ohel Mo’ed VeHityatzevu Sham Imach. VeYaradati VeDibarti Imcha Sham VeAtzalti Min HaRuach Asher Alecha VeSamti Aleihem VeNase’u Itecha BiMasa HaAm VeLo Tisa Atah Levadecha,” “And Hashem said to Moshe, ‘Gather for Me seventy men from the elders of Israel whom you know to be the elders and officers of the people, and bring them to the Tent of Meeting and let them take their place with you. I will descend and speak with you there, and I will draw upon the spirit that is on you and place it on them; and they will bear the burden of the people with you, and you shall not bear it alone” (BeMidbar 11:16-17). From the language of the Pesukim, it would appear as if Hashem has just informed Moshe of His intention to inaugurate and ordain an assembly of men qualified to handle Halachic questions of major concern. Yet, this is seemingly not the first Sanhedrin to be ordained by Moshe Rabbeinu and HaKadosh Baruch Hu, as Rashi (ibid. 11:16, s.v. Esphah) and Rabbeinu Bachya (ibid. 11:16, s.v. VeNireh) highlight there being two previous Sanhedriot. As a result of this seeming discrepancy in events and linguistic, we are left to ask the following critical questions: 1) What makes this new Sanhedrin any different and what is its role; 2) What is the significance of there being 70 elders; and finally 3) What was Moshe Rabbeinu’s role in this new Sanhedrin?
In addressing the differences in roles of this new Sanhedrin Gedolah, we are once again reminded of its predecessors and their respective functions. Rabbeinu Bachya (ibid. 11:16 s.v. Esphah Li Shiv’im Ish) again addresses the situation by noting that the original 70 elders were among those beaten by their Egyptian masters (Shemot 5:14) because of their displayed compassion for Am Yisrael. Thus, their compassion was rewarded by HaKadosh Baruch Hu. Their capacity as a collective “Sanhedrin” was not one of Halachic jurisprudence, but rather one more closely resemblant of a modern presidential cabinet. We find an interesting homiletic parable in the Gemara (Chagigah 3b), which relates that the comparison of the words of Chazal to a goad is because just as the goad ensures that a cow will contribute to life on earth through ploughing, etc., so the function of the teachings of Chazal is to bring life into the world. After all, the whole purpose of the Torah is to enrich life, to ensure that life continues. They are to steer their students away from paths that lead to death to paths that lead to life. Just as the goad causes the cow to move forward, likewise the words of Chazal teaching Torah prompt their listeners to move forward spiritually. Much like the function of Chazal was to spiritually “goad the cows” to the proper path, so too was the original Sanhredin as it related to counseling which Moshe Rabbeinu and Aharon HaKohen would have sought in Mitzrayim and following the Yetziah, the exodus.
In this new Sanhedrin, however, we witness the synthesis of a wholly new entity within Yahadut and its rapidly evolving roles while in transit to Eretz Yisrael. According to Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, the Sanhedrin Gedolah [31] served two functions that were not previously seen: first, this Sanhedrin serves as the final arbiter in all areas of Halachah (derived from Devarim 17:8-10). Second, they act as the representative of all Knesset Yisrael (Kovetz Chidushei Torah, p. 52). The sanction of the Sanhedrin on any action represents the consent of the Jewish people as a whole (e.g. the authority to enact the period of Kiddush Levanah following Rosh Chodesh or authorize Milchamot Kivushim, wars of conquest, all required the Sanhedrin). Yet, it is puzzling that we find this Sanhedrin to have so much jurisdictional range, especially given that this Sanhedrin was not needed judicially; Yitro had already taken care of a separate Sanhedrin to handle this (see Shemot 18:13-23). It is clear that this new Sanhedrin’s true purpose is to assist Moshe in leading, but in what way? Certainly, it cannot be in jurisprudence, and it certainly cannot be in spiritual guidance. Thus, we must beg the said question: What makes this Sanhedrin, unlike the others? Perhaps the answer to this question lies in a deeper cognition of the whole that is our original Pesukim.
Another question we must face in dissecting these difficult Pesukim is the significance of the number 70 as it relates to this new Sanhedrin. Per the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 2a), these men constituted the Sanhedrin Gedolah recorded later in Tanach and Rabbinic Literature. Yet it is strange to conceptualize the existence of the Halachic-decisional power structure at this point, particularly as we have not witnessed Bnei Yisrael’s entrance into the land of Israel, and will not do so for many years. Additionally, we know from historical records that the formation of these decisional bodies did not take place for many years even post-entrance. However, the number 70 still presents us with a significant piece of information to process, one that represents a deep historical connection in Am Yisrael. According to Rabbeinu Bachya (ad loc.) these seventy men - plus Moshe Rabbeinu - correspond to the 70 Malachim and HaKadosh Baruch Hu Himself, who represent the Machaneh Elyon, the celestial camp. The positioning of the Zekeinim around the Ohel Mo’ed in Pasuk Chaf Daled (24) of this Perek is in actuality a symbolization of this. Not only that, but at the time that Ya’akov Avinu descended to Mitzrayim, he was the 71st person presiding over his 70 biological descendants who traveled with him, and earned much Berachah from this lineage. Ramban (ad loc.) states similarly that the number 70 is significant of the Malachim who correspond to the nations and languages of the world (this is supported by the Midrash in Pirkei DeRabi Eliezer Ch. 24). As a result, this is why 70 went down to Mitzrayim, and why there are 70 Shofetim because 70 is a number that contains within it all viewpoints and positions. It is fitting then, that as Moshe Rabbeinu requires leaders who will represent and help steer the entire nation of Israel, the number 70 is designated here. And so, we are now left to yet again ask what the role of the Sanhedrin is in light of the numerical significance presented to us. Perhaps we may build upon this number through the remainder of 1: Moshe Rabbeinu.
Where does Moshe stand in all of this? One could conclude that based on the Pesukim, Moshe is ready to retire and has designated these 70 elders to help him transition. Another suggestion is that perhaps Moshe has become too weak to handle leading the nation alone and serve as their Rebbi. In retrospect, neither of these suggested claims hold validity, and yet they do each hold individual kernels of truth. Ramban (ibid., 11:17 s.v. VeYaradati VeDibarti Imcha Sham VeAtzalti Min HaRuach) states that Moshe presided over the Shivim Zekeinim, setting the precedent that in every Sanhedrin Gedolah (Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 2a), there is to be one president over the 70. This is also connected to Ramban’s previous assertion of the Machaneh Elyon and Hashem ultimately presiding over it. Just as Hashem presides over the heavenly and other-worldly Machaneh Elyon, Moshe presides over the human counterpart. He also finds that based on a Midrash (BeMidbar Rabbah 1:25) that because Hashem was alleviating Moshe Rabbeinu of a “burden,” He channeled his Nevu’ot to be passed from him directly to the Zekeinim so they could alleviate part of the burden. Their Nevu’ah came to them directly through Moshe Rabbeinu. Thus, the Zekeinim, by virtue of their serving as conduits to Moshe Rabbeinu’s powers of Nevu’ah, would be able to transmit and disseminate the messages of what would occur in the Midbar to their respective Shevatim, and thus alleviate Moshe’s burden of handling their complaints that would follow alone. However, Ramban’s proposed rescue of the situation is in actuality only superficial, for there arises a major Stirah, contradiction, as to this Sanhedrin resultant from Moshe Rabbeinu’s status.
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 16a-b) indicates that Moshe Rabbeinu himself carried the status of the entire Sanhedrin Gedolah, whereas the Mishnah discussed earlier (ibid. 2a) derives the necessity of the Zekeinim from the episode found in this Parashah. The question now becomes: was Moshe merely the leader of the Sanhedrin or the equivalent of the entire body? Rambam (Hilchot Avel 1:1) writes that it was Moshe himself who instituted the Shivah period and Sheva Berachot. Yet in later Halachot (Hilchot Melachim 1:3), Rambam notes that a king must be appointed by the Sanhedrin, as Yehoshuah was by Moshe and his Beit Din. What was their ultimate purpose then, and in what context was Moshe sufficient to institute a practice as Halachah?
It is at this point that we revisit the suggestion of the Rav. According to the Rav (Shiurim LeZecher Abba Mari Z”L, Vol. II, pp. 199-200), in contradistinction to the dual roles of the general Sanhedrin Gedolah explicated previously, the Sanhedrin Gedolah of Moshe Rabbeinu served a similar yet wholly different purpose. The first was to serve as a source of Halachic rulings. In this respect, Moshe was the equivalent of the entire body and thus could make Halachically grounded legal enactments independently. If one argued with him on a Halachah, he would be considered liable similar to Korach and his followers. It was therefore not permitted for Moshe to argue a case as a member of the Sanhedrin since the members were precluded from disagreeing. The second function was to (much like a presidential cabinet as noted earlier) formalize certain actions. The appointment of a king requires the Sanhedrin not to issue a Halachic ruling, but to formalize the appointment. Together with Moshe as the Nasi HaSanhedrin, the president of the Sanhedrin, they were necessary in order to provide legal authority to the appointment.
And so we find that in light of the vast differences between the various Sanhedriot which are presented throughout the Tanach and early Rabbinic/Talmudic eras, that the Sanhedrin Gedolah found in our Parashah serves as the model for later bodies. It served in a dual capacity of both the ultimate arbiters of Halachic jurisprudence, and simultaneously as a subordinate yet symbolic body on the behalf of Moshe Rabbeinu. With this body, the Halachic framework and decisional process were born, and the Mesorot and history that we carry on to this very day. What we are left with however is not simply a recognition of the impressive complexity of this body in the context of Ancient Near-East history, but a sense of awe and reverence for that same body which we can only dream and hope for its restoration BeMeheira BeYameinu.
[31] This analysis of the Sanhedrin Gedolah is related to the later body, not the one found in this week’s Parashah as we will see later on.