If a snake, which kills other creatures whose carcasses are impure and thereby increases impurity in the world, is itself nevertheless pure, as it is not included in the list of impure creeping animals, then concerning a creeping animal that does not kill and does not increase impurity, isn’t it logical that it should be pure? This argument is rejected: But it is not so; the logic of the halakha of a creeping animal is just as it is concerning the halakha with regard to an ordinary thorn, which can injure people or animals and can even kill and thereby increase impurity, but is nevertheless pure. It is therefore apparent that this consideration is not relevant to the halakhot of impurity.

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to any city that does not have among its residents two men who are able to speak all seventy languages and one additional man who is able to listen to and understand statements made in all the languages, even if he cannot speak all of them, they do not place a lesser Sanhedrin there. The members of the Sanhedrin do not all need to know all of the languages, but there must be at least this minimum number. And in Beitar there were three individuals who were able to speak all seventy languages, and in Yavne there were four, and they were: Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva, and Shimon HaTimni, who was not an ordained Sage, and he would therefore deliberate before the other judges while seated on the ground, not among the rows of Sages.

The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: A third, i.e., a Sanhedrin that has three individuals who can speak all seventy languages, is a wise Sanhedrin, and if it also has a fourth such person, there is no court above it, meaning that there is no need for additional language experts. Apparently the minimum requirement is three people who can speak the languages, not two. The Gemara answers: Rav states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: A Sanhedrin that has a second language expert is wise; and if it also has a third, there is no court above it.

§ Since the baraita stated that Shimon HaTimni would deliberate before them on the ground, the Gemara now lists various standard formulations used to introduce the statements of various Sages throughout the generations. If a source says: It was learned from the Sages, the intention is that this was a statement made by the Sage Levi who sat before and learned from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. If it says: They deliberated before the Sages, this is referring to Shimon ben Azzai, and Shimon ben Zoma, and Ḥanan the Egyptian, and Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would teach five names for this list: Shimon ben Azzai, Shimon ben Zoma, and Shimon HaTimni, Ḥanan the Egyptian, and Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai.

The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Babylonia, is referring to Rav and Shmuel. The expression: Our Rabbis that are in Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Abba. The expression: The judges of the Diaspora, is a reference to the Sage Karna. The phrase: The judges of Eretz Yisrael, is a reference to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. The phrase: The judges of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who was the head of the court there, and: The judges of Neharde’a, is a reference to the court headed by Rav Adda bar Minyumi. The term: The Elders of Sura, is referring to Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, and: The Elders of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina. The sharp ones of Pumbedita are Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava. The expression: The amora’im of Pumbedita, is referring to Rabba and Rav Yosef, and the phrase: The amora’im of Neharde’a, is referring to Rav Ḥama.

If it says: The Sages of Neharbela taught, this is referring to Rami bar Berabi, and the statement: They say in the school of Rav, is a reference to Rav Huna. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Huna sometimes say with regard to a given halakha: They say in the school of Rav? From this, it is apparent that a statement introduced by that formula cannot be made by Rav Huna himself, as Rav Huna quotes someone else with that introduction. The Gemara responds: Rather, the expression: They say in the school of Rav, must be referring to Rav Hamnuna. The formula: They say in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Yirmeya; the expression: They sent a message from there, meaning from Eretz Yisrael, is referring to Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina; and the statement: They laughed at it in the West, means that Rabbi Elazar did not accept a particular opinion.

The Gemara asks: But in one instance it is reported that: They sent a message from there that began: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina. This indicates that the expression: They sent from there, is not itself a reference to a statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina. The Gemara answers: Rather, reverse the statements. The phrase: They sent from there, is a reference to Rabbi Elazar, and: They laughed at it in the West, means that Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina did not accept a particular opinion.

§ The mishna teaches: And how many men must be in the city for it to be eligible for a lesser Sanhedrin? The opinion of the first tanna is that there must be 120 men. The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the number 120? The Gemara explains that 23 are needed to correspond to the number of members of the lesser Sanhedrin, and it is necessary for there to be three rows of 23 students who sit before the lesser Sanhedrin to learn and also to advise them; that is a total of 92 people. And since there also need to be 10 idlers of the synagogue, people who are free from urgent work and are always sitting in the synagogue to take care of its repair and the other needs of the public, that would be 102.

And in addition there are two scribes required for the Sanhedrin, and two bailiffs, and two litigants who will come to be judged. And there are two witnesses for one side, and two witnesses who could render those witnesses conspiring witnesses by testifying that they were elsewhere at the time of the alleged incident, and two additional witnesses could testify against the witnesses who rendered the first witnesses conspiring witnesses, rendering the second pair conspiring witnesses. All of these are necessary in order for a trial to take place, as is described in Deuteronomy 19:15–21. Therefore, there are so far a total of 114 men who must be in the city.

And it is taught in a baraita: A Torah scholar is not permitted to reside in any city that does not have these ten things: A court that has the authority to flog and punish transgressors; and a charity fund for which monies are collected by two people and distributed by three, as required by halakha. This leads to a requirement for another three people in the city. And a synagogue; and a bathhouse; and a public bathroom; a doctor; and a bloodletter; and a scribe [velavlar] to write sacred scrolls and necessary documents; and a ritual slaughterer; and a teacher of young children. With these additional requirements there are a minimum of 120 men who must be residents of the city. They said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: The city must also have varieties of fruit, because varieties of fruit illuminate the eyes.

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Neḥemya says: There must be 230 men in the city in order for it to be eligible for a lesser Sanhedrin, corresponding to the ministers of tens appointed in the wilderness by Moses at the suggestion of his father-in-law, Yitro (see Exodus 18:21). Each member of the Sanhedrin can be viewed as a judge with responsibility for ten men. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: