Our Gemara on Amud Beis describes how Shmuel went to significant lengths to ensure the publicity of a particular halakhic ruling:
“Shmuel said to Rav Ḥana of Baghdad: Go out and bring me an assembly of ten men, and I will say a halakha to you in their presence, so that it will be well publicized. The halakha was: With regard to one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus acquires the item.”
This case raises an interesting question: why did Shmuel require an assembly of ten men to publicize this halakha, when often three people are deemed sufficient to publicize matters of Halacha? For example:
- In Kiddushin (70a), it says, “Once a person has been appointed a leader of the community, he is prohibited from performing labor before three people, so that he not belittle the honor of his position.”
- Bava Basra (39b) states that one should issue a challenge against an alleged squatter in front of three people to publicize the challenge.
- Gittin (33a) also considers three people sufficient to publicize a divorce.
Why, then, does Shmuel insist on ten people in this case? One explanation could be that “bad news travels fast,” and cases involving three observers all involve something critical, negative, or unfortunate: a leader’s conduct that might lower his esteem, the public announcement of a divorce, or a complaint against a squatter. These situations, each involving some form of social or personal conflict, are likely to gain attention without needing a larger audience. By contrast, Shmuel’s ruling, though important, was a legal principle and lacked the innate drama of conflict or misfortune, which tends to make news spread more readily.
The Chasam Sofer (Derashos I:122a) offers a symbolic explanation, comparing the Jewish people in exile to a fetus in the womb—hidden, incomplete, and surrounded by other nations. Yet, just as a fetus can be legally “gifted” possessions while still in utero, so too Hashem recognizes and remains close to the Jewish people even in exile. This metaphor aligns with the halakhic concept of transferring property to a fetus, illustrating that even in hidden or distant states, there is still a connection and a potential for blessing.
Furthermore, though the final halakhic ruling is that a fetus generally cannot acquire property, there is an exception when a father transfers property to his unborn child. The Sages explain that this exception is due to the natural closeness and sense of responsibility a father feels for his child. This exceptional allowance suggests that, in a similar way, God maintains a unique closeness with the Jewish people in exile, analogous to a father’s bond with his unborn child.
This interpretation may explain why Shmuel required ten people to hear this ruling. The number ten, as we know from Berachos (21b), brings the Shekinah (divine presence) and is the minimum needed for a minyan. Since Shmuel’s ruling implicitly alluded to the enduring relationship between God and the Jewish people, even in times of concealment or exile, he required a minyan to represent this presence of the Shekinah. Thus, by involving ten men, Shmuel ensured that the allegorical message of God’s closeness to Israel would be received in a setting that mirrored the communal and spiritual connection implied by his halakha.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)