Shalom R' Avrahom,

It's great to hear from you! Thank you for the thoughtful question. It is an interesting idea to suggest that a "Chovlanis" Sanhedrin is destructive because it acquits too many killers. In fact, that sounds like the rationale of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who appears later in the Mishnah, correct?

It seems that one could argue that from the Mishnah and Gemara it is apparent that "Chovlanis" must mean that the Beis Din executes the defendant too often, not that they let too many murderers go free. Here are four reasons to support this:

1) First, the Mishnah refers to the Beis Din "Horeges." This means that the killing under discussion is that which the court carries out, not the killings that would G-d forbid result from letting suspects go free. This same idea is reflected in the statement of Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Tarfon, "If we would have been on the Sanhedrin, then no one would have be killed" (as the Gemara explains, they might catch the Edim on some obscure detail). That again clearly shows that the life they are concerned about sparing is that of the defendant, not potential murder victims who would be in danger if suspects were released.

2) Second, the progression of opinions in the Mishnah appear be "Lo Zu Af Zo." That is to say, the Tana Kama believes that only killing once every seven years is excessive, but the second opinion says no, even if it is more frequent than once every 70 years, that is also excessive. Finally, Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Tarfon would advocate against all court executions, because they want to avoid any aspect of Chovlanis. Meaning, if we would assume that Chovlanis means releasing suspects which would result in their committing murder, Chas v'Chalilah, then the second opinion is effectively saying: Convicting only once in seven years is NOT infrequent enough to be considered Chovlanis; only if the Beis Din convicts no more than once in seventy years, then THAT is a Beis Din Chovlanis. But this would seem arbitrary (why seventy?) and unreasonable. More straightforward would be to say that the second opinion means that even a court that executes even more infrequently than once per seven years would be considered Chovlanis.

3) Third, the Mishnah seems to present Raban Shimon ben Gamliel as if he is the first and only one to be concerned about the issue of letting more murderers loose; the intimation being that all opinions before his were only concerned about killing too many defendants.

4) Fourth, and perhaps most subtle, one can argue that the discussion in the Gemara also confirms this interpretation. The Gemara entertains a doubt about whether the second Tana believes that "once in 70 years" is (a) too destructive, or (b) just the norm. Option (b) makes sense only if Chovlanis means killing the defendant. Because in that case the second view is saying: "True, executing once in seven -- or even 69 -- years is excessive. Only if it is once in 70 years or more is it considered normal." On the other hand, if the term Chovlanis means acquitting too many defendants, then what would option (b) in the Gemara's Safek mean? If executing once in seven years releases too many murderers, then executing even less frequently every 70 years would certainly be releasing too many murderers, and therefore there should be no Tzad that it would not be Chovlanis.

I will try to keep my eye out for more comments on this from the Mefarshim, like you asked, but for now I hope this helps to clarify.

May you continue to attain greatness in Torah and Yir'as Shamayim!

Warmly,

Yishai Rasowsky