Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) PICKING THE BEIS DIN

(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): Monetary cases require three judges: each party picks one (this will be explained), and both parties agree upon a third;
(b) Chachamim say, the two judges (picked by the two parties) agree upon a third.
(c) R. Meir says, either party can disqualify a judge picked by the other;
(d) Chachamim say, this is only if he can prove that he is a relative or invalid to judge; one cannot disqualify a Kosher or Mumcheh judge.
(e) R. Meir says, either party can disqualify the other's witnesses;
(f) Chachamim say, to do so he must prove that they are relatives or invalid witnesses.
(g) (Gemara) Version #1 (Rashi) Question: Why does it say that each party picks one (Beis Din, and then they pick a third) - three judges suffice!
(h) Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: Why *must* they first select different Batei Din, it suffices to just pick the third (the one they agree to)?! (End of Version #2)
(i) Answer #1: It means, *if* each picks a different Beis Din, they must pick a third Beis Din together.

1. Question: Can the borrower really reject the Beis Din of the lender?

i. (R. Elazar): The lender can force the borrower to go to the Beis ha'Va'ad (a better Beis Din in another city), but the borrower cannot force the lender (if the lender wants to go to a Beis Din in his city).

2. Answer #1: The case is as R. Yochanan said (to answer a different question), he can only reject a Beis Din like those of Surya (i.e. it is unlearned!).
3. Answer #2 (Rav Papa): Even if the Beis Din is Mumcheh, if both Batei Din are in the same area (Tosfos - not far apart), like the Batei Din of Rav Huna and Rav Chisda, the borrower can reject the lender's choice, for this is not a burden.

(j) Objection #1 (Mishnah - Chachamim): The two judges agree upon a third.

1. If the first Batei Din were rejected, why do these judges pick the third?

(k) Objection #2: The language of the Mishnah implies that each party *must* pick one!
(l) Answer #2: It means, each party picks one *judge*, and both parties agree upon a third judge.
(m) Question: Why do they do it this way (as opposed to both agreeing to all three judges)?
(n) Version #1 (Rashi) Answer (R. Zeira): Each party will think 'The judge that I picked tried his best to Mezakeh me', he will accept the verdict.
(o) Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer (R. Zeira): Since each party had equal input in picking the judges, there will be equal efforts (by the judges) to Mezakeh both sides, they will reach the correct verdict.
(p) (Mishnah - Chachamim): The two judges agree upon a third.
(q) Suggestion: They argue about Rav Yehudah's law.

1. (Rav Yehudah): A witness should not sign a document until he knows the other witnesses (lest one of them is a relative or invalid witness, and this will Mevatel the testimony).
2. Chachamim hold like Rav Yehudah (and likewise, one should not judge a case until he knows the other judges, lest one of them is a relative or invalid, and this will Mevatel the verdict), R. Meir argues with Rav Yehudah.

(r) Rejection: No, all agree with Rav Yehudah, all require that the judges agree to each other;

1. They argue about whether or not the parties must agree to the judges: R. Meir says that they must, Chachamim say that they need not.

(s) Support (for Rav Yehudah - Beraisa): Nekiyei ha'Da'as (very pious people) of Yerushalayim would not sign documents until they knew the other witnesses, they would not judge until they knew the other judges, they would not sit to eat until they knew the others at the meal.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): Either party can disqualify a judge picked by the other.
(b) Question: Can he really do this (without good reason)?!
(c) Answer (R. Yochanan): He can disqualify judges of Batei Din of Surya (i.e. who are unqualified).
(d) Inference: He cannot disqualify qualified judges.
(e) Question: But the Mishnah continues, 'Chachamim say, to disqualify him he must prove that he is a relative or invalid to judge; he cannot disqualify a Kosher or Mumcheh judge.'

1. This implies that R. Meir says that he can disqualify a Mumcheh!

(f) Answer: Chachamim mean, a Kosher judge (i.e. he is not a relative or disqualified from judging, even if we do not know whether or not he is learned) is like an established Mumcheh, one cannot disqualify him.
(g) Question (against R. Yochanan - Beraisa): Chachamim (to R. Meir): One cannot disqualify Mumchim!
(h) Answer: It means, one cannot disqualify judges *that many people (i.e. of Surya) accepted upon themselves to consider them like* Mumchim.
(i) Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa - R. Meir): A party may reject the other's judges, unless he accepted in front of a Beis Din of Mumchim (if one could reject Mumchim, he could retract his acceptance).
(j) Question: But witnesses are like Mumchim (they are not disqualified on account of not being sufficiently learned), and R. Meir says (in our Mishnah) that either party can disqualify the other's witnesses!
(k) Answer #1: Reish Lakish explained, the awesome R. Meir would never say this!

1. Rather, R. Meir says that either party can disqualify the other's *witness*!
2. Question: What could one witness do if he was not disqualified?

i. If to obligate money, two are required!
ii. If to obligate an oath, he is like two witnesses, i.e. the other party cannot disqualify him!

3. Answer: He could have obligated money, the case is that the other party accepted to believe the witness like two witnesses.
4. Question: If so, (in the Mishnah) R. Meir says that he can retract from his acceptance, Chachamim say that he cannot;

i. We already learn this from a Mishnah!
ii. (Mishnah - R. Meir): If one party said 'You may use my father (or your father, or three cattle shepherds) to judge our case', he may retract;
iii. Chachamim say, he may not retract.

iv. (Rav Dimi brei d'Rav Nachman): The case is, he accepted his (or his opponent's father) to be *one* of the judges.

5. Answer: They must argue in both cases.

i. If they only argued regarding accepting a father to judge, one might have thought that only there Chachamim say that he may not retract, because he is valid to judge others, but they admit that one may retract from accepting one witness like two witnesses (for he is never believed like two);
ii. If they only argued here (believing one witness like two), one might have thought that R. Meir admits that one may not retract from accepting a father to judge (for he is valid to judge others).

(l) Objection: Since the beginning of the Mishnah teaches that he may reject the other's *judge* (singular), and the end of the Mishnah teaches that he may reject the other's *witnesses*, surely, it discusses rejecting two witnesses!
(m) Answer #2 (R. Elazar): The case is, a party (Reuven) and one witness (David) are believed to say that the other's (Shimon's) witnesses are invalid.

1. Objection: Surely, Reuven is not believed, he is Noge'a (partial, he may gain by saying this)!
2. Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): The case is, Reuven explains why the witnesses are invalid.
3. Question: What does he say?

i. If he says that they are thieves, surely, he is not believed, he is Noge'a!

4. Answer: He says that their lineage disqualifies them from testifying (i.e. they are slaves).

i. R. Meir says that Reuven's testimony is primarily about lineage, automatically the witnesses are disqualified;
ii. Chachamim say that since his testimony helps himself, he is Noge'a.

(n) Answer #3 (Rav Dimi): The Tana'im argue when Shimon said that he has two pairs of witnesses:

1. Version #1 (our text, Tosfos): R. Meir says that Shimon must defend his claim (therefore, Reuven can join David to disqualify one pair of Shimon's witnesses - Reuven is not Noge'a, because in any case Shimon must bring other witnesses);
2. Chachamim say, Shimon need not defend his claim (therefore, Reuven is Noge'a, he cannot join to disqualify witnesses).
3. Version #2 (our text, Ramah): R. Meir says that Shimon must defend his claim (therefore, Reuven can reject one pair of Shimon's witnesses without proof, Shimon must bring another pair);
4. Chachamim say, Shimon need not defend his claim (therefore, Reuven cannot reject witnesses without proof).
5. Version #3 (Rashi): R. Meir says that Shimon need not defend his claim (therefore, Reuven can join to disqualify one pair of Shimon's witnesses, since it suffices for Shimon to bring the other pair of witnesses);
6. Chachamim say, Shimon must defend his claim (therefore, Reuven cannot join to disqualify witnesses, for this would destroy Shimon's claim, Reuven is Noge'a). (end of Version #3)
7. All agree that if Shimon never claimed to have two pairs of witnesses, Reuven cannot join to disqualify witnesses.

(o) Question (R. Ami and R. Asi): If Shimon has only one pair of witnesses, what is the law (according to R. Meir)?

1. Question: We said that all agree in this case that Reuven cannot (join to) disqualify witnesses!
2. Answer: The question is, if one pair of witnesses was later found (undisputedly) to be relatives or invalid witnesses, what is the law?

(p) Version #1 - Rashi - Answer (R. Yochanan or Rav Ashi): We already accepted the testimony of the first witnesses (Reuven and David, who disqualified Shimon's witnesses - Reuven was not Noge'a at the time).
(q) Version #2 - Rashi - Answer (R. Yochanan or Rav Ashi): We already accepted the testimony of the first witnesses (who testified for Shimon - since the other pair was disqualified, Reuven is Noge'a, he cannot join to disqualify the Kosher pair).
(r) Version #3 - Ramah - Answer (R. Yochanan or Rav Ashi): We already accepted the testimony of the first witnesses (who testified for Shimon; Reuven cannot reject them).
(s) Suggestion: R. Meir and Chachamim argue as Rebbi and R. Shimon ben Gamliel argue.

1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): If Levi says that he has a document and a Chazakah for his land, he must produce the document;
2. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he brings witnesses of Chazakah.
3. Question: Would R. Shimon ben Gamliel say that the document is not enough?!
4. Answer: No, he means, he may bring witnesses of Chazakah or the document.

(t) Rejection: No - granted, R. Shimon ben Gamliel must hold like Chachamim, but Chachamim could hold like Rebbi.

1. Rebbi only said that one must defend both his claims regarding a Chazakah based on a document - but here, neither pair of witnesses depends on the other, he need not defend both claims!