Previous daf

1) How do we initially explain 'Diynei Mamonos bi'Sheloshah, Zeh Borer Lo Echad, ve'Zeh Borer Lo Echad'?

2)

(a) According to Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah ...

1. ... after each litigant has chosen one Beis-Din (ultimately, one judge), the two of them choose a third.
   What do the Chachamim say?
2. ... each litigant has the right to disqualify the other one's judge.
   What do the Chachamim say?
3. ... each litigant has the right to disqualify the other one's witnesses.
   What do the Chachamim say?

(b) What problem do we have with ...

1. ... our initial understanding of 'Zeh Borer Lo Echad' (as we just explained it)?
2. ... the answer (that if each one rejects the other's Beis-Din, they choose a third Beis-Din between them?

(c) And we answer by citing Rebbi Yochanan later 'Hacha be'Ercha'os she'be'Surya Shanu'.
How does that answer the question?

(d) Rav Papa establishes our Mishnah by the Batei Din of Rav Huna and Rav Chisda (even though they are expert judges).
How does that answer the Kashya?

(a) If we interpret 'Zeh Borer Lo Echad' as we have until now, what problem do we have with ...

1. ... the Chachamim, who say 'Sh'nei Dayanim Borerin Lahen Od Echad' (assuming that 'Sh'nei Dayanim' means the two Batei-Din)?
2. ... the Lashon 'Zeh Borer Lo Echad ... '?

(b) So how do we finally explain 'Zeh Borer Lo Echad ... '?

(c) How did the Chachmei Eretz Yisrael in the name of Rebbi Zeira explain the advantage of this system, particularly according to Rebbi Meir (who holds that the litigants themselves pick the third judge)?

(a) What does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav say about witnesses who sign a document?

(b) How do we attempt to connect the first Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim in our Mishnah with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement?

(c) We reject this suggestion however, on the grounds that they both agree with Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, and that they argue over whether the consent of the litigants is also required.
What does each one then hold?

(d) Rav's statement is borne out by a Beraisa. Which other two cases does the Tana present there with regard to the 'Neki'ei ha'Da'as she'bi'Yerushalayim' besides a witness signing on a Sh'tar?

(a) What is the reason for the first and third of the previous statements.
Why should a person care who ...

1. ... his co-witness is?
2. ... else attends a banquet?

(b) In our Mishnah, Rebbi Meir permits one litigant to disqualify the judge picked by the other.
How does Rebbi Yochanan establish the Mishnah, to answer the Kashya 'Kol Kemineih de'Pasil Dayna'?

(c) How will Rebbi Yochanan then amend the Chachamim's words ...

1. ... 'Aval Im Hayu Kesheirim O Mumchin mi'Pi Beis-Din, Eino Yachol le'Poslan', implying that Rebbi Meir is speaking about expert judges, too?
2. ... in a Beraisa 'Lo Kol Heimenu she'Posel Dayan she'Mumcheh le'Rabim'!

(d) How do we finally prove Rebbi Yochanan right?

(a) How do we nevertheless query both Rebbi Yochanan and the Beraisa from Rebbi Meir's ruling with regard to Kasher witnesses?

(b) And we answer this with a statement of Resh Lakish.
What did Resh mean when he said about Rebbi Meir 'Peh Kadosh Yomar Davar Zeh?'?

(c) What did Rebbi Meir really say?

(d) What problem do we have with this, assuming the Mishnah is referring to ...

1. ... Mamon?
2. ... a Shevu'ah?

(a) How do we therefore establish the one witness of Rebbi Meir?

(b) What does Rebbi Meir rule in the next Mishnah in a case of 'Ne'eman Alai Aba, Ne'eman Alai Avicha ... '?

(c) How does Rav Dimi B'rei de'Rav Nachman establish the Mishnah?

(d) What problem does this create with Resh Lakish's interpretation of our Mishnah?

8)

(a) Having presented the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim by ...

1. ... 'Aba' and 'Avicha', why did the Tana then need to repeat it in the case of 'Chad ke'Bei-T'rei'?
2. ... 'Chad ke'Bei-T'rei', why does the Tana see fit to repeat it in the case of 'Aba' and 'Avicha'?

(b) What is the problem with the current interpretation of our Mishnah ('Chad ke'Bei-T'rei') from the Lashon 'Dayno' and 'Eidav'?

(c) Rebbi Elazar therefore establishes the Mishnah when the one litigant disqualifies the other litigant's witnesses together with a second witness. What is the problem with this?

(d) So Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ya'akov establishes the case when he declares a specific P'sul.
Why can this not be speaking when he declared him to be a Gazlan?

(a) So what *does* he claim?

(b) Why is he believed according to Rebbi Meir? Why is the litigant not considered prejudiced?

(c) And what do the Rabbanan say?

(a) Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes our Mishnah when the first litigant claims that he has two pairs of witnesses.
How does that explain the opinion of Rebbi Meir?

(b) How do the Rabbanan then hold?

(c) What will they then hold in the case of one pair of witnesses?

(d) Rav Ami and Rav Asi asked Rav Dimi what the Din will be if the second pair of witnesses are subsequently proved to be relations or Pasul. What is the gist of their She'eilah?

(a) What did Rav Dimi (or Rav Ashi) reply to the previous She'eilah?

(b) Why do we prefer this explanation to the literal interpretation of 'K'var Hei'idu ha'Rishonim', (meaning that the first pair of witnesses cannot be disqualified, seeing as the second pair were proven Pasul)?

(c) We repudiate the current interpretation of the Machlokes however, on two scores. Firstly, because, since the second witnesses became disqualified, how can Rebbi Meir consider this a full clarification?
What is the second?

(d) So we conclude that Rebbi Meir holds 'Ein Tzarich Le'varer' and the Rabbanan hold 'Tzarich Le'varer'.
Why is the litigant then believed according to Rebbi Meir? Why is he any less prejudiced than he was according to the first explanation (see Maharsha)?

(a) If Reuven comes to claim from Shimon with both a Sh'tar and a Chazakah of three years, Rebbi holds in a Beraisa that he must bring the Sh'tar (and is not believed on the basis of the Chazakah).
Why is that?

(b) What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel mean when he says 'Nidon be'Chazakah'? What is his reason?

(c) How do we initially connect this Machlokes with that of Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan (according to the final explanation that Rebbi Meir holds 'Ein Tzarich Le'varer').

(d) We refute this suggestion however, and conclude that the Rabbanan definitely argue with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
Why, on the other hand, might even Rebbi Meir agree with Rebbi? What makes Rebbi's case different than his own?

Next daf