Sanhedrin Chart #1
Chart for Sanhedrin Daf 23a-24a
WHEN DO REBBI MEIR AND THE RABANAN ARGUE
WHETHER A LITIGANT CAN DISQUALIFY HIS OPPONENT'S CHOSEN JUDGE OR WITNESS?
DISQUALIFYING A JUDGE
DISQUALIFYING A WITNESS
|1)||REBBI YOCHANAN AND REISH LAKISH (1)||Arka'os||He agreed to accept the testimony of the witness like the testimony of two witnesses (2)|
|2)||REBBI ELAZAR||Arka'os (3)||He testifies with a second person that his opponent's witness comes from a family of slaves (4)|
|3)||RAV DIMI IN THE NAME OF REBBI YOCHANAN||He testifies with a second person (5)||He testifies with a second person, and his opponent has a second set of witnesses (6)|
|4)||RAVIN IN THE NAME OF REBBI YOCHANAN||He testifies with a second person (7), and he has a Migo (8)||He testifies with a second person (7), his opponent has a second set of witnesses, and he has a Migo (9)|
(1) In the Gemara's conclusion, the Gemara rejects their opinion because the Mishnah uses the word "Edav" -- "his witnesses" (in the plural form, and not "Edo" in the singular form, as the Mishnah writes in the singular form with regard to disqualifying an opponents judge).
(2) According to this, Rebbi Meir is consistent with his own reasoning in the Mishnah later (24a).
(3) So writes Rashi (23b, DH Amar Rebbi Elazar). See Insights there.
(4) This is what the Gemara calls "Pegam Mishpachah." See Insights for an explanation of why the litigant is believed according to Rebbi Meir.
(5) (So it appears from the words of Ravin.) That is, the Mishnah is referring to a case when the litigant disqualifies the judges (or witnesses) of his opponent either through "Pegam Mishpachah" or through testifying about any other factor which would invalidate them. The litigant is not considered Noge'a b'Davar with regard to disqualifying the judges, because even if he succeeds in disqualifying the present judges his opponent can simply bring other judges. (Regarding the meaning of the Beraisa (23a) that quotes Rebbi Meir as saying that if the judges are Mumchin, then the litigant is not believed to disqualify them -- see Insights to 23b.)
(6) Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan are arguing whether the claimant must present all of the evidence that he claimed to have ("Tzarich l'Varer") and he must therefore bring both sets of witnesses that he claimed to have, or not. (According to Rashi's first explanation Rebbi Meir maintains "Tzarich l'Varer, while according to Rashi's second explanation the Rabanan maintain "Tzarich l'Varer.")
(7) Such would seem to be the case based on a simple reading of the Gemara, and so writes the Maharsha. (See Insights to 24a, where we cite opinions that differ and explain that according to the Rabanan the litigant is trusted without the support of a second witness.)
(8) That is, the litigant was already confirmed to be telling the truth (through a pair of witnesses) with regard to disqualifying the witnesses.
(9) That is, the litigant was already confirmed to be telling the truth (through a pair of witnesses) with regard to disqualifying the judges.