[23a - 48 lines; 23b - 32 lines]


1)[line 1]בוררBORER- chooses

2)[line 4]זה פוסל דיינו של זהZEH POSEL DAYANO SHEL ZEH- this [litigant] may disqualify the [chosen] judge of this [other litigant] (as the Gemara explains, Rebbi Meir is referring to nonqualified judges, and he is allowing each litigant to reject the judges simply because he is not comfortable with being judged by them. The judge is not actually being disqualified from his status of being a judge.)

3a)[line 7]קרוביןKEROVIN- relatives

b)[line 7]פסוליןPESULIN (PESULEI EDUS) - invalid witnesses

The Mishnah (24b, and Gemara there; Rosh Hashanah 22a) lists the people who are Pesulei Edus, those people who are disqualified to judge or to give testimony.

4)[line 8]מומחין מפי בית דיןMUMCHIN MI'PI BEIS DIN- experts approved by Beis Din

5)[line 17]לא שנו אלא מלוהLO SHANU ELA MALVEH- this was taught only with regard to the lender (i.e. the lender is entitled to reject the judges chosen by the borrower, but the borrower is not entitled to refuse to be judged by the judges chosen by the lender)

6)[line 19]בערכאות שבסוריא שנוB'ARKA'OS SHEBE'SURYA SHANU- the Mishnah is referring to nonqualified judges (courts) in Surya (Syria; areas from modern-day Syria that were conquered by David ha'Melech. Presumably, there were no Talmidei Chachamim in Surya.)

7)[line 29]אמרי במערבאAMREI B'MA'ARAVA- they answered in Eretz Yisrael (lit. the west)

8)[line 38]נקיי הדעת שבירושליםNEKIYEI HA'DA'AS SHEB'YERUSHALAYIM- (lit. the pure of mind) those who were meticulous about their conduct, who lived in Yerushalayim

9)[line 40]כל כמיניה דפסיל דייני?!KOL KEMINEI D'PASIL DAYANEI?!- Is he believed to disqualify judges?!

10)[line 43]לא כל הימנוLO KOL HEIMENU- (lit. not everything is from him) he does not have the legal power; he is not believed

11a)[line 43]דיין שמומחה לרביםDAYAN SHE'MUMCHEH LA'RABIM- a judge known to the public to be an expert

b)[line 44]דיין שהמחוהו רבים עליהםDAYAN SHE'HIMCHUHU RABIM ALEIHEM- a judge whom the public accepted upon themselves as if he were an expert

12)[line 44]עד שיקבל עליו בית דין שמומחה לרביםAD SHE'YEKABEL ALAV BEIS DIN SHE'MUMCHEH LA'RABIM- (a) until the claimant accepts to go before a Beis Din known to the public to be comprised of experts (RASHI, as cited by the YAD RAMAH); (b) according to the Girsa AD SHE'YEKABEL ALAV BIFNEI BEIS DIN SHE'MUMCHEH LA'RABIM - until he accepts upon himself to be judged by a certain Yachid Mumcheh in front of a Beis Din. The Beis Din can force the claimant's opponent to come before the Mumcheh since the Mumcheh alone does not have this power (RASHI, RABEINU CHANANEL); (c) until the claimant's opponent accepts the Arka'os before a Beis Din of Mumchin. Once he accepts them in front of a Beis Din, he becomes obligated to be judged before them (YAD RAMAH)

13)[line 46]אילימא לממון, רחמנא פסליהILEIMA L'MAMON, RACHMANA PASLEI- if we say [that the single witness mentioned in the Mishnah is testifying] for a monetary matter, the Torah itself disqualifies him!

14)[line 46]אי לשבועה, הימוני מהימן כבי תריIY LI'SHEVU'AH, HEIMUNEI MEHEIMAN K'VEI TREI - if we say [that the single witness mentioned in the Mishnah is testifying] for a matter involving a Shevu'ah, he is believed like two witnesses! (SHEVU'AH: ED ECHAD)

Beis Din may not extract money in a court cased based upon the testimony of a solitary witness. The Torah states "עַל פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים... יָקוּם דָּבָר" "Al Pi Shenei Edim... Yakum Davar" - "according to the testimony of two witnesses... shall a verdict be established" (Devarim 19:15). However, Chazal learn (Shevu'os 40a) that the testimony of one witness is effective to obligate the defendant to take an oath that contradicts this testimony. If the defendant does not agree to swear, Beis Din can then obligate the defendant to pay all of the liabilities to which the one witnessed testified.

15)[line 47]דקבליה עליה כבי תריD'KIBLEI ALEI K'VEI TREI- that he (the litigant) accepted [the testimony of] him (the single witness) upon himself like [the testimony of] two witnesses

16)[last line]נאמן עלי אבאNE'EMAN ALAI ABA- my father, to me, is trustworthy [to be an impartial judge (RASHI) or witness (RABEINU CHANANEL, ME'IRI) in our case]

17)[last line]רועי בקרRO'EI VAKAR- cattle shepherds (such shepherds are not experts in monetary law and thus cannot serve as judges)


18)[line 2]כגון דקבליה עליה בחדKEGON D'KIBLEI ALEI B'CHAD- the case is where he (the litigant) accepted him (his father, or the father of his opponent) upon himself as one [judge on a Beis Din of three (RASHI), or as one witness in a set of two witnesses (TOSFOS)]

19)[line 10]בבא הוא ואחר לפוסלןB'VA HU V'ACHER L'FOSLAN- [the case is where] he (the litigant) and another person come to disqualify them (the witnesses of his opponent)

20)[line 11]נוגע בעדותו הואNOGE'A B'EDUSO HU (NOGE'A B'EDUS) - he is biased in his testimony

A witness who stands to benefit or lose based upon his testimony about a certain case (for example, the litigant testifying that his opponent's witnesses are invalid) is termed "Noge'a b'Edus" and his testimony is not accepted in that case.

21)[line 12]כגון שקרא עליו ערערKEGON SHE'KARA ALAV IR'ER- the case is where he protested about the validity of the witness

22a)[line 13]ערער דגזלנותאIR'ER D'GAZLENUSA- a protest based on thievery (i.e., the litigant protests that the witness is not valid because he is a thief)

b)[line 14]ערער דפגם משפחהIR'ER DI'FEGAM MISHPACHAH- a protest based on discredit of the family (i.e. the litigant protests that the witness is not valid because his family is a family of slaves, and a slave is not a valid witness)

23)[line 18]מחלוקת בשתי כיתי עדיםMACHLOKES BI'SHTEI KITEI EDIM- the argument (in the Mishnah between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim) is in a case where there are two sets of witnesses (i.e. the litigant's opponent says that he has two sets of witnesses to support his claim, and the litigant and another person want to disqualify one set)

24)[line 19]צריך לבררTZARICH L'VARER - he needs to clarify [his claims]

(a)When a person claims in court that he has two sets of witnesses to support his argument, Rebbi Meir says that he is required to "clarify" his claims and bring both sets of witnesses. Consequently, the other litigant is not considered "Noge'a b'Edus" (see above, entry #20) when he, together with another person, testifies that the first set of his opponent's witnesses are invalid, because he testifies with the knowledge that his opponent has another set of witnesses. The Rabanan argue and maintain that it is not necessary to clarify one's claims of different proofs, and thus he is only required to bring one set of witnesses. Consequently, the other litigant is "Noge'a b'Edus" when he attempts to disqualify those witnesses.

(b)The Gemara will suggest that this is the same argument as the one between Rebbi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (Bava Basra 169b), who argue in a case in which a defendant says in court that he has two different proofs, a Shtar and a Chazakah, to support his claim. Rebbi maintains that the defendant must "clarify" his claims of proof by bringing both proofs to court. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that there is no need to bring all of his proofs, as long as he brings one valid proof.

25)[line 21]אמרו לפניו רב אמי ורב אסיAMRU LEFANAV RAV AMI V'RAV ASI- they, Rav Ami and Rav Asi, said in front of him (Rav Dimi)

26)[line 27]הבא לידון בשטר ובחזקהHA'BA LIDON BI'SHETAR UV'CHAZAKAH- one who comes to be judged with [a claim that he has] a Shtar and a Chazakah [as proof that the land belongs to him] (see Background to Bava Basra 169:26)

27)[line 30]דרבי מאיר כרביREBBI MEIR K'REBBI- Rebbi Meir is expressing the view of Rebbi (who holds "Tzarich l'Varer")