JUDGING FRIENDS (cont.)
Rav disqualified himself from judging him. He told Rav Kahana to judge.
Rav Kahana saw that the man was haughty due to his relationship with Rav. He threatened him 'if you do not listen, I will put you in Niduy.'
(Reish Lakish): "Ka'Katan ka'Gadol Tishma'un" - a dispute over a Perutah should be as important to a judge as a dispute over 10,000 Zuz.
Question: What difference does this make?
Suggestion: He should investigate to reach the correct verdict.
Rejection: This is obvious!
Answer: He should not judge a case first because it involves more money.
(R. Chama b'Rebbi Chanina): "Lo Saguru Mipenei Ish Ki ha'Mishpat l'Eilokim Hu" - not only do evil judges (improperly) take money from people and give to others, they make Hash-m 'toil' to return it!
(R. Chanina): "Veha'Davar Asher Yiksheh Mikem... u'Shmativ" - Moshe was punished for saying that difficult cases will be brought to himself (and not the Shechinah. Therefore Hash-m forced him to have to ask) - "va'Yakrev Moshe Es Mishpatan Lifnei Hash-m."
Objection (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Moshe did not say 'v'Ashmi'achem', rather, "u'Shmativ". If I already learned it, I can answer. If not, Hash-m will teach me!
Rather, a Beraisa explains why Moshe had to ask.
(Beraisa): It was proper that Moshe teach the Parshah of inheritance (like the rest of the Torah). Tzelafchad's daughters merited that it was taught through them;
It was proper that Moshe teach about the punishment for desecration of Shabbos. The one who gathered wood on Shabbos was blameworthy, so it was taught through him.
This teaches that Hash-m brings good things through meritorious people, and bad things through undeserving people.
Contradiction: It says "va'Atzaveh Es Shofteichem ba'Es ha'Hi", and "va'Atzaveh Eschem ba'Es ha'Hi"!
Answer (R. Elazar): The congregation is commanded to fear judges. The judges are commanded to bear the congregation.
Question: How much must they bear the congregation?
Answer (R. Chanin): "Ka'asher Yisa ha'Omen Es ha'Yonek" (Rambam - with humility to bear their complaints and anger, like Moshe Rabbeinu).
Question: It says "Ki Atah Tavo (you will come) Es ha'Am ha'Zeh", but another verse says "Tavi" (you will bring)!
Answer (R. Yochanan): Moshe told Yehoshua that he will enter (on a par) with elders of the generation. Hash-m told Yehoshua to hit the elders with a staff, so they will realize that each generation has only one leader.
(Beraisa): Zimun is with three.
Question: What does this mean?
Suggestion: It refers to the Berachah of Zimun (before Birkas ha'Mazon).
Rejection (Beraisa #1): Zimun and Birkas Zimun is with three. (This shows that they are different matters.)
Suggestion: Perhaps the Beraisa means 'Zimun, i.e. Birkas Zimun, is with three.'
Rejection (Beraisa #2): Zimun is with three, and Birkas Zimun is with three. (We must say that they are different matters.)
Answer: It refers to summonsing to Beis Din.
(Rava): If a Shalia'ach of a Beis Din of three summonsed someone in the name of one judge, this has no effect, he must summons in the name of all of them.
This does not apply to a day when Beis Din normally meets.
CAN A MUMCHEH JUDGE FINES BY HIMSELF?
(Mishnah): Double payment...
Question (Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda): How many judges are needed for fines?
Question: What does he ask? The Mishnah explicitly says that three judges are needed!
Answer: He asks whether a Mumcheh can judge fines by himself.
Answer (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): Double payment and payment of four or five require three judges.
Question: What kind of judges are discussed?
Suggestion: It discusses amateurs.
Rejection: Rav Chisda's father taught that even 10 amateurs may not judge fines!
Answer: Rather, it discusses Mumchim, and three are needed.
THE ARGUMENT ABOUT MOTZI SHEM RA
(Mishnah): Chachamim say, 23 are needed for Motzi Shem Ra (for sometimes it is a capital case).
Question: When it is not a capital case (e.g. there are no witnesses that the wife had Zenus (extramarital relations), why are 23 required?
Answer #1 (Ula): R. Meir and Chachamim argue about whether or not we are concerned lest (it become a capital case, they will add judges, and) people will scorn Beis Din (they will say that the first judges were unqualified to judge by themselves).
Chachamim are concerned, and R. Meir is not.
Answer #2 (Rava): Neither Tana is concerned for this. Rather, they argue about whether or not we are concerned for the honor of the first judges;
The case is, (the husband said that he had witnesses, so) 23 judges were gathered for a capital case, and they left (because he could not find witnesses). He asked them to judge regarding money (to exempt him from the Kesuvah. Chachamim are concerned for the honor of the judges, so they require all 23 to judge the case.)
Question (Beraisa - Chachamim): If the husband had a monetary claim, three judges are needed. If he had a capital claim, 23 are needed.
Rava can explain that if he initially had a monetary claim, three judges are needed. If he initially had a capital claim, 23 are needed even (e.g. if he could not find witnesses) to judge the monetary aspect.
However, according to Ula, Chachamim always require 23!
Answer (Rava and R. Chiya bar Avin): The case is, he brought witnesses of Zenus, her father brought witnesses that were Mezim the husband's witnesses (they testified that the witnesses were not where they claimed to see the testimony);
If her father demands to collect the fine (100 Zuz) from the husband, three judges are needed. If his witnesses are Chayavim Misah (e.g. Beis Din sentenced her to die before Hazamah), 23 judges are needed.
Answer #3 (Abaye): Both Tana'im are concerned for scorn and the honor of Beis Din. The case is, the witnesses warned her that she will be killed for Bi'ah, but they did not specify which death penalty;
R. Meir and Chachamim argue like the following Tana'im.
(Beraisa): Regarding all other death penalties (except for one who entices to serve idolatry), we do not kill unless there are witnesses and the transgressor was warned that Beis Din will kill him;
R. Yehudah says, he must be told which death penalty he will receive. (R. Meir holds like R. Yehudah, therefore it is only a monetary case. Chachamim hold like Chachamim, so it is a capital case).
Answer #4 (Rav Papa): The case is, she is a Chaverah (she knows the laws well). Our Tana'im argue like the following Tana'im:
(Beraisa - R. Yosi bar Yehudah): A Chaver is liable even without warning. Warning is only to clarify if he transgressed unintentionally or intentionally (and surely, a Chaver knew the law. Chachamim hold like R. Yosi bar Yehudah, and R. Meir holds like the Chachamim who argue with him.)