If, as we just concluded, Hodo'os ve'Halvo'os require three judges, what problem does that create with our current understanding of the Mishnah ('Tana Mah hein Dinei Mamonos ... ')? What would be a better way of establishing it?
(b)
On the other hand, what is the problem if, as we currently hold, it is only one Din (regarding Gezeilos and Chavolos)? What wording should the Tana rather have used?
(c)
Based on Rebbi Chanina and on what we just earned, how does Rava therefore establish 'Dinei Mamonos bi'Sheloshah'? Why does the Tana then divide them into two cases (like we asked at the outset)?
(d)
Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika agrees with Rava's interpretation of the Mishnah in principle. In which point does he argue with him?
(e)
What is his source for saying that ?
1)
(a)
If, as we just concluded, Hodo'os ve'Halvo'os require three judges, the problem with our current understanding of the Mishnah ('Tana Mah hein Dinei Mamonos ... ') is that - seeing as the two Dinim are different, why do we not rather establish it as two cases, the former by Hoda'os and Halva'os (which do need expert judges), since the latter speaks by Gezeilos va'Chavalos (whose judges need to be experts)?
(b)
On the other hand, the problem with learning it as one Din (as we are currently doing) is that - it would then not have been necessary to repeat the word 'bi'Sheloshah'. The Tana could have written, 'Dinei Mamonos she'hein Gezeilos va'Chavalos ... bi'Sheloshah' .
(c)
Based on Rebbi Chanina and on what we just learned, Rava therefore establishes 'Dinei Mamonos bi'Sheloshah' - by Hoda'os ve'Halva'os, and the Tana divides them into two cases - because whereas the latter require experts, the former do not.
(d)
Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika agrees with Rava's interpretation of the Mishnah in principle. He argues with him though - regarding Hoda'os ve'Halva'os, which he maintains, require three judges only mi'de'Rabbanan ...
(e)
... which he learns from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "be'Tzedek Tishpot Amisecha" (in the singular).
2)
(a)
Why, according to Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika, did the Rabbanan institute three judges?
(b)
How will the fact that there are three judges alleviate the problem?
(c)
Then why are the judges obligated to pay in the event that they err (like we asked earlier)?
2)
(a)
According to Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika, the Rabbanan instituted three judges - because they were afraid that, if only one judge would be permitted to rule in money-matters, ignorant merchants would end up issuing rulings that have no basis in Halachah.
(b)
The fact that there are three judges alleviates the problem - inasmuch as out of three judges, at least one is bound to be conversant with the basic Halachos.
(c)
They are nevertheless obligated to pay in the event that they err (in spite of the Kashya that we asked earlier) - because otherwise, there would be no incentive to learn the Halachos, and the Chachamim's Takanah would be pointless.
3)
(a)
In fact, Rava and Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika argue over Shmuel. What did Shmuel say about two people who adjucate?
(b)
What is then their Machlokes? Who holds what?
(c)
And what is the basis of their Machlokes?
3)
(a)
In fact, Rava and Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika argue over Shmuel, who states that if two people (or even one person, for that matter) adjucate - their ruling is valid, though they are deemed a 'Beis-Din Chatzuf' (an arrogant Beis-Din).
(b)
Rav Acha - holds like Shmuel, as we just explained, whereas Rava - holds like Rebbi Avahu (who maintains that the rulings of a Beis-Din of two are void, as we discussed earlier).
(c)
The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we say 'Eiruv Parshiyos' (Rava) or not (Rav Acha).
4)
(a)
Having learned Chavalos in the Mishnah, why does the Tana then need to insert 'Nezek'?
(b)
On what grounds do we query the explanation, that the Tana mentions Chatzi Nezek in addition to Chavalos, because he wants to draw a distinction between Mamon and K'nas?
(c)
Why might 'Palga Nizka' be Mamon and not K'nas?
(d)
So why does the Tana mention it (even according to that opinion)?
4)
(a)
In spite of having learned Chavalos in the Mishnah, the Tana finds it necessary to insert 'Nezek' - as a prelude to Chatzi Nezek, which he needs to mention, as we shall now see.
(b)
We query the explanation, that the Tana mentions Chatzi Nezek in addition to Chavalos, because he wants to draw a distinction between Mamon and K'nas - due to the opinion that Chatzi Nezek is Mamon and not K'nas.
(c)
'Palga Nizka' might be Mamon and not K'nas - because of the possibility that even domesticated animals possess a streak of wildness, and need to be guarded.
(d)
He nevertheless mentions it (even according to that opinion) - because it is similar to the four or five times that someone is obligated to pay, if he stole a sheep or a cow and Shechted or sold it (which is certainly a K'nas), inasmuch as like it, Chatzi Nezek pays an amount that differs from the principal.
3b----------------------------------------3b
5)
(a)
What does Rebbi Yashiyah learn from the Pesukim "ve'Nikrav Ba'al ha'Bayis el ha'Elohim", "ad ha'Elohim Yavo D'var Sheneihem" and "asher Yarshi'un Elohim"?
(b)
On what grounds does Rebbi Yonasan disagree with the insertion of the first Pasuk?
(c)
Then from where does he learn the third judge by Gezeilos and Chavalos (at least)?
(d)
On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that they argue over whether, or not 'Dorshin Techilos'? If not from the basic word ("ha'Elohim"), how might Rebbi Yashiyah learn the third judge from there?
5)
(a)
Rebbi Yashiyah learns from the Pesukim "ve'Nikrav Ba'al ha'Bayis el ha'Elohim", "ad ha'Elohim Yavo D'var Sheneihem" and "asher Yarshi'un Elohim" - that - Gezeilos and Chavalos (at least) require three expert judges.
(b)
Rebbi Yonasan disagrees with the insertion of the first Pasuk - because in a sequence such as this, he never Darshens the first Pasuk (because it is needed for itself) ...
(c)
... and he learns the third judge by Gezeilos and Chavalos (at least) - from the fact that once we know two judges from the two words, we apply the principle that 'Ein Beis-Din Shakul, Mosifin Aleihen Od Achad' (whenever there is an even number of judges, we automatically add one).
(d)
We refute the suggestion that they argue over whether, or not 'Dorshin Techilos' - because, we conclude, everyone holds 'Ein Dorshin Techilos'. Nevertheless, Rebbi Yashiyah learns the third judge (not from the basic word "ha'Elohim", but) - from the fact that the Torah uses the word "ha'Elohim" rather than "ha'Shofet".
6)
(a)
How does Rebbi Yonasan explain the Torah's use of the word "ha'Elohim"?
(b)
What problem do we have with Rebbi Yashiyah's rejection of 'Ein Beis-Din Shakul'? What does Rebbi Eiezer b'no shel Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili learn from the word "li'Netos acharei Rabim le'Hatos"?
(c)
We answer that Rebbi Yashiyah holds like Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah. What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
(d)
What does that prove?
6)
(a)
Rebbi Yonasan explains the Torah's use of the word "ha'Elohim" - as a manner of speech.
(b)
The problem with Rebbi Yashiyah's rejection of 'Ein Beis-Din Shakul' - is that this is an accepted principle, based on Rebbi Eiezer b'no shel Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili in a Beraisa, who learns it from the word "li'Netos" (in the Pasuk "li'Netos Acharei Rabim le'Hatos").
(c)
We answer that Rebbi Yashiyah holds like Rebbi Yehudah, who says in our Mishnah - that a Sanhedrin constitutes seventy judges ...
(d)
... even though this is an even number) - a proof that 'Ein Beis-Din Shakul' is not a unanimous principle.
7)
(a)
Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah requires three judges with regard to 'Semichas Zekeinim' and 'Arifas Eglah Arufah'. What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with Semichas Zekeinim) "ve'Samchu" and "Ziknei"?
(b)
How many Judges does Rebbi Yehudah finally require there?
(c)
How do we reconcile Rebbi Yehudah here with his own opinion (that we just cited), where he accepts a Beis-Din of seventy?
(d)
Why is that?
(e)
What is now Rebbi Yashiyah's source for accepting an even number even by a Sanhedrin Ketanah?
7)
(a)
Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah requires three judges with regard to 'Semichas Zekeinim' and 'Arifas Eglah Arufah'. Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Samchu" and "Ziknei" - that Semichas Zekeinim requires four judges ...
(b)
... though he concludes - that in fact, five are required there (because of 'Ein Beis-Din Shakul).
(c)
We reconcile Rebbi Yehudah here with his opinion (of seventy judges in our Mishnah that we just cited) - by confining his earlier ruling to a Sanhedrin Gedolah ...
(d)
... because it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv (as we shall see later [but he concedes that a Sanhedrin ha'Ketanah, must have an odd number of judges]).
(e)
Rebbi Yashiyah accepting an even number even by a Sanhedrin Ketanah - because whereas Rebbi Yehudah Darshens "Lin'tos" with regard to a Sanhedrin Ketanah, he does not.
8)
(a)
How does Rebbi Yashiyah then establish "li'Netos"?
(b)
In that case, what is the significance of the three judges, seeing as he rejects the concept of 'li'Netos'?
(c)
What does the Mishnah in 'Zeh Borer' rule in a case where ...
1.
... two judges maintain that he is innocent (and does not deserve Malkos), and one, that he is guilty?
2.
... two judges maintain that he is guilty, and one, that he is innocent?
(d)
How is it now possible for this Mishnah to conform to the opinion of Rebbi Yashiyah? Why might he agree in this case that it is not necessary for all three judges to agree unanimously?
8)
(a)
Rebbi Yashiyah establishes "li'Netos" - by restricting it to cases of Dinei Nefashos.
(b)
And the significance of the three judges is - that they must reach a unanimous decision.
(c)
The Mishnah in 'Zeh Borer' rules, in a case where ...
1.
... two judges maintain that he is innocent (and does not deserve Malkos), and one, that he is guilty - that he is declared innocent.
2.
... two judges maintain that he is guilty, and one - that he is innocent.
(d)
This Mishnah could well conform to the opinion of Rebbi Yashiyah - who will learn that we follow the majority, from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Dinei Nefashos (which are intrinsically more stringent than Dinei Malkos).
9)
(a)
The Tana Kama in the Beraisa requires three judges for Dinei Mamonos. What does Rebbi say?
(b)
What objection do we raise to Rebbi's stated reason 'K'dei she'Yigamar ha'Din bi'Sheloshah'?
(c)
So how do we amend it?
(d)
If Rebbi really requires a Beis-Din of three at the time of the G'mar-Din, what problem does Rebbi Avahu raise from ...
1.
... the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol?
2.
... the Sanhedrin Ketanah?
9)
(a)
The Tana Kama in the Beraisa requires three judges for Dinei Mamonos. Rebbi says - five.
(b)
We object however, to Rebbi's stated reason 'K'dei she'Yigamar ha'Din bi'Sheloshah' on the grounds that, by the same token, if we required three judges, then we would conclude the case with two (and so what if we do?).
(c)
So we amend it to read - 'Mipnei she'Gemar Din bi'Sheloshah' (meaning that the final ruling requires three judges [even if the remaining two disagree]).
(d)
If, Rebbi really requires a Beis-Din of three at the time of the G'mar-Din, Rebbi Avahu's problem from ...
1.
... the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol is that - it ought then to require a hundred and forty one judges, so as to conclude with a majority of seventy?
2.
... the Sanhedrin Ketanah is that - by the same token, it ought to require forty-five, so as to conclude with a majority of twenty-three?
... there "ve'Nikrav Ba'al ha'Bayis el ha'Elohim"?
(b)
So we suggest that Rebbi learns five judges from the two Pesukim "asher Yarshi'un Elohim" and "ad ha'Elohim Yavo D'var Sheneihem". Why do we omit the first Pasuk "ve'Nikrav Ba'al ha'Bayis el ha'Elohim"?
(c)
How does Rebbi then learn it from those two Pesukim?
(d)
On what basis does he learn the latter case from the former?
10)
(a)
We learn from the Pasuk in ...
1.
... Beha'aloshca "Esfah Li Shiv'im Ish" - that the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol requires seventy judges at the time of Techilas Din ('mi'Sha'as Asifah').
2.
... Mishpatim "ve'Shaftu ha'Eidah ... ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah' - that the Sanhedrin ha'Katan requires twenty-three judges at the time of Techilas Din ('mi'Sha'as Shefitas ha'Eidah').
3.
... there "ve'Nikrav Ba'al ha'Bayis el ha'Elohim" - that Dinei Mamanos require three judges at the time of Techilas Din (mi'Sha'as K'reivah').
(b)
So we suggest that Rebbi learns five judges from the two Pesukim "asher Yarshi'un Elohim" and "ad ha'Elohim Yavo D'var Sheneihem". We omit the first Pasuk "ve'Nikrav Ba'al ha'Bayis el ha'Elohim" - on account of the principle 'Ein Dorshin Techilos' (which we discussed earlier).
(c)
And Rebbi learns it from those two Pesukim - by first of all comparing the latter case to the former regarding the plural (two judges [from "Yarshi'un]), and then adding a fifth judge, on the basis of the principle 'Ein Beis-Din Shakul ... '.
(d)
He learns the latter case from the former - based on the Gezeirah-Shavah "Elohim" "Elohim".
11)
(a)
On what grounds do the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi? Why do they require only three judges and not five?
(b)
What does Rebbi then hold?
11)
(a)
The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi however - because they hold 'Yesh Eim li'Masores' (we go after the Masores [the way the word is written]) and "Yarshi'un" is written without a 'Vav', making it singular ...
(b)
... whereas Rebbi holds ' 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra' (we go after the way the word is read.
