(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Sanhedrin 23

*****PEREK #3 ZEH BORER*****

1) [line 1] BORER - chooses
2) [line 4] ZEH 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] KEROVIN - relatives

b) [line 7] PESULIN (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] MUMCHIN MI'PI BEIS DIN - experts approved by Beis Din
5) [line 17] LO 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 borrower)

6) [line 19] B'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] AMREI B'MA'ARAVA - they answered in Eretz Yisrael (lit. the west)

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

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

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

11a) [line 43] DAYAN SHE'MUMCHEH LA'RABIM - a judge known to the public to be an expert
b) [line 44] DAYAN SHE'HIMCHUHU RABIM ALEIHEM - a judge whom the public accepted upon themselves as if he were an expert

12) [line 44] AD 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] ILEIMA 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] IY LI'SHEVU'AH, HEIMUNEI MEHEIMAN K'VEI TREI (SHEVU'AH: ED ECHAD) - 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!
Beis Din may not extract money in a court cased based upon the testimony of a solitary witness. The Torah states "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] D'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] NE'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] RO'EI VAKAR - cattle shepherds (such shepherds are not experts in monetary law and thus cannot serve as judges)


18) [line 2] KEGON 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] B'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] NOGE'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] KEGON SHE'KARA ALAV IR'ER - the case is where he protested about the validity of the witness

22a) [line 13] IR'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] IR'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] MACHLOKES 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] TZARICH L'VARER - he needs to clarify [his claims].
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. The Gemara will suggest that this is the same argument as the one between Rebbi and Rebbi 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] AMRU LEFANAV RAV AMI V'RAV ASI - they, Rav Ami and Rav Asi, said in front of him (Rav Dimi)

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

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,