THE JUDGES NEEDED FOR ADMISSIONS AND LOANS
Question: If commoners may judge, they should be exempt if they err!
Answer: All the more so, this would discourage loans!
Objection #1 (against Answer #1): If theft and wounds require Mumchim but admissions and loans do not, what forced R. Avahu to say that 'theft and wounds' explains monetary cases? He should have said simply, that monetary cases, i.e. admissions and loans, need three commoners, but theft and wounds require three Mumchim!
Objection #2: (If theft and wounds are examples of monetary cases) why does it say 'three judges' regarding monetary cases, and again regarding theft and wounds?
Answer #2 (to Question 3:a, Daf 2b - Rava): (Eruv Parshiyos applies here. Mid'Oraisa, three Mumchim are needed also for admissions and loans.) The Mishnah teaches two different laws. (Theft and wounds require three Mumchim, like Torah law. Mid'Rabanan, three commoners suffice for monetary cases, i.e. admissions and loans,) for R. Chanina's reason (lest people refrain from lending).
(Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): (Rashi - Eruv Parshiyos does not apply here. Tosfos - even if it does,) mid'Oraisa, one judge (even a commoner) suffices for admissions and loans - "b'Tzedek Tishpot Amisecha";
Mid'Rabanan, we require three judges, lest an ignoramus give the wrong verdict.
Question: Even with three judges, we should be concerned for unlearned judges!
Answer: Surely, at least one of the three people has learned.
Question: If so, we should say that if they erred, they are exempt (Rashi - because they are allowed to judge; Tosfos - lest learned people fear to judge)!
Answer: All the more so, this would encourage unlearned people to judge!
Question: (Practically,) what is the difference between Rava and Rav Acha?
Answer: They argue about Shmuel's law.
(Shmuel): If two judged a monetary case, the verdict stands, just it is called an impudent Beis Din.
Rava argues with Shmuel, and Rav Acha agrees with Shmuel.
WHY DAMAGE WAS INCLUDED IN THE MISHNAH
(Mishnah): Theft and wounds... damage, half-damage...
Question: Damage is identical to wounds (whether an animal or person hit a person)!
Answer: Yes, there was no need to teach damage. It was taught only along with half-damage.
Question: Also half-damage is wounds!
Answer #1: The Tana teaches fines (payments not equal to the damage, only witnesses obligate one to pay them) and 'Mamon' (payments that are not fines; even one's admission obligates him to pay).
Question: This is like the opinion that half-damage is a fine;
According to the opinion that half-damage is Mamon, what can we answer?
Answer #2: Because he needed to teach double payment, four and five, which are more than the principal, he also teaches half-damage, which is less than the principal.
Since he teaches half-damage, he also teaches damage.
THE SOURCE FOR THREE JUDGES
Question: What is the source that three judges are needed?
Answer (Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "V'Nikrav Ba'al ha'Bayis El ha'Elohim" teaches one. "Ad ha'Elohim Yavo Devar Sheneihem" teaches a second. "Asher Yarshi'un ha'Elohim" teaches a third;
R. Yonasan says, the first time 'ha'Elohim' is said, it is needed to teach that Mumchim are required, we cannot expound it to teach the number of judges;
We expound the other two, to teach two judges; we do not make a Beis Din with an even number of judges, so we add a third.
Suggestion: They argue about whether or not we expound the first occurrence.
Rejection: No, all agree that (normally) we do not expound the first occurrence;
Here, R. Yoshiyah expounds it, because it should have said 'Shofet' (judge). Rather, the Torah said "ha'Elohim", to teach about how many are required.
R. Yonasan says, this merely suggests that someone with a case should go to a Mumcheh.
Question: Does R. Yoshiyah argue with the rule 'we do not make a Beis Din with an even number of judges'?! (A verse teaches this!)
(Beraisa - R. Eliezer son of R. Yosi ha'Glili): "Lintos Acharei Rabim Lehatos" a Beis Din must lean (there is always a majority, i.e. there are an odd number of judges).
Answer #1: Yes. He holds like R. Yehudah, who says that the Great Sanhedrin has 70 judges.
(Mishnah): The Great Sanhedrin has 71 judges;
R. Yehudah says, it has 70.
Objection: R. Yehudah says so only about the Great Sanhedrin, for he expounds a verse. We have no source that he permits a regular Beis Din with an even number of judges!
Suggestion: Perhaps we do not distinguish between the Great Sanhedrin and smaller Batei Din.
Rejection (Mishnah - R. Shimon): Three judges are needed for Semichah of judges and for the beheaded calf;
R. Yehudah says, five are needed.
Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
Answer: "V'Samechu" teaches two judges. "Ziknei" teaches two judges. A Beis Din cannot have an even number of judges, so we add a fifth.
Answer #2: R. Yoshiyah holds like R. Yehudah, and says a larger Chidush;
R. Yehudah said only that the Great Sanhedrin can have an even number of judges. R. Yoshiyah says so even about smaller Batei Din.
Question: What does he learn from "Lintos"?
Answer: It teaches about a Sanhedrin judging a capital case. It must have an odd number of judges.
Question (against R. Yoshiyah - Mishnah): If two judges say that he is innocent, and one says that he is guilty, he is innocent;
If two say that he is guilty, and one says that he is innocent, he is guilty;
If R. Yoshiyah learns from verses that three judges are needed, all three must agree to make a verdict!
Answer: A Kal va'Chomer teaches that we follow the majority;
We follow the majority even in capital cases, and all the more so in monetary cases!
REBBI REQUIRES FIVE JUDGES
(Beraisa): Three judges are needed for monetary cases;
Rebbi says, five judges are needed, so there will be a majority.
Objection: Even with three judges, there will always be a majority!
Answer: He means, we need five judges in order that at least three will agree to the verdict.
Inference: He holds that the three judges learned from verses must agree to make a verdict.
Objection (R. Avahu): If so, the Great Sanhedrin should require 141 judges, so 71 will agree to the verdict, and a small Sanhedrin should need 45, so 23 will agree!
Rather, "Esfah Li Shiv'im Ish" teaches that it suffices to gather 70 (not counting Moshe, we are not concerned how many agree to the verdict). "V'Shaftu ha'Edah... v'Hitzilu ha'Edah" - we care only about how many judges deliberate;
Likewise, "v'Nikrav Ba'al ha'Bayis El ha'Elohim" - the concern is how many judges he approaches (not how many agree to the verdict).
(R. Avahu): Rather, Rebbi learns from "Asher Yarshi'un ha'Elohim" - the plural form teaches two judges;
Likewise, "Ad ha'Elohim Yavo Devar Sheneihem" teaches two judges (we do not expound the first occurrence);
A Beis Din cannot have an even number of judges, so we add a fifth.
Chachamim argue, for "Yarshi'un" is written missing a 'Vav', as if it was the singular 'Yarshi'an'.