Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be from the beginning of מסכת סנהדרין. And as תוספות says, that after we finished with the three בבות, with בבא קמא and בבא מציעא and בבא בתרא, where we learned many דינים, many monetary questions of who is חייב and who is פטור, etc., so now comes the מסכת that tells us how we judge these דינים, how many people do we need to judge these דינים, etc. Therefore, right after these three בבות comes the מסכת סנהדרין. And in this מסכת, we learn all the different דינים concerning בית דין, concerning the judicial system of the תורה. The word סנהדרין itself referred to the בית דין הגדול, to the highest authority which was in כלל ישראל, the highest בית דין, because there were really a few categories in בית דין, in the courts. There was the בית דין הגדול, the highest בית דין, which was referred to as the סנהדרין. That was, so to speak, the Supreme Court, the supreme בית דין of all the בתי דינים of the world, and their place was in the בית המקדש, in the לשכת הגזית. They had a special compartment in the בית המקדש where they would sit, and that was the highest authority of all the בתי דינים in ארץ ישראל and all over the world. Then there's another category of a בית דין, which is a lower category, and that is a בית דין של כ״ג, a בית דין of 23 people, that they would have a group of 23 people, they were the members of the בית דין, and there were certain things that could be judged only by such a בית דין. And this was not only one בית דין of כ״ג, there were many בתי דינים made up of כ״ג in different places. Then there's another category of a בית דין, which is called a בית דין של שלושה, a בית דין made up of three people. And certain things were allowed to be judged by this בית דין של שלושה. Now, within the בית דין of three itself, there was a בית דין called בית דין of three מומחים, of three experts, and then there is a category called a בית דין of three הדיוטות, of three ordinary people. And in this מסכת סנהדרין, we will discuss the different categories of the בתי דינים, when do we need a בית דין of 71, concerning which things is enough to have a בית דין of 23, and concerning which things is enough to have a בית דין of three, and where do we need three מומחים, and when is it enough to have three הדיוטות, three ordinary people. And now we will learn the משנה inside.

דיני ממונות בשלושה, when it comes to judge דיני ממונות, monetary דינים, you have to have a בית דין of three people. When it comes to judge גזלות, stealing, that could be if a person is a שומר, he watches an object for somebody else, and the דין is that he's not allowed to use that object, so if he stretches out his hand just to use it, automatically he becomes a גזלן. So if it's a question of that type of גזלן, or a regular גזלן, somebody who grabs something out of somebody else's hand, or he makes a holdup, but if somebody borrows money and doesn't pay, he is not considered a גזלן. Or וחבלות, if a person causes damage to another person, so the דין is that you are חייב בחמישה דברים, there are five things that you have to pay for, and one of them is you have to pay for the damage, and you pay with money as we learn out from the פסוק where it says, ואיש כי יתן מום בעמיתו, then it says, כן יעשה לו, and we learn out it means with money. So all this is בשלושה, for this you must have three people. נזק, when it's a question of paying נזק, if one's property or a person himself causes damage to somebody else, he must pay for the damage. And the גמרא will ask, לכאורה, this is the same thing as חבלות, why does the משנה put it into two categories, חבלות and נזק? וחצי נזק, sometimes you only pay half of the נזק. For instance, if an ox gored another ox and he was only a תם, which means it was his first or second or maybe third time that he did it, so then the דין is that the owner of the ox that caused the damage only pays חצי נזק, only half of the damage. Or when it comes to a question of

תשלומי כפל, to pay double, and that is the case of a גנב. If someone steals and is caught, then he must pay double. A גזלן, someone who robs outright, he doesn't go quietly and steals, but he goes outright and robs, then when he is caught, he must pay just the principal, just the amount of money that he robbed. But if he stole quietly, he is a גנב, and he is caught, so then he pays double. Or תשלומי ארבעה וחמישה, when it comes to judge a person to pay four or five times, that is a case where a person steals a sheep or an ox, and then or he sells it, or he שחט's it, so the דין is that for the sheep he must pay four times as much, and for the ox he must pay five times as much. Only concerning these two objects is there a דין of ארבעה וחמישה. Concerning everything else, you only pay כפל if you steal, even if you sold it later or you killed it, you שחט'ed it, nevertheless you only pay כפל, but concerning an ox or a sheep it, you could judge it with a בית דין of three people.

האונס, if someone forces a woman to do an עבירה, and this is not referring to a married woman, she was not married, and he forces her to do an עבירה, he rapes her, so then the דין is that the בית דין would, and the תורה says he is fined to pay 50 כסף, 50 כסף. Or והמפתה, if he convinces her to do the עבירה, so here too there is a דין that he pays 50 כסף. Or והמוציא שם רע, or somebody gives out a bad name against his wife, and this is a case if somebody marries a woman, first he gives her קידושין, and then he gives her נישואין. As the custom used to be, that they used to be in two separate times. As soon as they were engaged, he would give her the קידושין, he would say, הרי את מקודשת לי, and then automatically she is considered an אשת איש, she is his wife, but she is still not allowed to live with him till afterwards later when he would take her under the חופה, and then she would become a נשואה and she is allowed to him. Now what happens if after the נישואין, he claims that she was מזנה, she did an עבירה during the time when she was an ארוסה, after she received his קידושין? She then did an עבירה, and the דין is if she did do the עבירה, she is an אשת איש, a married woman that was מזנה, she would be חייב מיתה. So if the husband claims that later, that she in that time did the עבירה, and he brings witnesses that she did the עבירה, and then later her father brings witnesses who are מזים the witnesses that the husband brought, so then the דין is that he has to pay 100 כסף. The husband pays 100 כסף for giving out a false bad name on his wife. So all these דינים are also בשלושה, are judged with a בית דין of three people. דברי רבי מאיר, that is the opinion of רבי מאיר. But וחכמים אומרים, the חכמים say, מוציא שם רע בעשרים ושלושה, that when you judge the

מוציא שם רע, the case of a man who gave out the bad name against his wife, you must have a בית דין of 23. מפני שיש בו דיני נפשות, because there it could be a possibility of capital punishment in that case. The דין is that whenever you judge דיני נפשות, anything which has to do with the death penalty, you must have a בית דין of 23. Concerning the case of a מוציא שם רע, since there could be a possibility of someone getting killed in that case, you also have to have 23. What is the possibility? If the husband's witnesses are true, they are not false witnesses, but they are true, and she was מזנה at that time after she received the קידושין while she was an אשת איש, the דין would be she would get killed. So since there is a possibility of killing somebody in the case of a מוציא שם רע, so מוציא שם רע also has to be judged with a בית דין of 23. That is the opinion of the חכמים. מכות בשלושה. When it comes to give מלקות, a person does an עבירה that the punishment would be מלקות, the 39 lashes, and that is if you do an עבירה that the תורה writes in the form of a לאו. If the תורה writes do not do something, so then under many conditions you would get מלקות. So when it comes to judge a person concerning getting מלקות, you would have to have three people, a בית דין of three. משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו, in the name of רבי ישמעאל they said, בעשרים ושלושה, that you would have to have 23 people to judge a person when he gets מלקות. And the גמרא will learn it out from פסוקים later on.

עיבור החודש בשלושה. It comes to judge to see whether the month should have an extra day or not, because some months have 29 days, some months have 30 days. It is up to the בית דין to decide whether this month should have 30 days or not. So that could be judged by three. עיבור השנה בשלושה, to see whether the year should be a leap year or not, you judge with a בית דין of three, because this is based on the דין of חודש האביב. פסח must be in the month of spring. Now if there will not be a leap year, we would always have 20 12 months a year, and our months are or of 29 days or of 30 days, it will come out that the year will have 354 or 55 days. Now the seasons are set by the sun, and the cycle of the sun is 365 days, so there is about 10 or 11 days that our year is behind the year of the sun. Now if we will not make a leap year, then eventually it will come out that the ימים טובים will not be in the proper seasons, פסח will not be in spring, etc. So therefore, every once in a while there is a leap year, so we straighten out the year of the moon with the year of the sun. So now that we have the calendar and everything is done על פי חשבון, so you know ahead when the leap year will be and when not. But in the time when they were still מקדש the חודש על פי ראיה, בית דין on their own would every time be מקדש the חודש over again based on witnesses, etc. So it was their obligation always to see whether that year deserves, needs a leap year or not. So this would be done through three people. דברי רבי מאיר, this is the opinion דברי רבי מאיר. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, בשלשה מתחילין, you start the discussion with three people, ובחמשה נושאין ונותנין, and then, when you continue discussing, during the whole discussion, it should be with five, וגומרין בשבעה, and when you finish off, you come to the decision, that should be with seven people. But בדיעבד, ואם גמרו בג', if they finished with a בית דין of three, מעוברת, the דין is that the year is מעוברת, it is a leap year. If they came to a decision that the the year should be a leap year, and it was only done through three people, בדיעבד, it is good. סמיכת זקנים, when it comes to the סמיכה that the זקנים have to do, and this refers to a specific קרבן. There's a קרבן called פר העלם דבר של ציבור. If the whole ציבור made a mistake, the whole community made a mistake and did an עבירה, for instance the בית דין פסקנ'ד that they are allowed to do it, and then they realize they made a mistake, so then they have to bring the קרבן called פר העלם דבר של ציבור. So the דין is that the זקנים, the חכמים, have to put their hands on the קרבן. ועריפת עגלה, or when it comes to chop off the head of the calf, the דין is that if you find a dead body in a place where you don't know who killed him, so you have to bring the חכמים from the closest city, and they would take a calf down to נחל איתן, and put, and there are certain things they would say, etc., so all this is done בשלשה, is done with three people. דברי רבי שמעון, that's the opinion of רבי שמעון. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, בחמשה. It should be done with five people. And again, the גמרא learns it out from different פסוקים and gives different reasons for this. החליצה והמיאונין בשלשה. When it comes to give חליצה, if a person dies and leaves no children, so then if he has a brother, his brother is to be מיבם the wife. If the brother does not want to be מיבם the wife, marry her, then he has to give her חליצה. She takes off his shoe, and she spits on the floor in front of him, etc., and by doing that, she's allowed to marry anybody she wants. So this חליצה, or מיאון, מיאון is if a girl that is a קטנה, under the age of 12, and she has no father, and she's married through her mother or through her brothers, so then if she wants to leave her husband, she doesn't even need a גט. If she has a father, and her father marries her off, then the marriage is valid מדאורייתא, it is a hundred percent marriage, and if she wants to leave him, and the husband agrees to let her go, he gives her a גט. But if she wasn't married through her father, so מדאורייתא there is no such thing as a קטנה on her own marrying, but the רבנן made a תקנה that she's allowed to marry. But in that case, if she wants to leave him, she doesn't need a גט, all she does is מיאון. She says, I don't want him, and she leaves. So this, the חליצה or the מיאון, is בשלשה, is done through a בית דין of three. נטע רבעי, if you plant a tree, so we know the דין is that the first three years, the fruit that grows is ערלה. You can't use it, you can't even have any benefit from it, it is אסור בהנאה. The fourth year, it says the fruit is holy, you must take it to ירושלים, and you only eat it in ירושלים בטהרה, etc. And it says in the תורה that if it's too much to carry up to ירושלים, so then you're allowed to redeem it, change it for money, and the money would be taken to ירושלים, and the money there would be used to buy food, and the food would get the קדושה. So if you have נטע רבעי ומעשר שני, the same דין is concerning מעשר שני. Every year you must take off a tenth from the crop that grows and give it to the לוי, that is called מעשר ראשון. Then certain years you take off another tenth afterwards, and that is considered מעשר שני. That would be the first, second, and fourth and fifth year of the שמטה cycle. And that fruit, that second מעשר, that מעשר שני, does isn't given to anybody. It is kept by the owner, but it is holy. It has a קדושה, you can't eat it anywhere but in ירושלים. Same as נטע רבעי. If it is too much to carry up to ירושלים, then you're allowed to redeem it for money, and you carry up the money to ירושלים, and with the money you buy food in ירושלים, and you eat it with the קדושה of מעשר שני. So if you have נטע רבעי or מעשר שני שאין דמיו ידועין, that we don't know its value, and you need people to evaluate how much you should pay when you redeem it, so then בשלשה. You also have to do it in front of three people. ההקדשות בשלשה, if there is הקדש to be redeemed, if someone gave away something to הקדש, now what does הקדש do with it? הקדש sells it, and with the money הקדש uses it for בדק הבית, uses the money for the upkeep of the בית המקדש. Now if you come to redeem הקדש, you must have בשלשה, it must be done in front of a בית דין of three people. והערכין המטלטלין בשלשה. The גמרא will explain later what it means, because normally the word ערכין refers to a specific kind of promise of giving money to הקדש. If a person uses the term ערך, he says ערכי עלי or ערכך עלי, etc., so the תורה says, if you say that, then there's a fixed amount how much you have to give, based on whether it's a male or a female, and how old the person is. So the גמרא will explain what ערכין המטלטלין means, that the ערכין concerning movable objects. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, אחד מהן כהן, that not only when you have ערכין המטלטלין you have to have a בית דין of three, but one of the three should be a כהן. והקרקעות, if someone donated land to בדק הבית, to הקדש, and someone else wants to buy it, redeem it from הקדש and give the money to הקדש, so then in order to redeem it, you must have תשעה וכהן, there must be ten people, nine and the tenth a כהן. ואדם כיוצא בהן, and when you come to redeem a person from הקדש, so then you also need ten people and one of them a כהן to redeem him. And the גמרא will explain what is the פשט a person that belongs to הקדש and they come to redeem him. דיני נפשות בעשרים ושלשה, when it comes to judge capital punishment, a person that did something that would deserve to be killed, he would have to have a בית דין of 23. הרובע והנרבע בעשרים ושלשה, when it comes to judge a woman that did an עבירה with a בהמה, with an animal, or a man that did an עבירה with an animal, so then you must have a בית דין of 23. Not only concerning the judgment against the person, but even concerning the judgment against the animal you must have a בית דין of 23. שנאמר, because the פסוק says, והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה, you should kill the woman and the בהמה. This is in the case where the woman did an עבירה with a male animal. ואומר, there's another פסוק that says, ואת הבהמה תהרגו, that you should kill the בהמה. And this is a פסוק in the case where it was a man with a female בהמה. So we see here that the תורה compares the killing of the person and the killing of the בהמה. So therefore we learn out that just like when it comes to kill the person you must have a בית דין of 23, so too when it comes to kill the בהמה you must have a בית דין of 23. שור הנסקל בעשרים ושלשה, when it comes to kill an ox that killed a person. The דין is that if an ox or any other animal that killed a person, so the owner must pay a certain amount, but the ox itself is killed. When you come to kill that ox, you must have a בית דין of 23. Why? שנאמר, because the פסוק says, השור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת, that the ox should be killed and also his owner should die. And the גמרא will explain that this dying really doesn't mean that the owner dies, but it means that he has to pay a certain amount of money. But nevertheless, the תורה uses the term that the ox is stoned and the owner dies. So the תורה put the two together, the stoning, the killing of the ox, with the death of the owner. So we learn out כמיתת הבעלים כך מיתת השור, that the same as it comes to the death of the owner will be נוגע to the death of the ox. Which means that just like when it comes to kill a person, you'll have to have a בית דין of 23, so too when it comes to kill the ox, you'll have to have a בית דין of 23. הזאב, a wolf, והארי, and a lion, והדוב, the bear, והנמר, and the leopard, והברדלס, and the hyena, והנחש, and the snake, מיתתן בעשרים ושלשה. If you kill them, you kill them with a בית דין of 23. Because the דין is that not only if an ox killed a person the ox is stoned, the same applies to any other animal that killed a person. And therefore the משנה says when it comes to kill these, you must have a בית דין of 23. But רבי אלעזר אומר, רבי אלעזר says, כל הקודם להורגן זכה, anybody who is first to kill them is זוכה, which means that you don't have to have a בית דין of 23, but anybody who wants could kill them. רבי עקיבא אומר, רבי עקיבא says, מיתתן בעשרים ושלשה, that they only could be killed with a בית דין of 23. Then the משנה continues, אין דנין לא את השבט, you cannot judge not a שבט, which means if the most of the tribe, the majority of a complete tribe worshiped עבודה זרה and it comes to judge them, ולא את נביא השקר, and not when it comes to judge a false prophet, because the דין is a false prophet is חייב מיתה, his death would be בחנק, he would be choked, ולא את כהן גדול, not when you come to judge a high priest, a כהן גדול, all this could only be done אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד, only through a בית דין of 71. Here it's not enough a בית דין of 23, you must have the סנהדרין, the בית דין הגדול, the supreme בית דין, so to speak, in order to judge these. ואין מוציאין למלחמת הרשות, you cannot go out to a מלחמת הרשות אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד, only through a בית דין of 71. There are two types of wars. There is a war which is called מלחמת מצוה, that you must fight it, it's a מצוה to fight, for instance מלחמת עמלק, to fight against עמלק is a מצוה. Then there is a kind of war that if the king decides that he wants to wage a war, he's allowed to, and that is called a מלחמת הרשות. So the משנה says that when it comes to wage a מלחמת הרשות, he must do it through the permission of a בית דין of 71, of the סנהדרין. אין מוסיפין על העיר ועל העזרות אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד, you cannot add to ירושלים, or you cannot add to the עזרה of the בית המקדש only through a בית דין of 71, because there are certain דינים that apply to ירושלים. For instance, there are certain things that you're only allowed to eat in ירושלים, like we said before, נטע רבעי and מעשר שני, and

certain קרבנות. So, if for some reason, they want to extend ירושלים, that all these things that are allowed to be done in ירושלים should be done in a further area, so when it comes to add to ירושלים, or to add to the size of the בית המקדש, of the עזרה, because there are certain things which you only could do in the עזרה, you could do it through a בית דין of 71. אין עושין סנהדריות לשבטים אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד. You cannot make בית דין, בתי דינים, to the שבטים, only through the appointment of the סנהדרי גדולה, of the בית דין of 71. אין עושין עיר הנדחת אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד. You cannot turn a city into an עיר הנדחת only through a בית דין of 71. עיר הנדחת is if a whole city worshipped עבודה זרה. So then there are certain conditions, but if it fits the conditions, then the whole city is destroyed, the people are killed, and the whole city is burnt. And that city is never allowed to be rebuilt again, and that is called an עיר הנדחת. So in order to make a city into an עיר הנדחת, you have to have a בית דין of 71. Then the משנה says, אין עושין עיר הנדחת בספר. You're not allowed to make an עיר הנדחת at the border. If it's a city that's by the border, you're not allowed to turn that city into an עיר הנדחת. ולא שלש, and you can't make three cities together an עיר הנדחת, אבל עושין אחת או שתים. You could make one or two together into an עיר הנדחת, but not three cities. Then the משנה continues,

סנהדרי גדולה, the big סנהדרין, the supreme סנהדרין, היתה של שבעים ואחד, was a סנהדרין of 71 people. They were the סנהדרין that sat in the לשכת הגזית, in that special compartment in the בית המקדש. וקטנה, a סנהדרי קטנה, a small סנהדרין, של עשרים ושלשה, is made up of 23 members. And the משנה asks, ומנין לגדולה שהיא של שבעים ואחד? How do we know that a big סנהדרין is made up of 71 people? שנאמר, because the פסוק says, השם said to משה רבינו, אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל, gather for me 70 people from the elders of the אידן. So we see that there were 70 there. ומשה על גביהן, and משה was over them. So משה was part of them, on top of them, but part of them. So we see here that the סנהדרי גדולה was 71. רבי יהודה אומר שבעים. רבי יהודה says, no, only 70. ומנין לקטנה שהיא של עשרים ושלשה? How do we know that a סנהדרי קטנה is made up of 23 people? שנאמר, because the פסוק says, ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה. It speaks concerning a person who killed somebody else, so it says that the עדה, the community, should judge him, and the community, it says, should save him. So it's as if the תורה is saying that you have to have an עדה that should be able to judge him, and you have to have an עדה that should be able to save him. So automatically it means that you have to have two עדות: עדה שופטת ועדה מצלת, one עדה to judge and one עדה to save. Now how much is that? הרי כאן עשרים, you already have 20, because an עדה is 10, and if you have to have two עדות, then automatically you have to have 20.

ומנין לעדה שהיא עשרה? And how do we know that an עדה means 10? שנאמר, because the פסוק says, עד מתי לעדה הרעה הזאת, השם was saying to משה רבינו, how long will it be for this bad עדה, for this bad community? Because the תורה used the term עדה. Now this was concerning the מרגלים. השם was angry at the מרגלים, the spies. השם said to משה, how long will it be for these bad people, for this bad עדה? Now how many were there? So לכתחילה, 12 spies were sent, but not all 12 were bad. יצאו יהושע וכלב, if you exclude יהושע and כלב, you're left with 10. And השם referred to them as עדה. That shows that an עדה is 10. So since the תורה says ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה, that means that you have to have לכתחילה at least two עדות, which means 20. ומנין להביא עוד שלשה? And how do we know that you have to have three more? We said before it was 23. Because ממשמע שנאמר, since the תורה says, this is a פסוק in פרשת משפטים, לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת, that when it comes for bad you should not follow the majority. שומע אני, so from that we understand, שאהא עמהם לטובה, that when it comes for the good, we do follow the majority for the good. אם כן, so if so, למה נאמר אחרי רבים להטת? Why does the תורה have to say that we should follow the majority? We already know from the other פסוק of לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת that for good you do follow the majority. So this פסוק, אחרי רבים להטת, is extra. So we must say that this פסוק, אחרי רבים להטת, means even if it's for the bad. Because to say that we have to follow the majority when the majority is for the good, we know already. So obviously, when it says you should follow the majority in another פסוק, it means even for the bad. But that couldn't be either, because the תורה says בפירוש, לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת, that when it comes to bad, you should not follow the majority. So what do we say as far as פשט in the פסוק of אחרי רבים להטת? So it must be that לא כהטייתך לטובה הטייתך לרעה, that even for the bad you follow the majority, but in a different way than when you follow the majority for the good. Which means הטייתך לטובה, when you follow the majority for the good, על פי אחד, that could be even with one. If one more is for the good over the bad, so then already you follow the majority for the good. But הטייתך לרעה על פי שנים, but when it comes to follow the majority if they are for the bad, then you only follow them if it is with two more. If one more is for the bad than the ones for the good, then you don't follow the bad. If the ones that are for the bad are with two more than for the good, then you follow the majority of the bad. And that's how we learn the פשט in the פסוק: לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות, אחרי רבים להטות. Do not follow the majority for the bad if it's a case when it's with one more. But אחרי רבים להטות, you should follow the majority even if it's for the bad in a case where it's with two more. So we

already see that you must have enough to be able to have two as majority for the bad. So that automatically means that we must have 22. There must be at least 10 for the good and 10 for the bad because of the פסוק we said before: ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה. Now, we must make it possible that there should be, in addition to that, a majority of two for the bad, so that means we have to have at least two more, that's 22. But we can't stay with 22 because we have a rule of אין בית דין שקול. We're not allowed to have a בית דין that's even. Because it could be that it will be exactly half and half and then we won't know what to do. So therefore, we always must make it in such a way that it should be not even. So what do we do? מוסיפין עליהן עוד אחד. So we have to add one more to the 22. הרי כאן עשרים ושלשה. So here we have 23. So that's the ראיה that בית דין is made up of 23. וכמה יהא בעיר ותהא ראויה לסנהדרין? How much does the city have to have in order to be fit for a סנהדרין? What is the population of the city that it should require a סנהדרין? מאה ועשרים, 120. רבי נחמיה אומר, רבי נחמיה says, מאתים ושלשים, 230, כנגד שרי עשרות, against the leaders of 10, which means that each one should be able to be at least a leader over 10. Because if you're a leader over less than 10 people, you are not called a leader. And since the ענין of סנהדרין is connected to the שרים that we had in the מדבר, the שרי עשרות, שרי מאות, שרי אלפים, and the least one was the שרי עשרות, the ones that were leaders over 10. So you have to have at least enough people that each one in the סנהדרי קטנה should be able to be a leader over 10. So since סנהדרי קטנה is 23, so you have to have at least 200 and 30 people in the city to require to be fit for a סנהדרי קטנה.

תוספות asks a קשיא: why doesn't the משנה also mention how much you have to have, what kind of בית דין you have to have when it comes to judge כופר or שלושים של עבד? The דין is that if an ox kills a person, so then in addition to killing the ox, the owner has to pay כופר, as we said before. And the משנה doesn't say what kind of בית דין you have to have when you judge the owner when he has to pay כופר. Also there's a דין that if an ox kills an עבד, he kills a slave, a גויישה slave that belongs to somebody, then the תורה says that you have to pay שלושים שקל, 30 שקלים, and this is makes no difference whether he was worth a million or he was worth a penny, there is a fixed amount that the תורה says that you have to pay if he kills an עבד, which is שלושים שקלים. And the משנה doesn't say that how much people in the בית דין must you have when you come to judge the case of שלושים של עבד. And תוספות answers that באמת this is included in what the משנה says: since the משנה mentioned that שור הנסקל, when it comes to judge the שור to get killed you have to have a בית דין of 23, automatically these two things are included. Because when do you pay כופר, or when do you pay 30 שקלים for the עבד? If the שור killed him. So the שור is automatically killed. So when we judge the שור by getting killed, automatically we're judging then already the owner whether he has to pay כופר or not, and whether he has to pay the שלושים של עבד. So that is included in what the משנה says, that the דין of שור הנסקל is judged by a בית דין of 23, that includes already the כופר and the שלושים של עבד. But תוספות asks a קשיא on that and therefore תוספות answers another תירוץ, that רבנו תם says, חבלות means damages. When you pay כופר, you pay שלושים של עבד, you're paying for the damage. So therefore the משנה doesn't have to mention it separately because it's included in גזילות וחבלות. Then תוספות answers another תירוץ, that באמת the משנה טאקע skipped it. And this happens, that sometimes there's a rule mentioned, דינים mentioned, and nevertheless, it skipped. But then the גמרא always says מאי שייר דהאי שייר, that the משנה or the ברייתא, etc., doesn't skip one thing. If we find another thing it skipped, then we're able to say it skipped this one too. So it didn't mention everything, it was skipped, few things were skipped. But if the משנה only skips one, then we have to assume that it's not that פשט the משנה skipped it, but the משנה doesn't hold of it. So here תוספות says that באמת the משנה skipped it. משנה left it out. But what else did the משנה leave out? So תוספות says the משנה left out יציאת עבד בראשי איברים, that if you knock out a tooth, or you knock out the eye of an עבד, or you knock off any other tips of his איברים, 24 ראשי איברים, so then automatically that עבד that belongs to you goes out free. So the משנה doesn't mention that either, and that is also a קנס that was given to the master for doing that. And for that, you would also need a בית דין of three. And nevertheless, the משנה doesn't mention it. So we see that the משנה skipped, so too the משנה skipped כופר and שלושים של עבד. And then תוספות says, according to the first תירוץ that we gave, that the reason כופר and שלושים של עבד is not mentioned because it's included in חבלות, but then the question is, why doesn't the משנה mention the קנס of your עבד going out free if you knock off any of the ראשי איברים? And תוספות says this is also included in חבלות. Or תוספות says another תירוץ, that the תנא of this משנה is only speaking about money that has to be paid מיד ליד, money that you give. The case of knocking out the tooth or the eye or the ראשי איברים of the עבד, you don't have to pay for that, it is only that the עבד goes out free. So this תנא of this משנה doesn't speak about that. Therefore, he doesn't mention it. And now we will learn the גמרא. גמרא says, אטו גזילות וחבלות לאו דיני ממונות נינהו? Isn't גזילות, robbery, and damages part of דיני ממונות? The משנה started that דיני ממונות בשלשה. When it comes to judge monetary disputes, you have to have a בית דין of three. Then the משנה said, גזילות וחבלות בשלשה, that when you judge גזילות, robbery, and you judge damages, you have to have a בית דין of three. Isn't it the same thing? Isn't גזילות and חבלות included in דיני ממונות? So why does the משנה have to say it? When it says that דיני ממונות בשלשה, we understand ourselves that when it comes to judge גזילות, when it comes to judge damages, it would have to be with three because this is part of דיני ממונות. הגמרא answers, אמר רב אבהו: מה הן קתני. What are they? That's what the משנה means. That when it says that דיני ממונות בשלשה, and then it says גזילות וחבלות בשלשה, גזילות וחבלות is just an example of what דיני ממונות are. מה הן דיני ממונות? Which are the דיני ממונות that we said the דין that have to be בשלשה? גזילות וחבלות. אבל הודאות והלואות לא, but הודאות and הלואות are not included in the דיני ממונות. What are הודאות והלואות? So רש״י gives two פשטים. One פשט is הודאה means if he admits, הלואה means if you borrowed, means that if a person has witnesses that somebody admitted that he owes him money, and הלואות means if he has witnesses that someone saw as the other person borrowed the money. Another פשט that רש״י says, הודאות means if the other person admits to part and denies part, he's a מודה במקצת, and הלואות means if the other person denies completely. And רש״י says the first פשט is the main פשט. So the גמרא is saying that the משנה is trying to tell us that when we say דיני ממונות בשלשה, it's only דיני ממונות of גזילות וחבלות, but דיני ממונות of הודאות והלואות are not included in this דין of דיני ממונות בשלשה. And the גמרא is going to explain soon what we mean when we say that it's excluded. From what do we exclude הודאות והלואות? And the גמרא says וצריכא, we have to have, in other words, the משנה has to specifically tell us that דיני ממונות בשלשה only applies to גזילות וחבלות because if the משנה wouldn't specify that, then we wouldn't know what it means. And the משנה has to write both: the משנה has to write the term דיני ממונות and also write the term גזילות וחבלות. If it would just say דיני ממונות, we wouldn't understand that it means just גזילות וחבלות. On the other hand, if the משנה would just write גזילות וחבלות, we also wouldn't know the proper פשט. Therefore, the משנה must write both. It must write דיני ממונות and also גזילות וחבלות. And the גמרא explains why: דאי תנא דיני ממונות, if it would just say in the משנה the לשון דיני ממונות, הוה אמינא, I would think, אפילו הודאות והלואות, that this means everything which is included in דיני ממונות. הודאות והלואות also are included in the דין that דיני ממונות בשלשה. Therefore, תנא גזילות וחבלות. So the משנה has to write clearly that what kind of דיני ממונות do we mean? גזילות וחבלות. ואי תנא גזילות וחבלות, if the משנה would just write גזילות וחבלות, ולא תנא דיני ממונות, and it wouldn't write first דיני ממונות, הוה אמינא, I would think, הוא הדין דאפילו הודאות והלואות, that באמת by הודאות והלואות it's the same דין as גזילות וחבלות. והא דקתני גזילות וחבלות, and the reason it mentions in the משנה גזילות וחבלות, משום דעיקר ג׳ דכתיבי בגזילות וחבלות כתיבי. Because the main דין that you must have ג׳, you must have three people by judging these things is written by גזילות, by the דין of stealing, by the דין of damages. And therefore, the משנה picks as an example for things that you have to have three, גזילות וחבלות, but it's only an example the משנה picks we would think, and באמת all other דיני ממונות, הודאות והלואות are also included. That's why the משנה has to tell us clearly, no, that דיני ממונות specifically mean only גזילות וחבלות. Now, the גמרא is going to explain, where do we see by גזילות וחבלות that the תורה tells us that you have to have a בית דין of three. And the גמרא explains: גזילות, where do we see that by גזילות? דכתיב, it says, ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלקים, the בעל הבית should get close to the אלקים, which means close to בית דין. And this is the case of a שומר חינם, a person who was given something to watch for free, and later when the owner comes and asks him to give it back, he says it was lost, but the owner claims, no, that you used it, you took it. So the פסוק says that the בעל הבית should get close to אלקים, and the דין is that the שומר has to swear. And three times the תורה uses the word אלקים in that פרשה, so that tells us that you have to have three people. And that's a case of גזילה, the owner claims that you stole it. So we see by גזילה that the תורה tells us that you have to have a בית דין of three. חבלות, where do we see that the תורה tells us by damages that you have to have a בית דין of three? Because מה לי חבל בגופו, מה לי חבל בממונו, what is the difference whether he hurt him in his body or he damaged him, he hurt him in his money? And therefore, since when it's a question of damage of money, we said before the תורה says three times אלקים by גזילה, and from there we know you have to have a בית דין of three, so it's as if the תורה tells us the same דין in the case of חבלה, which is a damage that was caused in the body of the person. So since the main דין of a בית דין של שלושה is written by גזילות וחבלות, I would think that's why the משנה picks the example of גזילות וחבלות. But באמת, it means all kinds of דיני ממונות, including הודאות והלואות. Therefore, תני, the משנה has to write, מה הן דיני ממונות, which are the דיני ממונות? גזילות וחבלות. Only גזילות וחבלות are included in this דין of דיני ממונות בשלושה, אבל הודאות והלואות לא. But הודאות והלואות are not included in this דין. And then the גמרא asks, ולמאי, and concerning which דין do we say that we exclude הודאות והלואות? אילימא if you're going to say that we mean דלא בעינן שלושה, that by הודאות והלואות we don't need three people, but that's not so. והא אמר אבהו, didn't אבהו say, שנים שדנו דיני ממונות, if two people judge דיני ממונות, לדברי הכל אין דיניהם דין, according to everybody it is not considered a דין, it is not a valid דין. What do we mean everybody? Because by a פשרה there is a מחלוקת. When it comes to make a compromise there is a מחלוקת in גמרא whether two is enough or you must have three. So אבהו said that that's only by a פשרה, but when it comes to פסק'ן the דין, then we definitely, according to everybody, must have three. So we see that any type of דיני ממונות must have three. So how can we say that we exclude הודאות והלואות from the דין that you must have three? אלא, so therefore we must say, what do we exclude it from? דלא בעינן מומחין, that by הודאות והלואות we don't need a בית דין of three מומחין, of three experts. If you have a בית דין of three הדיוטות, that's enough. And then the גמרא asks: מאי קסבר, what does our תנא hold? אי קסבר עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן, if he holds that the פרשיות are mixed up here, ליבעו נמי מומחין, so then also הודאות והלואות should need מומחין. אי קסבר, if he holds, אין עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן, that it's not a mixture of פרשיות, שלושה למה לי, then בכלל you wouldn't need three by הודאות והלואות. This is a מחלוקת in בבא קמא דף ק"ז. And this is referring to the פרשה in פרשת משפטים. First we find in פרשת משפטים דינים of a שומר. It says that if a person will give someone to watch כסף או כלים, and it'll be stolen from the person's house, and you will not find the גנב, so then the תורה says, ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלקים, the בעל הבית has to go to בית דין, אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו, to see whether the שומר stretched out his hand in his friend's thing, which means whether the שומר used it or took it. And then the פסוק says, על כל דבר פשע על שור על חמור על שה על שלמה על כל אבידה אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, that on everything that he will say this is it, the דין is, עד האלקים יבא דבר שניהם, they should come to בית דין, אשר ירשיעון אלקים ישלם שנים לרעהו, what the בית דין will פסק'ן, that's what he'll do, etc. So here we have the words אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, which means he will say this is it. From this פסוק, from these words אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, we learn out the דין of מודה במקצת. We learn out a דין that if somebody admits to part and denies part, he is supposed to swear. That's what the פסוק means: אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, he will say this is it. In other words, they claimed more and he answers this is it, which means he says only this. He is a מודה במקצת, so the תורה says עד האלקים יבא דבר שניהם that they come to בית דין to swear. So from this פרשה we learn out the דין of מודה במקצת. Now, this דין is written within the דינים of a שומר. The שאלה is: does this mean that by a שומר חינם, the

only time he is supposed to swear only if he is a מודה במקצת? Now, what happens if a שומר חינם is a כופר הכל, if the שומר חינם says the whole thing was stolen, he doesn't admit to anything, he denies the whole thing. Is there also the דין that he has to swear? So there's a מחלוקת in the גמרא there whether the דין is that a שומר חינם is only חייב if he's a מודה במקצת, or a שומר חינם is חייב to swear even if he's a כופר הכל. And this מחלוקת is based on whether we say that this דין of מודה במקצת, which is written in the פרשה of שומר חינם, belongs there or really it belongs someplace else. Because later on, in the same פרשת משפטים, but this was in קפיטל כ"ב, פסוק ח', and later you have, in the same קפיטל, פסוק כ"ד, it says, אם כסף תלוה את עמי את העני עמך, that you should lend money to your friend. So, one opinion says that this דין of מודה במקצת really belongs in the פרשה of lending money. And the תורה says that if you lend money to your friend, and later on, he is a מודה במקצת, you claim that he owes you the money, and he admits to part and denies part, he has to swear. If he's a כופר הכל, if he denies the whole thing, then he doesn't have to swear, he's פטור. But if he is a מודה במקצת, then he is חייב. So, if we learn that the פרשה of מודה במקצת כי הוא זה is written in a place where it really doesn't belong, it's a mixture, so to speak, of פרשיות, it's written between the דינים of שומר, and really it belongs in the פרשה of אם כסף תלוה, so then we hold that a שומר doesn't have to be a מודה במקצת in order to be חייב a שבועה, even if he's a כופר הכל is also חייב a שבועה. But if we hold that the דין of מודה במקצת is written in its proper place, so then a שומר would only be חייב a שבועה if he is a מודה במקצת. Now, what would be the reason to say that a שומר is חייב even if he's a כופר הכל, but other cases you're חייב only if you're a מודה במקצת? So the סברא is as follows: what is the reason, why do we say that a מודה במקצת is חייב a שבועה, and a כופר הכל is פטור? The

reason is because when a person denies completely, we assume he's saying the truth. A person would not have the חוצפה to deny it to somebody else who did him a favor. Someone lent you money, he did you a favor, now you're going to have the חוצפה to deny it completely? So therefore, if he does deny it completely, there is a סברא to say that he's saying the truth, so we believe him without a שבועה. But if he is a מודה במקצת, he denies half, then we say probably he is lying. He really would want to deny the whole thing. He owes him the whole thing, he wants to deny the whole thing, but he doesn't have the חוצפה, so at least he denies half. So since we suspect he's lying, therefore the תורה said he is חייב a שבועה. So this דין, this difference between a מודה במקצת and a כופר הכל, only applies to the case when a person did him a favor and lent him money. But in a case of the שומר, where the other person didn't do him the favor, he, the שומר, on the contrary, did the other person a favor, so here we cannot say a סברא that he probably is saying the truth if he is denying completely, because otherwise he wouldn't have the חוצפה to lie. In a case like this, he would have the חוצפה, because the only time we say a person wouldn't have the חוצפה to deny the whole thing, only because the other person did him a favor, so how can he look him in his face and deny the whole thing? But when the other person didn't do him a favor, then maybe he is lying, and he denying the whole thing was a lie. So therefore, even if he is denying the whole thing, he's a כופר הכל, he's also חייב a שבועה. So here we have a מחלוקת whether the פרשה of מודה במקצת is written in its proper place or not. Which in other words would be a מחלוקת whether the דין of הלואה, the regular דין, how we judge a regular case of a loan, is written in the פרשה of שומרים or not. If we

learn that כי הוא זה is concerning a שומר, then the תורה doesn't mention הלואה at all in this פרשה of שומרים. But if the כי הוא זה does not refer to שומרים, but כי הוא זה refers to הלואה, and nevertheless, it was put into the פרשה of שומרים, so it would come out that the דין of הלואה is mentioned in the פרשה where the תורה mentions three times אלקים. And this is the גמרא's קשיא. When we said that the תנא of the משנה holds that הלואות and הודאות do not need three מומחין, they need three people, but three הדיוטות are enough, they do not need three מומחין, the question is, how does he hold? If he holds עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן, there's a mixture of פרשיות, which means that the פרשה of כי הוא זה really is speaking about הלואה, and it was put into the פרשה of שומרים, then means that הלואות are mentioned in that פרשה. And that פרשה has three times the word אלקים, so it should come out that concerning הלואות, you also have to have the same בית דין of three as you would have concerning שומרים. Because the same three times אלקים that has that says in the תורה concerning שומרים is also connected to הלואה, because הלואה is mentioned in that פרשה, because כי הוא זה refers to הלואה. And אלקים means מומחין, as רש"י brings ראיה, אלקים comes from the term of strength, לשון שררה, leadership, control, so it means three מומחין. So therefore, the גמרא asks: If our תנא holds that there's a mixture of פרשיות here, which means that כי הוא זה really means concerning הלוואה, and nevertheless it was put into the פרשה of שומרים where we have three times אלוקים, so the same דין of בית דין, בית דין מומחין, that concerning שומרים, also applies to הלוואה. So you should have to have three מומחין concerning הלוואה still. And if he holds that there's not a עירוב פרשיות כאן, which means that כי הוא זה refers to שומרים, so the דין of הלוואה is not mentioned in the פרשה of שומרים at all, so then we have to look at the פרשה of הלוואה. Now, in the פרשה of הלוואה itself, it doesn't mention three times אלוקים. So then you wouldn't need at all three people. So the question of the גמרא is, that the תנא who holds that by הלוואות והודאות you need three people, but not מומחין, according to who does he go? And the גמרא answers, לעולם באמת קסבר עירוב פרשיות כתב כאן, that there is a mixture of פרשיות, and the כי הוא זה refers to הלוואות, and therefore it comes out that הלוואה is mentioned in the פרשה where we have three times אלוקים. So therefore, ובדין הוא דליבעי נמי מומחין, so באמת you would have to have three מומחין concerning הלוואות והודאות. והא דלא בעינן מומחין, and the reason why לפועל he פסקנ'ס that you do not need מומחין, משום דרבי חנינא, because of what רבי חנינא said.

אמר רבי חנינא, רבי חנינא said, דבר תורה, מדאורייתא, אחד דיני ממונות ואחד דיני נפשות בדרישה וחקירה. דיני ממונות, when we judge monetary disputes, and when we judge things concerning דיני נפשות, things that are connected to a person's life that it might cause a person to get killed, in both cases בדרישה וחקירה. You have to have the proper investigation. You have to investigate the עדים, find out which day it happened, and which hour, etc., and otherwise you cannot accept the witnesses. שנאמר, because the תורה says, משפט אחד יהיה לכם, there should be one judgment to you, that means that when you judge דיני ממונות, it should be as strict as when you're judging דיני נפשות. And by דיני נפשות we learn out that you have to have דרישה וחקירה because the פסוק says ודרשת וחקרת. You have to have the proper investigation, as the גמרא explains in other places what kind of investigation you must have. And since it's one משפט, one דין for both, דיני ממונות would also need the proper דרישה וחקירה. ומה טעם אמרו, but what is the reason, why did the חכמים say that דיני ממונות לא בעינן דרישה וחקירה, that דיני ממונות do not need this דרישה וחקירה? כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווים, in order not to close the door in front of borrowers. Because if people will know that the only way the עדות will be accepted is if they will go through this complete investigation, so then there will be harder to find witnesses, so people will not want to lend any money, knowing it'll be very hard for them to get their money back. So they will not want to lend money, so those people who want to borrow money will not have from whom to borrow. So in order to make it easier for them to borrow, the חכמים said that when it comes to witnesses of דיני ממונות, you do not need a דרישה וחקירה. And that's why when it comes to הלוואות והודאות, you don't have to have a בית דין of three מומחין, because שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווים. But the גמרא asks, אלא מעתה, if so, טעו לא ישלמו, if they made a mistake, they shouldn't have to pay. If these three הדיוטות by דיני ממונות made a mistake in their פסק דין, they shouldn't have to pay. Since, because the דין is that if a מומחה פסקנ'ס a דין, and then later we find out he made a mistake, he is not obligated to pay for that. But if he wasn't a מומחה and made a mistake, he has to pay. But the question is why? Since the חכמים made this תקנה that you don't have to have מומחין, so the חכמים gave the הדיוטות, the ordinary people, the same authority as מומחין, so if they make a mistake, there should be the same דין as if מומחין made a mistake, and the דין should be they shouldn't have to pay. So the

גמרא says, כל שכן אתה נועל דלת בפני לווים. If that would be the דין, you certainly would close the doors in front of borrowers. If people will know that if the בית דין will make a mistake, the בית דין won't have to pay, so they'll be afraid to lend money to people, thinking that maybe the בית דין later will make a mistake and we'll lose the money. So because of that, the חכמים specially said that if they make the mistake, they do have to pay. But then the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if so, תרתי קתני? Maybe the משנה is telling us two things? Why did ר' אבהו have to say that the פשט in the משנה is that דיני ממונות בשלושה and the משנה explains what דיני ממונות are: גזילות וחבלות? Why can't you say that the משנה means two things: דיני ממונות בשלושה הדיוטות, when it says דיני ממונות בשלושה, it means that regular דיני ממונות like הלוואות and הודאות you have to have three, but there three הדיוטות are enough; גזילות וחבלות בשלושה מומחין, and גזילות וחבלות need three, but they need three מומחין? And that is the reason why the משנה mentioned both, mentioned דיני ממונות separately and גזילות וחבלות separately, because there are two separate דינים: דיני ממונות, which means הלוואות and הודאות, you need three הדיוטות, and גזילות וחבלות need three מומחין. ועוד, another קושיא, שלושה שלושה למה לי? According to ר' אבהו, why does the משנה mention the word שלושה twice? Why does the משנה say דיני ממונות בשלושה, and then גזילות וחבלות בשלושה? חבלות בשלשה, it should have said דיני ממונות שהן גזלות וחבלות בשלשה. דיני ממונות, which is גזלות וחבלות, בשלשה. Why does it have to mention the word שלשה twice? אלא אמר רבא, therefore רבא said, תרתי קתני. The truth is it תקי is telling us two דינים. משום דרב חנינא, because of what רב חנינא said. As we said before, that באמת הודאות והלוואות would also need three מומחין, because we learned that עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן. The reason it doesn't need three מומחין is because of what רב חנינא said, we shouldn't close the door in front of people who want to borrow money. And this is תקי what the משנה is telling us: דיני ממונות, which means הלוואות והודאות, בשלשה is enough, שלשה הדיוטות. And גזלות וחבלות, there, it's תקי גם בשלשה, that means שלשה מומחין. תוספות ask a קושיא here. In this גמרא it is משמע that how do we know that we have to have מומחין? From the word אלקים. As רש״י said, אלקים comes from the word of from the meaning of שררה, control, strength, etc., so from the word אלקים we know you have to have three מומחין. But תוספות ask that in גיטין דף פ״ח, there the גמרא shows that you have to have מומחין from a different פסוק. It learns out from the פסוק where it says אלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם, these are the משפטים, the judgments, that should be put in front of them. So from the word לפניהם, in front of them, the גמרא learns out לפניהם ולא לפני עכו״ם, in front of them, which means in front of Jewish דיינים and not in front of גוייִשע דיינים, and also לפניהם ולא לפני הדיוטות, in front of them, in front of מומחין, not in front of הדיוטות. So we learn it out from a different פסוק. And תוספות answers that באמת the לימוד that the גמרא learns out there from the word לפניהם is because of the לימוד we have here. How does the word לפניהם itself show that it has to be in front of מומחין, not in front of הדיוטות? It is because it says in the תורה אלקים, and אלקים means מומחין, so therefore when it says לפניהם, in front of them, means in front of those that in the פרשה where it says אלקים is mentioned, which means in front of מומחין. So really it is one דרשא, it is not two separate דרשות. But then תוספות says that רש״י in גיטין says that why do how do we know that the word לפניהם means מומחין? Because it comes in connection to those שבעים זקנים that are mentioned in the end of פרשת משפטים that went up with משה to the הר, that was the סנהדרין. So when it says here לפניהם, in front of them, in front of those that went up with משה to the הר, that means that it is in front of people who were מומחין. But then תוספות has another פשט, that that depends לגבי what we are trying to learn out that you have to have מומחין. In the גמרא of גיטין it's נוגע לגבי the דין of כפייה, when we force somebody to do something. So there the גמרא learns it out from the word לפניהם, because לפניהם shows that you have to have מומחין. As תוספות says, because from the word אשר תשים, אשר תשים לפניהם, we learn out אלו כלי הדיינים, these are the כלים of the דיינים, that means that those דיינים that have the ability to force. So since we're talking about the דין of forcing, we learn out from the פסוק לפניהם. Concerning general דינים that we have to have מומחין, that we learn out from the פסוק אלקים. Concerning when the גמרא said that really we should have to have דרישה וחקירה, the proper investigation, concerning דיני ממונות too, so the גמרא brought a פסוק that says משפט אחד יהיה לכם, there should be one משפט to you, that means one משפט by דיני ממונות as by דיני נפשות, so therefore, just like by דיני נפשות we have to have דרישה וחקירה, so too by דיני ממונות. So תוספות asks, why does the גמרא have to learn it out from that פסוק? לכאורה, we have a better way of learning it out: the main דין of דרישה וחקירה in the תורה is written concerning עדים זוממין, that if two witnesses come and they say something happened, and then other two come and say, how could you testify that you saw that happen, עמנו הייתם, at that time you claim you saw it happen you were with us? So then the תורה says ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו, that you do to those false witnesses what they wanted to do to the person they testified about. So that פרשה the תורה teaches us that you have to have דרישה וחקירה. Now the דין of עדים זוממין is not only by דיני נפשות, עדים זוממין applies to דיני נפשות and דיני ממונות. It could be concerning a testimony that they gave about having someone killed, it could be concerning a testimony they gave to have someone pay money. So since the תורה tells us by עדים זוממין that you have to have דרישה וחקירה, and עדים זוממין are by דיני נפשות and by דיני ממונות, so automatically we know that also by דיני ממונות you have to have דרישה וחקירה. So why does the גמרא have to learn it out from the פסוק משפט אחד יהיה לכם? So תוספות says that if not for the פסוק משפט אחד יהיה לכם, we would think that תקי by דיני ממונות you have to have דרישה וחקירה, but only by דיני ממונות that are connected to עדים זוממין. But a regular דין of דיני ממונות, we wouldn't know that you have to have דרישה וחקירה. Therefore, the גמרא has to bring the פסוק משפט אחד יהיה לכם. Concerning the גמרא's קושיא where the גמרא asked that now that you said that מדאורייתא you need מומחין, דרבנן were the ones that said that you don't have to have מומחין by הלוואות והודאות שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין, in order not to close the door in front of people who want to borrow money, so the גמרא asked, if so, if they made a mistake, If the דיינים made a mistake, they shouldn't have to pay. And the גמרא answered that if they don't have to pay, כל שכן, certainly you will close the doors in front of the borrowers. So רש״י learned the פשט that the גמרא's קשיא was that since these הדיוטות that will פסקן the דין are doing it ברשות of the רבנן, and the רבנן said they're allowed to judge it, so the רבנן made them like מומחים, so why is the דין that they do have to pay? Since the רבנן gave them the permission, so they should have the same דין as מומחים. And the גמרא's תירץ is that if that'll happen, then there will also be נעילת דלת בפני לווין, people will be afraid to lend money. So תוספות asks a קשיא that לכאורה, from the לשון כל שכן אתה נועל דלת בפני לווין is not משמע like that. Since the קשיא was a general קשיא, why is the דין that they have to pay, and the answer is that if they would have to pay you would close the doors בפני לווין, what does the גמרא mean with כל שכן, certainly you will close the door בפני לווין? The גמרא should have answered that you can't do it because you close the door בפני לווין. From the לשון כל שכן that you close the door בפני לווין is משמע that the whole קשיא was because of this סברא in order not to close the door בפני לווין, so the answer is, if you're going to do that, it'll be even worse. But according to רש״י, the קשיא has nothing to do with the סברא of closing the door בפני לווין, it's a general קשיא that why should the דין be that they should pay, לכאורה if they're doing it with רשות of the רבנן, they shouldn't have to pay. So therefore תוספות learns the פשט is different. The גמרא's קשיא is, now that you told me that מדאורייתא you would need מומחים, the רבנן said you don't need מומחים in order not to close the door בפני לווין, so now that you have this סברא that we don't want a נעילת דלת בפני לווין, then certainly the דין because of that סברא should be that if they made a mistake they shouldn't have to pay, because if the דין is that they do have to pay, then no one will want to accept the דין תורה, people will be afraid. So again, you will close the door בפני לווין, people won't lend money knowing that it'll be hard for him later to get a בית דין together to פסקן the דין, because the בית דין, the people who would be sitting on the בית דין would be afraid to פסקן knowing that they would have to pay. So the whole קשיא is based on the סברא of נעילת דלת בפני לווין. And that's what the גמרא answers, on the contrary, that if we would make them pay, it would be even worse, certainly you would close the door בפני לווין, because no one will want to lend money thinking that maybe later on the דיינים will make a mistake and they won't have to pay, so he'll have a loss. And because of that סברא גופא, the דין is that if they made a mistake, they do have to pay.