Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. This שיעור will be in מסכת סנהדרין דף ג עמוד ב, we will start from the ninth line from the top of the עמוד. The גמרא here is in the middle of the discussion answering the question on the משנה. In the משנה it said דיני ממונות בשלשה, that monetary דינים have to be judged by a בית דין of three people, and then it says גזילות וחבלות בשלשה, that when you judge דינים of גזילה of robbery and דינים of damages, you have to have three people. And the גמרא asked the question that aren't גזילות וחבלות included in the words דיני ממונות? So why did the משנה have to say דיני ממונות בשלשה and then separately גזילות וחבלות בשלשה? And the גמרא explained that the משנה wants to exclude other kinds of דיני ממונות. That the משנה is telling us that only גזילות וחבלות need three, but הודאות והלואות, which is a דין regarding a person who borrowed money and doesn't pay, when it comes to such a question, then it is excluded from the דין of three. And the גמרא wanted to know from what דין do we exclude it? The גמרא said it couldn't be that we exclude it from the דין that it must have three people, and therefore the גמרא said that what it meant was that we exclude it from the דין that it must have three מומחין. Like this the דין is that you must have three מומחין, three people who are expert, but three הדיוטות, three ordinary people, would not be enough to judge this דין. But that is only concerning גזילות וחבלות, there you must have three מומחין. But the דין of הודאות והלואות, there you don't have to have three מומחין, it's enough three הדיוטות. But then the

גמרא asked a קושיא, that this opinion is not understood, because we have a מחלוקת in the גמרא whether עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן or not, whether the דין where we learn out that if a person is a מודה במקצת, if a person admits to part and denies part, is חייב a שבועה, which we learn out from the words כי הוא זה that's written in the פרשה of שומרים, so there's a מחלוקת in גמרא whether it is a mixture of פרשיות, which means that those words כי הוא זה really apply to a regular הלואה, to regular debt where a person denies part and admits to part, it was just put in in the דינים of שומרים, but really it's not concerning שומרים, it's concerning other types of הלואה, or was it written לכתחילה concerning the דין of שומרים? And there is no mixture of פרשיות, because the words כי הוא זה were written concerning שומרים and they are put into the פרשה of שומרים. Now this דין that you must have have three people for a בית דין when it comes to monetary questions, we learn out from the פרשה of שומרים, because there the תורה says the word אלקים, which refers to a judge, to a דיין, three times, so we know you have to have three people. Also, the word אלקים when it's used for a דיין, for a judge, means it has to be a מומחה, because אלקים comes from the word strength, from the word שררה, control, rulership, so it means a person who is a great person. So from that פרשה of שומרים we know that you must have three and these three must be מומחין. And that's the גמרא's question, that if we hold that the words כי הוא זה which are written in the פרשה of שומרים really refers to other kinds of הלואות, so then we should have to have three מומחין also concerning הודאות והלואות, since the דין concerning הודאות והלואות is written together with שומרים, where we have the three times אלקים. On the other hand, if we learn that the words כי הוא זה לכתחילה apply only to שומרים, so then concerning to a regular הלואה we don't even have once the word אלקים, בכלל we don't know that you have to have three people. And that's the גמרא's קושיא: if we learn that כי הוא זה refers to all הלואות, then by a regular הלואה you should also have to have three מומחין, because it's put in the פרשה where the תורה writes three times אלקים, which means you have to have three מומחין. On the other hand, if we're going to say that the פסוק כי הוא זה refers to שומרים, not concerning הלואה, then בכלל we don't have a ראיה that by הלואה you have to have three people at all, so not only wouldn't you need three מומחין, בכלל you wouldn't need three people. So what is the פשט in the opinion of the תנא that by הודאות והלואות you have to have three, but not three מומחין? And the גמרא answered that באמת טאקע you would have to have three מומחין, it's only because of what רב חנינא said that you don't need three מומחין, because he said that it is because כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין, in order not to make it hard for people to borrow money. If we're going to have to have three מומחין every time there's a dispute in דיני ממונות concerning a debt, then it'll be hard to find three מומחין, so people will be afraid to lend money, knowing it'll be hard for them later to get a בית דין together to get their money back. So in

order to make it easier for people to borrow money, the חכמים made a דין that you don't need three מומחין, and that is the פשט in the משנה. דיני ממונות בשלשה, that when it comes to דיני ממונות you need three מומחין. Now which part of דיני ממונות needs three מומחין? So it continues, גזילות וחבלות בשלשה, that גזילות וחבלות need three מומחין, but a regular הלואה does not need three מומחין. רבא said a different פשט. רבא said that what is the פשט in the משנה? That דיני ממונות refers to other kinds of דיני ממונות, like a regular הלואה, הודאות והלואות. And when the משנה says דיני ממונות בשלשה it means three הדיוטות. And then it says גזילות וחבלות בשלשה, it means that גזילות וחבלות need three, but a different type of three, they need three מומחין. And now the גמרא is going to say another פשט in the משנה. רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר, רב אחא the son of רב איקא said, מדאורייתא חד נמי כשר, באמת מדאורייתא one is also כשר. When it comes to judge הודאות or הלואות, one is also כשר. Why? שנאמר, because the תורה says, בצדק תשפוט עמיתך. With judgment, with righteousness you should judge your friend. Now it says תשפוט, לשון יחיד, singular, that means that you, one person, is able to judge this דין. So באמת one is enough. אלא what is the reason why the חכמים said you must have three? משום יושבי קרנות, because of people who sit in the corners, which means ordinary people who are not well versed in the דינים. We're afraid that one of such people is going to be the judge, and that is not allowed. So therefore, the חכמים made you should have to have three. And that's how רב אחא בריה דרב איקא is trying to answer פשט in the משנה. That באמת by הודאות והלואות, מדאורייתא, one is enough. And he learns אין עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן, there is no mixtures of the פרשיות. In other words, when the תורה says כי הוא זה, and it's put in the פרשה of שומרים, it refers to שומרים. And concerning הודאות והלואות, we don't have a פסוק at all that you must have three judges. And therefore, one is enough, as the פסוק says, בצדק תשפוט עמיתך. So therefore, concerning גזילות וחבלות, you טאקע must have three מומחין. Concerning הודאות והלואות, since מדאורייתא one is enough, so when you have to have three מדרבנן, it doesn't have to be three מומחין. Three הדיוטות are enough. And the פשט in the משנה is the same as רבא said, that when it says דיני ממונות בשלשה, it means that דיני ממונות of הודאות והלואות is enough three הדיוטות, גזילות וחבלות, where it says בשלשה, that you need three מומחין. So really he's saying the same פשט in the משנה as רבא, but in one thing he's different than רבא. According to רבא it's just the opposite: מדאורייתא by הודאות והלואות you would also need three מומחין, the רבנן said כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין, three הדיוטות are enough. And according to רב אחא בריה דרב איקא, it's just the opposite: מדאורייתא even one would be enough. It's the רבנן that said that you have to have three, and therefore, three הדיוטות are enough. But then the

גמרא asks, now that you're saying that מדאורייתא one is enough, the reason we have to have three is because if it'll be one, maybe he will be from the יושבי קרנות, a person who is not well versed in the דינים, and therefore we have to have three, what do we gain with that? אתו בתלתא מי לא הוו יושבי קרנות? Even when you have three, can't you have three which are יושבי קרנות? And the גמרא says no, אי אפשר דלית בהו חד דגמיר. If you have three, it's impossible that at least one of the three shouldn't be a person who is well versed in the דינים. But then the גמרא asks, אלא מעתה if so, טעו לא ישלמו. If these three people, who are הדיוטות, made a mistake in the פסק דין, they shouldn't have to pay. We know the דין is that if a מומחה makes a mistake, then he is פטור from paying. Since he is a מומחה, so when he פסק'נד it became a דין, even though later we find out that it was a mistake, he is פטור from paying. On the other hand, if an הדיוט or הדיוטות make a mistake in a פסק דין, and they make a person pay money or lose money שלא כדין, then the דיינים are obligated to pay. The question is why. Since מדאורייתא even one is enough, it's the רבנן who told them that they should have three, so these three, when they פסק'נד the דין, they פסק'ן ברשות of the רבנן. So then, they should have the same דין as a מומחה, that if they made a mistake they shouldn't have to pay. And the גמרא answers, כל שכן דנפישי יושבי קרנות. Certainly, then there will be a lot of יושבי קרנות, that the יושבי קרנות will be the ones to פסק'ן. If we're going to say that when a person makes a mistake in his judgment, he still doesn't have to pay, then people will not be afraid to take upon themselves the responsibility of פסק'נינג the דין, knowing that even if it would be wrong, they won't lose any money. Therefore, the דין is that if they make a mistake they'll have to pay. So a person who is not well versed and is not sure that he knows the דין, will not take take upon himself the responsibility to פסק'ן. Then the גמרא asks,

מאי איכא בין רבא לבין רב אחא בריה דרב איקא? What is the difference in דין between רבא's opinion and the opinion of רב אחא בריה דרב איקא, since according to both we say that you need three הדיוטות concerning דיני ממונות of הודאות והלוואות? According to רבא, מדאורייתא you would need three מומחין. It's the רבנן that said that three הדיוטות are enough. According to רב אחא בריה דרב איקא, מדאורייתא one would be enough. The רבנן said that you have to have three הדיוטות at least. But לפועל, according to both, you have to have three הדיוטות at least by הודאות והלוואות. So what is the difference in הלכה? And the גמרא answers, איכא בינייהו דאמר שמואל. The difference is of what שמואל said. שמואל said that שנים שדנו דיניהם דין, that if two people judged, then the דין is a דין. The פסק דין is a פסק דין, אלא שנקראו בית דין חצוף. The only thing is they're called a בית דין of חוצפה, because they shouldn't have done it, because you have to have three לכתחילה. Therefore, if two sat down to פסק'ן the דין, it's a חוצפה, but nevertheless, בדיעבד when they פסק'נד the דין, the דין is a דין. And that is the מחלוקת between רבא and רב אחא בריה דרב איקא. לרבא, לית ליה דשמואל. According to רבא, we do not hold like שמואל. Since רבא holds that מדאורייתא you must even have three מומחין, it's the רבנן that said that three הדיוטות are enough, but at least three הדיוטות you must have. If you have less than three הדיוטות, then certainly it's no good. According to רב אחא בריה דרב איקא, אית ליה דשמואל, he holds like שמואל. Since according to רב אחא בריה דרב איקא, מדאורייתא you don't need three בכלל, one is enough. It's only the רבנן that came and said that you have to have three. So according to him, if בדיעבד you had two, since מדאורייתא even one would be enough, so at least בדיעבד if you had two, it is a דין. Concerning what we said before, that רב אחא בריה דרב איקא who says that מדאורייתא one is enough, and he learns it out from the פסוק בצדק תשפוט עמיתך, so we said before and this was רש"י's פשט, that רב אחא בריה דרב איקא learned that אין עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן, that the פסוק כי הוא זה is in the right place, which means that the פסוק כי הוא זה refers only to שומרים, and that's where we have three times the word אלהים. But concerning a regular הלוואה, we don't have a פסוק at all, and therefore you don't need three people. So תוספות asks a קשיא. According to that, why does he need the פסוק בצדק תשפוט עמיתך, that from there we learn out that one person is enough because it says תשפוט, לשון יחיד? Even without this פסוק, we would know that you don't need three people. Since we say that the פסוק כי הוא זה does not refer to הלוואה, so it comes out that concerning הלוואה we don't have a פסוק. As long as we don't have a פסוק, there is no reason to say that we have to have three people. One we must have, at least one, otherwise there is no such thing as a judge. But who says we need more than one? If it would be in the פרשה of שומרים, then by the פרשה of שומרים it says three times אלהים. So then we would say that מצד הפסוק we would need three, because it's written in such a פרשה where the word אלהים is written three times. So we would think you have to have three, so therefore you need the פסוק בצדק תשפוט עמיתך to tell us that nevertheless, one is enough. But if he holds that אין עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן, so you don't need any פסוק to tell us that one is enough. And therefore, טאקע תוספות learns that רב אחא בריה דרב איקא doesn't only go according to the מאן דאמר אין עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן, he also goes according to the מאן דאמר עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן. And the פסוק כי הוא זה, which is written in the פרשה where we have three times אלהים, refers to הלוואה. And באמת, מצד that פסוק, הלוואה would need three מומחין. Therefore, we have a פסוק בצדק תשפוט עמיתך that reveals to us that nevertheless, by הלוואה you don't need three, but you need one. Another thing where we have a מחלוקת between רש"י and תוספות, which is a similar מחלוקת to a מחלוקת we had earlier in the beginning of the דף. And this is concerning the גמרא's קשיא, when the

גמרא asked, אלא מעתה, טעו לא ישלמו? That now, why is the דין that if they made a mistake they pay, the דין should be that they shouldn't pay? And the גמרא answered, כל שכן דנפישי יושבי קרנות. Certainly that there will be more chance that the יושבי קרנות will פסק'ן the דין. So as we learned before, רש"י learns the פשט that the גמרא's קשיא is that if they made a mistake they shouldn't pay is since על פי דין you don't even need them all. The רבנן said that you need them all, so when these three will פסק'ן the דין, they're doing it ברשות of the רבנן. So why is the דין that they have to pay if they made a mistake, since they're doing it with permission of the חכמים? And the answer is that still there will be more יושבי קרנות, which means if we will not make them pay, people will feel less responsibility in taking a פסק דין, and therefore we're afraid even more that people who do not know the דין will פסק'ן, since they know that if they made a mistake, they still won't won't have to pay. So תוספות ask a קשיא that לכאורה the גמרא's לשון כל שכן is not understood. כל שכן means certainly, as if the whole question you asked was based on the idea of not having יושבי קרנות. And the answer is that אדרבה, by what you're asking, you'll have even more יושבי קרנות. The way רש״י learns, the קשיא has nothing to do with יושבי קרנות. The קשיא is a general קשיא, that since they're doing it ברשות בית דין, so then why should they have to pay? But the קשיא is not based on the fact that if we won't make them pay, there'll be less chance of getting יושבי קרנות. So if so, what does the גמרא mean with the לשון כל שכן that it will be more יושבי קרנות? And therefore תוספות טאקע לערנט that the פשט is different. The פשט is that the קשיא of the גמרא אלא מעתה טעו לא ישלמו is based in order to avoid having יושבי קרנות. And תוספות explains it means as follows: that the גמרא felt that if we're not going to make him pay, then there is more סברא that we should have good דיינים. If we're going to make him pay, so the good דיינים will be afraid to פסקן, because they'll say, "Why should we get into this? Just in case we make a mistake, we'll be obligated to pay, we'll lose money, so why get into it?" So the good דיינים will stay away. And that's the גמרא's קשיא, that if you're trying to avoid יושבי קרנות, then the דין should be that if you make a mistake you shouldn't pay, so the good דיינים won't be afraid to פסקן. And the גמרא's answer is, "No, just opposite. כל שכן there will be more יושבי קרנות. That if you're going to say that if you make a mistake you don't have to pay, so the יושבי קרנות are going to take the פסקי דינים, are going to take the דין תורה's, and therefore there will be more יושבי קרנות פסקנ'ינג, and that's why it's better that the דין should be that if you make a mistake, you shouldn't have to pay." And now we'll continue with the גמרא. The

גמרא quotes, the משנה said, נזק וחצי נזק וכולו, that when it comes to paying damages, or paying half of the damages, so then the דין is that you have to have a בית דין of three. The גמרא asks, נזק היינו חבלות, isn't נזק the same thing as חבלות? חבלות we said means when a person hurts somebody else, causes damage to another person, so then the דין is that he must pay five different types of payments, one of them he must pay for the damage. So by saying חבלות, we already include damage. So why does the משנה again have to mention נזק? And the גמרא answers, משום דקבעי למיתני חצי נזק, because since he wants to mention half a נזק, תני נמי נזק שלם, so he also mentions נזק שלם. Since he wants to mention half a נזק, and the דין of half a נזק is that if an ox, which is a תם, didn't do it three times yet, gores another ox, for instance, so then, since he is a תם, the owner of the ox only has to pay half of the damage. And that the גמרא felt at this moment is not included in חבלות, so he has to mention the דין of חצי נזק, so since he mentions חצי נזק, he mentions נזק already. But then the גמרא asks, חצי נזק נמי היינו חבלות, even חצי נזק is also included in חבלות. חבלות means any kind of damage, as the גמרא feels, and therefore, if in a case you have to pay חצי נזק for the damage, it's also included in חבלות. So why do we even have to mention חצי נזק? We said that since we have to mention חצי נזק, we already mentioned נזק שלם, but even חצי נזק is extra, that is also included in חבלות. So the גמרא says, "No. תני ממונא ותני קנסא." He wants to divide it into two parts. He first learns דינים of ממון, when you have to pay for a damage, which is considered ממון, money, payment, and he also wants to mention when you have to pay in a case where it is a קנס, it is a fine. Because there is a מאן דאמר in בבא קמא in the first פרק that חצי נזק קנסא, that when there is a דין that you have to pay חצי נזק, it is not that you have to pay actually for the damage that you caused because you are responsible, but it is a fine that the תורה fined the person. In other words, he holds that באמת when a תם causes damage, then you don't have to pay at all מצד הדין, because באמת you didn't have to watch it, because a שור is בחזקת שמור. Every ox, as long as it didn't become a מועד, it didn't happen three times, the חזקה is that it's guarded, and you don't have to actually watch it. And therefore, if it did cause damage, you are not responsible, so really you shouldn't have to pay at all. But the תורה nevertheless fines the person and said, "After all, you still should have watched it, and you didn't," the תורה gives the person a fine and makes him pay חצי נזק. So it comes out that when you pay חצי נזק, you're only paying a fine. When you pay נזק שלם, when the דין is that you have to pay the complete amount of damage, that is ממון, that is money that you actually owe. If you are responsible to watch him and you didn't, so you owe the money. And that is the reason the גמרא says here why he divided it into two parts, because he wants to tell us concerning the דינים of ממון, that when you have to pay money that you owe, you must have a בית דין of three, and he also wants to mention that when you have have to pay קנס, when you have to pay a fine, you also must have a בית דין of three. So therefore, even though he mentioned חבלות, he

nevertheless mentioned חצי נזק again, because חצי נזק is a קנס and he wants to tell us that by קנס you also have to have a בית דין of three. And since he already mentioned חצי נזק which is קנס, he already mentions נזק שלם along with that. But then the גמרא asks: הניחא למאן דאמר, this is only good according to the one that holds that פלגא נזקא קנסא, that when you pay half of the נזק, it is only a fine. אלא למאן דאמר פלגא נזקא ממונא, but according to the one that holds that even when you pay half of a נזק, it's still ממון, it's still payment, מאי איכא למימר? What can we say according to that מאן דאמר? Because there we have a מחלוקת. One opinion טאקע is as we mentioned before, that חצי נזק is קנס, as we said before, because באמת he is not responsible since the שור is just a תם, so באמת he shouldn't have to pay at all, the תורה just fined him at least to pay half. But there's another מאן דאמר that says just the opposite, that all oxen are לאו בחזקת שימור, are not in the חזקה that they are watched. So the person is always responsible to watch them. So even if it does it the first time, he is responsible and therefore באמת he would have to pay the whole amount. The תורה had רחמנות on him and said, since after all it's the first time, so we have pity on you and the תורה deducted half of the נזק. But the half that he does pay is not a קנס, but that is money that he owes. So according to the מאן דאמר that says that when you pay חצי נזק it is also ממון, not קנס, so the question is according to that מאן דאמר, why should the משנה want to tell us separately the דין of חצי נזק? באמת it's included in חבלות, the only reason we gave why the משנה should tell us separately is because the משנה wants to tell us the דין concerning קנס, but if חצי נזק is not קנס, then there is no reason for the משנה to tell us separately חצי נזק, and therefore also not נזק, it's all included in חבלות. So we're back to the question according to that מאן דאמר, why does the משנה have to say נזק וחצי נזק when we already said חבלות? The גמרא answers, אלא therefore he must say, איידי דקבעי למיתני תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה, since the משנה later on wants to mention that when it comes to pay double in case of a גנב, or it comes to pay four or five in a case where the גנב stole an ox or a sheep and he sold it or he שחט it, so then he has to pay four or five. So since the משנה wants to tell us the דין concerning that, and that is a ממון שאינו משתלם בראשו, that is money that is not paid as principal. Here, you pay more than the principal, you pay or double the principal, or four or five times the principal. So the משנה wants to tell us the דין concerning a case where you pay different than just the principal, more than the principal, תני נמי חצי נזק, so he also tells, teaches us the דין of חצי נזק, because the ממון שאינו משתלם בראשו, it is also money that is not paid like the principal. The difference is, there you pay more than the principal, and here you pay less than the principal. But since you're telling us a דין concerning when you have to pay different than the amount of the principal, so he also tells us the דין of חצי נזק which is also different than the amount of the principal. Now since he wants to tell us חצי נזק, ואיידי דקבעי למיתני חצי נזק, since he wants to teach us the דין of חצי נזק, תני נמי נזק, so already he teaches us the דין of נזק also, and therefore he says נזק וחצי נזק בשלשה even though it already said that חבלות is בשלשה. Then the גמרא continues:

שלשה מנלן? How do we know טאקע that you have to have a בית דין of three? The גמרא answers, דתנו רבנן, because the רבנן learned, there's a פסוק that says, ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים, that the בעל הבית should come to אלהים which means to the דיין, to the judge. This is a פסוק concerning the דין of שומרים, that if there is a dispute between the שומר, between the watchman, and the owner, so it says that the בעל הבית, the owner, should come to אלהים, to the דיין. So since it says he should come to the דיין, הרי כאן אחד, so we have one, this is the first פסוק, so it teaches us that you have one דיין. Then the פסוק continues later and says, עד האלהים יבא דבר שניהם, that up to אלהים, up to the דיין, the thing between them should come. That means they should come to בית דין. And here again we have another time the word אלהים, הרי כאן שנים, so now we already have two. Then there's a third פסוק there that says, אשר ירשיעון אלהים, that the דין should be as the אלהים will פסקן, as he will turn him into a רשע, what he will say should be done, that's how they should do it. So here again we have a word אלהים, הרי כאן שלשה, so we have a third. So together we learn out that you have to have three דיינים, since it says three times in this פרשה the word אלהים, דברי רבי יאשיה, this is the opinion of רבי יאשיה.

But רבי יונתן אומר, רבי יונתן says, this is not how we learn out that you have to have three דיינים. Because ראשון תחילה נאמר, the first time it says אלקים is for a beginning, which means that has to tell us that you have to go to the judge, ואין דורשין תחילות, and you can't דרשן from the first time. When can we use a word to teach us an extra דין? If the word is extra. The תורה didn't have to write that word, and the תורה did, so it comes to teach us a דין. So here, too, the תורה didn't have to write the word אלקים, the תורה does write the word אלקים, so that is to teach us a דין of how many people you must have in the בית דין. But the first time it says אלקים is not extra, since the תורה has to say for itself you have to go to אלקים, you have to go to the judge. And not only that you have to go to the judge, but you have to go to a judge which is a מומחה, and the word אלקים teaches us that he has to be an expert. So that word אלקים is not extra. So you cannot דרשן from that word to how much דיינים you must have. So therefore, we cannot use that word. אלא, so what do we say? עד האלקים יבא דבר שניהם, הרי כאן אחד. He starts from the second time it says אלקים, that the second time it didn't have to say the word אלקים, so there we learn out that you have to have one. אשר ירשיעון אלקים, then there's the second time where we have the word אלקים, הרי כאן שנים, so we have two. ואין בית דין שקול, since you're not allowed to have a בית דין which is even, you always have to have an odd number in order to be able to have a majority, so therefore מוסיפין עליהם עוד אחד, so you must add at least one more to the two, הרי כאן שלשה, so automatically we have three. Then the

גמרא asks, נימא, so let us say, בדורשין תחילות קמיפלגי, that the מחלוקת between רבי יאשיה and רבי יונתן is whether we do דרשן the first time it says the word or not, whether we do דרשן that word that the תורה writes when we need it for itself, whether we nevertheless use it for a דרש, in this case it would be for the number of דיינים, or not? דמר סבר דורשין תחילות, רבי יאשיה learns that we do דרשן the first word always, and therefore in this case, too, he דרשנ's the first אלקים also, so that's why he דרשנ's from the three times אלקים. ומר סבר, and רבי יונתן, the second opinion, holds אין דורשין תחילות, that we don't דרשן the first time the תורה says, and therefore, he דרשנ's it a different way, from the second and third time he learns out that we have to have two, and then, since it can't be even, so we know we have to have three. That is the מחלוקת. The גמרא says לא, דכולי עלמא באמת we could say they all hold אין דורשין תחילות, that we don't ever דרשן the first time the תורה says a word because we need it for itself. But אמר לך רבי יאשיה, רבי יאשיה will tell you why in this case he does דרשן the first אלקים, too, because אם כן, if the תורה would just tell us the word אלקים for itself, not to דרשן, so then נימא קרא, let the פסוק say, ונקרב בעל הבית אל השופט, the בעל הבית should get close to the judge. מאי אל האלקים? Why does the פסוק have to say אל האלקים? So here we see that the תורה doesn't do it only for itself, the תורה puts it in such a way to tell us that in addition for the עצם word, there is a לימוד that the תורה wants to learn out from it. That's why the תורה changes the word, and says not אל השופט, but אל האלקים. שמע מינה, that comes to teach us, למניינא, that it's for the number, that this should also be used as a part of a לימוד for the amount of how many דיינים we must have. And therefore, he learns that we דרשן from this אלקים also, and that's how we know we have to have three. Then the גמרא asks, ורבי יונתן, isn't it a קשיא on רבי יונתן? Why doesn't רבי יונתן use the first אלקים, too? And the reason he gave was because it's a תחילה, but in this case it's different, since the תורה could have said he should go to the שופט, and the תורה says he should go to אלקים. So by the תורה changing the word, לכאורה that shows us that we should use this word אלקים for a דרש. So he says no, לישנא דעלמא נקט, the תורה picks, uses the regular, normal, common לשון that people would use. כי דאמרי אינשי, like people say, מאן דאית ליה דינא, if someone has a דין תורה, a dispute, ליקרב לגבי דיינא, let him go to the דיין. And when we say let him go to the דיין, that means to a דיין מומחה, to a דיין that is an expert, not to an ordinary person. So just like when people talk, they would use the term go to the דיין, so too when the פסוק speaks about it, the פסוק also says ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלקים and doesn't use the term אל השופט. So it's not the פשט that the תורה changes the expression, that instead of using אל השופט the תורה uses the word אל האלקים, this is the common word the תורה would use, like people would use, that when you go, you should go to the expert judge, so the תורה uses the word אל האלקים. And therefore, we cannot... That the דיין must be a מומחה, and therefore is not an extra word, תוספות says, what is then the תירוץ of רבי יאשיה? Because the גמרא said that רבי יאשיה admits that we cannot דרשן the first word. The only thing he says, why here he does דרשן the first time, because the תורה could have written אל השופט, and the תורה writes אל האלקים, so that is extra, and therefore we could דרשן even the first time. But the way רש״י says, that the first time is needed to teach us that it has to be a מומחה, so then the תורה couldn't have written אל השופט. אל השופט means a judge. Where do we see in the word שופט that he has to be a מומחה? Only since it says אלקים, that tells us that he has to be a מומחה, an expert. So how could he say that if it would just come for the דין itself, it could have said אל השופט? If it would have said אל השופט, we wouldn't know the דין itself, we wouldn't know that you have to have a מומחה. So according to רש״י who says that when it says here that ראשון תחלה נאמר, that the first time אלקים comes for itself is for the דין that it has to be a מומחה, then רבי יאשיה's answer לכאורה is not understood. And therefore תוספות טאקע learned that when the גמרא said that ראשון תחלה נאמר and אין דורשין תחלות, it doesn't mean that the first time it has to say in order to teach us that you have to have a מומחה. Even not for the דין of מומחה, the first time we cannot use the פסוק for a דרש, since it has to come to tell us that you have to come to a judge. And not because of דין of מומחה, for the עצם דין of a judge. And therefore רבי יאשיה said that if it would just come to tell us that you have to go to a judge, it could have said אל השופט. Why does it say אל אלקים? So therefore, we must say it comes to teach us that we should use this word to tell us the amount of people you must have in the בית דין. Then the גמרא continues, but רבי יאשיה, לית ליה בית דין נוטה? And רבי יאשיה, doesn't he hold of the דין that you must have a בית דין נוטה, which means a בית דין where you're able to have a majority, that under all circumstances you'll be able to have a majority, there will never be an even number? And the word נוטה means turning. It comes from the expression of the פסוק אחרי רבים להטת, that you should turn after the majority. So that's the גמרא שאלה. It comes out here that רבי יאשיה does not accept the סברא, since רבי יאשיה learns it out from the three times אלקים. And he doesn't use the same idea as רבי יונתן. רבי יונתן says, how do we know you have to have three? Because we have two פסוקים for two, and since אין בית דין שקול, we cannot have a בית דין which is even, therefore we must have a third. Now רבי יאשיה, that doesn't learn it out the way רבי יונתן does, he learns it out from the three times אלקים, so it seems as if he doesn't hold of this סברא that you cannot have a בית דין שקול, that you must have a בית דין נוטה, a בית דין that will always be a majority, not an even number. So how can we say he doesn't hold of this סברא? והתניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא, רבי אלעזר בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר, רבי אלעזר the son of רבי יוסי הגלילי says, מה תלמוד לומר לנטות אחרי רבים להטת? What does the תורה mean when it says לנטות, you should turn, אחרי רבים להטת? Really this is in the middle of the פסוק. It says, ולא תענה על רב לנטת אחרי רבים להטת. So here we דרשן from the words לנטות, to turn, אחרי רבים להטת, you should turn after the majority, you should follow the majority, that comes to teach us, התורה אמרה, the תורה said, עשה לך בית דין נוטה, you should make a בית דין that is able to turn to the majority, there should never be an even number, that whenever there is an argument, there will always be a majority to one side. So this teaches us the דין that you're not allowed to have an even בית דין. So we see that this is an accepted דין. So how come רבי יאשיה does not hold of this דין, as we see that the way he knows that you have to have three is from the three times אלקים, not from the סברא that אין בית דין נוטה? The

גמרא answers, סבר לה כרבי יהודה, that רבי יאשיה holds like רבי יהודה. דאמר, that רבי יהודה says, שבעים, that a סנהדרי גדולה is made up of 70, not 71. דתנן, because we learn in our משנה, סנהדרי גדולה היתה של שבעים ואחד, the סנהדרי גדולה was made up of 71, רבי יהודה אומר שבעים, רבי יהודה says 70. So we see that רבי יהודה doesn't mind that it's an even בית דין. So the same סברא רבי יאשיה also holds. He also doesn't mind when you have an even בית דין, and therefore the only way he knows that you must have three is from the three פסוקים. Then the גמרא asks, if you say he holds like רבי יהודה, אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהודה, when did you hear that רבי יהודה says that we're able to have an even בית דין? בסנהדרי גדולה, only by the big סנהדרין. דכתיב קראי, because there the פסוק says, אספה לי שבעים זקנים, gather 70 זקנים, and he does not include משה רבינו himself as part of the בית דין, so the תורה says clearly that 70 is the בית דין. That's why he says that we don't mind that it's an even number, because the תורה says clearly you have to have 70. But בשאר בי דיני מי שמעת ליה, but concerning other בתי דינים, not of 70, did you hear that רבי יהודה holds that it doesn't matter if it's an even בית דין? וכי תימא, and if you're going to say, לא שנא, there is no difference, that you don't see a difference. Since he holds in one case that it doesn't matter if it's even, so probably the same דין applies to all cases. ותנן, but didn't we learn in a משנה that סמיכת זקנים, when the זקנים have to make סמיכה, put their hands on certain קרבנות, or עריפת עגלה, when they have to chop off the head of the calf, in the case when they found a dead person and they don't know who killed him. So there the משנה says בשלשה, you have to have three people, דברי רבי שמעון, that's the opinion of רבי שמעון. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, בחמשה, that you have to have five. ואמרינן, and we said, מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה, what is the reason of רבי יהודה? Why does רבי יהודה hold that you have to have five? Because he learns it out from the פסוק, it says, וסמכו זקני העדה את ידיהם על ראש הפר לפני ה', that the זקני העדה, the elders of the community, should put their hands on top of the קרבן. So he דרש'נס, וסמכו, שנים, from the word וסמכו, plural, they should put their hands on, so that means two at least. זקני, the elders, plural, שנים, it's another two. So already we have four. ואין בית דין שקול, since you can't have an even בית דין, מוסיפין עליהן עוד אחד, so you have to add one more, הרי כאן ה', so here you have five. And this is the opinion of רבי יהודה. So we see the same רבי יהודה that concerning the סנהדרי גדולה says that 70 is the סנהדרין, even though it's even, he himself says in another place concerning the case of the סמיכת זקנים, that you cannot have an even בית דין. So before, we said that רבי יאשיה holds like רבי יהודה, and therefore he doesn't mind if it's an even בית דין. But then we asked, maybe רבי יהודה only holds that concerning סנהדרי גדולה, but not concerning other בית דינס? But then the גמרא said, what should be the difference? Okay, here we see there is a difference, that the same רבי יהודה that holds that the סנהדרי גדולה is 70, an even number, holds that in another case, you cannot have an even בית דין. So the גמרא answers that רבי יאשיה תקיף מניה דרבי יהודה. רבי יאשיה תקיף is even better, holds even further than רבי יהודה. דאילו לרבי יהודה, according to רבי יהודה, בסנהדרי גדולה הוא דלית ליה, that only by the סנהדרי גדולה he doesn't hold of this דין that you are not allowed to have an even בית דין. הא בשאר בי דינא אית ליה, but concerning other בית דינס, he also holds that you're not allowed to have an even number. לרבי יאשיה בשאר בי דינא נמי לית ליה, but רבי יאשיה, even by other בית דינס, also doesn't hold of this דין that you must have an even בית דין. And then the גמרא asks, ואלא אי הכי, if so, האי לנטות מאי

עביד ליה? What does he do with the words לנטות? Didn't we bring a דרש before from the words לנטות אחרי רבים להטות, that לנטות tells us that we have לכתחילה turn the בית דין, make the בית דין in such a way that they should always have a majority? What does he do with that פסוק? He that doesn't hold of this דין, what does he do with the דרש from that פסוק? And the גמרא answers, מוקים לה בדיני נפשות. That he establishes it by דיני נפשות. When it's a question of of capital punishment, that's when he says you must have a בית דין that is not even. But concerning דיני ממונות, there he holds that it doesn't matter if it's a בית דין that's even. But then the גמרא asks, אבל בדיני ממונות לא? But concerning דיני ממונות, you say he doesn't hold of this דין that you're not allowed to have a בית דין שקול? אלא הא דתנן, but this that we learn in a משנה, שנים אומרים זכאי, two people say that he is innocent, ואחד אומר חייב, and one says that he is guilty, the דין is זכאי. Since the majority says that he is innocent, the דין is he is innocent. שנים אומרים חייב ואחד אומר זכאי, two say he is guilty and one says he is innocent, חייב, he is guilty. Again, for the same reason, because the majority says guilty, so he is guilty. נימא דלא כרבי יאשיה? So let us say that it doesn't go according to רבי יאשיה? Since רבי יאשיה doesn't hold of this סברא that you're not allowed to have an even בית דין in order there should always be a majority, and the reason he says you must have three people in a בית דין is because the תורה says the word אלקים three times. So it comes out according to him, that he learns it out from the three times אלקים, it would seem that not only must the בית דין be made of three, but the פסק דין must be given unanimously by these three. If you learn it out from the fact that you cannot have a בית דין שקול, then we see that we follow the majority. So if two out of the three say to one side, we follow what these two say, since they are the majority. But according to רבי יאשיה, who doesn't look upon this idea of majority, he says you must have three because the תורה tells us three times אלקים, so it

would seem that according to him, all three must be of the same opinion. That when is the דין a דין, only if three people פסק'נד that דין that way. So it would come out that when a משנה says that if two people say innocent and one says guilty, the דין is innocent, or two say guilty and one says innocent, the דין... is guilty because we follow the majority, this would not fit according to רבי יאשיה. Because according to רבי יאשיה, you must have three people saying the same דין in order to פסקן the דין that way. The גמרא says, no, אפילו תימא רבי יאשיה, באמת you could say it goes according to רבי יאשיה too. But מייתי ליה בקל וחומר מדיני נפשות. He learns it out with a קל וחומר from דיני נפשות. ומה דיני נפשות דחמירא, that if we see by דיני נפשות, things that are connected to death, which is much stricter, nevertheless, אמר רחמנא, the תורה says, זיל בתר רובא, you follow the majority, דיני ממונות לא כל שכן? Certainly by דיני ממונות this would be true. And therefore, even though we know that you have to have a בית דין of three from the three times אלקים, still, if the majority of the three say one way, we follow them because we learn it out from a קל וחומר from דיני נפשות. When we just said in the גמרא that according to רבי יאשיה, this פסוק where it says לנטות אחרי רבים להטות, and from here we learn out that a בית דין should not be even, he said this applies only to דיני נפשות. But by דיני ממונות, the דין is that you are allowed to have an even בית דין, and the way he knows that you have to have three is from a different reason because we have three times the word אלקים. לכאורה, why should we say that this פסוק, לנטות אחרי רבים להטות, is speaking by דיני נפשות? Where does the תורה mention דיני נפשות in that פסוק that we're able to say that only by דיני נפשות this דין applies, not by דיני ממונות? So

תוספות explains that from the פסוק itself, we see that we're talking about דיני נפשות. Because the פסוק starts off with the words לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות, do not follow the majority for bad, and then it says ולא תענה על ריב לנטות אחרי רבים להטות. Now, the תורה is speaking about following the majority by bad. Now, what is the ענין of bad? The only thing that is completely bad, there is no good involved, is דיני נפשות. When you kill a person, then it's only bad because he is being killed, but there is nothing good there. Concerning דיני ממונות, even if we say a person is guilty, we can't consider it bad, because for him it's bad, but for the other person it's good. If he is guilty, the other person will gain. So it's bad for one, and good for the other. The only thing that is bad and not good at all is דיני נפשות. So therefore, we say that this פסוק is speaking about דיני נפשות. So the דרש that we learn out from this פסוק, that you're not allowed to have an even בית דין, is only concerning דיני נפשות. But תוספות asks that we see in the גמרא later on that the גמרא considers killing a רוצח, that it is called a זכות and is good for the גואל הדם, for the relative of the one that was killed, that if a murderer is killed by בית דין, this is a זכות, this is for the benefit of the גואל הדם. But nevertheless, תוספות says it is not really for the benefit of the גואל הדם because the גואל הדם doesn't gain anything by the other person being killed. So therefore, it is only bad. And even by the case of עדים זוממים, a case where two witnesses come and say that this and this person killed somebody, and then other two witnesses come and say that how can you testify you saw him kill somebody when you were with us at that time when you claim you saw him, so then the דין is that we kill the עדים זוממים, ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו, we do to them what they wanted to do to that person. So here לכאורה it is a זכות, because by the fact that we find these עדים as זוממים, the other one that they testified about is saved. So here we see that דיני נפשות is bad to one, but good to the other. So תוספות says that it's still not considered bad to one and good to the other, because this good that will come out could have come out in a way that they shouldn't be killed. If it wouldn't be הזמה, if it would be הכחשה, so then the דין would be that the person they testified on would have been saved, and they wouldn't have been killed. Because this דין that you do to the עדות, to the false עדות, what they wanted to do to the person is only in the case of הזמה, if they said, the second group of עדות said, that עמנו הייתם, that you, you witnesses that claim you saw it, you were with us at the time you claim you saw it. But if they would have proven them wrong any other way, other than saying עמנו הייתם, then that is called הכחשה, so then their testimony of the first group of עדות wouldn't have been accepted, but nevertheless, we wouldn't do anything to them. So since the person could have been saved without having this group of עדות killed, the first group of עדות killed, so still, it is called only bad, not good. So the only thing that is completely bad is דיני נפשות, and therefore, since the פסוק says לרעות, we understand that this פסוק is speaking by דיני נפשות. Also

תוספות says from this פסוק לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעות, in the משנה we learned out that when it comes לרעות, to bad, we don't follow the majority of one, we only follow the majority of two. Now, what does that mean? Only by דיני נפשות, because that is the only thing that is really bad. as we said before. So again, we see that this פסוק is speaking by דיני נפשות. So therefore, the דרשה that we learn out from the words further in the פסוק of לנטות, אחרי רבים להטות, that you're not allowed to have an even בית דין, that רבי יאשיה holds, that only by דיני נפשות, not by דיני ממונות. Then the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned: דיני ממונות בשלשה. When you judge דיני ממונות, you have to have a בית דין of three. רבי אומר בחמישה. רבי says that you have to have a בית דין of five, and the reason is כדי שיגמור הדין בשלשה. In order that when you have the גמר דין, when you come to the verdict, you have the finishing of the דין, you should have three people. Just in case there is a difference of opinion, so you will have a majority of three, so at least when you come to the פסק, you will follow the opinion of three people. But then the גמרא asks, אטו בתלתא מי לא נגמר דינא בתרי? Why should we have to have the גמר דין of three? If you start off with three, won't you have a גמר דין of two even if not all three will agree to the same opinion, but you will have a majority of two? So why isn't that enough?

Why must you have five in order to have a majority of three when it comes to the גמר דין? Let's start with three and have a majority of two when it comes to the גמר דין. So the גמרא says, הכי קאמר, this is what he means to say: מפני שגמר דין בשלשה. He holds that when it comes to the גמר דין, to the verdict, you must have an opinion of three people for the verdict. And therefore, if you're going to start with three, you might be left with two for the verdict. That's why he says you start with five, so if there is a difference of opinion, at least you will have three for the verdict. אלמא, so we see, קסבר he holds that תלתא כי כתיבי בגמר דין כתיבי. That when the תורה says you must have three, the תורה means that the גמר דין must be with three, not that the בית דין must start off with three people, but the verdict must come through an unanimous opinion of three people. That's what comes out רבי holds. מגדף בה רב אבהו. So רב אבהו cursed it, which means that רב אבהו laughed at it and he didn't hold of this פשט. Because he said, אלא מעתה, if so, if the תורה tells us three, we learn that it means that the גמר דין should be with three, so תהא סנהדרי גדולה צריכה מאה וארבעים ואחד? That a סנהדרי גדולה should have have to have a 141? Since according to him, when the תורה says three, it means that the גמר דין should be with three, so when the תורה says that a סנהדרי גדולה has to have 71, it means that the גמר דין should be with 71, that if there is a difference of opinion, there should be at least a גמר דין of 71. In order to have a גמר דין of 71 when they're divided in half, you must have at least 141, so then you would at least have a majority of 71. So why is the דין that 71 is enough? You should have to have 141 כדי שיגמור הדין בשבעים ואחד, in order to have the גמר דין with 71. And also, ותהא סנהדרי קטנה צריכה ארבעים וחמשה? That a סנהדרי קטנה, which needs 23, that should really have to have 45 just in case they will split in half, so you'll have a majority of at least 23 only if you have 45 לכתחילה, כדי שיגמור הדין בשלשה ועשרים, in order to have a גמר דין with 23. אלא, but why don't we have to have 141 by סנהדרי גדולה? Because אספה לי שבעים איש אמר רחמנא. The תורה says, "Gather me 70 people." משעת אסיפה שבעים. That when you gather them there should be 70. In other words, when you start off the בית דין you have to have 70, not the גמר דין must be with 70. And also concerning a סנהדרי קטנה, the תורה says ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה. We said before that how do we know that you have to have 23 by סנהדרי קטנה is from this פסוק, ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה, you have to have an עדה which is 10 to judge and an עדה which is 10 to save. And then we know that you have to have three more. Also נמי משעת שפיטה עדה. It also means that from the time when you start judging the עדה, that's when you have to have 23, not that the גמר דין, the verdict must be by unanimous opinion of 23. So הכא נמי, so here too, when we know that you have to have three for דיני ממונות, we know from the פסוק ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלקים, the בעל הבית should get close to אלקים, to the judge, it also means משעת קריבה שלשה, that from when you get close, from when you come to בית דין you have to have three, not that the גמר דין must be with three. But if so, what is the reason for the opinion of רבי that says that you have to have five? אלא היינו טעמא דרבי, this is the reason of רבי, because the פסוק says, אשר ירשיעון אלהים, that אלקים will פסקן, and it says ירשיעון לשון רבים, plural, that means תרי, that you have to have two judges already, and ונאמר אלהים למטה ונאמר אלהים למעלה, it says אלקים למטה or later on, which is the פסוק ירשיעון אלקים. But earlier than that, the first פסוק, it says also אלקים, this is the פסוק of עד האלקים יבא דבר שניהם. So טאקע in that פסוק עד האלקים, we have no ראיה that we mean two, but we compare both אלקים. That מה למטה, just like the אלקים that's mentioned in the פסוק אשר ירשיעון is שנים, is two, because it says ירשיעון, plural, אף למעלה, also the אלקים that's mentioned in the פסוק עד האלקים יבא דבר שניהם is also שנים, is also two. So we have here four already. ואין בית דין שקול, since you're not allowed to have a בית דין that's even, מוסיפין עליהם עוד אחד, so we add one more, הרי כאן חמשה, so we have five. And as we see, the first פסוק אלקים, ונקרא בעל הבית אל האלקים, he doesn't דרשן at all. As we said before, אין דורשין תחילות. So he holds like רבי יונתן. So we have the other two אלקים. Now in one of the two אלקים, it's clear that it must be two, because it says ירשיעון. The other one, the third one, where it's not clear, but we compare it to the one before that, so we know it also means two. So we have the two times אלקים and each time it means two, so we have four, and since you can't have an even בית דין, so you have to have five. This is the reason why רבי holds you have to have five. But then the question is ורבנן, the רבנן who hold that you don't have to have five, why don't they use this לימוד, that here it is two and here it is two, so automatically it means four, and then plus one is five? So the גמרא answers, because ירשיען כתיב, that the way it's written in the תורה is not ירשיעון, but ירשיען. ירשיעון is plural. ירשיען is singular. So even though we read it ירשיעון, but it's written ירשיען. So they hold יש אם למסורת, that how do we דרשן? We דרשן not the way we read it, we דרשן the words the way it's written. רבי holds that we דרשן the words the way it's read, and since we read it ירשיעון, which is plural, that shows that it means two. So here it's two and there it's two, plus one is five. But the רבנן, they hold יש אם למסורת, the main way we דרשן is the way it was told to be written, and since it's singular the way it's written, so אלקים means one, the other אלקים also means one, so together it's two, plus one more, it is three. That's why they hold that you have three, not five. When the גמרא said רב אבהו asked that according to the סברא that since the תורה says three, we mean three בגמר דין, so he asked if so, so סנהדרי גדולה should have to have 141 in order to have a גמר דין of 71, and סנהדרי קטנה should have to have 45 in order to have a גמר דין of 23. So תוספות says that באמת he didn't mean 23, because concerning סנהדרי גדולה, the טאקע the תורה says 71. So if we say that whatever the תורה says means the גמר דין, so you must have 141. But concerning סנהדרי קטנה, the תורה only mentions 20, as we learn in the משנה, we learn out from ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה that you have to have 20. The other three are learned out with different סברות, but written in the תורה is only 20, and the קשיא is that if what the תורה says is the amount we need for the גמר דין, so really it would mean that for the גמר דין we need only 20, and in order to have 20 for the גמר דין, it would be enough to have 39 to start with. So really what he should have said was that by the סנהדרי קטנה we should have 39. Concerning the opinion of רבי יהודה, that by סנהדרי גדולה 70 is enough and you don't need 71, תוספות asks the קשיא that רבי יהודה himself says in מסכת סוכה דף נ״א עמוד ב׳, by אלכסנדריא של מצרים, this is a city, there it said they had 71 like chairs of gold כנגד the 71 זקנים of the סנהדרין. So we see that even according to רבי יהודה there was 71 זקנים in the סנהדרין. How come here we say that רבי יהודה holds that only 70 זקנים were in the סנהדרין? And תוספות answers that what he meant was not that there were 71 זקנים in the סנהדרין. Only 70 were part of the סנהדרין. משה, who was on top of them, was not considered part of them, but nevertheless he was on top of them, so he could be considered the 71st. Even though he was not a member of the סנהדרין, but still he could be considered a 71st. And therefore in אלכסנדריא של מצרים, when they had the 71 chairs of gold כנגד the 71 זקנים, it means כנגד the 70 plus the one that was on top of them. Because not only in the time of משה it was like that. In every generation, by every סנהדרי גדולה, there was always the מופלא שבבית דין, the one on top of them, who was not a member of the סנהדרין, he was not מן החשבון. And therefore the גמרא there says that רבי יהודה said that there were 71 chairs כנגד the 71 people of the סנהדרין, but not that all 71 were members of the סנהדרין. Only 70 were members, and one was על גבן, was on top of them. But the מהרש״א asks a קשיא on תוספות That the גמרא says that when do we say that משה was על גבן, that's only according to the רבנן who hold that you have to have 71. But according to רבי יהודה who holds that you only have to have 70, then משה was there משום שכינה. Now if you say משה was there משום שכינה, has nothing to do with the סנהדרין. He is טאקע on top of the סנהדרין, but he cannot be considered as connected to the סנהדרין. Certainly, in later generations, the one that is on top of them is not like משה because there was no ענין of משום שכינה, so how can תוספות say that according to רבי יהודה, we also considered משה על גבן, and therefore, there was 71 chairs?