Jewish Audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת סנהדרין דף ח. We will start two lines from the bottom of דף ז, עמוד ב. And the גמרא tells a story: אושפיזיכניה דרב, a host of רב, אתא לקמיה לדינא, came to רב for a דין תורה. אמר ליה, and he said to him, that host said to רב, "לאו אושפיזיכנא את? Aren't you one of my former guests?" אמר ליה, "אין." So רב said to him, "Yes." אמר ליה, and he said to him, "דינא אית לי, I have a דין תורה and I want you to פסקן my דין תורה." אמר ליה, so he said to him, "פסילנא לך לדינא. I disqualify myself to be a judge on this דין תורה, since you started off by telling me that you are my host, automatically that shows some favor in my eyes to you, therefore, I am already disqualified to פסקן the דין תורה." Or as the מהרש"ל has the גירסא here, that he asked him, that רב, it seems, asked the host, "Aren't you my host?" and he said, "Yes," and then אמר ליה, he said to him, "מאי בעית? What do you want?" רב asked him, "What do you want? Why did you come?" אמר ליה, so he said to him, "דינא אית לי, I have a דין תורה and I want you to פסקן my דין תורה," and that's when he said, "I disqualify myself to be a דיין because of the favor that I might show you being that you were my host." And

תוספות explains that it doesn't mean that על פי דין, really he wasn't allowed to פסקן that דין תורה. By just saying that he was his host, or knowing that he was his host, that is not enough to make him פסול to be the דיין for this דין תורה, but he just wanted to be מהדר that even if it was a far-far סברא that he might be in favor of him because he was his host, already he didn't want to פסקן the דין תורה. And so too תוספות says is the case in the גמרא in כתובות where a person brought a דיין a תנא דבי פתורא, so he also disqualified himself for פסקנ'ינג the דין תורה. It's not that על פי דין he wasn't allowed, but it was only a הידור. And אמר ליה רב לרב כהנא, so רב said to רב כהנא, "פוק דייניה, you go out and you be the judge." He gave over this דין תורה to רב כהנא, his תלמיד. חזייה דהוה קא גאיס ביה, so רב כהנא saw on him that he was גאיס. He felt great, high, because he had acquaintance with רב. He relied on the fact that he was once the host of רב, that he is going to win the דין תורה. אמר ליה, so רב כהנא said to him, "אי ציית ציית, if you will listen to what I פסקן, then okay, listen. ואי לא, if not, if you think you're going to rely on רב, אפקינא לך רב מאונך, I'm going to get the רב out of your ears, which means I'm telling you that רב will not be able to help you. I will do something that רב won't be able to do anything for you." And as רש"י says, what he meant was, "I will put you in חרם, and if I put you in חרם, then no one will have anything to do with you, so רב won't be able to have anything to do with you. That'll show you that you cannot rely on רב." And תוספות asks a קושיא, לכאורה, we have a דין that מנודה לתלמיד אינו מנודה לרב, that if a person is in חרם from a תלמיד, it doesn't automatically mean that he is in חרם from the רבי, too. So here too, if רב כהנא would have put him in חרם, why would he automatically be in חרם from רב, also? So תוספות says that that דין, that if you're מנודה to a תלמיד, you're not automatically מנודה to the רב, that's only if he was put in חרם לכבוד עצמו, the תלמיד put him in חרם for his own כבוד. But if he put him in חרם לשם שמים, then he is in חרם even for the רב, too. And here, if he would have done it, it would have been לשם שמים, so he would have been in חרם for רב, too. And that's what he said, "If you listen to the דין תורה, it's good; if not, I will put you in חרם and you will not have anything to do with רב." Then the גמרא continues to דרשן the פסוקים that we started דרשנ'ינג in the previous דף, and these are all פסוקים from the beginning of חומש דברים. So there it says,

"כקטן כגדול תשמעון, that you should listen to a big and to small." In other words, a big דין תורה and a small דין תורה should both be equal to you. אמר ריש לקיש, so ריש לקיש said, what does that mean? "שיהא חביב עליך דין של פרוטה כדין של מאה מנה, there shall be beloved to you a דין תורה concerning one פרוטה, one penny, as a דין תורה of a hundred מנה." The גמרא asks, "למאי הלכתא? Concerning which דין did he say that? אילימא, if he meant to say it, לעיוני ביה, that you should look into it, ומפסקיה, to פסקן it, that you have to פסקן the דין of one פרוטה with the same truth and with the same correctness as you would פסקן a דין of a hundred מנה, פשיטא, that's simple, certainly you have to!" אלא, what does he mean? "לאקדומי, to make that first." In other words, since the order, the way you take the דין תורה's is whichever comes first, that's the one you judge first, so if first came a דין תורה concerning a פרוטה, and then came a דין תורה concerning a hundred מנה, you might think, since the hundred מנה is more important than the פרוטה, so you'll tell the one one with the פרוטה to wait, and you'll first take the דין תורה concerning the מאה מנה. But we say no, if the דין of פרוטה came first, so you have to judge that first. Then the פסוק says:

לא תגורו מפני איש, to not be afraid of any person. So here we have a גירסא that אמר רב חנן: לא תכניס דבריך מפני איש. What it means is, you should not hold back your words because of anybody. And as we said before, it means that if a תלמיד is sitting in front of his רבי, and he sees a דין תורה come to his רבי, but there is a סברא the תלמיד has in his mind that he sees his רבי doesn't have, so the תורה says, do not hold your words back, you have to tell your רבי the סברא that you have. And then the פסוק says: כי המשפט לאלקים הוא, that the judgment is to השם. אמר רב חמא ברב חנינא, that רב חמא ברב חנינא said: אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא, השם said, לא דיין לרשעים שנוטלין מזה ממון ונותנין לזה שלא כדין, it's not enough for the רשעים, that they take money from one person and they give it away to the other against the דין, אלא, but more than that, שמטריחין אותי להחזיר ממון לבעליו, that they also make me go through the trouble of seeing that the money should go back to its original owner. Since they take away money from the rightful owner, and they give it away to a person it doesn't belong to, so then השם has to go through, so to speak, כביכול, the trouble of seeing that the money will go back to its rightful owner. So not only are they doing something wrong between the people, but they're also doing something wrong against השם, because they cause השם to go through, כביכול, this extra trouble of seeing that the money is restored to its rightful owner. Then the פסוק says:

והדבר אשר יקשה מכם, משה רבינו said to the יידן, that anything which will be hard for the judges to פסקן, then they should come to him. The smaller things that they're able to פסקן, they should פסקן themselves, but whatever will be hard for them, they should bring to משה. אמר רב חנינא, רב חנינא said, ואי תימא רב יאשיה, others say it was רב יאשיה that said that, על דבר זה נענש משה. For this, because משה said that anything is hard you bring to me, so for that he was punished. Because he took for himself the strong authority of saying that the highest authority is himself, and anything that no one else could פסקן, he will פסקן, because of that he was punished. What was his punishment? שנאמר, because it says: ויקרב משה את משפטן לפני ה', that משה brought their case in front of השם. This is the case of the daughters of צלפחד. The daughters of צלפחד came to ask for a חלק in ארץ ישראל. Their father, צלפחד, died in the desert and had no sons, so they claimed that they want his חלק in ארץ ישראל. And משה רבינו said to them: I don't know what the דין is, and he brought their case in front of השם. So we see that there was a time when משה was asked a question, and he didn't know what to answer. Why didn't he know? Everything else he knew, why didn't he know this? This was a punishment, because he took the greatness for himself to say that whatever no one knows, they should ask him and he will פסקן. Because of that he was punished that at one point he טאקע didn't know what to פסקן.

מתקיף לה רב נחמן בר יצחק, so רב נחמן בר יצחק asked a קשיא: מי כתיב ואשמיעכם? Why should he be punished? Did he say, does the תורה say ואשמיעכם, and I will give, let you hear? Did he say that anything that will be hard for you, come to me and I will answer you the question? ושמעתיו כתיב. Come to me and ask me and I will hear it. That's all he said. He didn't say I will definitely know the answer, I will hear it. אי גמירנא גמירנא, if I will know the answer, I will know, I will answer you, ואי לא, and if I will not know the answer, אזלינא I will go, וגמירנא and I will learn. So why should he be punished for it? If he would have said that anything you no one else knows, I will know, I will answer you, then it shows that he took greatness for himself as if he says he knows everything. But since all he said was, whatever no one knows, you come to me and I will hear, maybe I will know, but if not I will go and learn, why should he be punished for that? אלא כדתניא, therefore you must say that the reason he did not know the דין of the בנות צלפחד was not as a punishment, because he didn't do anything wrong, it was for a different reason, as we learned in a ברייתא. It says in the ברייתא: ראויה היתה פרשת נחלות שתכתב על ידי משה רבינו, really it was fit that even the פרשה of נחלות, which was the answer השם gave to the daughters of צלפחד, to the whole פרשה of order of inheritance, so באמת that פרשה was also fit to be written through משה רבינו, אלא שזכו בנות צלפחד ונכתבה על ידן, but the daughters of צלפחד were זוכה, they had a special merit, and it was written through them. השם gave them the special זכות that they should be the cause for this extra פרשה in the תורה. And the same is just opposite. ראויה היתה פרשה של מקושש שתכתב על ידי משה רבינו. There's a story in the תורה that there was this person

who gathered or chopped wood on שבת, and they saw him, they locked him up in jail because they didn't know what to do with him. They knew that he was supposed to get killed because the תורה says that anybody who is מחלל שבת gets killed, but they didn't know which kind of מיתה to give to give him, because there are four kinds of מיתות בית דין, and they didn't know which one of the four types of death penalty he deserved. So they locked him up, and משה asked השם what to do with him, and השם said that they should stone him. So באמת, this פרשה, the דין that if a person is מחלל שבת, his מיתה is through סקילה, through stoning, was also fit to be written through משה רבינו. It didn't have to come in such a way that the מקושש should be מחלל שבת, and then it should be asked by משה, and he wouldn't know, and he would ask השם. באמת, it was fit to be written through משה. אלא שנתחייב מקושש ונכתב על ידו. But the מקושש was חייב, and it was written through him. Since he was a bad person, so it was written through the one that was חייב. ללמדך, so both of these things teach us the fact that the פרשה of נחלות was written because of the daughters of צלפחד, and the פרשה of מקושש, the דינים of מיתה for a מחלל שבת, was written through the מקושש, that teaches us שמגלגלין חוב על ידי חייב, that you roll, you bring a חוב, a negative, a not good thing, through somebody who is not good, וזכות על ידי זכאי, and a good thing comes through a good person. That's what it teaches, that since the daughters of צלפחד were good, so then they had another good thing that came through them, that a extra פרשה in the תורה was written, and the מקושש, since he was bad, so something else bad came through him, that we found out what kind of death penalty is given to a מחלל שבת. And the גמרא continues, כתיב, the פסוק says, "ואצוה את שפטיכם בעת ההיא," that "I commanded your judges at that time," וכתיב, there's another פסוק that says, "ואצוה אתכם בעת ההיא," that "I commanded you at that time." So this seems like a contradiction. From the first פסוק it's משמע that he commanded the judges, that he told the judges they should take care and teach the אידן all the laws, but then the other פסוק says, "I commanded you." He's speaking to the ציבור, he's speaking to the community itself. What did he command them? אמר ר' אלעזר, so ר' אלעזר said, אמר ר' שמלאי, in the name of ר' שמלאי, אזהרה לציבור, there is a warning to the community שתהא אימת דיין עליהם, that the fear of the judge should be upon them, that they should fear the judge, they should give proper respect and fear to the judge, ואזהרה לדיין, there is a warning to the judge שיסבול את הציבור, that he should have patience with the community. That's why we have these two פסוקים. There is an אזהרה, a warning to the judges, and there is a warning to the people. עד כמה, the גמרא asks, how far, when we say that the judge has to have patience with the ציבור, how far does he have to have the patience? אמר ר' יוחנן, ואיתימא רב שבתי, so ר' יוחנן said, and some say it was רב שבתי that said, "כאשר ישא האמן את הינק," "as the nurse carrieth the baby." This is a פסוק said by משה רבינו concerning his caring for כלל ישראל, and this is how patient a שופט, a judge, is supposed to be with the ציבור. Then the גמרא says we have a contradiction. כתיב, in one פסוק it says, "כי אתה תבוא." This was משה רבינו speaking to יהושע, and he said to him, "Because you will come into ארץ ישראל." וכתיב, in another פסוק it says, "כי אתה תביא," that "You will bring the אידן into ארץ ישראל." From the first פסוק it's משמע that he is going to go in together with the others. He will be like everybody else. But the other פסוק, where it says that "You will bring the אידן into ארץ ישראל," so it's not that he's going to go with them, but he will be the leader. He will take them into ארץ ישראל. So which one is it? אמר ר' יוחנן, so ר' יוחנן said, אמר ליה משה ליהושע, משה said to יהושע, אתה והזקנים שבדור עמהם, "You and the elders of the generation with them." In other words, he said to him, "You won't be the only leader. You, together with the elders, are going to lead כלל ישראל, so you're going to go in together with others, what will be equal to you." That the way משה on his own said to יהושע. אמר ליה הקדוש ברוך הוא, but השם said to him, "No. טול מקל והך על קדקדם. Take a stick and hit them on their head. That means on the head of the זקנים. דבר אחד לדור ואין שני דברין לדור. Only one leader per generation, and not two leaders per generation." What he said was that "You will be the leader, and they will be under you. It's not like משה thought that the זקנים are going to be equal to יהושע, but השם said no, that the זקנים will be under יהושע. He will be the only leader." Then the גמרא continues, תני, we learned, זימון בשלשה. זימון means to invite or to summons, so you have to have three people for זימון. Now the גמרא asks, מאי זימון, what do we mean with this זימון when we say you have to have three people? אילימא, if you're going to say ברכת זימון, the ברכה of זימון, this refers to בענטשן, that before you בענטש ברכת המזון, so then if you have three people, then you have a זימון. So if that's what he meant when he said זימון needs three people, והתניא, didn't we learn, זימון וברכת זימון בשלשה, that זימון and the ברכה of זימון needs three people. So we see there are two ענינים. ברכת זימון, that means the ברכה of זימון that we say before בענטשינג. So that says separately that you need three people. So obviously, when it says זימון first, that means something else. So what does that mean? וכי תימא, and if you're going to say, פרושי קא מפרש, that really it's not two things, he's just explaining himself, that מאי זימון? ברכת זימון. When it said in the ברייתא, זימון וברכת זימון בשלשה, it wasn't two things he was saying. He was just saying זימון, which is ברכת זימון, is בשלשה. But והתניא, we learned in another ברייתא, that זימון בשלשה, ברכת זימון בשלשה. There it says clearly זימון needs three and ברכת זימון needs three. And there you can't say that it's an explanation because it says the word שלשה in between. If it would only be an explanation, it should have said זימון וברכת זימון בשלשה. Since it says זימון בשלשה and ברכת זימון בשלשה, so obviously זימון is not ברכת זימון, it's something else. So what is this זימון that we say needs three people? אלא מאי זימון, what does זימון mean? הזמנה לדין, inviting, summoning somebody to a דין תורה. הא דאמר רבא, like רבא said, הני בי תלתא דייני, three דיינים, דיתבי, they were sitting, ואזל שליחא דבי דינא, and the שליח, the agent of the בית דין, went, ואמר מפומי דחד, and he said in the name of one, he came to the one that is being summoned to the דין תורה. He said to him in the name of one of the three that he is asked to come to a דין תורה, לא אמר כלום, he didn't say anything, it doesn't mean anything, עד דאמר משמיה דכולהו, until he says in the name of all three. And that's what we mean זימון בשלשה, that when you invite, you summon somebody to a דין תורה, it must come from all three. It must be said in the name of all three. And the גמרא says, הני מילי בלא יומא דדינא, when is this said? If it's not a regular day of דינים. It's not a set day when the בית דין sits. So then, if you do not say in the name of three, it is not valid. אבל ביומא דדינא, but in the day which is set aside anyway for the בית דין sitting, לית לן בה, then this דין doesn't apply, and even if he didn't say it in the name of all three, it's still considered a הזמנה, and you must come to the דין תורה. And when is this? This is Monday and Thursday. And the גמרא says in כתובות that עזרא made a תקנה that on Monday and Thursday, always the בתי דינים should sit, and they should be ready, waiting if any דין תורה'ס will come. So if somebody is summoned on Monday or Thursday to come to a דין תורה, so even if he is not asked to come in the name of all three דיינים, nevertheless it is a valid הזמנה, and he must come. Then the גמרא continues, it quotes, in the משנה it said, תשלומי כפל וכו', among the things that you need a בית דין of three is when you judge the דין of כפל. If a person steals, so the דין is if he is caught he must pay double. Or תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה, if he stole a sheep or an ox, and he sold it, or he שחט it, so then the דין is that he must pay four times as much for the sheep, and five times as much for the ox. But you come to judge that, so then you have to do it בשלשה. The גמרא says, שלח ליה רב נחמן בר רב חסדא לרב נחמן בר יעקב, רב נחמן בר רב חסדא sent to רב נחמן בר יעקב, ילמדנו רבינו, let our רבי teach us. He was asking him a question, what is the דין, דיני קנסות בכמה, when it comes to judge דינים of קנס, of a fine, how many people must you have in the בית דין? And we know the rule is, what is considered a קנס? Anything which you don't pay the amount that you owe, or you pay less or you pay more, or if the תורה gives you a fixed amount how much you must pay. For instance, אונס ומפתה, so there the תורה says that you must pay 50 כסף if you are מענה a woman, a בתולה who is not an אשת איש, if you force her to do the עבירה or if you convince her to do the עבירה, you must pay 50 כסף. So this is a fixed amount the תורה gives no matter what the value of the damage is. Or the case of שלשים של עבד for instance. If one's ox killed an עבד, a כנענישע slave of another איד, so then you must pay 30 שקלים no matter how much the damage was. All that is considered קנס. So he asked him, when you judge the דינים of קנס, how many people must be in the בית דין? So he said to him, מאי קא מיבעיא ליה, what is this question? והא אנן תנן, didn't we learn clearly in the משנה בשלשה, that you have to have three? It says clearly תשלומי כפל וארבעה וחמשה is בשלשה, and כפל is a קנס, since you're paying more than you damaged. You stole only a certain amount, and you must pay double, or if you pay four, five times as much, it is קנס, and the משנה says clearly that you must have three. So what's the שאלה? אלא יחיד מומחה קא מיבעיא ליה, his question was, what is the דין, can one person, if he is a מומחה, can he judge the דינים of קנס? דאין דיני קנסות או לא, could he דן, could he judge the דינים of קנס or not? אמר ליה, so he said to him, תניתוה, we learned that too, it says תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה בשלשה, comes to pay double, or to pay four or five times as much, you have to have three people. Now, מאי שלשה, what does the משנה mean when it says three people? אילימא שלשה הדיוטות, if you're going to say it means three הדיוטות, three ordinary, simple people, not מומחין, הא אמר אבוה דאבוך משמיה דרב, didn't your father's father say in the name of רב, אפילו עשרה דנהדיוטות פסולין לקנסות, that even if you have ten people, but if they are all הדיוטות, not experts, so then they are פסול to judge in קנסות. אלא מומחין, so we must say when the משנה says that you have to have three people, that means definitely not הדיוטות, but מומחין. וקאמר שלשה, and nevertheless it says three, so we see from the משנה that comes to judge in קנסות, you must have three מומחין. So it comes out that a יחיד מומחה, if one person, even if he is a מומחה, he is פסול to דן in קנסות. Then the גמרא continues, one of the things mentioned in the משנה that you have to have three is מוציא שם רע. But that is only the opinion of רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים, the חכמים say, מוציא שם רע בעשרים ושלשה, that when you come to judge the דין of a מוציא שם רע, you have to have a בית דין of twenty-three. Now as we know, מוציא שם רע is the case when a person marries a woman, and later he claims that she is not a בתולה. He brings witnesses that she was מזנה, she did an עבירה in between the קידושין and the נישואין. Because the custom was that first they used to give the woman קידושין, and through that she would automatically become an אשת איש, still wasn't allowed to live with her husband till after the marriage, after the נישואין, the חופה, but nevertheless she was an אשת איש right after the קידושין. And there used to be a time between the קידושין, the אירוסין, and the נישואין. So after the נישואין, he claims she was מזנה in between the קידושין and the נישואין, so she was מזנה while she was an אשת איש. And the דין is that if it is true what he says, so two things happen: first of all, she loses her כתובה, like this a woman has a כתובה. When you marry a woman, the husband is obligated to give a כתובה, that means gives a document that if later he will divorce her or if he will die, she will get the amount of money that's written in the כתובה. But if she was מזנה during the time she was married to him, automatically she gets no כתובה. Plus that if there are witnesses that she was מזנה, so then she would also get killed because she did an עבירה which you are חייב מיתה for it. Concerning losing the כתובה, you don't have to have witnesses. The דין is that if the husband comes after the חתונה, and he says that he found that she is not a בתולה, פתח פתוח מצאתי, I found that she wasn't a virgin, and therefore there is a possibility that she was מזנה in between the קידושין and the נישואין, so she was מזנה while she's an אשת איש, and the דין is a woman that is מזנה while she's an אשת איש is forbidden to live with her husband, so if the husband himself claims that without even bringing witnesses, he is believed enough that she loses her כתובה. That's what the גמרא says in כתובות. And the reason for that is, the גמרא says there, since the חכמים were מתקן that a woman should get a כתובה, a בתולה gets 200, a virgin gets 200, and an אלמנה gets 100, so the חכמים were also מתקן that if he comes later and he says פתח פתוח מצאתי, the דין is that

she loses her כתובה just on the word of the husband. Why? Why do we believe the husband? Because we have a rule, חזקה אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה, a person would not go through the trouble of making a סעודה, and then, for no reason, just lose it. If the פשט is that really he is lying, and why does he say that she wasn't a בתולה, it's just because he doesn't like her and wants to get rid of her, but if so, why did he go through the trouble of making the סעודה, making the party, spending the money for the חתונה? If he wouldn't like her, he had a choice that before he even married her, he could have given her a גט. She was his wife because he gave her the קידושין, but he could have given her a גט, and then he would not go through the trouble of spending money for the חתונה. Since he went through the trouble of spending money for the חתונה, obviously he was wasn't just trying to get rid of her. So מסתמא, when he says that she wasn't a בתולה, that is true, and therefore he is believed, and she loses her כתובה. But if we find out that he was lying, that when the husband said that she was מזנה in between the קידושין and the נישואין, he was lying, so then not only doesn't she lose the כתובה, and certainly she doesn't get killed, but on the other hand, he, the husband, has to pay a fine. He has to pay מאה כסף to the father of his wife. And here in the משנה, we have a מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים that when it comes to judge the דין of מוציא שם רע, must we have twenty-three people that Are we dealing with the first part, when the husband first comes to בית דין and he claims that his wife was מזנה, and what he wants is that she should lose her כתובה, and that's where we have the מחלוקת, that רבי מאיר says, since all he is claiming is that she should lose her כתובה, so this is a monetary question, therefore, it's enough to have a בית דין of three, and the חכמים say, no, that since there is a possibility that it should lead to having her killed, therefore you must have 23 like you would judge דיני נפשות. Or are we dealing here with the second step, after we already know that the husband was lying, and the father of the wife is claiming the מאה כסף from the husband, that's where the מחלוקת is, whether to do that you must have a בית דין of 23, or is it enough a בית דין of three? And this is a מחלוקת here between רש״י and תוספות, what the פשט in the גמרא is. And the אמת, תוספות brings that in ירושלמי there is a clear מחלוקת between אמוראים what the פשט in this משנה is, whether the משנה is concerning the first part of the process when the husband is calling the father to a דין תורה, wanting to take away the כתובה money from his wife, or is it the father calling the husband to a דין תורה asking him to pay the מאה כסף. So, first we're going to learn this גמרא the way רש״י learns the פשט, and then we're going to go back and explain the way תוספות learned the פשט. רש״י learns the פשט that we're talking here about the first step, that the husband is calling the father to a דין תורה saying that, "I found that your daughter is not a בתולה," and therefore he wants her to lose the כתובה. So, he is only dealing with money, he's asking her to lose the כתובה. He doesn't have witnesses that she was מזנה, and therefore it has nothing to do with דיני נפשות. He is not saying anything that could lead her to get killed, because he's only claiming her to lose the כתובה, and he has no witnesses that she was מזנה. And in order to make her lose the כתובה, he doesn't have to have witnesses that she was מזנה. As we said before, the חכמים believed the husband because of the חזקה that he wouldn't lie and just waste money for nothing. So, therefore, he is believed when he says that she was מזנה just לגבי the דין of her losing the כתובה. So, therefore, when he comes and wants her to lose the כתובה, it is only a monetary dispute here, and therefore, רבי מאיר says it's enough to have a בית דין of three like any other דיני ממונות. But the חכמים say that since, in other cases, there is a possibility for this to lead to דיני נפשות, because if he would have had witnesses that she was מזנה, if he would have had witnesses to his claim, then she would get killed, so ממילא, even if he doesn't have witnesses, the דין is that you have to have a בית דין of כ״ג, a בית דין of 23 like if it would be דיני נפשות. The גמרא asks a קשיא: וכי יש בו דיני נפשות מאי הוה? What do the חכמים say? That since מוציא שם רע could have דיני נפשות, therefore you have to have a בית דין of 23. But who cares that you could have in other cases דיני נפשות? בפועל we're talking in a case where he doesn't have witnesses, and therefore, the case is where there is no דיני נפשות. So why should even this case need 23 because, in another case, there would be דיני נפשות, but this case doesn't have דיני נפשות? אמר עולא, עולא said: בחוששין ללעז קמיפלגי. That the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים is whether are we afraid of a לעז? לעז means a rumor, that a rumor will spread that he claimed that his wife was מזנה after the אירוסין, and doesn't have witnesses. So he, טאקע, doesn't know that there are witnesses, and he's only coming to claim the money part of it. But nevertheless, maybe we're afraid that the rumor will go out, and what will happen? People who happen to see what she did will come to בית דין, וממילא, maybe there will be witnesses that she was מזנה. So this itself could lead that even in this case, it could eventually come to דיני נפשות. So רבי מאיר סבר, רבי מאיר holds, אין חוששין ללעז, we are not afraid of the rumor that this might lead to דיני נפשות because other people might hear and come and testify in בית דין. ורבנן סברי where we care about the כבוד of the original דיינים of the בית דין. Meaning like this: הכא במאי עסקינן, and we're talking in a case כגון דאיכנוף בי עשרין ותלתא למידן דיני נפשות, that 23 got together to judge it דיני נפשות. The case is when the husband came to בית דין saying that he does have witnesses that she was מזנה, and therefore he wants her to get killed. So they had to get a בית דין of 23 together, because when it comes to דיני נפשות, you need 23. So they got a בית דין of 23 together, ואיבדיר, but then, they all left, they separated, because when it came down to the point, he did not have any witnesses. So since they saw he has no witnesses, so there is no more דין, so they all left. But ואמר להו, but then he said to them, דיינו לי מיהא דיני ממונות, at least judge me דיני ממונות part of it. I don't have the witnesses I thought I do, so I can't have her killed, but at least I want her to lose the כתובה, and for that, as we said before, you don't need witnesses. So he wants, at least, them to judge דיני ממונות. So the question here is, must we have all 23 for this, or three is enough? רבי מאיר says three is enough, because this is only דיני ממונות, so three is enough. איי it started off with 23, we don't care, we're not afraid that people might say that the reason that they left with three and those other 20 are not there anymore is because they weren't worthy or they weren't good דיינים. We're not afraid that people would say that, and therefore, three is enough. But the רבנן say, we do care about the כבוד of the other דיינים. And therefore, if we're going to say that three is enough, people will think that the other דיינים were not good דיינים. And therefore, just for their כבוד, we have to have all 23 there, all those that we started this דין תורה with. Then the גמרא says מיתיבי, I will ask you a קשיא. We learned in a ברייתא, וחכמים אומרים, and the חכמים say, תבעו ממון בשלשה. If he came to claim only money, then בשלשה, then it's enough to have three. תבעו נפשות בעשרים ושלשה. If he came to claim death, then you must have 23. Now, what's the פשט in this ברייתא, the opinion of the חכמים? בשלמא לרבא or לרבה, according to the second פשט, we understand the פשט in this ברייתא. It means like this: באמת, as we learned in the משנה, the חכמים hold that you always need, even when you come to claim ממון, you need 23. But the פשט in the ברייתא is that תבעו ממון תחלה בשלשה. If he לכתחלה came just to ask for money, he only came to have her lose the כתובה, so then all you need is three. תבעו נפשות תחלה, if he came לכתחלה to claim נפשות, because he claimed that he had witnesses that she was מזנה and he wants her killed, so then אפילו ממון בעשרים ושלשה. Then even it turns out that all he's claiming is ממון, only money, because he has no witnesses, you still need the 23. This is as רבא or רבה said פשט in the משנה in the opinion of the חכמים, that the reason the חכמים say you need 23 is only because of the כבוד of the ראשונים. Only if you started off with having 23, because you thought it was דיני נפשות, and it turned out just to be דיני ממונות, you still need the 23 because of their כבוד. But in a case where it started לכתחלה off with three, he never said that he has witnesses, so then even the חכמים agree that you only need three, because as רבא or רבה said, we are not חושש ללעז, we are not afraid that maybe other people will hear and witnesses will turn up. So this is the פשט in the ברייתא: that if he לכתחלה starts with money, you only need three, even according to the חכמים. If he started with נפשות and you had 23, so then even if it turns out to be only ממון, so then you still need the 23. אלא לעולא קשיא, but according to

עולא, עולא that learned the פשט is that even if you start לכתחלה with ממון, you still need 23 because חיישינן ללעז, we're afraid maybe other people will hear and the witnesses will come. So therefore, always, even if he לכתחלה claims I have no witnesses, and all he's claiming is to make her lose the כתובה, nevertheless you must have 23. So what's the פשט in this ברייתא, where the חכמים say תבעו ממון בשלשה, that if he's claiming money three is enough, but according to the way עולא learned פשט in the חכמים, even if you claim money you should have to have 23? אמר רבא, so רבא said, אני ואריא שבחבורה, me and the lion of the group, me and this great man, תרגימנא, we explained it. ומנו, who is this great man that together with רבא explained the פשט? רבי אבא בר אבינא, it's רבי אבא בר אבינא. And we explain this as follows: הכא במאי עסקינן, this ברייתא is speaking in a case שהביא הבעל עדים שזינתה, that the husband brought already witnesses that she was מזנה, but והביא האב עדים והזימום לעדי הבעל, but the father brought other witnesses that were מזים the witnesses of the husband. So now, after you're מזים the witnesses of the husband, we found out that he is a liar, that husband is a liar, so now the דין is that the husband is obligated to pay the מאה כסף, the 100 כסף, because we know for sure that the husband is a liar. And we can't say here, oh, maybe other witnesses will come and testify for this benefit of the husband, because since the first group of witnesses that he brought, they were מזים, that shows that he לכתחלה is looking to bring עדים which are liars, so even if other witnesses will come, we won't accept them. So therefore we can't be afraid That maybe more witnesses will come. He is not even believed to have her lose the כתובה, which we said before you don't need witnesses, because that is only when he never brought witnesses לכתחילה,

so then we believe him on his own word enough to make her lose the כתובה. But if he brought witnesses and they were being מוזם, so then he is not even believed concerning make her lose the כתובה, because we know for sure that he is a liar. And therefore the דין is in a case like this, that he is obligated to pay 100 כסף to the father of his wife. And the case here is that בא לגבות מנה מן הבעל, that we're talking not about a judgment concerning the claim of the husband, but we're holding already at the end of the process, that the father is coming to claim the money, the 100 כסף from the husband, so that's where we say בשלשה, that here it's enough three, because here there is no possibility for this to turn into דיני נפשות. Because even if the husband is going to bring more witnesses that she was מזנה, they will not be accepted. So this is only a question of דיני ממונות that the father is claiming from the husband, and therefore the חכמים say it is בשלשה. ובמקום נפשות, but in a case where it would be נפשות, which means if it wouldn't be a case as just mentioned, that the husband's עדים were already מוזם, and the case is where the father is claiming the מאה כסף from the husband. If it would be the beginning of the דין, the beginning of the process, if the case would be that the husband is claiming money from his wife, meaning he wants her to lose the כתובה, so here the דין would be that it would have to be בעשרים ושלשה, 23. So this is the פשט in the ברייתא according to עולא. חכמים אומרים תבע ממון בשלשה, the חכמים say that if the father is claiming money, so there is only a דיני ממונות involved, so then it's enough three. תבע נפשות, if the case would be different, the case would be where the husband is claiming money, so then, since that could lead to נפשות, because even though he starts off by saying that I don't have witnesses, and all I'm claiming is money, I want her to lose the כתובה, nevertheless, this could lead to נפשות, and therefore there the חכמים hold בעשרים ושלשה, that you need 23. Then the גמרא continues, אביי אמר, אביי says, no. באמת the פשט in the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים is different, דכולי עלמא חיישינן לעילא. באמת, they both hold that we are afraid of a עילא. Which means that if he comes לכתחילה and claims that he wants her to lose the כתובה and doesn't have witnesses, nevertheless, even רבי מאיר would hold that we're afraid a rumor might go out and witnesses might come, and this could lead to דיני נפשות. ומשום כבודם של ראשונים, plus they both agree that we care about the כבודם של ראשונים, the כבוד of the first ones. And therefore, they both would agree that if the case was that they sat down to פסקן דיני נפשות, and then they found out that there are no witnesses, nevertheless, you would have to have all 23 in order to פסקן even the דיני ממונות, the דין of the כתובה, because they both hold that we care about the כבוד of all the previous דיינים. And therefore, under normal circumstances, the דין would be that even if the husband comes and is just claiming ממון, he just wants her to lose the כתובה, even רבי מאיר would agree that you have to have 23. But here, הכא במאי עסקינן, here we're talking in a case כגון דהתרו בה סתם, that the truth was he came with witnesses. He said, I do have witnesses that she was מזנה, and he brought the witnesses. And the witnesses are here, but the witnesses claim that when they warned her when she was מזנה, they just warned her סתם. They didn't say what kind of מיתה she will get. והא תנא הוא דתניא, and this goes according to this specific תנא that we learned in a ברייתא. For we learned in a ברייתא: שאר כל חייבי מיתות שבתורה, that all other those people who get a death penalty of the תורה, אין ממיתין אותם אלא בעדה. First of all, you have to have the community, meaning a בית דין of 23. ועדים, and you must have witnesses. והתראה, and there must be a warning. They must have warned the person who did the עבירה at the time he did the עבירה. And also, עד שיודיעוהו שהוא חייב מיתה בבית דין, and he must be told at the time when he does the עבירה that he will get מיתה if he does the עבירה, he will get killed if he does the עבירה. That's the opinion of the first תנא. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, עד שיודיעוהו באיזה מיתה הוא נהרג. It's not enough just to warn him and tell him that if you do the עבירה you'll get killed, but you must also tell him which מיתה he will get, which out of the four types of מיתות בית דין there is, which one he will get. So we have this מחלוקת. And the reason the ברייתא starts off by saying other people who are חייבי מיתות in תורה, you only kill them if this and this happened, it is because the ברייתא is לכתחילה talking about a מסית. A מסית is a person who convinces other people to do עבודה זרה. There, there is a different דין. Concerning a מסית, the דין is the תורה says in דברים י"ג: לא תחמול ולא תכסה, do not have any pity on him and do not cover cover up on him. So therefore, since the תורה says do not cover up, you're not allowed to look for a זכות, for a merit, to save the מסית. Therefore the דין is that he gets killed without even being warned. There has to be witnesses, but the witnesses don't have to stand that he should see them and they should warn him when he does the עבירה, but it's enough if we hide witnesses behind the bushes, and they see that he is trying to convince somebody to do עבודה זרה. And that somebody that he is trying to convince him doesn't have to actually warn him, say that if you will do what you do, you will get killed, but it's enough if he just says to him, "How in the world can you try to change that we should leave אבינו שבשמים, we should leave over השם, and we should worship stones or wood, etc.?" That is enough that if the two witnesses behind the bushes see that the other person said it to him, and he nevertheless continued and tried to convince him to worship עבודה זרה, it's enough to have him killed. So that's what the ברייתא says. That's only concerning a מסית. But all other חייבי מיתות of the תורה, there it must have these conditions: You must have a כ"ג, which really a מסית also must have כ"ג. You must have witnesses that stand there, and they must warn him, and they also must warn him that he will get מיתה. And then we have a מחלוקת whether they have to also warn him and tell him exactly which מיתה he will get. And this is really the מחלוקת here between רבי מאיר and the חכמים. The case of the משנה is that the husband is coming to בית דין, claiming, "I have witnesses she was מזנה, and therefore I want her to lose the כתובה, that's one thing, plus I want her to get killed." And these witnesses come in front of three people, before they came to a בית דין of 23 that would have to judge it if it would be really דיני נפשות, but first they came in front of three, and the witnesses said that, "We did not warn her which מיתה she will get." So רבי מאיר holds that באמת, you do have to warn her which מיתה she will get, otherwise she will not be killed. ממילא, as soon as they say that they did not warn her, tell her which מיתה she will get, she automatically will not get killed. So therefore, רבי מאיר holds there is no דיני נפשות here. And therefore he says we don't have to get 23 together, because it'll never lead us to דיני נפשות, because they did not warn her with which מיתה. איי, let's be afraid that maybe other witnesses will come, and they will say that they did warn her, because now we're holding that everyone holds חיישינן ללעז, that we are afraid maybe other witnesses will come, but that is not true either, because when are we afraid for a לעז that other witnesses will come? If he didn't bring any witnesses. He just comes to בית דין, says, "I say she was מזנה, I don't have witnesses." So then we're afraid maybe witnesses will hear and they will come. But in the case where he brings witnesses, so we're not afraid anymore that he, other witnesses will come, because the witnesses that were there are here already. And these witnesses claim that they did not warn her which מיתה she will get, so automatically, even according to the witnesses, she will never get killed, so there is no דיני נפשות here. That's why רבי מאיר says that you have to have only three, you don't need 23. But the חכמים, they hold like the other תנא, that you do not have to warn the person with which מיתה he will get. If you just tell him that you're going to get מיתה, it's enough that he will be killed. And therefore, when these witnesses come in front of the three, and they say that, "We warned her that she will get killed, but we didn't tell her which מיתה," so the רבנן hold that this could lead her to דיני נפשות. She could get killed if everything fit, because it is considered a התראה, a warning. So therefore, the רבנן hold that now you must get 23 people together, and you must judge the case, because this is a case of דיני נפשות. But according to this, what will we do with the ברייתא where it says that the חכמים אומרים תובע ממון בשלשה, but the חכמים say that if he only is claiming money, it's enough to have three? But לכאורה, if he's only claiming money, then we should have 23, because as we said before, everyone agrees חיישינן ללעז, that we're afraid maybe witnesses will come. So if he's only claiming money, which means he comes and says that, "I don't have witnesses," so then לכאורה the דין should be that you should have to have 23, according to the פשט of אביי. So what is the פשט in the ברייתא where it says תובע ממון בשלשה? So רש"י says that אביי will explain the ברייתא as the גמרא said before רב חייא בר אבין explained, that when it says תובע ממון בשלשה, it doesn't mean that the husband is claiming money, but it means that the father is claiming money after we proved that the husband was a liar. So there the דין is that you have to have only שלשה, and תובע נפשות means if it is the husband that is coming to claim money, so since it could lead to נפשות, the דין is that you have to have 23. רב פפא, מר בריה דרב פפא says, "הכא באשה חבירה עסקינן," that here we're talking by a woman that is a תלמיד חכם, that she is a scholar, she's a learned woman. In other words, באמת he is saying like אביי, that רבי מאיר and the חכמים, they both hold that חיישינן ללעז. We're afraid that witnesses might come. In the case where the husband comes and says, "I have no witnesses," then everyone agrees that we need 23, because witnesses might hear and Also everyone agrees that we are afraid לכבוד של ראשונים, and therefore, if they started with 23, you must continue with 23. But what is the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים in a case where he did bring witnesses, like אביי says? And therefore, we're not afraid that more witnesses will come. But what is the מחלוקת whether you need 23 or three? The case is where the witnesses claim that we didn't warn her. There was no התראה at all. But לכאורה, if there's no התראה, then definitely this will never lead to דיני נפשות, because we know one general rule that if you don't warn the person, then he's never חייב מיתה. But the case is where the woman was a חבירה, וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דרבי יוסי בר יהודה ורבנן, that רבי מאיר and the חכמים argue in the same מחלוקת as רבי יוסי בר יהודה and the רבנן. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, that רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר, רבי יוסי בר יהודה says, חבר אינו צריך התראה. A תלמיד חכם doesn't need התראה, doesn't need warning. Even if he wasn't warned and he did an עבירה that you're חייב מיתה for, he would get מיתה. לפי שלא ניתנה התראה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד. The whole reason why there is a דין that a person is not חייב unless he's warned is to make the difference between a שוגג and a מזיד, because a person could always claim, "I was a שוגג, I didn't know that you're not allowed to do it." But if they warned him בשעת מעשה, then he doesn't have that excuse. A תלמיד חכם could never say, "I didn't know," because if he's a תלמיד חכם, obviously he knew. So, therefore, a תלמיד חכם does not need התראה. But the other מאן דאמר holds that even a תלמיד חכם also needs התראה. And this is the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים. The case here is that the עדים did come, but they said we didn't warn her. Why didn't we warn her? Because she was a חבירה, she was a scholar. So רבי מאיר holds that you still need התראה. And therefore, since they didn't warn her, so this will never lead to דיני נפשות, she can't get killed. And we're not afraid other witnesses might come, because since he brought witnesses already, then we're not afraid more witnesses will come, because whatever witnesses he had, he brought. So therefore, רבי מאיר says there is no reason to have 23, three is enough. But the חכמים, they hold that by a חבירה you do not need התראה, so according to them, she could be חייב מיתה even if there was no התראה. So therefore, you would have to have a בית דין of 23 when you judge this case, because this could lead to דיני נפשות. This is the פשט the way רש״י learns in this גמרא, that in all cases we're talking about the husband coming to בית דין claiming that she was מזנה, claiming that he wants her to lose the כתובה, and the discussion is whether this is only considered דיני ממונות or דיני נפשות, except the פשט in the ברייתא where it said וחכמים אומרים תובעי ממונם בשלשה, תובעי נפשות בעשרים ושלשה, the way רבי חייא בר אבין explained, that's what we said the פשט is not concerning the husband claiming דיני ממונות, but it is the father of the wife that is claiming from the husband the מאה כסף. But otherwise, the whole discussion here is concerning the דין that the husband is calling against his wife. And the reason רש״י learns that way, and he doesn't learn that we're talking here about the father calling the husband to a דין תורה to pay the מאה כסף, he says it because if that would be the פשט in the משנה, that רבי מאיר holds that when the father calls the husband to a דין תורה to pay the מאה כסף, we need three, and the חכמים say that even for that you need 23, but how can you say that this is the פשט in the משנה? Because when is the husband חייב to pay the מאה כסף? Only after the whole process. If he brought witnesses to show that she was מזנה, then the father brought witnesses that were מזים his witnesses, then he is חייב מאה כסף. But otherwise, there is no מאה כסף. So how could the father לכתחילה call the husband to a דין תורה to pay מאה כסף? I will say that the משנה is talking speaking after the husband brought his witnesses and the father brought witnesses that were מזים, then the father is calling the husband to a דין תורה to pay the מאה כסף. And that's the פשט in the משנה, that's the point that the משנה is talking about. If so, רש״י asks, how can the גמרא say that the מחלוקת is whether חיישינן ללעז, whether we're afraid that other witnesses will come? If we're talking here in a point that the first witnesses of the husband were already מוזם, so then, as we said before, there is no reason to suspect that other witnesses will come, because even if other witnesses will come, the husband would bring more עדות, we still won't accept them, because we see already that he is bringing witnesses liars. וממילא there's no possibility for the סברא of חיישינן ללעז. So how can the גמרא say that the reason the חכמים hold you have to have 23 is because we're afraid of a לעז, that maybe more witnesses will come? Even if more witnesses will come, we still won't accept them, because according to this, we're speaking already after his witnesses that he brought were מוזם. So therefore, we cannot say that the משנה is speaking in the case when the father is claiming the מאה כסף from the husband. Also, רש״י says, from the answer of רבי חייא בר אבין that the פשט in the ברייתא is that the husband husband brought witnesses, and then the father brought witnesses who were מזימין them, and now the father is claiming money from the husband, is משמע that this is a new thing that the גמרא came up with. That the גמרא now, when it's trying to answer פשט in the ברייתא where it says חכמים אומרים תובע ממון בשלשה, so we say, if you know what the ברייתא is speaking about, in a different case, the case where already the husband brought witnesses, and the father brought witnesses who were מזימין them, and we're talking, we're speaking, we're holding at the point when the father is claiming money from the husband. So obvious, up till now the whole גמרא was speaking in a case where the husband is claiming the money from her, meaning that he wants her to lose the כתובה. So therefore, רש״י learns that the גמרא here is speaking concerning the husband that is calling them to a דין תורה for ממון, and that is concerning the כתובה, and the discussion is whether it is considered דיני נפשות and you have to have twenty-three or not. But תוספות learns the פשט in the whole גמרא different. תוספות asks many קושיות on רש״י's פשט. One קשיא is, in the משנה it says מוציא שם רע together with אונס ומפתה. It says, האונס והמפתה והמוציא שם רע בשלשה, דברי רבי מאיר, וחכמים אומרים, מוציא שם רע בעשרים ושלשה. So obviously the מוציא שם רע is similar to אונס ומפתה, which means, just like אונס ומפתה the husband has to pay חמשים כסף, מוציא שם רע we're talking about the מאה כסף that the husband has to pay. Also, תוספות says, we know that whenever the גמרא mentions the דינים of מוציא שם רע, we're always referring to the מאה כסף that he has to pay. Another thing, in the משנה when it says that it needs שלשה, obviously we're talking about three מומחים. And if it would be talking about the husband's claim, meaning that he wants her to lose the כתובה, why would we need three מומחים for that? If we're talking about the hundred סלעים that he has to pay, that is a קנס, and for that you have to have מומחים. But if we're talking by מוציא שם רע concerning the claim of the husband that just wants her to lose the כתובה, so we're discussing דינים of money of the כתובה, for that we wouldn't have to have מומחים. Another thing, according to רש״י, he says the פשט in the גמרא, חיישינן ללעז means that we're afraid that even though he says he has no witnesses, but when the rumor will go out that he is saying that she was מזנה, maybe people will hear and witnesses will come. So תוספות says, this is not the common meaning of the word לעז. When the גמרא uses the לשון לעז, it usually means for a שקר, for a lie. Like for instance, it says you shouldn't do certain things concerning a גט, שלא להוציא לעז על גיטין הראשונים, not to make a לעז on the original גיטין before they did that. There it means that people will say that the original גיטין are פסול, when really it's not. So usually לעז is concerning a lie. But the way it says here, לעז doesn't have anything to do with a lie. The way רש״י learns the פשט is that the rumor might go out and people might come to testify. Has nothing to do with a לעז. So how could we say that this is what לעז means? And other קושיות that תוספות asks. And therefore תוספות learns a complete different פשט in the גמרא: that we're talking here, טאקע, about the claim that the father has against the husband that he should pay the מאה כסף. And the פשט is as follows: the case was that the husband לכתחילה brought witnesses that she was מזנה after the קידושין. Then the father brought witnesses, but they were not מזים the witnesses of the husband, they were just מכחיש. The דין is that if the second group of witnesses come and say to the first, "How can you testify that this happened when at that time you were with us?", that's called הזמה. And the דין by הזמה is that if a certain group is מזים another group, so the first group is definitely a lie, and we believe the second over the first. But if the second group came and didn't say, "עמנו הייתם, you were with us at that time," but they were just מכחיש, they had some other ways they proved that the first group is liars, so then the דין is not that we know for sure that the first group is lying, maybe the second group is lying. And therefore, we don't accept the first group's testimony anyway, but it's only called הכחשה, not הזמה, and it's not as strong as הזמה. So therefore, in the case of הזמה, when the עדים of the father were מזים the עדים of the husband, then טאקע we cannot be afraid that maybe more witnesses will come, because if you're מזים the first group of witnesses, we know for sure that they are liars, and since we know for sure they are liars, so we see that the husband is bringing liars as witnesses. So even if more witnesses come, we will not accept them. But if the second witnesses, the witnesses of the father, only were מכחיש the witnesses of the husband, then there is still a possibility that other witnesses will come, and they will be accepted. And this is the case here: that after the husband brought his witnesses, the father brought witnesses that were מכחיש the witnesses of the husband. Or a case that the father did not bring witnesses to be מכחיש the witnesses of the husband, but the witnesses of the husband themselves didn't fit in their own testimony. So in a case like this we see that what he brought is not accepted. The witnesses of the husband is not acceptable. So therefore, now the father claims that the husband should give him the מאה כסף, since he brought witnesses and they are not accepted. So now he owes מאה כסף. So the דין is that רבי מאיר holds, since all he is claiming is מאה כסף, that is money, Therefore, it's enough to have a בית דין of three. But the חכמים hold no, you must have a בית דין of twenty-three. And the first פשט in the גמרא is because חיישינן לעז, we're afraid that maybe other witnesses might come, the husband might bring more witnesses, and since the first witnesses he brought were not מוזם, just מוכחש, we would accept the other witnesses. And if the other witnesses will come, then it'll become back דיני נפשות, because the other witnesses will claim that she was מזנה, and they might be accepted, so they might even come to kill her. It might become דיני נפשות again. So at the point when the father wants the husband to pay the מאה כסף, if you will have only a בית דין of three, but in the meantime, other witnesses might come to testify that she was מזנה, it might turn into דיני נפשות. And if it does turn into דיני נפשות, you will have to have at that point twenty-three. So there might be a לעז that the original three, the reason they weren't good and you had to add twenty more, people won't know that it's because it turned into דיני נפשות, people will think it is because they were not good דיינים, there will be a לעז on the authority of the first three דיינים. So רבי מאיר says he doesn't care about the לעז, and therefore, as long as the father is just claiming the מאה כסף, so it's דיני ממונות at this point. איי, it might turn into דיני נפשות, and then you will have to get twenty-three, so you'll get twenty-three then, and he doesn't care that there might be a לעז on these דיינים, he's not חושש for that. But the חכמים say we are חושש for that, and therefore, since it might turn into דיני נפשות, and then you will definitely have to get twenty-three and there will be a לעז on these three, so therefore they hold לכתחילה you should get twenty-three. And the פשט in רבא's words, where he says that the מחלוקת is whether we're חושש לכבודן של ראשונים, so according to תוספות the פשט is as follows: that they gathered together the twenty-three to judge דיני נפשות. In other words, this is a case where the father claimed that he had witnesses that would be מזים the witnesses of the husband. And like till they got a chance to listen to the testimony of the second group of witnesses, for some reason something happened and they had to separate, they had to leave, whether they got afraid of something or the king came or whatever reason there might be, and there were only three left. And the father says to these three that טאקע now I wanted to bring the עדים that would be מזים the עדים of the husband, and that would cause the עדים of the husband to get killed, since they came to testify that she was מזנה, and they wanted her killed, so the דין is that when you're מזים such עדים, so then you do to the עדים what they wanted to do. So the father says I wanted to have the עדים killed, but now that we don't have twenty-three I can't do it, but at least there are three left, so at least judge me דיני ממונות, at least you three should judge me that he, the husband, should pay the מאה כסף, at least that I should get. And that's what the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים is. רבי מאיר says since now they're only talking about דיני ממונות, so then it's enough to have the three, and we're not afraid for the כבוד of the other twenty דיינים, but the חכמים hold that we are afraid for the כבוד of the other דיינים, and therefore, since we started with twenty-three, even for the דיני ממונות, we must have twenty-three.