Sanhedrin

MISHNAH. CIVIL ACTIONS [ARE TO BE TRIED] BY THREE. EACH [LITIGANT] CHOOSES ONE, AND THE TWO JOINTLY CHOOSE A THIRD: SO HOLDS R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES RULE: THE TWO JUDGES NOMINATE THE THIRD. EACH PARTY MAY OBJECT TO THE JUDGE CHOSEN BY THE OTHER, SO HOLDS R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY: WHEN IS THIS SO? ONLY IF THE OBJECTOR ADDUCES PROOF THAT THEY ARE EITHER KINSMEN OR [OTHERWISE] INELIGIBLE; BUT IF FIT OR RECOGNISED BY THE BETH DIN AS MUMHIN,  THEY CANNOT BE DISQUALIFIED. EACH PARTY MAY REJECT THE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY THE OTHER:  SO HOLDS R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY, WHEN IS THIS SO? ONLY WHEN PROOF IS BROUGHT THAT THEY ARE EITHER KINSMEN OR [OTHERWISE] INELIGIBLE; BUT IF THEY ARE [LEGALLY] ELIGIBLE, NO ONE CAN DISQUALIFY THEM. GEMARA. Why should each of the parties choose one [Beth din]:  do not three [judges] suffice? — The Mishnah is meant thus: If each party chose a different Beth din, [so that one is not mutually accepted], they must jointly choose a third.  Can then the debtor too reject [the Beth din chosen by the creditor]? Did not R. Eleazar say:  This refers only to the creditor; but the debtor can be compelled to appear for trial in his [the creditor's] town? — It is as R. Johanan said [below]: we learnt this only in reference to Syrian lawcourts;  and so here too; but not Mumhin.  R. Papa said: It may even refer to Mumhin, e.g., the courts of R. Huna and R. Hisda,  for he [the debtor] can say: Am I giving you any trouble? We learnt: THE SAGES RULE: THE TWO JUDGES NOMINATE THE THIRD. Now, should you think it means as we have said, viz., Beth din;  can a Beth din, after being rejected, go and choose them another?  Again, how interpret, EACH PARTY CHOOSES ONE?  — But it means thus: Each [litigant] having chosen a judge, these two [litigants] jointly select a third. Why should they do so? — They said in 'the West'  in the name of R. Zera: Since each selects a judge, and together they [the litigants] select the third, a true judgment will be rendered. BUT THE SAGES RULE etc. Shall we say that they  differ in regard to the law cited by Rab Judah in the name of Rab? For Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Witnesses may not sign a deed unless they are aware who is to sign with them:  R. Meir thus disagreeing with the dictum of Rab Judah given in the name of Rab,  while the Rabbis accept it?  — No, all agree with Rab Judah's statement in Rab's name and none dispute that the [third judge] must have the consent of his colleagues; they only differ as to whether the consent of the litigants is necessary. R. Meir maintains that the consent of the litigants is also required, while the Rabbis hold, only that of the judges is required, but not that of the litigants. The [above] text [states]: Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Witnesses may not sign a deed etc. It has been taught likewise: The fair minded  of the people in Jerusalem used to act thus: They would not sign a deed without knowing who would sign with them; they would not sit in judgment unless they knew who was to sit with them; and they would not sit at table without knowing their fellow diners. EACH PARTY MAY OBJECT TO THE JUDGE CHOSEN BY THE OTHER. Has then anyone the right to reject judges? — R. Johanan said: This refers to the Syrian courts.  But [you say that] Mumhin cannot be rejected? Surely since the last clause states, BUT THE SAGES SAY: WHEN IS THIS SO? ONLY IF THE OBJECTOR ADDUCES PROOF THAT THEY ARE EITHER KINSMEN OR [OTHERWISE] INELIGIBLE; BUT IF FIT OR RECOGNISED BY THE BETH DIN AS MUMHIN, THEY CANNOT BE DISQUALIFIED: does it not follow that R. Meir refers even to Mumhin! — It is meant thus: But if they are fit, they rank as Mumhin appointed by the Beth din, and so cannot be disqualified. Come and hear: 'The Rabbis said to R. Meir: It does not rest with him to reject a judge who is a Mumheh for the public'?  — Say [thus]: It does not rest with him to reject a judge whom the public has accepted as a Mumheh. It has been taught likewise: One may  go on rejecting judges until he undertakes [that the action shall be tried] before a Beth din of Mumhin:  this is the view of R. Meir. But witnesses [when not disqualified] are as Mumhin;  yet R. Meir said: EACH PARTY MAY REJECT THE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY THE OTHER! — Surely it has been stated regarding this: Resh Lakish said: Imagine a holy mouth [sc. R. Meir] uttering such a thing!  Read [therefore] 'THE WITNESS', [singular].  But for what purpose is a single witness [competent]? Shall we say, for the actual payment of money?  then his testimony is Biblically invalid! If for [the administration of] an oath, then his evidence is [legally] as trustworthy as that of two!  — In fact, he refers to the payment of money, but it [sc. R. Meir's ruling] arises only where both parties have voluntarily accepted his testimony as equivalent to that of two witnesses. Then what does he thereby teach: that he may retract? But we have already learnt this once:  If one says, I accept my father or thy father as trustworthy,  or I have confidence in three herdsmen,  R. Meir says, He may [subsequently] retract; but the Sages rule, He cannot.