Torah Community Connections

Week 111 - Thursday - 10 January 2002

SANHEDRIN: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 5

One may not ride on his horse, nor sit on his chair, nor use his scepter. One may not see him when he has his hair cut, nor when he is naked and not in the bathhouse, as it is written, "You shall in any wise set him king over you" (Deut. 17:15) - that his fear shall be upon you.

Kehati

This mishnah concludes the laws of the king, and it lists things which people, out of respect for the King, are forbidden to do.

One may not ride on his - the king's, horse - to save him, however, it is permitted to ride on his horse (see Sanh. 95a), nor sit on his chair, nor use his scepter - this law applies to all the special articles he uses. One may not see him - it is forbidden to look at the king, when he has his hair cut, nor when he is naked and not in the bathhouse - for these things lessen the king's honor in the eyes of those seeing him, and it is an obligation to regard the king with respect, as it is written, "You shall in any wise set him king over you" - the emphatic "in any wise" teaches that his fear shall he upon you - and you must respect his honor. The Gemara quotes a baraita: the king has his hair cut every day, as it is written, "Your eyes shall see the king in his beauty" (Isa. 33:17).

SANHEDRIN: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 1

Monetary lawsuits - by three. This one chooses for himself one and that one chooses for himself one, both of them choose for themselves another one; so Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, The two judges choose another. Each party may reject the judge nominated by the other; so Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, When is this so? When he brings against them evidence that they are relatives or ineligible, but if they were eligible or experts, he may not invalidate them. Each party may reject the witnesses of the other; so Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, When is this so? When he brings against them evidence that they are relatives or ineligible, but if they were eligible, he may not invalidate them.

Kehati

This chapter teaches how monetary lawsuits are conducted. The Tractate began, "Monetary lawsuits - by three"; i.e., a Court of three, even of lay judges, may compel the defendant and plaintiff to appear before them. In some instances, however, the defendant is entitled to plead that he does not wish to be judged by these judges, but rather by others, e.g., on the grounds that the Court in which the plaintiff presented his claim does not sit permanently, or there are other Courts in the city, or because the judges are not experts. This mishnah teaches how the litigants choose mutually acceptable judges.

Monetary lawsuits - are judged - by three - lay judges, and the litigants may choose the judges for themselves, i.e.: This one - the plaintiff, chooses for himself one - judge, and that one - the defendant, chooses for himself one - judge, and both of them - the two litigants together, choose for themselves another one - the third judge; so Rabbi Meir - who holds that the third judge must be chosen with the approval of the two litigants. But the Sages say, regarding the third judge, there is no need for the opinion of the two litigants, rather The two judges - who were chosen by the litigants, choose another - the third judge. The Gemara explains that even Rabbi Meir holds that the two judges choose for themselves the third one, but, according to him, they also need to receive the approval of the litigants. The halakhah follows the First Tanna.

Each party may reject the judge nominated by the other - each of the litigants is permitted to say that he does not want to be judged by the judge chosen by the other litigant; so Rabbi Meir - the Gemara explains that this refers to a judge who is not an expert, i.e., who does not know Torah law, but who has become accustomed to sit in judgment, and who has acquired experience in monetary litigation; Rabbi Meir holds that since he is not an expert, they may invalidate him.

But the Sages say, since many people have recognized the judge as an expert, the litigant's opinion cannot invalidate him, for When is this so - that the litigant may invalidate judges? When he brings against them evidence that they are relatives or ineligible - because of a transgression; but if they were eligible or experts - the Gemara explains that if they are eligible, i.e., they are neither relatives nor invalid, they rank as experts, and in such a case he may not invalidate them - and even Rabbi Meir teaches that if they are experts he cannot invalidate them.

Each party may reject the witnesses of the other - each of the litigants, with an additional witness, may invalidate the witnesses of the opposing litigant; so Rabbi Meir - the Gemara explains that this refers to a case in which the plaintiff, for example, says that he could produce two pairs of witnesses. Now, Rabbi Meir holds that when he brought the first of these two pairs the defendant, in conjunction with an additional person, may invalidate one of the witnesses, and the defendant is not considered an interested party when he testifies to the unfitness of one of the first pair, since the plaintiff has another pair of witnesses. But the Sages say, The defendant may not invalidate them, for even though the plaintiff had stated initially that he has two pairs of witnesses, he may retract and say that he will produce only one pair; it follows then that the person who invalidates them is an interested party;

When is this so - when may the defendant invalidate the plaintiff's witnesses? When he brings against them evidence that they are relatives or ineligible; but if they were eligible - they are neither relatives nor ineligible, he may not invalidate them - even in conjunction with a third party, for he is an interested party, as was explained above, and witnesses may not be invalidated by his statement.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives