Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of Rashi. Consequently, our notes and comments do not necessarily have any bearing on the practical Halachah.

1)

(a) Our Mishnah teaches us that Diynei Mamonos require three Dayanim (this will be explained later), and so do Gezeilos and Chavalos. The basic difference between Gezeilos and Halva'os is the following - Gezeilos incorporates any money that one obtained unlawfully, including using a Pikadon without the owner's permission (which is considered an act of theft), whereas Halva'os constitutes money that one came by lawfully, but that one subsequently withholds from the owner.

(b) What Nezek ... Tashlumei Kefel ... ha'Ones ... u'Motzi-Shem-Ra have in common, according to Rebbi Meir is - that they all require three Dayanim.

(c) The Chachamim disagree with Rebbi Meir in the case of - Motzi-Shem-Ra, which, in their opinion, requires twenty-three judges, because, even though it is initially a monetary issue (concerning the woman's Kesuvah), it can lead to the death-sentence, too. So they require a complete Beis-Din at the outset.

(d) The Tana Kama includes Malkos in the list that requires three judges. According to Rebbi Yishmael - Malkos requires a Beis-Din of twenty-three.

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, Ibur ha'Chodesh and Ibur ha'Shanah require three Dayanim, too. 'Ibur ha'Shanah' constitutes - working out whether the year needs an extra Adar or not, as will explained later in the Sugya.

(b) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - Ibur Shanah begins with three judges, continues with five and ends with seven.

(c) Nevertheless, even he agrees that, if they concluded with three and declared a leap-year - their decision is accepted.

(a) The Tana continues 'Semichas Zekeinim va'Arifas Eglah (Arufah) bi'Sheloshah, Divrei Rebbi Shimon'.
'Semichas Zekeinim' constitutes - the Sanhedrin leaning their hands on the bull brought by the community for committing Chayvei Kareis.

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah - that requires five judges.

(c) 'ha'Chalitzah u'Miy'unin ... Neta Revai u'Ma'aser Sheini she'Ein Damav Yedu'in, bi'Sheloshah.

1. 'Miy'unin' - which is mi'de'Rabbanan, is the authority granted to a young girl under bas-Mitzvah, married off by her mother or brothers, to walk out of the marriage on the basis of a mere declaration.
2. 'Neta Revai u'Ma'aser Sheini' (in this context) means - the assessment of the fruit (whose value is unknown) that the owner wishes to redeem, to take the money to Yerushalayim.

(d) 'ha'Hekdeshos bi'Sheloshah ... ha'Erchin ha'Metaltelin bi'Sheloshah'.

1. Rebbi Yehudah says - that, with regard to the latter, one of the three judges must be a Kohen (seeing as the Torah writes in Bechukosai "ke'Erk'cha ha'Kohen ... ").

2. Erchin of Hekdesh - require ten judges, one of whom must be a Kohen, and the same applies to ...

3. ... a man who is Hekdesh (which will be explained in the Sugya).

(a) The death-penalty requires a Sanhedrin of twenty-three. We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Ve'haragta es ha'Ishah ve'es ha'Beheimah ... ve'es ha'Beheimah Taharogu" - that sentencing to death, both an animal that raped a woman and an animal that was raped by a man, requires a Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges.
2. ... "ha'Shor Yisakel ve'Gam Be'alav Yamus" - that the same applies to an animal that killed a man.

(b) The Tana Kama requires twenty-three judges to put to death a wolf, a lion, a bear, a leopard and a Bard'les (possibly a panther). Rebbi Eliezer disagrees.

1. ... *He* holds - that they do not require a Beis-Din in the first place, but that whoever kills them has earned himself a merit.
2. ... Rebbi Akiva echoes the opinion of the Tana Kama (and this will be explained in the Sugya).

(a) What judging a tribe, a false prophet and a Kohen Gadol have in common is - the fact that they all require a Beis-Din of seventy-one (the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol).

(b) A Milchemes ha'Reshus constitutes - any battle other than the conquest of Cana'an (and Amalek).

(c) What going out to a Milchemes ha'Reshus, adding to Yerushalayim or the Azaros, appointing a Sanhedrin for each city and judging an Ir ha'Nidachas (a city most of whose residents served idols) have in common is - the fact that they too, require a Beis-Din of seventy-one.

(a) A city cannot become an Ir ha'Nidachas - if it is situated on the border.

(b) The maximum number of cities that can be declared an Ir ha'Nidachas at one time is - two.

(c) We learn that the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol consisted of seventy-one judges - from the Pasuk in Korach "Esfah Li Shiv'im Ish mi'B'nei Yisrael" (plus Moshe, who was the Nasi).

(d) Rebbi Yehudah says - seventy.

(a) We learn from ...

1. ... the Pasuk "ve'Shaftu ha'Eidah ... ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah" - that to start with, a Sanhedrin Ketanah comprises twenty judges (ten to say Chayav, and ten to say Patur).
2. ... "Ad Masai la'Eidah ha'Ra'ah ha'Zos" - that the word Eidah comprises ten people.
3. ... "Lo Sih'yeh Acharei Rabim le'Ra'os" - that we follow a majority of one to escape from a negative P'sak.
4. ... "Lo Sih'yeh Acharei Rabim le'Hatos" - that in order to issue the death-sentence, a majority of at least two is required (increasing the Sanhedrin from twenty to twenty-two).

(b) We learn the twenty-third judge from the fact - twenty-two leaves open the possibility of even numbers, which is unacceptable in any Beis-Din.

(c) If the Tana Kama requires one hundred and twenty residents for a city to qualify for a Sanhedrin Ketanah, Rebbi Yehudah requires two hundred and thirty ...

(d) ... to allow for a number of judges corresponding to the officers of ten (at the time of Yisro).

8)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Diynei Mamonos bi'Sheloshah, Gezeilos va'Chavalos bi'Sheloshah'. The problem with this is - why the latter is not included in the former.

(b) Initially, Rebbi Avahu answers, the latter comes to qualify the former - to preclude Hoda'os and Halva'os, which are based on the Mitzvah of Chesed, and are not therefore subject to the stringencies of Gezeilos va'Chavalos.

(c) The difference between Hoda'os and Halva'os is - that the former refers to queries concerning the debtor's admission, the latter, to matters concerning the actual loan.

(d) We reject the explanation that defines them as 'partial admission' to the loan and 'total denial' respectively - because in that case, seeing as both are included in 'Halva'os', they should have rather been referred to as 'Hoda'os' and 'Kefiros' respectively.

(a) Having stated ...

1. ... 'Diynei Mamonos', the Tana nevertheless found it necesary to add 'Gezeilos va'Chavalos' - in order to preclude Hoda'os ve'Halva'os, as we explained.
2. ... 'Gezeilos va'Chavalos', he found it necesary to add 'Diynei Mamonos' - because otherwise, we would have assumed Hoda'os and Halva'os to be no different than Gezeilos and Chavalos, and we only mention the latter, because it is in connection with them that the Torah mentions the Din of three judges.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Nikrav Ba'al ha'Bayis el ha'Elohim" (plus two other similar Pesukim) that Gezeilos require a. expert judges, and b. three judges.

(c) The Torah does not mention this in connection with Chavalos - but there is no logical reason to differentiate between harming a person monetarily and harming him bodily.

(a) Rebbi Avahu ruled that if two judges judged money-matters - their ruling is void (implying even Hoda'os and Halva'os).

(b) When we preclude Hoda'os ve'Halva'os from the Din that applies to Gezeilos and Chavalos - we must therefore be referring, not to the Din of three judges, but to that of experts.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Ki Hu Zeh" - that a Shomer Chinam who is Modeh be'Miktzas (who admits to part of the claim against him), is obligated to swear.

(b) Some opinions apply Eiruv Parshiyos to this Pasuk, in which case - the Pasuk is speaking not about a Shomer (who is Chayav to swear in all cases, but) about a debtor.

(c) The problem with our distinction between three judges and the Din of experts, assuming that our Tana ...

1. ... holds of Eiruv Parshiyos, is - that Halva'os and Hoda'os should also require experts as well (since the word "Elohim" appears in that Pasuk).
2. ... does not hold of it, is - that they should not require three judges either (seeing as "Elohim" is not written by the Din of Milveh)?

(a) We answer that really he does hold of Eiruv Parshiyos, and the reason that Hoda'os and Halva'os do not need experts is based on a statement of Rebbi Chanina, who learns from the Pasuk "Mishpat Echad Yihyeh Lachem" - that Diynei Mamon require D'rishah and Chakirah (a thorough cross-examination of the witnesses) just like Diynei Nefashos.

(b) And the reason that the Chachamim negated it is - because of 'Ne'ilas Deles' (as the creditor will not lend money if he has too much difficulty in later reclaiming it).

(c) That resolves our problem - inasmuch as we can apply Rebbi Chanina's S'vara to explain why, although Hoda'os and Halva'os require three witnesses (min ha'Torah), they do not require experts (mi'de'Rabbanan).

(d) In spite of the fact that judges who judge with the sanction of the Chachamim (such as experts), are absolved from having to pay, should the above err in their ruling, *they* are Chayav to pay, like any other layman - because that too, is an extension of 'Ne'ilas Deles (since creditors will not lend money, if they know that an inexpert judges who absolves the debtor, will not be obligated to reimburse their losses.