Our Mishnah teaches us that Dinei Mamonos - Hoda'os and Halva'os, require three judges (this will be explained later), and so do Gezeilos and Chavalos.

The basic difference between Gezeilos and Halva'os is that - whereas Gezeilos incorporates any money that one obtained unlawfully, including using a Pikadon without the owner's permission, Halva'os constitutes money that one came by lawfully, but that one subsequently withholds from the owner.

According to Rebbi Meir, 'Nezek' ... 'Tashlumei Kefel' ... 'Oneis' ... and 'Motzi-Shem-Ra' - all require three judges.

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 Kesubah), it can lead to the death-sentence, too. So they require a complete Beis-Din already at the outset.

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

Rebbi Meir maintains that Ibur ha'Chodesh and Ibur ha'Shanah - (working out whether the year needs an extra Adar or not) require three judges, too.

According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - Ibur Shanah begins with three judges, continues with five and ends with seven.

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

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

According to Rebbi Yehudah - the latter requires five judges.

And he requires three judges for 'Chalitzah and ...

... 'Mi'unin' - the authority granted to a young girl under bas-Mitzvah, married off by her mother or brothers (whose marriage is ony mi'de'Rabbanan), to walk out of the marriage on the basis of a mere declaration that she is no longer able to live with this man.

... 'Neta Revai u'Ma'aser Sheini' (in this context) means - the assessment of the fruit that the owner wishes to redeem, to take the money to Yerushalayim ...

... provided its value is unknown.

The Tana Kama rules 'ha'Hekdeshos bi'Sheloshah ... ha'Erchin ha'Metaltelin bi'Sheloshah'. Rebbi Yehudah qualifies the latter in that - one of the three judges must be a Kohen ...

... since the Torah writes in Bechukosai "ke'Erk'cha ha'Kohen ... ".

Ten judges, one of whom must be a Kohen, are required for ...

... Hekdesh Karka'os and for ...

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

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

... in Kedoshim "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 also requires a Sanhedrin of twenty-three.

... in Mishpatim "ha'Shor Yisakel ve'Gam Be'alav Yamus" - that the same applies to an animal that killed a person.

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 maintains - that they do not require a Beis-Din in the first place, because whoever kills them has earned himself a merit, whereas Rebbi ...

... Akiva echoes the opinion of the Tana Kama (and this will be explained in the Sugya).

For judging a tribe, a Navi Sheker and a Kohen Gadol have in common is - the Mishnah requires a Beis-Din of seventy-one (the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol).

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

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) too - require a Beis-Din of seventy-one.

A city cannot become an Ir ha'Nidachas - if it is situated on the border of Eretz Yisrael.

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

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

According to Rebbi Yehudah - only seventy are required.

We learn from the Pasuk ...

... in Mas'ei "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).

... in Korach "Ad Masai la'Eidah ha'Ra'ah ha'Zos" - that the word Eidah comprises ten people.

... in Mishpatim "Lo Sih'yeh Acharei Rabim le'Ra'os" - that we follow a majority of one to escape from a negative P'sak.

... in Mishpatim "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).

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

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 ...

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

We learned in our Mishnah that 'Dinei Mamonos bi'Sheloshah, Gezeilos va'Chavalos bi'Sheloshah'. The problem with that is - why the former does not incorporate the latter.

Initially, Rebbi Avahu answers that 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 and Chavalos.

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

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.

Having stated ...

... 'Dinei Mamonos', the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to add 'Gezeilos va'Chavalos' - in order to preclude Hoda'os ve'Halva'os, as we explained.

... 'Gezeilos va'Chavalos', he found it necesary to add 'Dinei Mamonos' - because otherwise, we would have assumed Hoda'os and Halva'os to be no different than Gezeilos and Chavalos, and we only present the latter, because it is in connection with them that the Torah mentions the Din of three judges.

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

The same will apply to Chavalos - because there is no logical reason to differentiate between harming a person monetarily and harming him bodily.

Rebbi Avahu rules that if two judges adjucated money-matters - their ruling is void (implying even by Hoda'os and Halva'os).

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 requirement of three judges, but to that of experts.

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

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.

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

... 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).

... 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).

We answer that really our Mishnah 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 - Dinei Mamon require D'rishah and Chakirah (a thorough cross-examination of the witnesses) just like Dinei Nefashos.

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

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 judges, they do not require experts (mi'de'Rabbanan, on account of 'Ne'ilas De'les').

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