1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules - that women, relatives and Pesulei Eidus are precluded from Shevu'as ha'Eidus.

(b)The source for this Halachah is the Pasuk - "ve'hu Eid", implying people who are fit to testify (precluding the above three, who are not).

(c)Rebbi Meir includes Shevu'as ha'Eidus even outside Beis-Din - provided it is 'mi'Pi Atzmo' (as we learned in the previous Sugya).

(d)We learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Im Lo Yagid ... " that - 'mi'Pi Acherim' (which the Pasuk is talking about) is Patur from Shevu'as ha'Eidus outside Beis-Din (where Hagadah is invalid).

2)

(a)The Chachamim rule that - Shevu'as ha'Eidus is invalid outside Beis-Din (even if it is 'mi'Pi Atzmo').

(b)When the Tana says 've'Chayavin al Zadon ha'Shevu'ah ve'al Shigegasah Im Zadon ha'Eidus', he means that - the Nishba forgot the Chiyuv Korban, and that he is Chayav a Korban Oleh ve'Yored.

(c)He is Chayav even though he was Meizid on the Eidus - because the Torah does not write "ve'Ne'elam" in connection with the Eidus ...

(d)... and the Tana exempts him in a case where he is a Shogeg on the Eidus as well - because then, he is considered an Oneis on the Shevu'ah (based on "ha'Adam bi'Shevu'ah", as we have already learned).

3)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Ve'amdu Sh'nei ha'Anashim asher lahem ha'Riv ... " that - women are disqualified from testifying.

(b)The Pasuk must be referring to the witnesses and not to the litigants - because, since "asher lahem ha'Riv" refers to the litigants, "Ve'amdu Sh'nei ha'Anashim" must refer to the witnesses.

(c)We can also learn it from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - "Sh'nei" "Sh'nei" (from "al-Pi Sh'nei Eidim" [two Pesukim earlier]).

(d)According to this Beraisa, we would otherwise have thought that the Pasuk is referring to the litigants only - because the Pasuk "asher lahem ha'Riv ... " (without a 'Vav') implies that it is all one phrase, which applies to the litigants exclusively.

4)

(a)In a second Beraisa, the Tana initially establishes the Pasuk by the witnesses - based on the fact that the Torah adds the word "Sh'nei", because if it referred to the litigants, who says that there are only two litigants, and not three?

(b)We nevertheless justify the need for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' to preclude the litigants - by interpreting "Sh'nei" as the claimant/s and the defendant/s (irrespective of how many people are actually involved).

(c)And in a third Beraisa, the Tana initially establishes the Pasuk by the witnesses from the fact that the Torah adds the word "ha'Anashim" - because if it referred to the litigants, who says that at least one of them was not a woman?

(d)We nevertheless justify the need for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' to preclude the litigants, interpreting the Torah's use of the word "Anashim" (not to preclude women Halachically, but) - because it is uncommon for them to appear in Beis-Din ...

(e)... based on the Pasuk in Tehilim "Kol Kevudah bas Melech Penimah" (which teaches us that ideally, a woman's place is in the home).

5)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ve'amdu Sh'nei ha'Anashim ... " that - the litigants are obligated to stand in court.

(b)The Pasuk must be referring to the litigants as well as to the witnesses - because of the missing 'Vav' in "Asher lahem ha'Riv" (as we explained earlier).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah rules that - if both litigants are invited to sit, then they are permitted to do so ...

(d)... because he maintains, the Torah only forbids one litigant to sit and the other one to stand, so that the latter should not be tongue-tied, when he sees his opponen1t receiving preferential treatment.

(e)For the same reason - Rebbi Yehudah forbids Beis-Din to allow the first litigant to speak unimpeded, and then to ask the second litigant to cut his words short.

6)

(a)The Beraisa learns Rebbi Yehudah's statement from the Pasuk "be'Tzedek Tishpot Amisecha". He also learns from there that - one is obligated to judge a fellow-Jew who appears to have sinned, to the scale of merit.

(b)And a Beraisa quoted by Rav Yosef Darshens the word "Amisecha" - as the acronym of 'Am she'Itcha be'Torah u've'Mitzvos' (meaning that one should give Talmidei-Chachamim precedence with regard to dealing with their case first).

7)

(a)When Rav Ula b'rei de'Rav Ila'i came before Rav Nachman for a Din Torah, Rav Yosef sent to Rav Nachman that - he belonged to the above category.

(b)Rav Nachman was initially startled - because he thought that Rav Yosef wanted him to flatter him.

(c)Besides in the way that we just explained ('Am she'Itcha be'Torah u've'Mitzvos'), Rav Nachman resolved the problem, by assuming that Rav Yosef was speaking about a case that might lead to 'Shuda de'Dayni' ...

(d)... where two people with the same name, for example, both claim to be the recipients of a gift, or where two documents of sale that are both dated on the same day selling the same property are produced in Beis-Din, and the Dayanim have no way of knowing which of the two is authentic. 'Shuda de'Dayni' means the most likely candidate in the eyes of the Dayanim (see also Tosfos DH 'I Nami').

8)

(a)Ula says that the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan is confined to the litigants. Rebbi Yehudah concedes that the witnesses must stand - since the Torah writes in Shoftim "ve'Amdu Sh'nei ha'Anashim ... ".

(b)Rav Huna (or Rava) learns from the Pasuk "Va'yeishev Moshe Lishpot es ha'Am, Va'ya'amod ha'Am" that - at the time of the G'mar Din (when Beis-Din issue the final ruling), the Dayanim must sit and the litigants must stand.

(c)The alternative source cited by Rav Huna for his ruling is - the fact that the Torah writes "ve'Amdu Sh'nei ha'Anashim ... " about the witnesses, whose testimony is akin to the G'mar Din as far as they are concerned [Note; some commentaries erase the second Lashon altogether]).

9)

(a)The quandary that faced Rav Nachman when Rav Huna's wife appeared before him for a Din Torah was - whether to rise when she entered (in which case he might cause the other litigant to become tongue-tied), or not (in which case he would not be showing the respect that is due to the wife of a Talmid-Chacham).

(b)Rav Huna could not appear in Beis-Din so that his wife could remain at home, as we learned above - because he was no longer alive (see also Tosfos DH 've'ha'Amar').

(c)Rav Nachman solved the problem - by instructing his Shamash to let loose a goose that would fly around him, and cause him to rise from his seat, without the litigant realizing his true motive (see Tosfos DH 'Afrach Alai').

(d)Bearing in mind what we learned earlier that at the time of the G'mar Din, the Dayanim are obligated to sit (see Toras Chayim), if, in similar circumstances, he would have had to stand during the G'mar Din - Rav Nachman would have remained in a half leaning position, like someone who leans over to tie his shoe-lace (See Tosfos DH 've'ha'Amar'), and announced 'Ish P'loni atah Zakai; Ish P'loni atah Chayav'.

10)

(a)Rabah bar Rav Huna rules that if a Talmid-Chacham and an Am ha'Aretz appear in Beis-Din together for a Din Torah - Beis-Din seat the Talmid-Chacham and offer the Am ha'Aretz a seat as well. Should he decline to sit down, that is his business.

(b)When Rav Sh'ravyah appeared before Rav Papa for a Din Torah with an Am ha'Aretz, Rav Papa carried out the previous Halachah. When the Sh'li'ach Beis-Din caused the second litigant to stand up by giving him a kick - Rav Papa remained silent.

(c)He was not afraid that the litigant might become tongue-tied - because he figured, seeing as he had offered him a seat, it was the Sh'li'ach who had caused him to stand, and he would not attribute it to the Beis-Din.

11)

(a)In the previous case, Rabah bar Rav Huna forbids the Talmid-Chacham to sit down before the Am ha'Aretz arrives in Beis-Din - on the grounds that this will cause people to suspect the former of having discussed the matter with the Dayan in the absence of the second litigant (in which case he will have transgressed the La'av of "Lo Sisa Sheima Shav").

(b)This will be permitted however - in a case where the Dayan is the Talmid-Chacham's Rebbe, and they had a fixed Shi'ur before the Din Torah was due to begin.

12)

(a)Rabah bar Rav Huna permits a Talmid-Chacham to decline to appear in Beis-Din to testify for one of the litigants - if he is superior to the Dayan in Torah-learning, in which case it is degrading for him to do so.

(b)The Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a cited by Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi in support of Rabah bar Rav Huna is - the ruling that if a Talmid-Chacham finds a sack or a box which he finds degrading to carry through the street, he is Patur from the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah.

(c)This concession will not apply however - to a case of Isur, for example, to testify that a certain man is still alive, if his wife, believing him to be dead, wants to get married.

(d)This latter stringency is based on the principle that - when it comes to an Isur 'there is no Chochmah ... before Hashem', and that one does not show a Talmid-Chacham respect, in face of a Chilul Hash-m.

13)

(a)The source for the Mitzvah to show a Talmid-Chacham respect is - the word "es" in the Pasuk in Re'ei "es Hash-m Elokecha Tira" ('Lerabos Talmidei-Chachamim').

(b)When Rav Yeimar came to Beis-Din to testify on behalf of Mar Zutra, Ameimar caused Rav Ashi to raise an eyebrow - by offering both the litigants and the witnesses a seat.

(c)Ameimar vindicated his ruling however - by referring to the above Asei, which overrides the Asei of "ve'Amdu Sh'nei ha'Anashim", because a Mitzvas Asei that entails Kavod ha'Torah has priority over other Mitzvos Asei.

14)

(a)When the Beraisa rules that a Dayan should not make 'Sanigron' to corroborate his words, the Tana means that - if, after coming to a certain conclusion, a Dayan feels that he has erred, he should not force the issue by attempting to prove his point.

(b)The source for this ruling is - the Asei in Mishpatim of "mi'Devar Sheker Tirchak".

(c)A Dayan may not place a Bur (an ignoramus) before him to discuss his learning with him - based on the same Pasuk (because the latter is likely to cause him to err).

(d)The dual Halachah cited by the Tana with regard to a Dayan and a witness is that - neither may join with an Am ha'Aretz, even in their quest for the truth.