Commentary for Sanhedrin 45:21

ת"ש אמרו לו לר"מ לא כל הימנו שפוסל דיין שמומחה לרבים

— No, all agree with Rab Judah'sstatement in Rab's name and none dispute that the [third judge] must havethe consent of his colleagues; they only differ as to whether the consentof the litigants is necessary. R. Meir maintains that the consent of thelitigants is also required, while the Rabbis hold, only that of the judgesis required, but not that of the litigants.

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 45:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.