Musar for Sanhedrin 45:28

מאי קמ"ל דמצי הדר ביה תנינא אמר לו נאמן עלי אבא נאמן עלי אביך נאמנין עלי ג' רועי בקר ר"מ אומר יכול לחזור בו וחכ"א אינו יכול לחזור בו

— Say [thus]: It doesnot rest with him to reject a judge whom the public has accepted as a Mumheh.It has been taught likewise: Onemay<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not a competent body, in which case R. Meir may agree with the Rabbis. ');">²²</span> go on rejecting judges untilhe undertakes [that the action shall be tried] before a <i>Beth din</i> ofMumhin:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This translation follows an emended text. V. marginal gloss in curr. edd. ');">²³</span> this is the view of R.Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is evident that even R. Meir agrees that Mumhin cannot be rejected. ');">²⁴</span> But witnesses [when not disqualified] are asMumhin;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All are expert to attest what they have witnessed. ');">²⁵</span> yet R. Meir said: EACH PARTYMAY REJECT THE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY THE OTHER! — Surely it has been statedregarding this: Resh Lakish said: Imagine a holy mouth [sc. R. Meir] utteringsuch a thing!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely it is absurd to suggest that a litigant having produced witnesses in his favour, his opponent can simply reject them. ');">²⁶</span> Read [therefore] 'THEWITNESS', [singular].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., each can reject only a single witness produced by the other: a single witness, of course, is not on a par with an expert Beth din. ');">²⁷</span> But for whatpurpose is a single witness [competent]? Shall we say, for the actual paymentof money?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the debtor is to be ordered to pay on his evidence. ');">²⁸</span> then his testimony isBiblically invalid! If for [the administration of] an oath, then his evidenceis [legally] as trustworthy as that oftwo!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the plaintiff has one witness in his support, his testimony is so far admissible as to subject the defendant to an oath; and the defendant cannot reject his testimony, just as he could not reject the testimony of two witnesses. ');">²⁹</span> — In fact, he refers to thepayment of money, but it [sc. R. Meir's ruling] arises only where both partieshave voluntarily accepted his testimony as equivalent to that of two witnesses.Then what does he thereby teach: that he may retract? But we have alreadylearnt this once:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., in the next Mishnah. ');">³⁰</span> If one says, Iaccept my father or thy father astrustworthy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To act as judges in a dispute, though normally relations of the litigants were ineligible. That the reference is to judges follows from the fact that three herdsmen are mentioned. ');">³¹</span> or I have confidencein three herdsmen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In those days holding the lowest rank in society. ');">³²</span> R. Meir says,He may [subsequently] retract; but the Sages rule, He cannot.

Mesilat Yesharim