Sanhedrin 5
אלא מעתה טעו לא ישלמו כל שכן אתה נועל דלת בפני לווין
If it be so, [that cases of indebtedness require three, why does R. Abbahu say that the Tanna adds an explanatory clause, and not simply that] the Mishnah teaches two separate laws; viz. MONETARY cases are tried by three laymen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [G], an ordinary person. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אלא אמר רבא תרתי קתני משום דרבי חנינא רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר מדאורייתא חד נמי כשר שנאמר (ויקרא יט, טו) בצדק תשפוט עמיתך אלא משום יושבי קרנות
the Tanna teaches two separate laws; and cases of indebtedness need no <i>Mumhin</i> for the reason given above by R. Hanina.
אטו בתלתא מי לא הוו יושבי קרנות אי אפשר דלית בהו חד דגמיר אלא מעתה טעו לא ישלמו כ"ש דנפישי יושבי קרנות
R. Aha the son of R. Ika says: According to Scriptural law, even a single person is competent to try cases of indebtedness as it is said: <i>In righteousness shalt</i> thou <i>judge thy neighbor</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 15. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
מאי איכא בין רבא לרב אחא בריה דרב איקא איכא בינייהו דאמר שמואל שנים שדנו דיניהן דין אלא שנקראו בית דין חצוף לרבא לית ליה דשמואל לרב אחא בריה דרב איקא אית ליה דשמואל:
Three, however, are needed in case traffickers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unversed in the law. [Heb. [H], lit., rendered sit (a) at street corners, (b) in waggons, (c) in markets, (d) a company (of musicians), connecting the word with the Latin corona, (e) a corruption of the abbreviations [H] 'circuses and theatres', a reading supported by the J.T.] ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
נזק וחצי נזק וכו': נזק היינו חבלות משום דקא בעי למיתנא חצי נזק תני נמי נזק שלם
presume to act as judges. But even with the provision of three might they not all be traffickers? — It is, however unlikely that none of them should have any knowledge of the law. If this be so, they should be exempt from liability in case they erred? — But how much more would traffickers presume in such circumstances to act as judges!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they would be protected against all claims of compensation. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
חצי נזק נמי היינו חבלות תנא ממונא וקתני קנסא
Wherein then lies the difference between Raba and R. Aha the son of R. Ika [since both agree that mere laymen are competent]? Their difference centres round the opinion of Samuel who said: 'if two [laymen] have tried a monetary case, their decision holds good. but they are called a presumptuous <i>Beth din</i>.' Whereas Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to him three are biblically required. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
אלא איידי דקא בעי למיתנא תשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמשה דממון
CLAIMS FOR FULL OR HALF DAMAGES etc. Do not FULL DAMAGES come under the category of MAYHEM<a rel="footnote" href="#3a_9"><sup>9</sup></a> [why then this specification]? — Since the Tanna had to state HALF DAMAGES he mentions, also FULL DAMAGES. But is not HALF DAMAGES also included in the same category? — The Tanna speaks of two classes of payment — <i>kenas</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. a fine imposed upon the owner for not guarding his animal from causing damage, as distinct from damages in cases of mayhem, which are considered indemnity. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> [fine] and indemnity. This opinion would be in accord with the Amora who considers HALF DAMAGES kenas, but how meet the difficulty according to the one who regards it as indemnity?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 15a. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> — Since the Tanna had to state DOUBLE AND FOUR- OR FIVE-FOLD RESTITUTION, which is an indemnity