## Sanhedrin Daf 6a

###### Sanhedrin 6a:1
[Sanhedrin 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/6a:1)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁדָּנוּ – לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין דִּינֵיהֶם דִּין! גַּבְרָא אַגַּבְרָא קָא רָמֵית?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say the Rabbis disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** with regard to the minimum number of judges necessary to adjudicate, **but doesn’t Rabbi Abbahu say:** With regard to a court of **two** judges **that adjudicated** cases of **monetary law** of any type, which would include cases of admissions and loans, **everyone agrees** that **their judgment is not** a valid **judgment,** as a court with fewer than three judges is invalid? The Gemara rejects this question: **Are you setting** the statement of one **man against** the statement of another **man?** Although Rabbi Abbahu asserts that all agree that two judges cannot issue a binding judgment, Shmuel differs. According to Shmuel, the Rabbis hold that the judgment of two judges is considered binding.


###### Sanhedrin 6a:2
[Sanhedrin 6a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/6a:2)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁדָּנוּ דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת – לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין דִּינֵיהֶם דִּין. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: דָּן אֶת הַדִּין וְזִיכָּה אֶת הַחַיָּיב, וְחִיֵּיב אֶת הַזַּכַּאי, טִימֵּא אֶת הַטָּהוֹר, טִיהֵר אֶת הַטָּמֵא – מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה עָשׂוּי, וּמְשַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Since it was mentioned incidentally, the Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself: Rabbi Abbahu says:** With regard to a court of **two** judges **that adjudicated** cases of **monetary law** of any type, which would include cases of admissions and loans, **everyone agrees** that **their judgment is not** a valid **judgment. Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Rabbi Abbahu** from a mishna (*Bekhorot* 28b): If a single judge **adjudicated** a case of monetary **law and** erroneously **exonerated the** litigant who should have been deemed **liable, or deemed liable the** litigant who should have been deemed **exempt,** or if one issued a halakhic ruling whereby he **deemed** ritually **impure that which is** actually **pure,** or **deemed pure that which is impure, what he did is done,** i.e., his ruling is binding. **And** the judge nevertheless **pays from his house,** i.e., from his own pocket, for the loss he has caused. Evidently, the ruling of even a single judge constitutes a valid judgment.


###### Sanhedrin 6a:3
[Sanhedrin 6a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/6a:3)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דְּקַיבְּלוּהוּ עֲלַיְיהוּ. אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי מְשַׁלֵּם מִבֵּיתוֹ? דְּאָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: דָּיְינַתְּ לַן דִּין תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Here we are dealing with** a case in **which** the litigants **accepted** the singular judge **upon themselves,** and it is for that reason that his ruling is binding. Otherwise, it would not be binding, as a halakhic court must contain a minimum of three judges. The Gemara asks: **If so,** that the litigants agreed to accept whatever ruling the judge issued, **why** must the judge **pay from his** own **house?** The Gemara answers: The judge is liable **because** the case is where **they said to him: Adjudicate** the case **for us** according to **Torah law.** Since he did not issue a halakhically proper judgment, he is liable.


###### Sanhedrin 6a:4
[Sanhedrin 6a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/6a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְרַבִּי אַבָּא: דִּטְעָה בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא דִּטְעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה, וְהָאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: טָעָה בִּדְבַר מִשְׁנָה חוֹזֵר? אֶלָּא דִּטְעָה בְּשִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Safra said to Rabbi Abba:** This ruling applies **when** he **erred in what** respect? **If we say that** he **erred in a matter** that appears in the **Mishna,** and he mistakenly ruled against an explicitly stated *halakha*, that is difficult. **But doesn’t Rav Sheshet say** that **Rabbi Ami says:** If the judge **erred in a matter** that appears in the **Mishna,** the decision is **revoked** and the case retried? **Rather,** the case is **where** he **erred in** his **deliberation.**


###### Sanhedrin 6a:5
[Sanhedrin 6a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/6a:5)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי בְּשִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּגוֹן תְּרֵי תַנָּאֵי וּתְרֵי אָמוֹרָאֵי דִּפְלִיגִי אַהֲדָדֵי, וְלָא אִיתְּמַר הִלְכְתָא לָא כְּמָר וְלָא כְּמָר, וְסוּגְיַין דְּעָלְמָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וַעֲבַד כְּאִידַּךְ – הַיְינוּ שִׁיקּוּל הַדַּעַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of an error **in deliberation? Rav Pappa said:** The circumstances of an error in deliberation are where, **for example,** there are **two *tanna’im* or two *amora’im* who disagree with one another, and the *halakha* was not stated** in accordance **with** the opinion of one **Sage or with** the opinion of the other **Sage; and the standard practice** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **one of them, and he went and executed** the judgment **in accordance with the other** opinion; **this is** an error in **deliberation.**


###### Sanhedrin 6a:6
[Sanhedrin 6a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/6a:6)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: בִּיצּוּעַ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: פְּשָׁרָה בְּיָחִיד. סַבְרוּהָ, לְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מַקְּשִׁינַן פְּשָׁרָה לְדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the dispute between Shmuel and Rabbi Abbahu about a court composed of two judges **is parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as detailed in the following *baraita*: **Mediation** can be performed **by** a panel of **three** judges; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Compromise** can be performed **by** even **a single** judge. The Sages **assumed** that **everyone** agrees that **we compare compromise to judgment,** and require the same amount of judges for each process.


###### Sanhedrin 6a:7
[Sanhedrin 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/6a:7)

מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: דִּין בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וּמָר סָבַר: דִּין בִּשְׁנַיִם? לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דִּין בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר מַקְּשִׁינַן פְּשָׁרָה לְדִין, וּמָר סָבַר לָא מַקְּשִׁינַן פְּשָׁרָה לְדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** that **they disagree in this** matter, **that** one **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** that **judgment** and compromise can be performed **by** a minimum of **three** judges, **and** one **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds** that **judgment** and compromise can be performed even **by two** judges? The Gemara rejects this analysis: **No,** it is **that everyone** holds that **judgment** must be performed **by** a minimum of **three** judges, **and here, they disagree with regard to this** matter: One **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** that **we compare compromise to judgment, and** one **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds** that **we do not compare compromise to judgment.**


###### Sanhedrin 6a:8
[Sanhedrin 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/6a:8)

לֵימָא: תְּלָתָא תַּנָּאֵי בִּפְשָׁרָה, דְּמָר סָבַר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וּמָר סָבַר בִּשְׁנַיִם, וּמָר סָבַר בְּיָחִיד. אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יֵימַר בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא: מַאן דְּאָמַר תְּרֵי – אֲפִילּוּ חַד נָמֵי, וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר תְּרֵי – כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִיהְווֹ עֲלֵיהּ סָהֲדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let** us **say** that there are **three** opinions of ***tanna’im* with regard to** mediation leading to **compromise, as** one **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** that mediation must be performed **by** a panel of **three** judges; **and** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that it can be performed **by two** judges; **and** one **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds** that it can be performed **by a single** judge. The Gemara rejects this suggestion. **Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, and some say Rabbi Yeimar bar Shelamya, said: The one who says** mediation must be performed by **two** judges would say that it may **even** be performed by **one. And** the reason **that he says two** is merely **that there would be** two **witnesses to** the proceedings, who could testify about them if necessary. In that way, neither side could later deny the terms of the compromise.


###### Sanhedrin 6a:9
[Sanhedrin 6a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/6a:9)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ פְּשָׁרָה אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה קִנְיָן, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ צְרִיכָה קִנְיָן, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר צְרִיכָה – תְּלָתָא לְמָה לִי? תִּסְגֵּי בִּתְרֵי וְלִיקְנֵי מִינֵּיהּ! וְהִלְכְתָא: פְּשָׁרָה צְרִיכָה קִנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi says: Learn from** that discussion that **compromise does not require** a formal act of **acquisition,** which would legally transfer rights to the settlement payment to the other party. **As if it enters your mind** that compromise **requires** an act of **acquisition** to finalize its terms, **according to the one who says** it **requires** an act of acquisition, **why do I** need a formal court of **three** judges? **Let it suffice with two** judges, **and let** one litigant **perform an act of acquisition with** the other litigant to signify their commitment to abide by the compromise. If a formal act is required to grant halakhic force to the compromise, there is no advantage to having a panel of three judges with the status of a formal court. The Gemara concludes: **But** nevertheless, **the *halakha*** is that **a compromise requires** an act of **acquisition** to finalize its terms.


###### Sanhedrin 6a:10
[Sanhedrin 6a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/6a:10)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַדִּין בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, כָּךְ בִּיצּוּעַ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 1:2–8): **Just as judgment** is performed **by three** judges, **so** too, **mediation** is performed **by three** judges.