זה בורר לו אחד – One of the litigants selects for himself one judge for adjudicate for him and change his verdict to innocence. And similarly, the second [litigant] chooses for himself a judge, and two of the litigants together choose another third judge, and through this, a faithful and truthful judgment will result, for both litigants will listen the judgment and they will say that truth was adjudicated for us. For the guilty party will hold: “Behold, on my own, I chose the one, and if he is able to change the verdict to innocence, he would change it. And the third judge on his own is willing to change the verdict to innocence for both of them , because both of them (i.e., the litigants) chose him.

וחכמים אומרים: שני הדיינים בוררים להם אחד – without the knowledge of the litigants, in order that the heart of the third judge would not lean towards one of them. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

זה פוסל דיינו של זה – He can say, I will not judge before the Jewish court that you have selected

בזמן שהביא עליהן ראיה – for this one brings evidence on one judge that he selected to invalidate him.

אבל אם הם כשרים ומומחים – This is how it should be understood: But if they were worthy in that they are neither relatives nor invalid, even though they sit on street corners, they became like specialists and he cannot invalidate them. The Halakhic decision on this is that when the litigants accepted who would judge them, whether for an individual or for the public, and he made a legal decision for them, his judgment is law and they cannot reverse his judgment even though he is not a specialist recognized by the public, and if it is known that he erred, if it is something from the Mishnah that he erred in or something explicitly written in the Gemara, they revoke the matter and re-judge it according to Halakha. But if it is impossible to revoke the matter such as the case that the person who took the money illegally went abroad, the judge is exempt form payment after they had accepted him [as judge] over them, for even though he caused for damage [to be done], he did not intend to cause damage. And if he had erred in his weighing between opposing views, and this is a matter that the Tannaim or Amoraim or Gaonim disputed about, but the general practice is like one off them, and the judge adjudicated like according to the words of that Gaon whose opinion was not like the general practice, if he did not engage in give and take by hand, he should retract the judgment, but if it is impossible to retract, he should pay from his own estate, and if he engaged in give-and-take by hand , what is done is done and he should pay from his own estate. But a judge whom the litigants did not accept but stood up on his own [to be a judge] or a king appointed him or some of the elders of the community appointed him, if he is not a specialist recognized by the public, even though he received permission from the Exilarch his judgments are not law, whether he erred or whether he did not err. And he is not amongst the judges but rather amongst those who act by force, and each one of the litigants if he wants, he reverses the decision and the judgment returns before the Jewish court. And if he erred and did not engage in give-and-take by hand, the judgment should be reversed, and if it is impossible to reverse it, he should pay from his estate according to the law of all who cause damage, and if he engaged in give-and-take by hand he should pay from his estate and return from what the litigant gave him which was not according to Halakha. But specialist recognized by the public whom the litigants accepted or that he received permission [to judge] from the Exilarch even though the litigants did not accept him, for such he is a specialist, if he erred in a matter whether from the Mishnah or from making a decision after weighing between opposing views, and it is impossible to reverse the decision, he is exempt from making payment. And a specialist who received permission from the Exilarch must force the litigants before him that they will adjudicate before him, whether they wanted to or did not want to, whether in the land of Israel or outside the land of Israel. And whomever received permission from the Nasi in the land of Israel cannot force the litigants other than only in the land of Israel. And he who is a specialist, is one who learned the Written Torah and the Oral Torah and knows how to think, to make analogies and to understand a thing from the midst of another thing (and he is called a specialist). And when he is recognized and known and his character/substance has gone out [and become known] among the men of his generation, he is called an expert recognized by the public, and he may judge singularly (i.e., alone) and even if he did not receive permission from the Exilarch.

זה פוסל עדיו של זה – This is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis which is maintained in the Gemara, for when a litigant said: “I have two sets of witnesses in the manner” and he brings the first set and the opposing litigant stands with one another [person] and says, they are invalid, Rabbi Meir states he and another [person] may invalidate them, and he is not an interested witness, for he said that he has another set [of witnesses], but if he requested and did not find [them] he loses. And the Rabbis think that even though he said at first: “I have two sets of witnesses,” he can retract and say “I do not have ought of these, and the person who comes to invalidate them is an interested witness but they are not invalidated by his mouth. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

נאמן עלי אבא – to be a judge. Even though he is ineligible from the Torah to judge me neither for acquittal nor for guilt, as we derive it from (Deuteronomy 24:16): “Parents shall not e put to death for children [nor children be put to death for parents: a person shall be put to death for his own crime].”

נאמנים עלי שלשה רועי בקר – to judge, for if it were for giving testimony, shepherds of cattle are valid.

רבי מאיר אומר: יכול לחזור בו – even after the final decision has been rendered, after the judge has received and the testimony and declared that so-and-so, you are innocent/acquitted.

אינו יכול לחזור בו – after the final decision has been rendered alone, that the Rabbis dispute the [opinion of] Rabbi Meir, for prior to the final decision being rendered,, the Sages agree with Rabbi Meir that he can retract. And also if they acquired [something] from his hand, when he receives the testimony of a certain person or the judgment of a certain person, even prior to rendering a final decision, he cannot retract, because there is nothing after an affirmation/acquisition (by handing over an object from one to the other contracting parties). And this is the Halakha.

דור לי בחיי ראשך – Let us make a vow by the life of your head and I will give you what you demand/claim, and you do not have to say: “You are remitted for what I have that is with you.” And he makes a vow or acquires it from his hand, even though he had not yet taken a vow, he may not retract, according to the words of the Sages. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

ואלו הן הפסולים – to judge or to testify [as witnesses].

המשחק בקוביא – is ineligible for testimony because he does not engage in the welfare of the world. For it is forbidden for a person that he should engage himself other than in [the study of] Torah and deeds of lovingkindness, or in business and crafts or work which have [as its purpose] the welfare of the world.

ומלוה בריבית – both the borrower and the lender are ineligible, and we hold that both the lender and the borrower violate a negative commandment.

ומפריחי יונים – there are those who explain this – as one of a kind of game/competition: “If yuour dove will come before my dove, I will give you such and such.” And there those who explain this as one who raises doves who know how to bring [other] doves to the house of its master against their will. And there is in this theft because of the ways of peace, but not complete theft.

וסוחרי שביעית – who do business with seventh year produce, and the Torah stated: (Leviticus 25:6): “But you may eat whatever the land during its sabbath will produce...,” but not for business.

רבי שמעון אומר: – In the Gemara, it explains this matter of Rabbi Shimon as such: At first, they would call them “people who collect seventh-year produce for themselves,” who were ineligible for testimony, just like those who engaged in the business of seventh-year produce.

משרבו האנסין – those who request portions of the King – such and such Korim of grain in each year. And they needed to gather the grain of the seventh year to pay off from it the portions of the king. And they went back to call only those who do business with grain of the seventh year are ineligible [to serve testify] but those who collect grain of the seventh year to give to the king are valid for testimony, and since they don’t collect it to store for themselves. But with regard to Halakhic decision-making, whomever transgressed a sin which makes him liable for death by the Jewish court or extirpation or flogging, is ineligible for testimony. And those liable for death are called רשע/wicked, as it is written (Numbers 35:31): “[You shall not accept a ransom for the life of a person] who is guilty of a capital crime; [he must be put to death].” And regarding those who are liable for flogging, it is written (Deuteronomy 25:2): “And if the guilty one is to be flogged…” And the Torah stated (Exodus 23:10): “You shall not join hands with the guilty to act as a malicious witness.” And the Rabbis expound on “You shall not join guilty hands.” And if he is flogged, he returns to his validity [as a witness], as it is written (Deuteronomy 25:3): “Your brother be degraded before your eyes.” Since he was flogged, he is like your brother. And if he took money, not according to the law, even though he is not liable by it for death or flogging, he ineligible for testimony, such as a thief and a robber and one who lends at interest. But if he took monies which have a Rabbinical prohibition, he is Rabbinically ineligible for testimony, such as those who are dove-racers (i.e., pigeon-racers), and an extortioner who gave money and took an object that the owners did not want to sell, and the which the tax-collectors and the customs collectors , who took it for themselves, and those who receive tzedakah in public from the heathens, these and those like them are Rabbinically ineligible for testimony. And their testimony is not nullified until they announce about them and make them public knowledge. But those who are ineligible to testify from the Torah do not require announcement, and all who are ineligible to testify whether from the Torah or from their words (i.e., the Rabbis), if it is known from their affairs that they completely repented and the monies that they took illegally were returned and that they made a fence and a partition (i.e., a guard against transgressing the law) for themselves in that matter where they had sinned so that they would not add to do this any further; behold, these returned to the validity [for testimony]. But those who are dice players, even though there is now theft, even from their words (i.e., the Rabbis), they are ineligible for testimony, because they do not engage in the welfare of the world and lack the fear of heaven. And especially because they have no work or craft other than this, according to the words of Rabbi Yehuda. And this is the Halakha. And when is their return? When they break their dice and accept upon themselves that even for free they should not do this.

שושבינו – this friend from the days of his wedding, he is ineligible to him all the days of the wedding [week].

לא נחשדו ישראל על כך – to testify falsehoods because of enmity and love. And such is the Halakha. And especially in testimony, the Rabbis dispute this, but by law, the Rabbis admit that he is ineligible to judge, for if he would be merciful to him, he would not be to see him as guilty; and it he hates him, he would not be able to reverse his ruling to make him innocent.

ומאיימין עליהם – we inform them that those who hire false witnesses despise them themselves and we call them “wicked,” as it is written concerning Naboth [and his vineyard] (I Kings 21:10): “And seat two scoundrels opposite him and let them testify against him: [You have reviled God and king!]...,” for the advisers of the king who were advisers who had been hired, we call them, “scoundrels.”

הוא אמר לי – the borrower said to me

לא אמר כלום – that a person does when he says “so-and-so loaned me” in order that people should not consider him rich.

הודה לו – for both of them were in our presence and to admit to him tha thtey they had the intention, to be for him witnesses in this matter.

אפילו שנים מזכין או מחייבים ואחד אומר איני יודע יוסיפו הדיינים – and even though that if he had disputed them, he would be nullified in his minority. For when he said, “I don’t know,” it is like he had not sat in judgment; it was found that the judgment was with two and we require three.

היו מכניסין אותן – to the litigants. For after they had heard their claims, they would remove them to the outside, in order that they could engage in give-and-take on the matter and the litigants would not [be able to] hear who declares whom guilty and whom innocent.

הבא ראיה – document of innocence/acquittal

הרי זה אינו כלום – For behold he said, “I don’t have it.” And we suspect that lest it is forged or he hired false witnesses.

אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל – But the Halakha is not according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

קרבו פלוני ופלוני והעידוני – In this, even Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel admits, that since he had known about them and said “I don’t have it.” He is definitively a liar. But the person who claims that he has witnesses or proof abroad, we don’t listen to him to delay the execution of capital punishment until he sends [for the materials that are] abroad. But we decide the law according to what we see from him right now. And when he brings witnesses or proof, we overturn the verdict and return and judge according to the witnesses or the proof that he brought.

אפונדתו – girding, wearing apparel for travelling; and there are those who explain it as clothing that is close to his skin.