Study Sanhedrin folio 24A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
is stated with regard to a case of disqualified witnesses and fit judges, i.e., the litigant claims that both the witnesses and the judges are disqualified and proves his claim only with regard to the witnesses. R' Meir holds that since the witnesses are disqualified the judges are also disqualifie
Rava objects to this interpretation: Granted, in the former clause, it is reasonable that since the witnesses are disqualified the judges are also disqualified, as, since there is the option of going to another court, disqualifying these specific judges has no irreversible effect on the outcome o
The Talmud answers: No, the Mishnah is not referring to a case where there are no other witnesses. The dispute between R' Meir and the Rabbis is necessary only in a case where there is another set of witnesses, which the litigant did not disqualify. Since disqualifying this set will not predetermin
The Talmud asks: But if there is no other set of witnesses, what is the halakha? Is it indeed true that the litigant cannot disqualify them? If so, this is identical to Rav Dimi’s interpretation that the Mishnah is referring to a case where there are two sets of witnesses.
The Talmud answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the principle that since [miggo] one of the litigant’s claims is found to be correct, it can be assumed that other claims of his are correct as well. As one Sage, Ravin, holds that according to R' Meir, we say miggo, i