How Three Judges Were Drawn From the Word for God

Rav Sheshet said: a guardian who falsely pleads a thief took the deposit, once he has put his hand to it, is exempt. What is the reason? The Merciful One said "and the householder shall draw near to the judges if he has not put his hand to it" - so if he put his hand to it, he is exempt. Rabbi Chiya bar Yosef said: a guardian who falsely pleads a thief took it is not liable until he puts his hand to it. What is the reason? As the verse says "the oath of the LORD shall be between the two of them, if he has not put his hand to it" (Exodus 22:10), meaning we deal with a case where he did put his hand to it. Our Rabbis taught: "and the householder shall draw near to the judges" - here is one. "To the judges shall come the matter of the two of them" - here are two. "Whom the judges condemn" - here are three. These are the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah. Rabbi Yonatan says: the first is stated at the outset, and one does not expound openings. Rather, "to the judges shall come the matter of the two of them" - here is one. "Whom the judges condemn" - here are two. And since a court may not be evenly balanced, they add one more to them; here are three. Shall we say they disagree about whether one expounds openings? No - all agree one does not expound openings. Rabbi Yoshiyah says to you: if so, let the verse write "and the householder shall draw near to judgment"; what is "to the judges" [Elohim]? Learn from it, for counting. And Rabbi Yonatan: it took an elevated expression, as people say, one who has a case should draw near to the judge. Does Rabbi Yoshiyah not hold there is a court that inclines? But it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, what does "after the majority to incline" (Exodus 23:2) teach? The Torah said, make for yourself a court that inclines. He holds like Rabbi Yehudah, who said seventy, and even more than Rabbi Yehudah; for Rabbi Yehudah denies it only of the Great Sanhedrin, but in other courts he affirms it, while Rabbi Yoshiyah denies it of other courts as well. Then what does this "to incline" do for him? He applies it to capital cases. But in monetary cases he does not say it. Then what of the teaching: two say acquitted and one says liable - he is acquitted; shall we say it is not according to Rabbi Yoshiyah? You may even say it is Rabbi Yoshiyah: he derives it by an a fortiori argument - if in capital cases, which are stringent, the Merciful One said go after the majority, then in monetary cases, which are lenient, all the more so.