Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 23, 2017 | ื›ืดื– ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Bava Batra 32

Rav Nachman was not concerned that overturning a ruling of the court based on new testimony would cause a lack fo respect in the future for the courts. ย He relied on Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s ruling in a case of a kohen about whom concern was raised that he was the son of a kohen and a divorcee. ย The details of the exact case are clarified and lead to the fact that all agree that one can overturn a ruling – the debate was over a different issue – can 2 individual witnesses testify each separately and it can be considered one testimony? ย Other cases are brought where one brings a document and the other side accuses him for bringing a false document. ย Then the one who brought the document says that the document is a forgery but there was a real document that got lot. ย Is the claim valid as a “ma li leshaker” – since he could have lied and said it was a valid docuemnt. ย The commentaries disagree as to the exact details of the case – was it really a forged document or was it a shtar amana? ย How do we rule in cases like this?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื•ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ืขืจืขืจ ืชืจื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืขืจืขืจ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื ื™ื

and Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel holds that an effective challenge requires two witnesses, one could then ask: But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say: Everyone agrees that there is no effective challenge with fewer than two witnesses?

ืืœื ืขืจืขืจ ืชืจื™ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื—ื–ืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ื”ืื™ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ื ืคืง ืขืœื™ื” ืงืœื ื“ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื•ืืžืจ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืืกืงื™ื ื™ื”

Rather, the challenge was established by two witnesses. And with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where we presume with regard to the father of that man that he is a priest, and a rumor emerged about the son that he is the son of a priest and a divorced woman, or the son of a priest and a แธฅalutza, and we downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood based on that rumor, and one witness came and said that the man in question is a priest of unflawed lineage, and we elevated him back to the priesthood, as one witness is sufficient to negate a rumor.

ื•ืืชื• ื‘ื™ ืชืจื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ื“ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื•ืืžืจ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืช

The Gemara continues the case: And then two witnesses came and said that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a แธฅalutza, and we downgraded him from the priesthood based on their testimony. Then one witness came and said that he is a priest of unflawed lineage, resulting in two witnesses testifying that his lineage is unflawed, and two testifying that it is flawed. And everyone agrees that the testimony of the two single witnesses combine to produce testimony that he is a priest of unflawed lineage, and his presumptive status of priesthood should be restored.

ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžื™ื—ืฉ ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ืœื ืžืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ืื ืŸ ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืื ืŸ ืžืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara explains the dispute: And here it is with regard to concern about contempt of court that they disagree. Rabbi Elazar holds: Once we downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood based on the testimony of two witnesses, we do not then elevate him, as we are concerned about contempt of court, as a reversal in the courtโ€™s decision creates the impression that the court operates indecisively. And Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel holds: We downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood and we then elevate him, and we are not concerned about contempt of court. The primary concern is that the matter should be determined based on the relevant testimonies.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื—ื“ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืชืจื™ ื ืžื™ ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืœืฆืจืฃ ืขื“ื•ืช ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื•ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™

Rav Ashi objects to the analysis that they disagree with regard to concern about contempt of court: If so, why specifically is it necessary to establish the dispute in a case where first one witness testified as to his unflawed lineage, and then another testified later? The same would hold true even in a case where two witnesses testified together that he is unfit for the priesthood and the court downgraded him, and two witnesses testified together that he is fit for the priesthood and the court elevated him. The tannaโ€™im would also disagree, as the same concern applies. Rather, Rav Ashi said: Everyone agrees that we are not concerned about contempt of court. And here, it is with regard to whether the court is able to combine the testimony of two single witnesses that they disagree, and it is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the following dispute between these tannaโ€™im.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคืช ืขื“ ืฉื™ืจืื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื” ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืชืงื™ื™ืžืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื™ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ืœื›ืฉื™ื‘ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœืžื—ืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื•

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 5:5): The testimony of individual witnesses never combines unless it is so that the two of them see the incident transpire together as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa says: Their testimony combines even in a case where they witnessed the event one after the other, but their testimony is established in court only if it is so that the two of them testify together as one. Rabbi Natan says: They are not required to testify together. Their testimony is combined even if the court hears the statement of this witness today and when the other witness arrives tomorrow the court hears his statement. Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis, whether the separate testimonies can be combined.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ืš ื–ื‘ื™ื ืชื” ื•ื”ื ืฉื˜ืจื

ยง The Gemara relates an incident where two people disputed the ownership of land. There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from you, and this is the bill of sale.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจื ื–ื™ื™ืคื ื”ื•ื ื’ื—ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื” ืื™ืŸ ืฉื˜ืจื ื–ื™ื™ืคื ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื”ื• ืฉื˜ืจื ืžืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ ื•ืื™ืจื›ืก ื•ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ื ืงื™ื˜ ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืื™ ื›ืœ ื“ื”ื•

The first said to him in response: It is a forged bill of sale. The possessor leaned over and whispered to Rabba: Yes, it is a forged bill. But I had a proper bill of sale and it was lost, and I said to myself: I will hold this bill of sale in my possession, such as it is.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืžื” ืœื• ืœืฉืงืจ ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจื ืžืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืื™ ืกืžื›ืช ืื”ืื™ ืฉื˜ืจื ื”ืื™ ืฉื˜ืจื ื—ืกืคื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื

Rabba said: Why would he lie and state this claim? If he wants to lie, he can say to him that it is a proper bill of sale, and he would have been deemed credible and awarded the field. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: In the final analysis, on what are you relying to award him the land? On this bill of sale? This admittedly forged bill is merely a worthless shard, and cannot be used in court as evidence.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ืžืื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื“ืžืกื™ืงื ื ื‘ืš ื•ื”ื ืฉื˜ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจื ื–ื™ื™ืคื ื”ื•ื ื’ื—ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื˜ืจื ื–ื™ื™ืคื ืžื™ื”ื• ืฉื˜ืจื ืžืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ ื•ืื™ืจื›ืก ื•ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ื ืงื™ื˜ ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืื™ ื›ืœ ื“ื”ื•

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me one hundred dinars that I am attempting to collect from you, and this is the promissory note that attests to the debt. The latter said to him in response: It is a forged promissory note. The first person leaned over and whispered to Rava: Yes, it is a forged promissory note. But I had a proper promissory note and it was lost, and I said to myself: I will hold this promissory note in my possession, such as it is.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืžื” ืœื• ืœืฉืงืจ ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจื ืžืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืื™ ืงื ืกืžื›ืช ืื”ืื™ ืฉื˜ืจื ื”ืื™ ืฉื˜ืจื ื—ืกืคื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื

Rabba said: Why would he lie and state this claim? If he wants to lie, he can say to him that it is a proper promissory note, and he will be deemed credible and awarded the money. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: In the final analysis, on what are you relying to award him the money? On this promissory note? This document is merely a shard, and cannot be used in court as evidence.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืืจืขื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืืจืขื ื“ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ืืจืขื ืชื™ืงื•ื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื“ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœื•ืงืžื™

The Gemara notes the final ruling in these two cases. Rav Idi bar Avin said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba with regard to land, and the possessor is awarded the land, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef with regard to money, and the one demanding payment is not awarded the money. He explains: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba with regard to land, as the court rules that the land should remain where it is, i.e., with the possessor. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef with regard to money, as the court rules that the money should remain where it is, i.e., in the possession of the purported debtor.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืขืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืœื•ื” ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ืžืื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื“ืคืจืขืชื™ ืœืžืœื•ื” ืขื™ืœื•ืš ื•ื”ื ืฉื˜ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืื• ืคืจืขืชื™ืš ืืžืจ ืœืื• ื”ื“ืจืช ืฉืงืœืชื™ื ื”ื• ืžื™ื ืื™

The Gemara relates: There was a certain guarantor who said to a debtor: Give me one hundred dinars for the money that I repaid the creditor on your behalf, and this is the document that I received from him when I repaid your debt. The debtor said to the guarantor: Is it not so that I repaid you? The guarantor said to the debtor: Yes, you did, but is it not so that you later took the money from me again?

ืฉืœื—ื” ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืฉืœื— ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืื™ื”ื• ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืืจืขื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื“ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื•ืงืžื• ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœื•ืงืžื•

Rav Idi bar Avin sent the following question before Abaye: What is the halakha in a case like this? Abaye sent him the following response: What does he, i.e., Rav Idi bar Avin, ask? Isnโ€™t he the one who said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba with regard to land, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef with regard to money, as the court rules that the money should remain where it is? Based on his own ruling, the money should remain with the debtor.

ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื“ืจืช ืื•ื–ืคืชื™ื ื”ื• ืžื™ื ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื“ืจืชื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœืš ืžื—ืžืช ื“ื”ื•ื• ืฉื™ื™ืคื™ ื•ืกื•ืžืงื™ ืื›ืชื™ ืื™ืชื™ื” ืœืฉืขื‘ื•ื“ื ื“ืฉื˜ืจื

The Gemara notes: And this matter applies only in a case where the guarantor says to the debtor: You later borrowed the money from me after you had repaid me. But if the guarantor said to the debtor: I returned to you the money that you had repaid me because of the fact that the coins were worn out or overly reddish, i.e., discolored, and would not be easily accepted as currency, then the lien of the document is still in effect. The debt to the guarantor had not actually been repaid, and the document is still in effect. In that case, the guarantor collects from the debtor.

ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืฉืจืฉื•ื ื ืคืง ืขืœื™ื” ืงืœื ื“ืงื ืื›ื™ืœ ืืจืขื ื“ื™ืชืžื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื™ืžื ืœื™ ืื™ื–ื™ ื’ื•ืคื ื“ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืจืขื ื‘ืžืฉื›ื•ื ืชื ื”ื•ื” ื ืงื™ื˜ื ื ืžืื‘ื•ื”ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ืชืžื™ ื•ื”ื•ื” ืœื™

The Gemara relates: A rumor emerged concerning Rava bar Sharshom that he was profiting from land belonging to orphans. Abaye said to him: Tell me, my friend, concerning the incident itself, how is it that this rumor was generated? Rava bar Sharshom said to him: I was holding on to the land as collateral from the father of the orphans, and I had

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 32

ื•ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ืขืจืขืจ ืชืจื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืขืจืขืจ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื ื™ื

and Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel holds that an effective challenge requires two witnesses, one could then ask: But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say: Everyone agrees that there is no effective challenge with fewer than two witnesses?

ืืœื ืขืจืขืจ ืชืจื™ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื—ื–ืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ื”ืื™ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ื ืคืง ืขืœื™ื” ืงืœื ื“ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื•ืืžืจ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืืกืงื™ื ื™ื”

Rather, the challenge was established by two witnesses. And with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where we presume with regard to the father of that man that he is a priest, and a rumor emerged about the son that he is the son of a priest and a divorced woman, or the son of a priest and a แธฅalutza, and we downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood based on that rumor, and one witness came and said that the man in question is a priest of unflawed lineage, and we elevated him back to the priesthood, as one witness is sufficient to negate a rumor.

ื•ืืชื• ื‘ื™ ืชืจื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ื“ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื•ืืžืจ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืช

The Gemara continues the case: And then two witnesses came and said that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a แธฅalutza, and we downgraded him from the priesthood based on their testimony. Then one witness came and said that he is a priest of unflawed lineage, resulting in two witnesses testifying that his lineage is unflawed, and two testifying that it is flawed. And everyone agrees that the testimony of the two single witnesses combine to produce testimony that he is a priest of unflawed lineage, and his presumptive status of priesthood should be restored.

ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžื™ื—ืฉ ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ืœื ืžืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ืื ืŸ ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืื ืŸ ืžืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara explains the dispute: And here it is with regard to concern about contempt of court that they disagree. Rabbi Elazar holds: Once we downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood based on the testimony of two witnesses, we do not then elevate him, as we are concerned about contempt of court, as a reversal in the courtโ€™s decision creates the impression that the court operates indecisively. And Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel holds: We downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood and we then elevate him, and we are not concerned about contempt of court. The primary concern is that the matter should be determined based on the relevant testimonies.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื—ื“ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืชืจื™ ื ืžื™ ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืœืฆืจืฃ ืขื“ื•ืช ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื•ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™

Rav Ashi objects to the analysis that they disagree with regard to concern about contempt of court: If so, why specifically is it necessary to establish the dispute in a case where first one witness testified as to his unflawed lineage, and then another testified later? The same would hold true even in a case where two witnesses testified together that he is unfit for the priesthood and the court downgraded him, and two witnesses testified together that he is fit for the priesthood and the court elevated him. The tannaโ€™im would also disagree, as the same concern applies. Rather, Rav Ashi said: Everyone agrees that we are not concerned about contempt of court. And here, it is with regard to whether the court is able to combine the testimony of two single witnesses that they disagree, and it is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the following dispute between these tannaโ€™im.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคืช ืขื“ ืฉื™ืจืื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื” ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืชืงื™ื™ืžืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื™ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ืœื›ืฉื™ื‘ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœืžื—ืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื•

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 5:5): The testimony of individual witnesses never combines unless it is so that the two of them see the incident transpire together as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa says: Their testimony combines even in a case where they witnessed the event one after the other, but their testimony is established in court only if it is so that the two of them testify together as one. Rabbi Natan says: They are not required to testify together. Their testimony is combined even if the court hears the statement of this witness today and when the other witness arrives tomorrow the court hears his statement. Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis, whether the separate testimonies can be combined.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ื‘ื”ืื™ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื ืš ื–ื‘ื™ื ืชื” ื•ื”ื ืฉื˜ืจื

ยง The Gemara relates an incident where two people disputed the ownership of land. There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from you, and this is the bill of sale.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจื ื–ื™ื™ืคื ื”ื•ื ื’ื—ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื” ืื™ืŸ ืฉื˜ืจื ื–ื™ื™ืคื ื”ื•ื ืžื™ื”ื• ืฉื˜ืจื ืžืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ ื•ืื™ืจื›ืก ื•ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ื ืงื™ื˜ ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืื™ ื›ืœ ื“ื”ื•

The first said to him in response: It is a forged bill of sale. The possessor leaned over and whispered to Rabba: Yes, it is a forged bill. But I had a proper bill of sale and it was lost, and I said to myself: I will hold this bill of sale in my possession, such as it is.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืžื” ืœื• ืœืฉืงืจ ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจื ืžืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืื™ ืกืžื›ืช ืื”ืื™ ืฉื˜ืจื ื”ืื™ ืฉื˜ืจื ื—ืกืคื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื

Rabba said: Why would he lie and state this claim? If he wants to lie, he can say to him that it is a proper bill of sale, and he would have been deemed credible and awarded the field. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: In the final analysis, on what are you relying to award him the land? On this bill of sale? This admittedly forged bill is merely a worthless shard, and cannot be used in court as evidence.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ืจื™ื” ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ืžืื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื“ืžืกื™ืงื ื ื‘ืš ื•ื”ื ืฉื˜ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจื ื–ื™ื™ืคื ื”ื•ื ื’ื—ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื˜ืจื ื–ื™ื™ืคื ืžื™ื”ื• ืฉื˜ืจื ืžืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ ื•ืื™ืจื›ืก ื•ืืžื™ื ื ืื™ื ืงื™ื˜ ื”ืื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืื™ ื›ืœ ื“ื”ื•

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me one hundred dinars that I am attempting to collect from you, and this is the promissory note that attests to the debt. The latter said to him in response: It is a forged promissory note. The first person leaned over and whispered to Rava: Yes, it is a forged promissory note. But I had a proper promissory note and it was lost, and I said to myself: I will hold this promissory note in my possession, such as it is.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืžื” ืœื• ืœืฉืงืจ ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื˜ืจื ืžืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืื™ ืงื ืกืžื›ืช ืื”ืื™ ืฉื˜ืจื ื”ืื™ ืฉื˜ืจื ื—ืกืคื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื

Rabba said: Why would he lie and state this claim? If he wants to lie, he can say to him that it is a proper promissory note, and he will be deemed credible and awarded the money. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: In the final analysis, on what are you relying to award him the money? On this promissory note? This document is merely a shard, and cannot be used in court as evidence.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืืจืขื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืืจืขื ื“ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ืืจืขื ืชื™ืงื•ื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื“ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœื•ืงืžื™

The Gemara notes the final ruling in these two cases. Rav Idi bar Avin said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba with regard to land, and the possessor is awarded the land, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef with regard to money, and the one demanding payment is not awarded the money. He explains: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba with regard to land, as the court rules that the land should remain where it is, i.e., with the possessor. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef with regard to money, as the court rules that the money should remain where it is, i.e., in the possession of the purported debtor.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืขืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืœื•ื” ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ืžืื” ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื“ืคืจืขืชื™ ืœืžืœื•ื” ืขื™ืœื•ืš ื•ื”ื ืฉื˜ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืื• ืคืจืขืชื™ืš ืืžืจ ืœืื• ื”ื“ืจืช ืฉืงืœืชื™ื ื”ื• ืžื™ื ืื™

The Gemara relates: There was a certain guarantor who said to a debtor: Give me one hundred dinars for the money that I repaid the creditor on your behalf, and this is the document that I received from him when I repaid your debt. The debtor said to the guarantor: Is it not so that I repaid you? The guarantor said to the debtor: Yes, you did, but is it not so that you later took the money from me again?

ืฉืœื—ื” ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืฉืœื— ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืื™ื”ื• ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืืจืขื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื“ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื•ืงืžื• ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœื•ืงืžื•

Rav Idi bar Avin sent the following question before Abaye: What is the halakha in a case like this? Abaye sent him the following response: What does he, i.e., Rav Idi bar Avin, ask? Isnโ€™t he the one who said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba with regard to land, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef with regard to money, as the court rules that the money should remain where it is? Based on his own ruling, the money should remain with the debtor.

ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื“ืจืช ืื•ื–ืคืชื™ื ื”ื• ืžื™ื ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื“ืจืชื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœืš ืžื—ืžืช ื“ื”ื•ื• ืฉื™ื™ืคื™ ื•ืกื•ืžืงื™ ืื›ืชื™ ืื™ืชื™ื” ืœืฉืขื‘ื•ื“ื ื“ืฉื˜ืจื

The Gemara notes: And this matter applies only in a case where the guarantor says to the debtor: You later borrowed the money from me after you had repaid me. But if the guarantor said to the debtor: I returned to you the money that you had repaid me because of the fact that the coins were worn out or overly reddish, i.e., discolored, and would not be easily accepted as currency, then the lien of the document is still in effect. The debt to the guarantor had not actually been repaid, and the document is still in effect. In that case, the guarantor collects from the debtor.

ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืฉืจืฉื•ื ื ืคืง ืขืœื™ื” ืงืœื ื“ืงื ืื›ื™ืœ ืืจืขื ื“ื™ืชืžื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื™ืžื ืœื™ ืื™ื–ื™ ื’ื•ืคื ื“ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืจืขื ื‘ืžืฉื›ื•ื ืชื ื”ื•ื” ื ืงื™ื˜ื ื ืžืื‘ื•ื”ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ืชืžื™ ื•ื”ื•ื” ืœื™

The Gemara relates: A rumor emerged concerning Rava bar Sharshom that he was profiting from land belonging to orphans. Abaye said to him: Tell me, my friend, concerning the incident itself, how is it that this rumor was generated? Rava bar Sharshom said to him: I was holding on to the land as collateral from the father of the orphans, and I had

Scroll To Top