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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 15, 2017 | 讻状讙 讘讗讘 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sanhedrin 30

If there is a disagreement among the judges, the majority is followed but what is written in the court verdict? 聽Does it mention that there was a disagreement and if so, are the judges who disagreed mentioned by name? 聽Do the two witnesses need to see the event they are testifying against together? 聽What if they both corroborate the same facts (i.e. the person took out a loan of a particular amount from the same person) but they were talking about 2 separate instances? 聽Do the two witnesses need to testify together in the court or can they appear in court separately? 聽Both of these issues are subjects of debate. 聽According to whom do we hold and is the halacha different in the first argument if the issue of land or movable property?


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

讜讻诇 诇讬砖谞讬 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 讻转讘 讘讛 讘诪讜转讘 转诇转讗 讛讜讬谞讗 讜讞讚 诇讬转讜讛讬

and all of the formulations of an enactment of the court were written in it. But only two were signed on it, and the following statement was not written in it: We were convened in a session of three judges, and one of the judges is no longer here, as he died or left for another reason. There was therefore room for concern that perhaps there were only two witnesses, and they wrote the document of admission improperly.

住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讟讜注讬谉

Ravina thought to say that this is a case in which the principle of Reish Lakish, that witnesses do not sign a document unless the action was performed appropriately, applies. Rav Natan bar Ami said to him: This is what we say in the name of Rava: In any cases like this, we are concerned for the possibility of an erroneous court that thinks that two constitute a court.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬 讻转讘 讘讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 转讜 诇讗 爪专讬讱

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: If it was written in the document: We, the members of the court, convened, it is unnecessary for the deed to further state that one of the judges is no longer there, as a standard court consists of three judges.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞爪讜祝 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬诐 砖讚谞讜 讚讬谞讬讛谉 讚讬谉 讗诇讗 砖谞拽专讗讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞爪讜祝 讚讻转讘 讘讬讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘谞讗 讗砖讬

The Gemara asks: But perhaps it was an impudent court, as Shmuel says: With regard to two judges who convened a tribunal and judged, their verdict is a binding verdict; but because they contravened the rabbinic ordinance mandating that a court must be composed of three judges, they are called an impudent court. The Gemara answers: It was a document in which it was written: We, the members of the court of Rabbana Ashi, convened. Rav Ashi鈥檚 court presumably conformed to rabbinic protocol.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讘讜 讜讗诪专谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘谞讗 讗砖讬 讜讗诪专 诇谉 专讘谞讗 讗砖讬

The Gemara asks: But perhaps the Sages of the court of Rav Ashi hold like Shmuel, that the verdict of two judges is binding, and they convened an impudent court. The Gemara answers: It is a document in which it is written: And we said to Rabbana Ashi, and Rabbana Ashi said to us. Rav Ashi himself certainly would not have participated in the discussions of an impudent court.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讞讚 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 讗讘讬讻诐 砖讛讟诪讬谉 诪注讜转 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讜讗诪专 壮砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛谉壮 壮砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讛谉壮 讘讘讬转 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讘砖讚讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of when an admission is deemed credible. The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where one said to the children of another: I saw that your father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, saying: This money belongs to so-and-so, or: This money is second tithe, and the money was found where he said, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If the chest, box, or cabinet was in the house, the witness has said nothing. His testimony about the status of the money is not accepted, as he is only one witness, and he could not have taken the money for himself had he wanted to. But if it was in the field, his statement stands, i.e., is accepted.

讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讻诇 砖讘讬讚讜 诇讬讟诇谉 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇讬讟诇谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The principle of the matter is as follows: In any case where it is in the power of the witness to take the money, his statement stands; if it is not in his power to take the money, he has said nothing.

讛专讬 砖专讗讜 讗转 讗讘讬讛谉 砖讛讟诪讬谉 诪注讜转 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讜讗诪专 壮砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛谉壮 壮砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讛谉壮 讗诐 讻诪讜住专 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诐 讻诪注专讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

In a case where the children themselves saw that their father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, and the father said: This money belongs to so-and-so, or: This money is second tithe, if he said so as one who relays information to his own children, his statement stands. But if he said so as one who employs artifice, i.e., he appears to have told them that the money was not his only so that they would not take it, he has said nothing, and they may spend the money.

讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 诪爪讟注专 注诇 诪注讜转 砖讛谞讬讞 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讛讞诇讜诐 讜讗诪专 诇讜 壮讻讱 讜讻讱 讛谉 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讛谉 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讛谉壮 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专讜 讚讘专讬 讞诇讜诪讜转 诇讗 诪注诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

In a case where one was distressed about money that his father left him as an inheritance, because he could not find it, and the master of the dream, i.e., someone in his dream, came and said to him: It is such and such an amount of money and it is in such and such a place, but the money is second tithe, and he found this amount in the place of which he dreamed; and this was an actual incident that was brought before the Sages, and they said that he can spend the money, as matters appearing in dreams do not make a difference in determining the practical halakha.

砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讻讗讬 讻讜壮 诪讬讻转讘 讛讬讻讬 讻转讘讬

搂 The mishna teaches that if two judges say the defendant is exempt and one says he is liable, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: When there is a dispute between the judges, how do they write the verdict?

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讝讻讗讬 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讝讻讬谉 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 诪讚讘专讬讛谉 谞讝讚讻讛 驻诇讜谞讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They write that he is exempt, without mentioning the dispute. Reish Lakish says that they specify: So-and-so and so-and-so deem him exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem him liable; they must mention that there was a dispute. Rabbi Eliezer says that they do not specify the names of the judges, but rather they add the phrase: From the statement of the judges so-and-so was deemed exempt, to the wording of the verdict. This indicates that not all the judges agreed that he is exempt, but does not specify which judges came to which conclusion.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讗讬讛讜 诪谞转讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讚诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讻讗讬 诪砖诇诐 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讝讻讬谉 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讗 诪砖诇诐

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these opinions, besides the wording of the verdict? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to whether or not, in a case where it is discovered that the verdict was erroneous, the judge who was in the minority must pay his portion of restitution along with the judges of the majority. As according to the one who says that they write that he is exempt, the minority judge pays as well, and according to the one who says that they specify: So-and-so and so-and-so deem him exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem him liable, he does not pay.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讻讗讬 诪砖诇诐 诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讚讬讚讬 爪讬讬转讬转讜谉 讗转讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖诇诪讬转讜谉

The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that they write that he is exempt, why does he pay? Let him say to the other judges: If you would have listened to me you would not have paid either. Why should I have to pay for your mistake?

讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诪谞转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讻讗讬 诪砖诇诪讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讝讻讬谉 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讗 诪砖诇诪讬

Rather, he does not pay, and the practical difference between the opinions is with regard to whether or not those other judges must pay his portion of the restitution. According to the one who says that they write that he is exempt, they pay the full sum, as they did not mention that there was a dispute over the matter. But according to the one who says that they specify: So-and-so and so-and-so deem him exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem him liable, they do not pay the portion of the overruled judge, and he does not pay it either.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讻讗讬 诪砖诇诪讬 讜诇讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讗转 讘讛讚谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 住诇讬拽 讚讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that they write that he is exempt, why do they pay his portion? Let them say to him: If you had not been with us the judgment would have had no verdict at all, as two judges cannot issue a verdict. Therefore, you share the responsibility with us and should participate in the payment.

讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转诇讱 专讻讬诇 讘注诪讬讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讝讻讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转诇讱 专讻讬诇

Rather, the difference between the opinions is only with regard to the wording of the verdict, and is due to the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not go as a talebearer among your people鈥 (Leviticus 19:16). Rabbi Yo岣nan says that they write that he is exempt due to the prohibition of gossip, as derived from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not go as a talebearer.鈥

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讝讻讬谉 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻砖讬拽专讗

Reish Lakish says they specify: So-and-so and so-and-so deem him exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem him liable, because otherwise the document would have the appearance of falsehood, as not all the judges deemed him exempt.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚诪专 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚诪专 讛诇讻讱 讻转讘讬 讛讻讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 谞讝讚讻讛 驻诇讜谞讬

And Rabbi Elazar accepts the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, and accepts the opinion of that Sage, Reish Lakish. Therefore, this is what they write: From the statement of the judges, so-and-so was deemed exempt. This wording indicates that the ruling was not based on a consensus among the judges, so that it will not have the appearance of falsehood, but it also does not specify what each judge said, to avoid gossip.

讙诪专讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 讛讬讜 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讻讜壮 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讛转诐 拽讬讬诪讬 讗诇讗 诇注讚讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that after the judges finished the matter and reached a decision, they would bring them in. The Gemara asks: Whom would they bring in? If we say they would bring in the litigants, this cannot be, as they were there the whole time; they never left the room. Rather, they would bring in the witnesses.

讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讚转谞讬讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪爪讟专驻转 注讚 砖讬专讗讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛

If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan; as it is taught in a baraita: The testimonies of individual witnesses are never combined into a testimony of two witnesses unless the two of them saw the incident transpire together as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: Their testimonies are combined even in a case where they saw the incident one after the other.

讜讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讬讚讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讛讬讜诐 讜讻砖讬讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讞专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讗转 讚讘专讬讜

The baraita continues: And furthermore, their testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testify together as one. Rabbi Natan says: They need not testify together. Rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges hear the statement of this witness today, and when the other witness comes tomorrow the judges hear his statement. The mishna, by contrast, indicates that the verdict must be given with the two witnesses present together.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪谞讛讙谉 砖诇 谞拽讬讬 讛讚注转 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 诇讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讜砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讛谉 讜诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讜砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讛诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讞讜抓 讜谞讜砖讗讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讘讚讘专 讙诪专讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讜壮

The Gemara reverses its interpretation of the mishna: No, actually it can be explained that the judges would bring in the litigants; and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ne岣mya says: This was the custom of the scrupulous people of Jerusalem: When they would judge, they would bring in the litigants and hear their statements, and then they would bring in the witnesses and hear their statements in the presence of the litigants, and then they would take them all outside of the courtroom and discuss the matter in their absence. Once they finished the matter they would bring them, i.e., the litigants, in, to hear their verdict.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讙诪专讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讛讛讬讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita explicitly: When they finished the matter they would bring in the witnesses? The Gemara answers: That baraita is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan.

讙讜驻讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪爪讟专驻转 注讚 砖讬专讗讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗

搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself: The testimonies of individual witnesses are never combined into a testimony of two witnesses unless the two of them saw the incident transpire together as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: Their testimonies are combined even in a case where they saw the incident one after the other. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse, and if you wish, say that they disagree with regard to logical reasoning.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讗诪谞讛 讚拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 讛讗讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 讛讗讬 讜诪谞讛 讚拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 讛讗讬 诇讗 拽诪住讛讬讚 讛讗讬 讜讗讬讚讱 讗诪谞讛 讘注诇诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽诪住讛讚讬

The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to logical reasoning: The first tanna holds that the witnesses must see the incident transpire together, as otherwise, about the one hundred dinars of debt that this one is testifying, that one is not testifying, and about the one hundred dinars that that one is testifying, this one is not testifying. There is only one witness of each incident, which is not sufficient. And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, holds that since both witnesses are testifying about one hundred dinars in general, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff one hundred dinars.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讜讗 注讚 讗讜 专讗讛 讗讜 讬讚注

And if you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if anyone sins, hearing the voice of adjuration, and he is a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:1).

讜转谞讬讗 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 壮诇讗 讬拽讜诐 注讚壮 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讗讞讚 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讗讞讚壮

The Gemara explains: And it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淥ne witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15); by inference, from that which is stated in the verse: A witness shall not rise up against a man, even without the word 鈥渙ne,鈥 do I not know that it is referring to one witness? After all, the verse is written in the singular. Therefore, what is the meaning when the verse states explicitly: 鈥淥ne witness鈥?

讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 壮注讚壮 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖谞讬诐 注讚 砖讬驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 壮讗讞讚壮

This established a paradigm, a basis for the principle that in every place in the Torah where the word 鈥渨itness鈥 is stated, it means that there are two witnesses, unless the verse specifies for you that it is referring to only one witness.

讜讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讚 诇诪讬诪专 注讚 讚讞讝讜 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讻讞讚 讜讗讬讚讱 讜讛讜讗 注讚 讗讜 专讗讛 讗讜 讬讚注 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

And according to the first tanna, the Merciful One expresses it in the singular form, i.e., 鈥渨itness鈥 and not 鈥渨itnesses,鈥 to say that they are not combined into a testimony of two witnesses unless the two of them saw the incident transpire together as one. And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, derives from the phrase: 鈥淎nd he is a witness, whether he has seen or known,鈥 that in any case where one testifies about what he sees and knows, his testimony is valid.

讜讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讬讚讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讛讬讜诐 讜讻砖讬讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讞专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗

The baraita cited above teaches: And furthermore, their testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testify together as one. Rabbi Natan says: They need not testify together; rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges hear the statement of this witness today, and when the other witness comes tomorrow the judges hear his statement. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to logical reasoning, and if you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 诪专 住讘专 注讚 讗讞讚 讻讬 讗转讬 诇砖讘讜注讛 讗转讬 诇诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 讗转讬

The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to logical reasoning, as one Sage, the first tanna, holds that when one witness comes to testify, he comes to render the defendant liable to take an oath. This is the halakha when there is one witness against the defendant in a case of monetary law. He does not come to render the defendant liable to pay money, because for this two witnesses are necessary.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讟讜 讻讬 讗转讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讘讞讚 驻讜诪讗 拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讗诇讗 诪爪专驻讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讬爪专驻讬谞讛讜

And the other tanna, Rabbi Natan, responds: Is that to say that when they come together, they render the defendant financially liable because they testify with one mouth? Obviously they testify one after the other. Rather, clearly it is the judges who combine their two testimonies into one. Here too, when the witnesses come to court at different times, let the judges combine their testimonies.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讗诐 诇讜讗 讬讙讬讚 讜谞砖讗 注讜谞讜

And if you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse: 鈥淚f he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:1),

讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讗拽讜砖讬 讛讙讚讛 诇专讗讬讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪拽砖讬谞谉 讛讙讚讛 诇专讗讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉

and everyone, both the first tanna and Rabbi Natan, holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, and derive from this verse that it is necessary that the witnesses see the incident together, i.e., they were both present and observed the incident at the same time. And here, with regard to whether or not the witnesses must testify in court together, they disagree with regard to whether or not the statement of the witnesses, i.e., their testimony in court, is compared to their observation of the incident. One Sage, the first tanna, holds that we compare their statement to their observation. Therefore, just as they must see the incident together, so too, they must testify together in court. And one Sage, Rabbi Natan, holds that we do not compare their statement to their observation.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 讛讜讛 诪砖转拽讬讚 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇诪住诪讻讬讛 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪讬住转讬讬注 诪讬诇转讗 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim was striving to ordain Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, and was not successful in his attempts. One day, Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim was sitting before Rabbi Yo岣nan among Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 other students.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讬讚注 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 讚讬谉 讬讚注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讗 讗讬讝讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬住诪讻讬讛 诪专 讘专讬砖讗 住诪讻讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to his students: Is there anyone who knows whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, or not? Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said to him: This one, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, knows. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: If so, let him say. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said to him: Let the Master ordain him first; since we are all in need of his wisdom, he is fit for ordination. Rabbi Yo岣nan then ordained Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 讗诪讜专 诇讬 讻讬爪讚 砖诪注转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 砖诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 诇专讘讬 谞转谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: My son, tell me what you heard. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said to him: This is what I heard: That Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 concedes to the opinion of Rabbi Natan that it is unnecessary for the witnesses to testify together.

讗诪专 诇讝讛 讛讜爪专讻转讬 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 注讬拽专 专讗讬讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛讙讚讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan was disappointed, and said: For this I needed to ordain him? Now that with regard to the main element of testimony, i.e., observing the incident, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says we do not need both witnesses to see it together, with regard to their statement in court, is it necessary to explicate that there is no requirement that they testify together?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注诇讬转 诇讗 转专讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讻讬讜谉 讚住诪讬讱 住诪讬讱

Although the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, was unnecessary, Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Since you ascended, i.e., you were ordained, you will not descend, even though it was in error. Rabbi Zeira said: Conclude from it that with regard to a great man, once he is ordained, even if it was due to mistaken judgment, he is ordained. The ordination is not canceled.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讘讬谉 讘拽专拽注讜转 讘讬谉 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

As for the halakha in this matter, Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 that it is unnecessary for the two witnesses to observe the incident together, both with regard to cases of land and with regard to cases of movable property.

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讘拽专拽注讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

Ulla says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 with regard to land, which is unmovable, and therefore both testimonies are certainly about the same piece of land; but not with regard to movable property, as there is a concern that they are not testifying about the same item.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讘注讚讜转 拽专拽注

Abaye said to Ulla: If you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 with regard to land, by inference you hold that they disagree with regard to this matter. But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba say that Rav Huna says that Rav says: The Rabbis concede to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 with regard to testimony concerning land?

讜转谞讬 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讘谞讝讬拽讬谉 讚讘讬 拽专谞讗 诪讜讚讬谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讘注讚讜转 讘讻讜专 讜讘注讚讜转 拽专拽注 讜讘注讚讜转 讞讝拽讛 讜讻谉 砖讘讘谉 讜砖讘讘转

And Rav Idi bar Avin teaches in the halakhot of damages that were taught at the school of the Sage Karna: The Rabbis concede to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 that the witnesses do not need to see the incident together with regard to testimony concerning a blemish in a male firstborn kosher animal, which renders it permitted to derive benefit from it, and with regard to testimony concerning ownership of land, and with regard to testimony concerning presumptive ownership of land. Since it is clear that they are testifying about the same land, it is unnecessary for them to see it together. And so they concede with regard to testimony over the two pubic hairs of a boy or of a girl, which are a sign of adulthood.

讙讘专讗 讗讙讘专讗 拽讗 专诪讬转 诪专 住讘专 驻诇讬讙讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara rejects Abaye鈥檚 question: Are you setting the statement of one man against the statement of another man? One Sage, Ulla, holds that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 even with regard to land, and one Sage, i.e., Rav and Rav Idi, holds that they do not disagree.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 砖讘讘谉 讜砖讘讘转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讘讙讘讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讘讻专讬住讛 讛讗讬 讞爪讬 讚讘专 讜讞爪讬 注讚讜转 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks tangentially about the statement: And so they concede with regard to testimony over the two pubic hairs of a boy or of a girl: What is this referring to? If we say it is referring to testimony that a girl has reached majority, in which one witness says that he saw one hair on the her lower back and one witness says that he saw one hair on her lower abdomen, that is difficult. A girl is considered to have reached maturity when she has two pubic hairs. In this case, two witnesses separately testify that they have each seen one hair. In this case each testimony is obviously invalid, as it is half a matter and also half a testimony. Not only does each testimony refer to one hair, which is half a matter, it is submitted by one witness, which is half a testimony. Consequently, it is obvious that the girl is not considered to have reached majority in this case.

讗诇讗 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讘讙讘讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讘讻专讬住讛

Rather, it must be referring to a case where one says that he saw two hairs on her lower back, and the other one says he saw two hairs on her lower abdomen. Since they each testify that she has reached adulthood, it is unnecessary for them to see the same hairs.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讘讬谉 讘拽专拽注讜转 讘讬谉 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 讚讗转讜 诪诪讞讜讝讗 讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘拽专拽注讜转 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

Rav Yosef said: I say in the name of Ulla that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 both with regard to land and with regard to movable property. But the Sages who came from Me岣za say that Rabbi Zeira says in the name of Rav: With regard to land the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, but not with regard to movable property.

专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜讚讗讛 讗讞专 讛讜讚讗讛 讛讜讚讗讛 讗讞专 讛诇讜讗讛 诪爪讟专驻讬

The Gemara comments: Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav says: Testimonies of an admission following an admission are combined into one; if one witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant, and the other witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant in a separate incident, their testimonies are combined. Likewise, testimonies of an admission following a loan are combined into one; where one witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant, and the other one testifies that on a previous date the respondent borrowed money from the claimant in his presence, their testimonies are combined.

讛诇讜讗讛 讗讞专 讛诇讜讗讛 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讞专 讛讜讚讗讛 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬

Rav continues: But testimonies of a loan following a loan are not combined. If one testifies that the claimant lent the respondent one hundred dinars in his presence, and the other testifies that he lent him one hundred dinars in a separate incident in his presence, their testimonies are not combined, as they are clearly testifying about two separate loans. Similarly, testimonies of a loan following an admission are not combined. If one testifies that the claimant lent money to the respondent, and the other one testifies that on an earlier date the respondent admitted to owing the claimant, their testimonies are not combined.

讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讞专 讛诇讜讗讛 讚诇讗 讚诪谞讛 讚拽讗 讞讝讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 拽讗 讞讝讬 讛讗讬 讛讜讚讗讛 讗讞专 讛讜讚讗讛 谞诪讬 讗诪谞讛 讚拽讗 诪讜讚讛 拽诪讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 拽诪讬 讛讗讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k encountered Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. He said to him: What is different about a loan following a loan, in which case the testimonies are not combined, as the one hundred dinars that this witness saw, that witness did not see? In the case of an admission following an admission as well, perhaps the one hundred dinars about which the respondent admitted in the presence of this witness, he did not admit in the presence of that witness. Perhaps his admissions were in reference to two separate loans, and therefore the testimonies should not be combined.

讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讘转专讗 讘讛讗讬 诪谞讛 讚讗讜讚讬讬 诇讬讛 拽诪讱 讗讜讚讬讬 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 拽诪讬 驻诇讜谞讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered him: The reference is to a case where the respondent said to this last witness: With regard to the one hundred dinars that I admitted to owing in your presence, I admitted to owing them in the presence of so-and-so, the first witness, as well.

讗讻转讬 讘转专讗 讬讚注 拽诪讗 诇讗 讬讚注

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k asked: Still, the last witness knows that he is testifying about the same loan as the first witness, but the first witness does not know this. Since only one witness testifies that it is the same loan, the testimonies still cannot be combined.

讚讛讚专 讗讝讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇拽诪讗 讛讗讬 诪谞讛 讚讗讜讚讬讬 诇讬讛 拽诪讱 讗讜讚讬讬 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 拽诪讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讜讞 讚注转讱 砖讛转谞讞转 讗转 讚注转讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered: It is a case where, after his admission to the second witness, the respondent went back and said to the first witness: With regard to those one hundred dinars that I admitted to owing in your presence, I admitted owing them in the presence of so-and-so as well. Therefore, both witnesses know that they are testifying about the same loan. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to him: May your mind be settled, as you have settled my mind and put it at ease by answering this question that was troubling me.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜转讗 讚专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 砖砖转 砖讚讗 讘讛 谞专讙讗 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讜讚讗讛 讗讞专 讛诇讜讗讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to him: What is settling about this explanation? As Rava, and some say Rav Sheshet, threw an ax at my answer, i.e., he rejected my explanation, as follows: According to this interpretation of the case of an admission following an admission, isn鈥檛 this the same as an admission following a loan? The case of an admission following an admission is now rendered superfluous, as it adds no new insight on the matter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬 注诇讬讬讻讜 讚专诪讬转讜 讚讬拽诇讬 讜讝拽驻讬转讜 诇讛讜

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to him: This is what I heard about you Sages of Me岣za, that you knock down palm trees and erect them, i.e., you build and then destroy what you built. After you came up with such an excellent explanation, you ruined it yourselves.

谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讘讬谉 讛讜讚讗讛 讗讞专 讛讜讚讗讛 讘讬谉 讛讜讚讗讛 讗讞专 讛诇讜讗讛 讘讬谉 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讞专 讛诇讜讗讛 讘讬谉 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讞专 讛讜讚讗讛 诪爪讟专驻讜转 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: Whether it is a case of an admission following an admission, or an admission following a loan, or a loan following a loan, or a loan following an admission, in all these cases the testimonies are combined. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, who teaches that since both witnesses testify about a debt of one hundred dinars, it is considered like one testimony.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚讜转 讛诪讻讞砖转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讘讘讚讬拽讜转 讻砖专讛 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转

Rav Yehuda says: Testimony of two witnesses who contradict the testimony of each other in response to the judges鈥 examination of the details of the story is valid in cases of monetary law, although a contradiction of this type disqualifies testimony in cases of capital law.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讗专谞拽讬 砖讞讜专讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讗专谞拽讬 诇讘谞讛 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪谞讛 砖讞讜专 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪谞讛 诇讘谉 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

Rava says: The statement of Rav Yehuda is reasonable in a case where one witness says: The money was in a black purse [be鈥檃rnaki], and the other one says: It was in a white purse. Since this is a secondary detail, they may not remember it accurately. But if one says: He lent him a black coin, i.e., the coin was dark, and the other one says: He lent him a white coin, the testimonies are not combined. Since they contradict each other with regard to a characteristic of the money itself, one is probably lying.

讜讗专谞拽讬 砖讞讜专讛 讘讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘住讬讬祝 讛专讙讜 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讗专讬专谉 讛专讙讜 讗讬谉 讝讛 谞讻讜谉 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻诇讬讜 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻诇讬讜 诇讘谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讻讜谉

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 ruling: And if witnesses contradict each other with regard to secondary details such as a black purse in cases of capital law, is it the case that their testimony is not accepted? But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say: In a case where one of the witnesses says: The murderer killed the victim with a sword, and one of the witnesses says: The murderer killed the victim with an ariran, another type of weapon, this is not congruent testimony, as this is a clear contradiction. But if one of the witnesses says: The murderer鈥檚 garments were black, and one of the witnesses says: The murderer鈥檚 garments were white, this is congruent testimony, as this is not a meaningful discrepancy.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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!

Sanhedrin 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 30

讜讻诇 诇讬砖谞讬 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 讻转讘 讘讛 讘诪讜转讘 转诇转讗 讛讜讬谞讗 讜讞讚 诇讬转讜讛讬

and all of the formulations of an enactment of the court were written in it. But only two were signed on it, and the following statement was not written in it: We were convened in a session of three judges, and one of the judges is no longer here, as he died or left for another reason. There was therefore room for concern that perhaps there were only two witnesses, and they wrote the document of admission improperly.

住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讟讜注讬谉

Ravina thought to say that this is a case in which the principle of Reish Lakish, that witnesses do not sign a document unless the action was performed appropriately, applies. Rav Natan bar Ami said to him: This is what we say in the name of Rava: In any cases like this, we are concerned for the possibility of an erroneous court that thinks that two constitute a court.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讬 讻转讘 讘讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 转讜 诇讗 爪专讬讱

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: If it was written in the document: We, the members of the court, convened, it is unnecessary for the deed to further state that one of the judges is no longer there, as a standard court consists of three judges.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞爪讜祝 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬诐 砖讚谞讜 讚讬谞讬讛谉 讚讬谉 讗诇讗 砖谞拽专讗讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞爪讜祝 讚讻转讘 讘讬讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘谞讗 讗砖讬

The Gemara asks: But perhaps it was an impudent court, as Shmuel says: With regard to two judges who convened a tribunal and judged, their verdict is a binding verdict; but because they contravened the rabbinic ordinance mandating that a court must be composed of three judges, they are called an impudent court. The Gemara answers: It was a document in which it was written: We, the members of the court of Rabbana Ashi, convened. Rav Ashi鈥檚 court presumably conformed to rabbinic protocol.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讘讜 讜讗诪专谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘谞讗 讗砖讬 讜讗诪专 诇谉 专讘谞讗 讗砖讬

The Gemara asks: But perhaps the Sages of the court of Rav Ashi hold like Shmuel, that the verdict of two judges is binding, and they convened an impudent court. The Gemara answers: It is a document in which it is written: And we said to Rabbana Ashi, and Rabbana Ashi said to us. Rav Ashi himself certainly would not have participated in the discussions of an impudent court.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗讞讚 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 讗讘讬讻诐 砖讛讟诪讬谉 诪注讜转 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讜讗诪专 壮砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛谉壮 壮砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讛谉壮 讘讘讬转 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讘砖讚讛 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of when an admission is deemed credible. The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where one said to the children of another: I saw that your father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, saying: This money belongs to so-and-so, or: This money is second tithe, and the money was found where he said, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If the chest, box, or cabinet was in the house, the witness has said nothing. His testimony about the status of the money is not accepted, as he is only one witness, and he could not have taken the money for himself had he wanted to. But if it was in the field, his statement stands, i.e., is accepted.

讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讻诇 砖讘讬讚讜 诇讬讟诇谉 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇讬讟诇谉 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The principle of the matter is as follows: In any case where it is in the power of the witness to take the money, his statement stands; if it is not in his power to take the money, he has said nothing.

讛专讬 砖专讗讜 讗转 讗讘讬讛谉 砖讛讟诪讬谉 诪注讜转 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 讜讗诪专 壮砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛谉壮 壮砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讛谉壮 讗诐 讻诪讜住专 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗诐 讻诪注专讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

In a case where the children themselves saw that their father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, and the father said: This money belongs to so-and-so, or: This money is second tithe, if he said so as one who relays information to his own children, his statement stands. But if he said so as one who employs artifice, i.e., he appears to have told them that the money was not his only so that they would not take it, he has said nothing, and they may spend the money.

讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 诪爪讟注专 注诇 诪注讜转 砖讛谞讬讞 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讛讞诇讜诐 讜讗诪专 诇讜 壮讻讱 讜讻讱 讛谉 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讛谉 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讛谉壮 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜讗诪专讜 讚讘专讬 讞诇讜诪讜转 诇讗 诪注诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

In a case where one was distressed about money that his father left him as an inheritance, because he could not find it, and the master of the dream, i.e., someone in his dream, came and said to him: It is such and such an amount of money and it is in such and such a place, but the money is second tithe, and he found this amount in the place of which he dreamed; and this was an actual incident that was brought before the Sages, and they said that he can spend the money, as matters appearing in dreams do not make a difference in determining the practical halakha.

砖谞讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讝讻讗讬 讻讜壮 诪讬讻转讘 讛讬讻讬 讻转讘讬

搂 The mishna teaches that if two judges say the defendant is exempt and one says he is liable, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: When there is a dispute between the judges, how do they write the verdict?

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讝讻讗讬 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讝讻讬谉 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 诪讚讘专讬讛谉 谞讝讚讻讛 驻诇讜谞讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They write that he is exempt, without mentioning the dispute. Reish Lakish says that they specify: So-and-so and so-and-so deem him exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem him liable; they must mention that there was a dispute. Rabbi Eliezer says that they do not specify the names of the judges, but rather they add the phrase: From the statement of the judges so-and-so was deemed exempt, to the wording of the verdict. This indicates that not all the judges agreed that he is exempt, but does not specify which judges came to which conclusion.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讗讬讛讜 诪谞转讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讚诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讻讗讬 诪砖诇诐 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讝讻讬谉 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讗 诪砖诇诐

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these opinions, besides the wording of the verdict? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to whether or not, in a case where it is discovered that the verdict was erroneous, the judge who was in the minority must pay his portion of restitution along with the judges of the majority. As according to the one who says that they write that he is exempt, the minority judge pays as well, and according to the one who says that they specify: So-and-so and so-and-so deem him exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem him liable, he does not pay.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讻讗讬 诪砖诇诐 诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讚讬讚讬 爪讬讬转讬转讜谉 讗转讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖诇诪讬转讜谉

The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that they write that he is exempt, why does he pay? Let him say to the other judges: If you would have listened to me you would not have paid either. Why should I have to pay for your mistake?

讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇砖诇讜诪讬 讗讬谞讛讜 诪谞转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讻讗讬 诪砖诇诪讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讝讻讬谉 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讗 诪砖诇诪讬

Rather, he does not pay, and the practical difference between the opinions is with regard to whether or not those other judges must pay his portion of the restitution. According to the one who says that they write that he is exempt, they pay the full sum, as they did not mention that there was a dispute over the matter. But according to the one who says that they specify: So-and-so and so-and-so deem him exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem him liable, they do not pay the portion of the overruled judge, and he does not pay it either.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讻讗讬 诪砖诇诪讬 讜诇讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讗转 讘讛讚谉 诇讗 讛讜讛 住诇讬拽 讚讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that they write that he is exempt, why do they pay his portion? Let them say to him: If you had not been with us the judgment would have had no verdict at all, as two judges cannot issue a verdict. Therefore, you share the responsibility with us and should participate in the payment.

讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转诇讱 专讻讬诇 讘注诪讬讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讝讻讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转诇讱 专讻讬诇

Rather, the difference between the opinions is only with regard to the wording of the verdict, and is due to the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not go as a talebearer among your people鈥 (Leviticus 19:16). Rabbi Yo岣nan says that they write that he is exempt due to the prohibition of gossip, as derived from the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not go as a talebearer.鈥

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讝讻讬谉 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻砖讬拽专讗

Reish Lakish says they specify: So-and-so and so-and-so deem him exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem him liable, because otherwise the document would have the appearance of falsehood, as not all the judges deemed him exempt.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚诪专 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚诪专 讛诇讻讱 讻转讘讬 讛讻讬 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 谞讝讚讻讛 驻诇讜谞讬

And Rabbi Elazar accepts the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, and accepts the opinion of that Sage, Reish Lakish. Therefore, this is what they write: From the statement of the judges, so-and-so was deemed exempt. This wording indicates that the ruling was not based on a consensus among the judges, so that it will not have the appearance of falsehood, but it also does not specify what each judge said, to avoid gossip.

讙诪专讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 讛讬讜 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讻讜壮 诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讛转诐 拽讬讬诪讬 讗诇讗 诇注讚讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that after the judges finished the matter and reached a decision, they would bring them in. The Gemara asks: Whom would they bring in? If we say they would bring in the litigants, this cannot be, as they were there the whole time; they never left the room. Rather, they would bring in the witnesses.

讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讚转谞讬讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪爪讟专驻转 注讚 砖讬专讗讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛

If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan; as it is taught in a baraita: The testimonies of individual witnesses are never combined into a testimony of two witnesses unless the two of them saw the incident transpire together as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: Their testimonies are combined even in a case where they saw the incident one after the other.

讜讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讬讚讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讛讬讜诐 讜讻砖讬讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讞专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讗转 讚讘专讬讜

The baraita continues: And furthermore, their testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testify together as one. Rabbi Natan says: They need not testify together. Rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges hear the statement of this witness today, and when the other witness comes tomorrow the judges hear his statement. The mishna, by contrast, indicates that the verdict must be given with the two witnesses present together.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪谞讛讙谉 砖诇 谞拽讬讬 讛讚注转 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 诇讘注诇讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讜砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讛谉 讜诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讜砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讛诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讞讜抓 讜谞讜砖讗讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讘讚讘专 讙诪专讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讜壮

The Gemara reverses its interpretation of the mishna: No, actually it can be explained that the judges would bring in the litigants; and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ne岣mya says: This was the custom of the scrupulous people of Jerusalem: When they would judge, they would bring in the litigants and hear their statements, and then they would bring in the witnesses and hear their statements in the presence of the litigants, and then they would take them all outside of the courtroom and discuss the matter in their absence. Once they finished the matter they would bring them, i.e., the litigants, in, to hear their verdict.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讙诪专讜 讗转 讛讚讘专 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讛讛讬讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita explicitly: When they finished the matter they would bring in the witnesses? The Gemara answers: That baraita is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan.

讙讜驻讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪爪讟专驻转 注讚 砖讬专讗讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗

搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself: The testimonies of individual witnesses are never combined into a testimony of two witnesses unless the two of them saw the incident transpire together as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: Their testimonies are combined even in a case where they saw the incident one after the other. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse, and if you wish, say that they disagree with regard to logical reasoning.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讗诪谞讛 讚拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 讛讗讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 讛讗讬 讜诪谞讛 讚拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 讛讗讬 诇讗 拽诪住讛讬讚 讛讗讬 讜讗讬讚讱 讗诪谞讛 讘注诇诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽诪住讛讚讬

The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to logical reasoning: The first tanna holds that the witnesses must see the incident transpire together, as otherwise, about the one hundred dinars of debt that this one is testifying, that one is not testifying, and about the one hundred dinars that that one is testifying, this one is not testifying. There is only one witness of each incident, which is not sufficient. And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, holds that since both witnesses are testifying about one hundred dinars in general, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff one hundred dinars.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讜讗 注讚 讗讜 专讗讛 讗讜 讬讚注

And if you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if anyone sins, hearing the voice of adjuration, and he is a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:1).

讜转谞讬讗 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 壮诇讗 讬拽讜诐 注讚壮 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讗讞讚 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讗讞讚壮

The Gemara explains: And it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淥ne witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15); by inference, from that which is stated in the verse: A witness shall not rise up against a man, even without the word 鈥渙ne,鈥 do I not know that it is referring to one witness? After all, the verse is written in the singular. Therefore, what is the meaning when the verse states explicitly: 鈥淥ne witness鈥?

讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 壮注讚壮 讛专讬 讻讗谉 砖谞讬诐 注讚 砖讬驻专讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 壮讗讞讚壮

This established a paradigm, a basis for the principle that in every place in the Torah where the word 鈥渨itness鈥 is stated, it means that there are two witnesses, unless the verse specifies for you that it is referring to only one witness.

讜讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讞讚 诇诪讬诪专 注讚 讚讞讝讜 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讻讞讚 讜讗讬讚讱 讜讛讜讗 注讚 讗讜 专讗讛 讗讜 讬讚注 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

And according to the first tanna, the Merciful One expresses it in the singular form, i.e., 鈥渨itness鈥 and not 鈥渨itnesses,鈥 to say that they are not combined into a testimony of two witnesses unless the two of them saw the incident transpire together as one. And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, derives from the phrase: 鈥淎nd he is a witness, whether he has seen or known,鈥 that in any case where one testifies about what he sees and knows, his testimony is valid.

讜讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讬讚讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讛讬讜诐 讜讻砖讬讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讞专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗

The baraita cited above teaches: And furthermore, their testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testify together as one. Rabbi Natan says: They need not testify together; rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges hear the statement of this witness today, and when the other witness comes tomorrow the judges hear his statement. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to logical reasoning, and if you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专讗 诪专 住讘专 注讚 讗讞讚 讻讬 讗转讬 诇砖讘讜注讛 讗转讬 诇诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 讗转讬

The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to logical reasoning, as one Sage, the first tanna, holds that when one witness comes to testify, he comes to render the defendant liable to take an oath. This is the halakha when there is one witness against the defendant in a case of monetary law. He does not come to render the defendant liable to pay money, because for this two witnesses are necessary.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讟讜 讻讬 讗转讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讘讞讚 驻讜诪讗 拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讗诇讗 诪爪专驻讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讬爪专驻讬谞讛讜

And the other tanna, Rabbi Natan, responds: Is that to say that when they come together, they render the defendant financially liable because they testify with one mouth? Obviously they testify one after the other. Rather, clearly it is the judges who combine their two testimonies into one. Here too, when the witnesses come to court at different times, let the judges combine their testimonies.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 拽专讗 讗诐 诇讜讗 讬讙讬讚 讜谞砖讗 注讜谞讜

And if you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse: 鈥淚f he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:1),

讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讗拽讜砖讬 讛讙讚讛 诇专讗讬讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪拽砖讬谞谉 讛讙讚讛 诇专讗讬讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉

and everyone, both the first tanna and Rabbi Natan, holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, and derive from this verse that it is necessary that the witnesses see the incident together, i.e., they were both present and observed the incident at the same time. And here, with regard to whether or not the witnesses must testify in court together, they disagree with regard to whether or not the statement of the witnesses, i.e., their testimony in court, is compared to their observation of the incident. One Sage, the first tanna, holds that we compare their statement to their observation. Therefore, just as they must see the incident together, so too, they must testify together in court. And one Sage, Rabbi Natan, holds that we do not compare their statement to their observation.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 讛讜讛 诪砖转拽讬讚 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇诪住诪讻讬讛 讜诇讗 拽讗 诪讬住转讬讬注 诪讬诇转讗 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim was striving to ordain Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, and was not successful in his attempts. One day, Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim was sitting before Rabbi Yo岣nan among Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 other students.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讬讚注 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 讚讬谉 讬讚注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讗 讗讬讝讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬住诪讻讬讛 诪专 讘专讬砖讗 住诪讻讬讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to his students: Is there anyone who knows whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, or not? Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said to him: This one, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, knows. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: If so, let him say. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said to him: Let the Master ordain him first; since we are all in need of his wisdom, he is fit for ordination. Rabbi Yo岣nan then ordained Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 讗诪讜专 诇讬 讻讬爪讚 砖诪注转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讱 砖诪注转讬 砖诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 诇专讘讬 谞转谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: My son, tell me what you heard. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said to him: This is what I heard: That Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 concedes to the opinion of Rabbi Natan that it is unnecessary for the witnesses to testify together.

讗诪专 诇讝讛 讛讜爪专讻转讬 讛砖转讗 讜诪讛 注讬拽专 专讗讬讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讛讙讚讛 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan was disappointed, and said: For this I needed to ordain him? Now that with regard to the main element of testimony, i.e., observing the incident, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says we do not need both witnesses to see it together, with regard to their statement in court, is it necessary to explicate that there is no requirement that they testify together?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注诇讬转 诇讗 转专讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讻讬讜谉 讚住诪讬讱 住诪讬讱

Although the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, was unnecessary, Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Since you ascended, i.e., you were ordained, you will not descend, even though it was in error. Rabbi Zeira said: Conclude from it that with regard to a great man, once he is ordained, even if it was due to mistaken judgment, he is ordained. The ordination is not canceled.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讘讬谉 讘拽专拽注讜转 讘讬谉 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

As for the halakha in this matter, Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 that it is unnecessary for the two witnesses to observe the incident together, both with regard to cases of land and with regard to cases of movable property.

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讘拽专拽注讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

Ulla says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 with regard to land, which is unmovable, and therefore both testimonies are certainly about the same piece of land; but not with regard to movable property, as there is a concern that they are not testifying about the same item.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讘注讚讜转 拽专拽注

Abaye said to Ulla: If you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 with regard to land, by inference you hold that they disagree with regard to this matter. But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba say that Rav Huna says that Rav says: The Rabbis concede to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 with regard to testimony concerning land?

讜转谞讬 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讘谞讝讬拽讬谉 讚讘讬 拽专谞讗 诪讜讚讬谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讘注讚讜转 讘讻讜专 讜讘注讚讜转 拽专拽注 讜讘注讚讜转 讞讝拽讛 讜讻谉 砖讘讘谉 讜砖讘讘转

And Rav Idi bar Avin teaches in the halakhot of damages that were taught at the school of the Sage Karna: The Rabbis concede to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 that the witnesses do not need to see the incident together with regard to testimony concerning a blemish in a male firstborn kosher animal, which renders it permitted to derive benefit from it, and with regard to testimony concerning ownership of land, and with regard to testimony concerning presumptive ownership of land. Since it is clear that they are testifying about the same land, it is unnecessary for them to see it together. And so they concede with regard to testimony over the two pubic hairs of a boy or of a girl, which are a sign of adulthood.

讙讘专讗 讗讙讘专讗 拽讗 专诪讬转 诪专 住讘专 驻诇讬讙讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara rejects Abaye鈥檚 question: Are you setting the statement of one man against the statement of another man? One Sage, Ulla, holds that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 even with regard to land, and one Sage, i.e., Rav and Rav Idi, holds that they do not disagree.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 砖讘讘谉 讜砖讘讘转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讘讙讘讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讗讞转 讘讻专讬住讛 讛讗讬 讞爪讬 讚讘专 讜讞爪讬 注讚讜转 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks tangentially about the statement: And so they concede with regard to testimony over the two pubic hairs of a boy or of a girl: What is this referring to? If we say it is referring to testimony that a girl has reached majority, in which one witness says that he saw one hair on the her lower back and one witness says that he saw one hair on her lower abdomen, that is difficult. A girl is considered to have reached maturity when she has two pubic hairs. In this case, two witnesses separately testify that they have each seen one hair. In this case each testimony is obviously invalid, as it is half a matter and also half a testimony. Not only does each testimony refer to one hair, which is half a matter, it is submitted by one witness, which is half a testimony. Consequently, it is obvious that the girl is not considered to have reached majority in this case.

讗诇讗 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讘讙讘讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖转讬诐 讘讻专讬住讛

Rather, it must be referring to a case where one says that he saw two hairs on her lower back, and the other one says he saw two hairs on her lower abdomen. Since they each testify that she has reached adulthood, it is unnecessary for them to see the same hairs.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讘讬谉 讘拽专拽注讜转 讘讬谉 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 讚讗转讜 诪诪讞讜讝讗 讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘拽专拽注讜转 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

Rav Yosef said: I say in the name of Ulla that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 both with regard to land and with regard to movable property. But the Sages who came from Me岣za say that Rabbi Zeira says in the name of Rav: With regard to land the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, but not with regard to movable property.

专讘 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜讚讗讛 讗讞专 讛讜讚讗讛 讛讜讚讗讛 讗讞专 讛诇讜讗讛 诪爪讟专驻讬

The Gemara comments: Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rav says: Testimonies of an admission following an admission are combined into one; if one witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant, and the other witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant in a separate incident, their testimonies are combined. Likewise, testimonies of an admission following a loan are combined into one; where one witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant, and the other one testifies that on a previous date the respondent borrowed money from the claimant in his presence, their testimonies are combined.

讛诇讜讗讛 讗讞专 讛诇讜讗讛 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讞专 讛讜讚讗讛 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬

Rav continues: But testimonies of a loan following a loan are not combined. If one testifies that the claimant lent the respondent one hundred dinars in his presence, and the other testifies that he lent him one hundred dinars in a separate incident in his presence, their testimonies are not combined, as they are clearly testifying about two separate loans. Similarly, testimonies of a loan following an admission are not combined. If one testifies that the claimant lent money to the respondent, and the other one testifies that on an earlier date the respondent admitted to owing the claimant, their testimonies are not combined.

讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讞专 讛诇讜讗讛 讚诇讗 讚诪谞讛 讚拽讗 讞讝讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 拽讗 讞讝讬 讛讗讬 讛讜讚讗讛 讗讞专 讛讜讚讗讛 谞诪讬 讗诪谞讛 讚拽讗 诪讜讚讛 拽诪讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讬 拽诪讬 讛讗讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k encountered Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. He said to him: What is different about a loan following a loan, in which case the testimonies are not combined, as the one hundred dinars that this witness saw, that witness did not see? In the case of an admission following an admission as well, perhaps the one hundred dinars about which the respondent admitted in the presence of this witness, he did not admit in the presence of that witness. Perhaps his admissions were in reference to two separate loans, and therefore the testimonies should not be combined.

讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讘转专讗 讘讛讗讬 诪谞讛 讚讗讜讚讬讬 诇讬讛 拽诪讱 讗讜讚讬讬 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 拽诪讬 驻诇讜谞讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered him: The reference is to a case where the respondent said to this last witness: With regard to the one hundred dinars that I admitted to owing in your presence, I admitted to owing them in the presence of so-and-so, the first witness, as well.

讗讻转讬 讘转专讗 讬讚注 拽诪讗 诇讗 讬讚注

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k asked: Still, the last witness knows that he is testifying about the same loan as the first witness, but the first witness does not know this. Since only one witness testifies that it is the same loan, the testimonies still cannot be combined.

讚讛讚专 讗讝讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇拽诪讗 讛讗讬 诪谞讛 讚讗讜讚讬讬 诇讬讛 拽诪讱 讗讜讚讬讬 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 拽诪讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讜讞 讚注转讱 砖讛转谞讞转 讗转 讚注转讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered: It is a case where, after his admission to the second witness, the respondent went back and said to the first witness: With regard to those one hundred dinars that I admitted to owing in your presence, I admitted owing them in the presence of so-and-so as well. Therefore, both witnesses know that they are testifying about the same loan. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to him: May your mind be settled, as you have settled my mind and put it at ease by answering this question that was troubling me.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜转讗 讚专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 砖砖转 砖讚讗 讘讛 谞专讙讗 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讜讚讗讛 讗讞专 讛诇讜讗讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to him: What is settling about this explanation? As Rava, and some say Rav Sheshet, threw an ax at my answer, i.e., he rejected my explanation, as follows: According to this interpretation of the case of an admission following an admission, isn鈥檛 this the same as an admission following a loan? The case of an admission following an admission is now rendered superfluous, as it adds no new insight on the matter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬 注诇讬讬讻讜 讚专诪讬转讜 讚讬拽诇讬 讜讝拽驻讬转讜 诇讛讜

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to him: This is what I heard about you Sages of Me岣za, that you knock down palm trees and erect them, i.e., you build and then destroy what you built. After you came up with such an excellent explanation, you ruined it yourselves.

谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讘讬谉 讛讜讚讗讛 讗讞专 讛讜讚讗讛 讘讬谉 讛讜讚讗讛 讗讞专 讛诇讜讗讛 讘讬谉 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讞专 讛诇讜讗讛 讘讬谉 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讞专 讛讜讚讗讛 诪爪讟专驻讜转 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: Whether it is a case of an admission following an admission, or an admission following a loan, or a loan following a loan, or a loan following an admission, in all these cases the testimonies are combined. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, who teaches that since both witnesses testify about a debt of one hundred dinars, it is considered like one testimony.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚讜转 讛诪讻讞砖转 讝讜 讗转 讝讜 讘讘讚讬拽讜转 讻砖专讛 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转

Rav Yehuda says: Testimony of two witnesses who contradict the testimony of each other in response to the judges鈥 examination of the details of the story is valid in cases of monetary law, although a contradiction of this type disqualifies testimony in cases of capital law.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讗专谞拽讬 砖讞讜专讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讗专谞拽讬 诇讘谞讛 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪谞讛 砖讞讜专 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪谞讛 诇讘谉 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

Rava says: The statement of Rav Yehuda is reasonable in a case where one witness says: The money was in a black purse [be鈥檃rnaki], and the other one says: It was in a white purse. Since this is a secondary detail, they may not remember it accurately. But if one says: He lent him a black coin, i.e., the coin was dark, and the other one says: He lent him a white coin, the testimonies are not combined. Since they contradict each other with regard to a characteristic of the money itself, one is probably lying.

讜讗专谞拽讬 砖讞讜专讛 讘讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘住讬讬祝 讛专讙讜 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讗专讬专谉 讛专讙讜 讗讬谉 讝讛 谞讻讜谉 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻诇讬讜 砖讞讜专讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻诇讬讜 诇讘谞讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讻讜谉

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 ruling: And if witnesses contradict each other with regard to secondary details such as a black purse in cases of capital law, is it the case that their testimony is not accepted? But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say: In a case where one of the witnesses says: The murderer killed the victim with a sword, and one of the witnesses says: The murderer killed the victim with an ariran, another type of weapon, this is not congruent testimony, as this is a clear contradiction. But if one of the witnesses says: The murderer鈥檚 garments were black, and one of the witnesses says: The murderer鈥檚 garments were white, this is congruent testimony, as this is not a meaningful discrepancy.

Scroll To Top