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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 15, 2017 | ื›ืดื’ ื‘ืื‘ ื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€

Sanhedrin 30

If there is a disagreement among the judges, the majority is followed but what is written in the court verdict? ย Does it mention that there was a disagreement and if so, are the judges who disagreed mentioned by name? ย Do the two witnesses need to see the event they are testifying against together? ย 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? ย Do the two witnesses need to testify together in the court or can they appear in court separately? ย Both of these issues are subjects of debate. ย 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"

ื•ื›ืœ ืœื™ืฉื ื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื” ื‘ืžื•ืชื‘ ืชืœืชื ื”ื•ื™ื ื ื•ื—ื“ ืœื™ืชื•ื”ื™

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.

ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื›ืœ ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืขื™ืŸ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืชื• ืœื ืฆืจื™ืš

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ืฆื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื“ื ื• ื“ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉื ืงืจืื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ืฆื•ืฃ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื“ืจื‘ื ื ืืฉื™

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 Ashiโ€™s court presumably conformed to rabbinic protocol.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื• ื•ืืžืจื ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื ื ืืฉื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืœืŸ ืจื‘ื ื ืืฉื™

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืื ื™ ืจืื™ืชื™ ืื‘ื™ื›ื ืฉื”ื˜ืžื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื‘ืฉื™ื“ื” ืชื™ื‘ื” ื•ืžื’ื“ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืณืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืŸืณ ืณืฉืœ ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื”ืŸืณ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ

ยง 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.

ื›ืœืœื• ืฉืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื™ื“ื• ืœื™ื˜ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืœื™ื˜ืœืŸ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื

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.

ื”ืจื™ ืฉืจืื• ืืช ืื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ืฉื”ื˜ืžื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื‘ืฉื™ื“ื” ืชื™ื‘ื” ื•ืžื’ื“ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืณืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืŸืณ ืณืฉืœ ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื”ืŸืณ ืื ื›ืžื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื ื›ืžืขืจื™ื ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื

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.

ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžืฆื˜ืขืจ ืขืœ ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื”ื ื™ื— ืœื• ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ื‘ื ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื—ืœื•ื ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ืณื›ืš ื•ื›ืš ื”ืŸ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื”ืŸืณ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื•ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ืœื•ืžื•ืช ืœื ืžืขืœื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžื•ืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ

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.

ืฉื ื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื–ื›ืื™ ื›ื•ืณ ืžื™ื›ืชื‘ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื›ืชื‘ื™

ยง 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?

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื–ื›ืื™ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื”ืŸ ื ื–ื“ื›ื” ืคืœื•ื ื™

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืœืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืื™ื”ื• ืžื ืชื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื›ืื™ ืžืฉืœื ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื ืžืฉืœื

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.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื›ืื™ ืžืฉืœื ืœื™ืžื ืœื”ื• ืื™ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ืฆื™ื™ืชื™ืชื•ืŸ ืืชื•ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืฉืœืžื™ืชื•ืŸ

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?

ืืœื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืœืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืื™ื ื”ื• ืžื ืชื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื›ืื™ ืžืฉืœืžื™ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื ืžืฉืœืžื™

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.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื›ืื™ ืžืฉืœืžื™ ื•ืœื™ืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืœืื• ืืช ื‘ื”ื“ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืกืœื™ืง ื“ื™ื ื ืžื™ื“ื™

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.

ืืœื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ืชืœืš ืจื›ื™ืœ ื‘ืขืžื™ืš ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื–ื›ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ืชืœืš ืจื›ื™ืœ

Rather, the difference between the opinions is only with regard to the wording of the verdict, and is due to the prohibition of: โ€œYou shall not go as a talebearer among your peopleโ€ (Leviticus 19:16). Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that they write that he is exempt due to the prohibition of gossip, as derived from the verse: โ€œYou shall not go as a talebearer.โ€

ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื™ื—ื–ื™ ื›ืฉื™ืงืจื

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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ื•ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ื”ืœื›ืš ื›ืชื‘ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื”ื ื ื–ื“ื›ื” ืคืœื•ื ื™

And Rabbi Elazar accepts the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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.

ื’ืžืจื• ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื™ื• ืžื›ื ื™ืกื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืณ ืœืžืืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœื‘ืขืœื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ื”ืชื ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืืœื ืœืขื“ื™ื

ยง 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.

ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคืช ืขื“ ืฉื™ืจืื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื”

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 Korแธฅa says: Their testimonies are combined even in a case where they saw the incident one after the other.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืชืงื™ื™ืžืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื™ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ืฉื™ื‘ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœืžื—ืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ื•

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.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื‘ืขืœื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืš ื”ื™ื” ืžื ื”ื’ืŸ ืฉืœ ื ืงื™ื™ ื”ื“ืขืช ืฉื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžื›ื ื™ืกื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืžื›ื ื™ืกื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืขื“ื™ื ื•ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื”ื ื•ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืœื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื ื•ืฉืื™ืŸ ื•ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื’ืžืจื• ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืžื›ื ื™ืกื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื›ื•ืณ

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 Neแธฅemya. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Neแธฅemya 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.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื’ืžืจื• ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืžื›ื ื™ืกื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืขื“ื™ื ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t 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.

ื’ื•ืคื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคืช ืขื“ ืฉื™ืจืื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื” ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืงืจื ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืกื‘ืจื

ยง 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 Korแธฅa 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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืกื‘ืจื ืืžื ื” ื“ืงื ืžืกื”ื™ื“ ื”ืื™ ืœื ืงื ืžืกื”ื™ื“ ื”ืื™ ื•ืžื ื” ื“ืงื ืžืกื”ื™ื“ ื”ืื™ ืœื ืงืžืกื”ื™ื“ ื”ืื™ ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืืžื ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืงืžืกื”ื“ื™

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 Korแธฅa, holds that since both witnesses are testifying about one hundred dinars in general, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff one hundred dinars.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืงืจื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื ืขื“ ืื• ืจืื” ืื• ื™ื“ืข

And if you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse, as it is written: โ€œAnd 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 iniquityโ€ (Leviticus 5:1).

ื•ืชื ื™ื ืžืžืฉืžืข ืฉื ืืžืจ ืณืœื ื™ืงื•ื ืขื“ืณ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื”ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืื—ื“ืณ

The Gemara explains: And it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œOne 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 establishedโ€ (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 โ€œone,โ€ 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: โ€œOne witnessโ€?

ื–ื” ื‘ื ื” ืื‘ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืณืขื“ืณ ื”ืจื™ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื ื™ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ืคืจื˜ ืœืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืณืื—ื“ืณ

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

ื•ืืคืงื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื—ื“ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืขื“ ื“ื—ื–ื• ืชืจื•ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ื—ื“ ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื•ื”ื•ื ืขื“ ืื• ืจืื” ืื• ื™ื“ืข ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

And according to the first tanna, the Merciful One expresses it in the singular form, i.e., โ€œwitnessโ€ and not โ€œwitnesses,โ€ 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 Korแธฅa, derives from the phrase: โ€œAnd he is a witness, whether he has seen or known,โ€ that in any case where one testifies about what he sees and knows, his testimony is valid.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืชืงื™ื™ืžืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื™ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ืฉื™ื‘ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœืžื—ืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืกื‘ืจื ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืงืจื

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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืกื‘ืจื ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื›ื™ ืืชื™ ืœืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืืชื™ ืœืžืžื•ื ื ืœื ืืชื™

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.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืื˜ื• ื›ื™ ืืชื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื‘ื—ื“ ืคื•ืžื ืงื ืžืกื”ื“ื™ ืืœื ืžืฆืจืคื™ื ืŸ ืœื”ื• ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืฆืจืคื™ื ื”ื•

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.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืงืจื ืื ืœื•ื ื™ื’ื™ื“ ื•ื ืฉื ืขื•ื ื•

And if you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse: โ€œIf he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquityโ€ (Leviticus 5:1),

ื•ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืืงื•ืฉื™ ื”ื’ื“ื” ืœืจืื™ื” ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืงืฉื™ื ืŸ ื”ื’ื“ื” ืœืจืื™ื” ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืžืงืฉื™ื ืŸ

and everyone, both the first tanna and Rabbi Natan, holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa, 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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœื™ืงื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืžืฉืชืงื™ื“ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืœืžืกืžื›ื™ื” ื•ืœื ืงื ืžื™ืกืชื™ื™ืข ืžื™ืœืชื ื™ื•ืžื ื—ื“ ื”ื•ื” ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim was striving to ordain Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, and was not successful in his attempts. One day, Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim was sitting before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan among Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s other students.

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ื“ื™ื“ืข ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืื• ืœื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœื™ืงื™ื ื“ื™ืŸ ื™ื“ืข ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืžื ืื™ื–ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืกืžื›ื™ื” ืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ืกืžื›ื™ื”

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to his students: Is there anyone who knows whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa, or not? Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said to him: This one, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, knows. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan then ordained Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื ื™ ืืžื•ืจ ืœื™ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืฉืžืขืช ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืš ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืฉืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: My son, tell me what you heard. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, said to him: This is what I heard: That Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa concedes to the opinion of Rabbi Natan that it is unnecessary for the witnesses to testify together.

ืืžืจ ืœื–ื” ื”ื•ืฆืจื›ืชื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื•ืžื” ืขื™ืงืจ ืจืื™ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื”ื’ื“ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Korแธฅa 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?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืขืœื™ืช ืœื ืชืจื“ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื’ื‘ืจื ืจื‘ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืกืžื™ืš ืกืžื™ืš

Although the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, was unnecessary, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ

As for the halakha in this matter, Rabbi แธคiyya bar Avin says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa 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.

ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื‘ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ

Ulla says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื‘ืขื“ื•ืช ืงืจืงืข

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

ื•ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื ื–ื™ืงื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ื™ ืงืจื ื ืžื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื‘ืขื“ื•ืช ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ื‘ืขื“ื•ืช ืงืจืงืข ื•ื‘ืขื“ื•ืช ื—ื–ืงื” ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉื‘ื‘ืŸ ื•ืฉื‘ื‘ืช

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 Korแธฅa 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.

ื’ื‘ืจื ืื’ื‘ืจื ืงื ืจืžื™ืช ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™

The Gemara rejects Abayeโ€™s 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 Korแธฅa even with regard to land, and one Sage, i.e., Rav and Rav Idi, holds that they do not disagree.

ืžืื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉื‘ื‘ืŸ ื•ืฉื‘ื‘ืช ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ืช ื‘ื’ื‘ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ืช ื‘ื›ืจื™ืกื” ื”ืื™ ื—ืฆื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืขื“ื•ืช ื”ื•ื

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.

ืืœื ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืชื™ื ื‘ื’ื‘ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืชื™ื ื‘ื›ืจื™ืกื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืื ื ืืžื™ื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืขื•ืœื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืชื• ืžืžื—ื•ื–ื ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื‘ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ

Rav Yosef said: I say in the name of Ulla that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa both with regard to land and with regard to movable property. But the Sages who came from Meแธฅoza 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 Korแธฅa, but not with regard to movable property.

ืจื‘ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ืœื•ืื” ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™

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.

ื”ืœื•ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ืœื•ืื” ื”ืœื•ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืœื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™

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.

ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ืœื•ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ืœื•ืื” ื“ืœื ื“ืžื ื” ื“ืงื ื—ื–ื™ ื”ืื™ ืœื ืงื ื—ื–ื™ ื”ืื™ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ื ืžื™ ืืžื ื” ื“ืงื ืžื•ื“ื” ืงืžื™ ื”ืื™ ืœื ืžื•ื“ื™ ืงืžื™ ื”ืื™

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื”ืื™ ื‘ืชืจื ื‘ื”ืื™ ืžื ื” ื“ืื•ื“ื™ื™ ืœื™ื” ืงืžืš ืื•ื“ื™ื™ ืœื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืงืžื™ ืคืœื•ื ื™

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.

ืื›ืชื™ ื‘ืชืจื ื™ื“ืข ืงืžื ืœื ื™ื“ืข

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืื–ื™ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืงืžื ื”ืื™ ืžื ื” ื“ืื•ื“ื™ื™ ืœื™ื” ืงืžืš ืื•ื“ื™ื™ ืœื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืงืžื™ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื•ื— ื“ืขืชืš ืฉื”ืชื ื—ืช ืืช ื“ืขืชื™

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 Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ื ื™ื—ื•ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืฉื“ื ื‘ื” ื ืจื’ื ืœืื• ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ืœื•ืื”

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, isnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ ืขืœื™ื™ื›ื• ื“ืจืžื™ืชื• ื“ื™ืงืœื™ ื•ื–ืงืคื™ืชื• ืœื”ื•

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said to him: This is what I heard about you Sages of Meแธฅoza, 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.

ื ื”ืจื“ืขื™ ืืžืจื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ืœื•ืื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืœื•ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ืœื•ืื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืœื•ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื•ืช ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื”

The Sages of Nehardeโ€™a 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 Korแธฅa, who teaches that since both witnesses testify about a debt of one hundred dinars, it is considered like one testimony.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืขื“ื•ืช ื”ืžื›ื—ืฉืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ื‘ื‘ื“ื™ืงื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช

ยง Rav Yehuda says: Testimony of two witnesses who contradict the testimony of each other in response to the judgesโ€™ 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžื™ืœืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืืจื ืงื™ ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืืจื ืงื™ ืœื‘ื ื” ืื‘ืœ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื” ืฉื—ื•ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื” ืœื‘ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ

Rava says: The statement of Rav Yehuda is reasonable in a case where one witness says: The money was in a black purse [beโ€™arnaki], 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.

ื•ืืจื ืงื™ ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืœื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืกื™ื™ืฃ ื”ืจื’ื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืืจื™ืจืŸ ื”ืจื’ื• ืื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื ื›ื•ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœื™ื• ืฉื—ื•ืจื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœื™ื• ืœื‘ื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื ื›ื•ืŸ

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s 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 doesnโ€™t Rav แธคisda 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 murdererโ€™s garments were black, and one of the witnesses says: The murdererโ€™s garments were white, this is congruent testimony, as this is not a meaningful discrepancy.

  • 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!

Sanhedrin 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 30

ื•ื›ืœ ืœื™ืฉื ื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื” ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื” ื‘ืžื•ืชื‘ ืชืœืชื ื”ื•ื™ื ื ื•ื—ื“ ืœื™ืชื•ื”ื™

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.

ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื›ืœ ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืขื™ืŸ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืชื• ืœื ืฆืจื™ืš

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ืฆื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื“ื ื• ื“ื™ื ื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉื ืงืจืื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ืฆื•ืฃ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื“ืจื‘ื ื ืืฉื™

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 Ashiโ€™s court presumably conformed to rabbinic protocol.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื”ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื• ื•ืืžืจื ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื ื ืืฉื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืœืŸ ืจื‘ื ื ืืฉื™

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืื ื™ ืจืื™ืชื™ ืื‘ื™ื›ื ืฉื”ื˜ืžื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื‘ืฉื™ื“ื” ืชื™ื‘ื” ื•ืžื’ื“ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืณืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืŸืณ ืณืฉืœ ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื”ืŸืณ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ

ยง 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.

ื›ืœืœื• ืฉืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื™ื“ื• ืœื™ื˜ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืœื™ื˜ืœืŸ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื

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.

ื”ืจื™ ืฉืจืื• ืืช ืื‘ื™ื”ืŸ ืฉื”ื˜ืžื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื‘ืฉื™ื“ื” ืชื™ื‘ื” ื•ืžื’ื“ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืณืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืŸืณ ืณืฉืœ ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื”ืŸืณ ืื ื›ืžื•ืกืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืื ื›ืžืขืจื™ื ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื

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.

ื”ืจื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžืฆื˜ืขืจ ืขืœ ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื”ื ื™ื— ืœื• ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ื‘ื ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื—ืœื•ื ื•ืืžืจ ืœื• ืณื›ืš ื•ื›ืš ื”ืŸ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืขืฉืจ ืฉื ื™ ื”ืŸืณ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื•ืืžืจื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื—ืœื•ืžื•ืช ืœื ืžืขืœื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ืžื•ืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ

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.

ืฉื ื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื–ื›ืื™ ื›ื•ืณ ืžื™ื›ืชื‘ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื›ืชื‘ื™

ยง 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?

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื–ื›ืื™ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื”ืŸ ื ื–ื“ื›ื” ืคืœื•ื ื™

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืžืื™ ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืœืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืื™ื”ื• ืžื ืชื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื›ืื™ ืžืฉืœื ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื ืžืฉืœื

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.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื›ืื™ ืžืฉืœื ืœื™ืžื ืœื”ื• ืื™ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ืฆื™ื™ืชื™ืชื•ืŸ ืืชื•ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืฉืœืžื™ืชื•ืŸ

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?

ืืœื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืœืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืื™ื ื”ื• ืžื ืชื ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื›ืื™ ืžืฉืœืžื™ ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื ืžืฉืœืžื™

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.

ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื›ืื™ ืžืฉืœืžื™ ื•ืœื™ืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืœืื• ืืช ื‘ื”ื“ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื” ืกืœื™ืง ื“ื™ื ื ืžื™ื“ื™

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.

ืืœื ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ืชืœืš ืจื›ื™ืœ ื‘ืขืžื™ืš ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื–ื›ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืœื ืชืœืš ืจื›ื™ืœ

Rather, the difference between the opinions is only with regard to the wording of the verdict, and is due to the prohibition of: โ€œYou shall not go as a talebearer among your peopleโ€ (Leviticus 19:16). Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that they write that he is exempt due to the prohibition of gossip, as derived from the verse: โ€œYou shall not go as a talebearer.โ€

ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื–ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื™ื—ื–ื™ ื›ืฉื™ืงืจื

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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ื•ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ื”ืœื›ืš ื›ืชื‘ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื”ื ื ื–ื“ื›ื” ืคืœื•ื ื™

And Rabbi Elazar accepts the opinion of this Sage, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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.

ื’ืžืจื• ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื™ื• ืžื›ื ื™ืกื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืณ ืœืžืืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœื‘ืขืœื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ื”ืชื ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืืœื ืœืขื“ื™ื

ยง 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.

ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคืช ืขื“ ืฉื™ืจืื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื”

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 Korแธฅa says: Their testimonies are combined even in a case where they saw the incident one after the other.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืชืงื™ื™ืžืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื™ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ืฉื™ื‘ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœืžื—ืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ื•

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.

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื‘ืขืœื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืš ื”ื™ื” ืžื ื”ื’ืŸ ืฉืœ ื ืงื™ื™ ื”ื“ืขืช ืฉื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืžื›ื ื™ืกื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื”ืŸ ื•ืžื›ื ื™ืกื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืขื“ื™ื ื•ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื”ื ื•ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ืœื—ื•ืฅ ื•ื ื•ืฉืื™ืŸ ื•ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื’ืžืจื• ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืžื›ื ื™ืกื™ืŸ ืื•ืชืŸ ื›ื•ืณ

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 Neแธฅemya. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Neแธฅemya 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.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื’ืžืจื• ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืžื›ื ื™ืกื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืขื“ื™ื ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t 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.

ื’ื•ืคื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคืช ืขื“ ืฉื™ืจืื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื” ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืงืจื ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืกื‘ืจื

ยง 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 Korแธฅa 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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืกื‘ืจื ืืžื ื” ื“ืงื ืžืกื”ื™ื“ ื”ืื™ ืœื ืงื ืžืกื”ื™ื“ ื”ืื™ ื•ืžื ื” ื“ืงื ืžืกื”ื™ื“ ื”ืื™ ืœื ืงืžืกื”ื™ื“ ื”ืื™ ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืืžื ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืงืžืกื”ื“ื™

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 Korแธฅa, holds that since both witnesses are testifying about one hundred dinars in general, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff one hundred dinars.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืงืจื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื•ื ืขื“ ืื• ืจืื” ืื• ื™ื“ืข

And if you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse, as it is written: โ€œAnd 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 iniquityโ€ (Leviticus 5:1).

ื•ืชื ื™ื ืžืžืฉืžืข ืฉื ืืžืจ ืณืœื ื™ืงื•ื ืขื“ืณ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื”ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืื—ื“ืณ

The Gemara explains: And it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œOne 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 establishedโ€ (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 โ€œone,โ€ 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: โ€œOne witnessโ€?

ื–ื” ื‘ื ื” ืื‘ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืณืขื“ืณ ื”ืจื™ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื ื™ื ืขื“ ืฉื™ืคืจื˜ ืœืš ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืณืื—ื“ืณ

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

ื•ืืคืงื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื—ื“ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืขื“ ื“ื—ื–ื• ืชืจื•ื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ื—ื“ ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื•ื”ื•ื ืขื“ ืื• ืจืื” ืื• ื™ื“ืข ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

And according to the first tanna, the Merciful One expresses it in the singular form, i.e., โ€œwitnessโ€ and not โ€œwitnesses,โ€ 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 Korแธฅa, derives from the phrase: โ€œAnd he is a witness, whether he has seen or known,โ€ that in any case where one testifies about what he sees and knows, his testimony is valid.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืชืงื™ื™ืžืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื™ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ืฉื™ื‘ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœืžื—ืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืกื‘ืจื ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืงืจื

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.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืกื‘ืจื ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื›ื™ ืืชื™ ืœืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืืชื™ ืœืžืžื•ื ื ืœื ืืชื™

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.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืื˜ื• ื›ื™ ืืชื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ื‘ื—ื“ ืคื•ืžื ืงื ืžืกื”ื“ื™ ืืœื ืžืฆืจืคื™ื ืŸ ืœื”ื• ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืฆืจืคื™ื ื”ื•

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.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืงืจื ืื ืœื•ื ื™ื’ื™ื“ ื•ื ืฉื ืขื•ื ื•

And if you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of a verse: โ€œIf he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquityโ€ (Leviticus 5:1),

ื•ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืืงื•ืฉื™ ื”ื’ื“ื” ืœืจืื™ื” ืงื ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืžืงืฉื™ื ืŸ ื”ื’ื“ื” ืœืจืื™ื” ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืžืงืฉื™ื ืŸ

and everyone, both the first tanna and Rabbi Natan, holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa, 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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœื™ืงื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืžืฉืชืงื™ื“ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืœืžืกืžื›ื™ื” ื•ืœื ืงื ืžื™ืกืชื™ื™ืข ืžื™ืœืชื ื™ื•ืžื ื—ื“ ื”ื•ื” ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim was striving to ordain Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, and was not successful in his attempts. One day, Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim was sitting before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan among Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s other students.

ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ื“ื™ื“ืข ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืื• ืœื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœื™ืงื™ื ื“ื™ืŸ ื™ื“ืข ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืžื ืื™ื–ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื™ืกืžื›ื™ื” ืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ืกืžื›ื™ื”

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to his students: Is there anyone who knows whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa, or not? Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said to him: This one, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, knows. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan then ordained Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื ื™ ืืžื•ืจ ืœื™ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืฉืžืขืช ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืš ืฉืžืขืชื™ ืฉืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: My son, tell me what you heard. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, said to him: This is what I heard: That Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa concedes to the opinion of Rabbi Natan that it is unnecessary for the witnesses to testify together.

ืืžืจ ืœื–ื” ื”ื•ืฆืจื›ืชื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื•ืžื” ืขื™ืงืจ ืจืื™ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื”ื’ื“ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Korแธฅa 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?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืขืœื™ืช ืœื ืชืจื“ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื’ื‘ืจื ืจื‘ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืกืžื™ืš ืกืžื™ืš

Although the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, was unnecessary, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ

As for the halakha in this matter, Rabbi แธคiyya bar Avin says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa 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.

ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื‘ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ

Ulla says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื‘ืขื“ื•ืช ืงืจืงืข

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

ื•ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื ื–ื™ืงื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ื™ ืงืจื ื ืžื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื‘ืขื“ื•ืช ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ื‘ืขื“ื•ืช ืงืจืงืข ื•ื‘ืขื“ื•ืช ื—ื–ืงื” ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉื‘ื‘ืŸ ื•ืฉื‘ื‘ืช

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 Korแธฅa 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.

ื’ื‘ืจื ืื’ื‘ืจื ืงื ืจืžื™ืช ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™

The Gemara rejects Abayeโ€™s 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 Korแธฅa even with regard to land, and one Sage, i.e., Rav and Rav Idi, holds that they do not disagree.

ืžืื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉื‘ื‘ืŸ ื•ืฉื‘ื‘ืช ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ืช ื‘ื’ื‘ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ืช ื‘ื›ืจื™ืกื” ื”ืื™ ื—ืฆื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ืขื“ื•ืช ื”ื•ื

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.

ืืœื ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืชื™ื ื‘ื’ื‘ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืชื™ื ื‘ื›ืจื™ืกื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืื ื ืืžื™ื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืขื•ืœื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืชื• ืžืžื—ื•ื–ื ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื‘ืงืจืงืขื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื‘ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ

Rav Yosef said: I say in the name of Ulla that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa both with regard to land and with regard to movable property. But the Sages who came from Meแธฅoza 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 Korแธฅa, but not with regard to movable property.

ืจื‘ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ืœื•ืื” ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™

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.

ื”ืœื•ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ืœื•ืื” ื”ืœื•ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืœื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™

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.

ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ืœื•ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ืœื•ืื” ื“ืœื ื“ืžื ื” ื“ืงื ื—ื–ื™ ื”ืื™ ืœื ืงื ื—ื–ื™ ื”ืื™ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ื ืžื™ ืืžื ื” ื“ืงื ืžื•ื“ื” ืงืžื™ ื”ืื™ ืœื ืžื•ื“ื™ ืงืžื™ ื”ืื™

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื”ืื™ ื‘ืชืจื ื‘ื”ืื™ ืžื ื” ื“ืื•ื“ื™ื™ ืœื™ื” ืงืžืš ืื•ื“ื™ื™ ืœื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืงืžื™ ืคืœื•ื ื™

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.

ืื›ืชื™ ื‘ืชืจื ื™ื“ืข ืงืžื ืœื ื™ื“ืข

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ื“ื”ื“ืจ ืื–ื™ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืงืžื ื”ืื™ ืžื ื” ื“ืื•ื“ื™ื™ ืœื™ื” ืงืžืš ืื•ื“ื™ื™ ืœื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืงืžื™ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื•ื— ื“ืขืชืš ืฉื”ืชื ื—ืช ืืช ื“ืขืชื™

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 Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ื ื™ื—ื•ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืฉื“ื ื‘ื” ื ืจื’ื ืœืื• ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ืœื•ืื”

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, isnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ ืขืœื™ื™ื›ื• ื“ืจืžื™ืชื• ื“ื™ืงืœื™ ื•ื–ืงืคื™ืชื• ืœื”ื•

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said to him: This is what I heard about you Sages of Meแธฅoza, 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.

ื ื”ืจื“ืขื™ ืืžืจื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ืœื•ืื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืœื•ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ืœื•ืื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืœื•ืื” ืื—ืจ ื”ื•ื“ืื” ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื•ืช ื›ืžืืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื”

The Sages of Nehardeโ€™a 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 Korแธฅa, who teaches that since both witnesses testify about a debt of one hundred dinars, it is considered like one testimony.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืขื“ื•ืช ื”ืžื›ื—ืฉืช ื–ื• ืืช ื–ื• ื‘ื‘ื“ื™ืงื•ืช ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช

ยง Rav Yehuda says: Testimony of two witnesses who contradict the testimony of each other in response to the judgesโ€™ 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžื™ืœืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืืจื ืงื™ ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืืจื ืงื™ ืœื‘ื ื” ืื‘ืœ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื” ืฉื—ื•ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื” ืœื‘ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ

Rava says: The statement of Rav Yehuda is reasonable in a case where one witness says: The money was in a black purse [beโ€™arnaki], 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.

ื•ืืจื ืงื™ ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืœื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืกื™ื™ืฃ ื”ืจื’ื• ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืืจื™ืจืŸ ื”ืจื’ื• ืื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื ื›ื•ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœื™ื• ืฉื—ื•ืจื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœื™ื• ืœื‘ื ื™ื ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื ื›ื•ืŸ

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehudaโ€™s 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 doesnโ€™t Rav แธคisda 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 murdererโ€™s garments were black, and one of the witnesses says: The murdererโ€™s garments were white, this is congruent testimony, as this is not a meaningful discrepancy.

Scroll To Top