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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 16, 2017 | 讻状讚 讘讗讘 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Sanhedrin 31

If the witnesses contradict each other regarding certain details, their testimony is still admissible but regarding other details it is not. 聽Which details are those that are able to be contradicted and which are not? 聽Is this the case both in monetary cases and in capital cases or only in monetary cases? 聽At what point is it too late to bring further evidence? 聽Can one side force the other to be judged in a larger court in another city?

讙讘专讗 讗讙讘专讗 拽讗 专诪讬转

The Gemara answers: Are you setting the statement of one man against the statement of another man? Rav 岣sda holds that a contradiction with regard to secondary details does not disqualify the testimony even in capital law, and Rav Yehuda holds that it does disqualify the testimony. Neither Sage is bound by the statement of the other.

谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 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 诪爪讟专驻讬诐

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: Even if one says that it was a black coin and the other one says that it was a white coin their testimonies are combined.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪讻讞砖讜 讗讛讚讚讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讻讞砖讬 讗讛讚讚讬 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, that as long as both witnesses testify that the defendant owes the plaintiff the same sum, the testimonies are combined? Say that you heard Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 saying that two testimonies are combined in a case where they do not contradict each other; but in a case where they contradict each other, did he say that they are combined?

讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 砖讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 诪谞讛 砖讬砖 讘讻诇诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讛

Rather, the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 stated their opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to a case of two sets of witnesses, where one set says that the plaintiff lent the defendant two hundred dinars, and the other one says that he lent him one hundred dinars. Both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree that this is not considered a contradiction, and the testimony is accepted concerning the amount of one hundred dinars, as one hundred dinars is subsumed within two hundred, i.e., testimony concerning a large amount includes testimony concerning a smaller amount.

注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讻转 讗讞转 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讞诇拽讛 注讚讜转谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 讘讻诇诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讛

With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree over the case of one set of two witnesses, where one witness testifies that the defendant owes the plaintiff two hundred dinars, and the other witness says that he owes him one hundred. As Beit Shammai say that their testimony is divided. Since they are not testifying about the same amount, the entire testimony is disqualified. And Beit Hillel say: One hundred dinars is subsumed within two hundred. Apparently, according to Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion, as transmitted by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, although the testimonies are not identical, since both attest to the defendant鈥檚 liability to pay a certain amount of money, they are combined and accepted to that effect. This is the source for the opinion of the Sages of Neharde鈥檃.

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞讘讬转 砖诇 砖诪谉 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讗转讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇砖诇讜诪讬 诇讬讛 讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 诪讬讙讜 讞讘讬转讗 讚诪砖讞讗

With regard to a case where one witness says that the plaintiff gave the defendant a barrel of wine, and the other one says that he gave him a barrel of oil, there was actually such an incident, and it came before Rabbi Ami. Since wine was cheaper than oil, Rabbi Ami deemed the defendant liable to pay the plaintiff only the value of a barrel of wine out of the value of a barrel of oil, an amount both witnesses agreed that he owed.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讻讗 讚讬砖 讘讻诇诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? Is it in accordance with the opinion transmitted by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Say that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said that two contradicting testimonies can be combined in a case where one hundred dinars is subsumed within two hundred; perhaps one of the witnesses saw only half the loan, and the other one saw it all. But in a case like this, where the testimonies are about completely different items, did he say that they can be combined?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: No, this is not a case of a direct contradiction. This ruling is necessary only with regard to monetary value, i.e., where one witness says that the defendant owes the value of a barrel of wine, and the second one says that he owes the value of a barrel of oil. Therefore, it is comparable to a case of one hundred dinars and two hundred dinars.

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讚讬讜讟讗 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讚讬讜讟讗 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讜爪讬专祝 注讚讜转谉

With regard to a case where one witness says that the incident took place on the upper floor [badeyota] and the other one says that it occurred on the lower floor, Rabbi 岣nina says that an incident like this came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and he combined their testimonies. This was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, that since they agree with regard to the matter itself, the secondary details are insignificant.

讜诪谞讬讬谉 诇讻砖讬爪讗 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 壮讛专讬谞讬 诪讝讻讛 讜讞讘讬专讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讞讘讬专讬 专讘讜 注诇讬壮 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诇讗 转诇讱 专讻讬诇 讘注诪讬讱壮 讜讗讜诪专 壮讛讜诇讱 专讻讬诇 诪讙诇讛 住讜讚壮

搂 The mishna teaches: And from where is it derived that when the judge leaves the courtroom, he should not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? About this it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not go as a talebearer among your people鈥 (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: 鈥淥ne who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but one who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter鈥 (Proverbs 11:13). The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that when the judge leaves he should not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not go as a talebearer among your people鈥 (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: 鈥淥ne who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets鈥 (Proverbs 11:13).

讛讛讜讗 转诇诪讬讚讗 讚谞驻讬拽 注诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讚讙诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讘转专 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讗驻拽讬讛 专讘 讗诪讬 诪讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 讚讬谉 讙诇讬 专讝讬讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain student, about whom a rumor emerged that he revealed a statement that was stated in the study hall and should have been kept secret, and the rumor emerged twenty-two years after the time the statement was revealed. Rav Ami removed him from the study hall as a punishment. Rav Ami said: This is a revealer of secrets and he cannot be trusted.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 住讜转专 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇 专讗讬讜转 砖讬砖 诇讱 讛讘讗 诪讬讻谉 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪爪讗 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 住讜转专 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专

MISHNA: Any time one of the litigants brings additional proof, he can overturn the verdict that was decided according to previous proofs. If one litigant said to the other: Bring all the proofs that you have from now until thirty days from now, if he found additional proof within thirty days, he can overturn the verdict. If he found it after thirty days, he cannot overturn the verdict anymore.

讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讝讛 砖诇讗 诪爪讗 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讜诪爪讗 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: He can still overturn the verdict, as what should this litigant, who sought and did not find additional proof within thirty days but found it after thirty days, have done?

讗诪专 诇讜 讛讘讗 注讚讬诐 讜讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 注讚讬诐 讗诪专 讛讘讗 专讗讬讛 讜讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 专讗讬讛 讜诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜诪爪讗 注讚讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讻诇讜诐

In a case where one litigant said to the other: Bring witnesses, and the latter said: I have no witnesses, and the former said to him: Bring a proof, and he said: I have no proof, and he later brought a proof or found witnesses, in this case, this proof or these witnesses are worth nothing. It is apparently a false proof or false testimony.

讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讝讛 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 砖讬砖 诇讜 注讚讬诐 讜诪爪讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 砖讬砖 诇讜 专讗讬讛 讜诪爪讗 专讗讬讛

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: What should this litigant, who did not know that he has witnesses and ultimately found witnesses, or who did not know that he has a proof and ultimately found proof, have done? Therefore, he can still overturn the verdict.

专讗讛 砖诪转讞讬讬讘 讘讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 拽专讘讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬注讬讚讜谞讬 讗讜 砖讛讜爪讬讗 专讗讬讛 诪转讞转 驻讜谞讚转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讻诇讜诐

If at the beginning of the discussion in the court one did not bring witnesses or other evidence for his claims, but then he saw that he was about to be deemed liable to pay in the judgment, and said: Bring so-and-so and so-and-so, and they will testify on my behalf, or he pulled out a proof from under his belt [pundato], even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that this is worth nothing. If there was truth in the testimony of these witnesses or in this proof, he would not have hidden it until now.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

GEMARA: With regard to the first halakha in the mishna, Rabba bar Rav Huna says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabba bar Rav Huna also says: The halakha is not in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.

驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪诪讬诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious? Since he says that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, we know by ourselves that the halakha is not in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讚讬注讘讚 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬 注讘讬讚 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this statement, that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, applies ab initio, but after the fact, even if the court ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the ruling is valid, as their opinion was not entirely rejected, Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore teaches us that if the court acts in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, we send the case back to court.

讗诪专 诇讜 讛讘讗 注讚讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

搂 The mishna teaches that in a case where one litigant said to the other: Bring witnesses, and he admitted that he had none, and he subsequently found witnesses, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that their testimony is valid. Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. And Rabba bar Rav Huna also says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪诪讬诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious? Since he says that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, we know by ourselves that the halakha is not in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘讛讛讬讗 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗 讘讻讜诇讛讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara answers: This statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna teaches us that specifically with regard to that halakha, the halakha is not in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; but with regard to all other statements of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the corpus of the Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪砖谞转谞讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讞讜抓 诪注专讘 讜爪讬讚谉 讜专讗讬讛 讗讞专讜谞讛

This is to the exclusion of that which Rabba bar bar 岣nna says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Anywhere that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught a ruling in our Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, except for the following three cases: The responsibility of the guarantor, and the incident that occurred in the city of Tzaidan, and the dispute with regard to evidence in the final disagreement. Whereas in the former dispute in the mishna here, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in the latter dispute in the mishna here, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabba bar Rav Huna, by contrast, maintains that in the case of a guarantor and in the case in Tzaidan, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讛讛讜讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讚转讘注讜讛讜 诇讚讬谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬转 诇讱 住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讗讬转 诇讱 专讗讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara relates: There was a certain child who was taken to court before Rav Na岣an. They said to him: Do you have witnesses on your behalf? The child said to them: No. They continued to ask: Do you have evidence? The child said to them: No. Rav Na岣an deemed him liable, in accordance with the claim of the other litigant.

讛讜讛 拽讗 讘讻讬 讜讗讝讬诇 砖诪注讜讛讜 讛谞讱 讗讬谞砖讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘诪讬诇讬 讚讗讘讜讱 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 讚讬谞讜拽讗 讘诪讬诇讬 讚讗讘讜讛 诇讗 讬讚注

The child was walking and crying. These people heard him, and said to him: We know about the monetary matters of your father and can testify on your behalf. When he brought them before Rav Na岣an, Rav Na岣an said: In a case like this, even the Rabbis concede that the testimony is accepted, as a child does not know about the monetary matters of his father. Clearly, when he said that he has no witnesses or proof, he said so out of ignorance and was mistaken; there is no concern about artifice.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚谞驻拽 砖讟专讗 诪转讜转讬 讬讚讛 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讬讚注谞讗 讘讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讚驻专讬注 讛讜讛 讛讬诪谞讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman from whose possession a promissory note emerged, i.e., she was appointed to hold it. She said to the judge: I know that this promissory note was repaid. The creditor should not use it to collect. Rav Na岣an deemed her testimony credible and did not allow the creditor to collect the debt.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: In accordance with whose opinion is your ruling? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that letters, i.e., the content of a promissory note, are acquired by merely transferring the document? In other words, there is no need to write a deed for the transfer of a monetary document from one individual鈥檚 ownership to another. By giving it to the recipient, he becomes the owner of the document. Therefore, since the promissory note is in this woman鈥檚 possession, she is considered its legal owner, and her claim that it was repaid is consequently accepted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 拽诇转讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: That is not the reason for my ruling; rather, here it is different. Here the woman鈥檚 claim is accepted in any event, as, since the promissory note was in her possession, if she had wanted to, she could have burned it. Therefore, she is presumably telling the truth.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讛讬诪谞讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讗 讗讬 讘注讬讗

Some say that there is another version of the story, according to which Rav Na岣an did not deem her testimony credible. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: But if she had wanted to,

拽诇转讬讛

she could have burned it. Why did you not accept her testimony?

讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 拽诇转讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rav Na岣an answered him: Since the promissory note was ratified in court, we do not say that she is deemed credible to nullify its validity because if she had wanted to, she could have burned it. The validity of a ratified document is not nullified without evidence.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讬诪驻讜谉 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜 讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讜讬爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖诇讬砖 讗讜 砖讬爪讗 讗讞专 讞讬转讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讻砖专 讗诇诪讗 砖诇讬砖 诪讛讬诪谉

Rava raised an objection to the ruling of Rav Na岣an from a baraita: A receipt [simfon] of repayment of a debt upon which witnesses are signed is ratified by means of its signatories. The witnesses testify that these are their signatures, and it is thereby ratified. If there are no witnesses signed on it, but the receipt emerged from the possession of a third party serving as a trustee, or if it emerged after the signing of the documents, i.e., the receipt was written on the promissory note beneath the content of the note and the witnesses鈥 signatures, it is valid. Rava states his objection: Apparently, the testimony of a third party serving as a trustee is deemed credible, as he can testify that the receipt is valid even if it was not signed by witnesses.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Na岣an is indeed a conclusive refutation.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 诪讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜住讜转专 注讚 砖讬住转转诐 讟注谞讜转讬讜 讜讬讗诪专 拽专讘讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛注讬讚讜谞讬

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One can always bring a proof for his claim and overturn the previous verdict, until his claims are stopped up, i.e., until he has no more claims, and he says: Come, so-and-so and so-and-so, and testify on my behalf, in which case those witnesses are not allowed to testify.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讬住转转诐 讟注谞讜转讬讜 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 讜讛讚专 讗诪专转 拽专讘讜 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛注讬讚讜谞讬 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult. When you say: Until his claims are stopped up, we arrive at, i.e., this represents, the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold in the mishna that once a litigant stops presenting his claims, he cannot present additional claims later. And when you then say: Until he says come, so-and-so and so-and-so, and testify on my behalf, we arrive at the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that it is only in that case that the testimony is not accepted.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 诪讗讬 注讚 砖讬住转转诐 讟注谞讜转讬讜 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 拽专讘讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛注讬讚讜谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讞讜抓 诪注专讘 讜爪讬讚谉 讜专讗讬讛 讗讞专讜谞讛

And if you would say that the entire statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Yo岣nan is explaining his own statement, saying: What is the meaning of the phrase: Until his claims are stopped up? Until he says: Come, so-and-so and so-and-so, and testify on my behalf, this is difficult. But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that anywhere that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught a ruling in our Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, except for the following three cases: The responsibility of the guarantor, and the incident that occurred in the city of Tzaidan, and the dispute with regard to evidence in the final disagreement? Evidently, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in this case.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 诪讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜住讜转专 注讚 砖讬住转转诐 讟注谞讜转讬讜 讜讬讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛讘讗 注讚讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 注讚讬诐 讛讘讗 专讗讬讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 专讗讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 讚讬住拽讬讗 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 诪讜驻拽讚转 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜住讜转专

Rather, the Gemara presents another version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement. When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One can always bring a proof and overturn the previous verdict until his claims are stopped up, and the judges say to him: Bring witnesses, and he says: I have no witnesses, and they say to him: Bring evidence, and he says: I have no evidence. This is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna. But if witnesses came from overseas, or if there was a saddlebag [disakkaya] of his father鈥檚 documents deposited by another individual, which are cases where he did not know of the evidence, he can bring this evidence and overturn the previous verdict, as there is no concern of artifice.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛转讜拽祝 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘讚讬谉 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞讚讜谉 讻讗谉 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞诇讱 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讜讜注讚 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讬诇讱 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讜讜注讚

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who attacks another in judgment, i.e., tenaciously raises legal claims against another, and one of the litigants says: Let us go to court here in our locale, and the other one says: Let us go to the place of the Assembly, i.e., the Sanhedrin, or another High Court, the former litigant is compelled to go to the place of the Assembly.

讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬 诪讬 砖谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讬讜爪讬讗 诪谞讛 注诇 诪谞讛 讗诇讗 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讚谉 讘注讬专讜

Rabbi Elazar said before him: My teacher, if so, must one who claims a debt of one hundred dinars from another spend one hundred dinars of travel and lodging expenses for the one hundred dinars he wants to collect? Rather, one is compelled to appear and be judged in a court that presides in his own city.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬诐 砖谞转注爪诪讜 讘讚讬谉 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞讚讜谉 讻讗谉 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞诇讱 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讜讜注讚 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讚谉 讘注讬专讜 讜讗诐 讛讜爪专讱 讚讘专 诇砖讗讜诇 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜砖讜诇讞讬谉

It was also stated that Rav Safra says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to two who were struggling in judgment, one of whom says: Let us go to court here, and one of whom says: Let us go to the place of the Assembly, the latter litigant is compelled to appear and be judged in a court that presides in his own city. And if the local court needs to ask a higher court about a certain matter, the judges write to the Assembly, and the higher court sends its response.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 诇讬 诪讗讬讝讛 讟注诐 讚谞转讜谞讬 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜

And if one of the litigants says to a court: Write for what reason you judged me in this manner and give it to me, as I do not trust your decision without explanation, the judges write it and give it to him.

讜讛讬讘诪讛 讛讜诇讻转 讗讞专 讛讬讘诐 诇讛转讬专讛

Another halakha was stated with regard to the location of the judgment: And with regard to a woman whose husband had a brother, and he died childless [vehayevama], she follows her brother-in-law [hayavam] for him to free her of the levirate bond through 岣litza. The yavam does not have to go to her.

注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讟讘专讬讗 诇爪驻讜专讬

The Gemara asks: How far does she have to go? Rabbi Ami says: Even from Tiberias to Tzippori. This is the halakha even though the court in Tiberias is more prestigious than the one in Tzippori.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讜拽专讗讜 诇讜 讝拽谞讬 注讬专讜 讜诇讗 讝拽谞讬 注讬专讛

Rav Kahana says: What is the verse that alludes to this halakha? It is the verse that states: 鈥淭hen the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him, and if he stands and says: I do not wish to take her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:8). The fact that the elders of his city, and not the elders of her city, are mentioned indicates that 岣litza is performed in his city and not in hers.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讬诇讱 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讜讜注讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讚谉 讘注讬专讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讗讘诇 诪诇讜讛 注讘讚 诇讜讛 诇讗讬砖 诪诇讜讛

Ameimar says: The halakha is that if one litigant wants to go to the place of the Assembly and the other does not, the latter is compelled to go to the place of the Assembly. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that he is compelled to appear and be judged in a court that presides in his own city? Ameimar answered: This statement applies in a case where the borrower said to the lender: Let us go to the place of the Assembly; in that case, the debtor is compelled to be judged in his city. But if the lender requests to go to the place of the Assembly, his request is accepted, as it is stated: 鈥淭he borrower is servant to the lender鈥 (Proverbs 22:7).

砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诇诪专 注讜拽讘讗 诇讚讝讬讜 诇讬讛 讻讘专 讘转讬讛 砖诇诐 注讜拽讘谉 讛讘讘诇讬 拽讘诇 拽讚诪谞讗 讬专诪讬讛 讗讞讬 讛注讘讬专 注诇讬 讗转 讛讚专讱 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛砖讬讗讜讛讜 讜讬专讗讛 驻谞讬谞讜 讘讟讘专讬讗

The Sages sent a letter to Mar Ukva, the Exilarch in Babylonia, which stated: To he who has light upon him, like Moses, who is called the son of Bithiah, Shalom. The letter continued: Ukvan the Babylonian complained before us as follows: Yirmeya, my brother, came past me, i.e., did me a great evil. And therefore tell Yirmeya; induce him [hassiuhu] to see our face in Tiberias, where we will judge his case.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇诪讗 讚讬讬谞讜讛 讗转讜谉 讛砖讬讗讜讛讜 讜讬专讗讛 驻谞讬谞讜 讘讟讘专讬讗 讗诇诪讗 砖讚专讜讛讜 讛讻讗

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult to understand. You said: Tell him. Apparently the intention was: Judge him yourselves in Babylonia. But then the letter states: Induce him to see our face in Tiberias. Apparently the intention was: Send him here.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚讬讬谞讜 讗转讜谉 讗讬 爪讬讬转 爪讬讬转 讜讗讬 诇讗 讛砖讬讗讜讛讜 讜讬专讗讛 驻谞讬谞讜 讘讟讘专讬讗

Rather, this is what the Sages were saying: Tell him, i.e., judge him yourselves. If he listens to the court, he listens, and the issue is resolved. But if he does not listen, induce him to see our face in Tiberias.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讚讬谞讬 拽谞住讜转 讛讜讛 讜讘讘讘诇 诇讗 讚讬讬谞讜 讚讬谞讬 拽谞住讜转 讜讛讗 讚砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讻讚讬 诇讞诇讜拽 讻讘讜讚 诇诪专 注讜拽讘讗

Rav Ashi said: That is not the correct understanding of the letter. Rather, it was a case pertaining to the halakhot of fines, and in Babylonia the courts do not adjudicate in cases pertaining to the halakhot of fines, as there are no ordained judges there; such Sages are found only in Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, it was necessary to send the case to Eretz Yisrael. And the fact that they sent the letter to Mar Ukva using this wording, as though he were capable of adjudicating the case himself, was in order to give honor to Mar Ukva, who was a Sage and a leader. They hinted to him that he could not judge this case and that he therefore had to send the defendant to Eretz Yisrael.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讝讛 讘讜专专

 

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 31

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 31

讙讘专讗 讗讙讘专讗 拽讗 专诪讬转

The Gemara answers: Are you setting the statement of one man against the statement of another man? Rav 岣sda holds that a contradiction with regard to secondary details does not disqualify the testimony even in capital law, and Rav Yehuda holds that it does disqualify the testimony. Neither Sage is bound by the statement of the other.

谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 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 诪爪讟专驻讬诐

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: Even if one says that it was a black coin and the other one says that it was a white coin their testimonies are combined.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪讻讞砖讜 讗讛讚讚讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讻讞砖讬 讗讛讚讚讬 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, that as long as both witnesses testify that the defendant owes the plaintiff the same sum, the testimonies are combined? Say that you heard Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 saying that two testimonies are combined in a case where they do not contradict each other; but in a case where they contradict each other, did he say that they are combined?

讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 砖转讬 讻讬转讬 注讚讬诐 砖讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗讞转 讗讜诪专转 诪谞讛 砖讬砖 讘讻诇诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讛

Rather, the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 stated their opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to a case of two sets of witnesses, where one set says that the plaintiff lent the defendant two hundred dinars, and the other one says that he lent him one hundred dinars. Both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree that this is not considered a contradiction, and the testimony is accepted concerning the amount of one hundred dinars, as one hundred dinars is subsumed within two hundred, i.e., testimony concerning a large amount includes testimony concerning a smaller amount.

注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讻转 讗讞转 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讞诇拽讛 注讚讜转谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬砖 讘讻诇诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讛

With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree over the case of one set of two witnesses, where one witness testifies that the defendant owes the plaintiff two hundred dinars, and the other witness says that he owes him one hundred. As Beit Shammai say that their testimony is divided. Since they are not testifying about the same amount, the entire testimony is disqualified. And Beit Hillel say: One hundred dinars is subsumed within two hundred. Apparently, according to Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion, as transmitted by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, although the testimonies are not identical, since both attest to the defendant鈥檚 liability to pay a certain amount of money, they are combined and accepted to that effect. This is the source for the opinion of the Sages of Neharde鈥檃.

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讞讘讬转 砖诇 砖诪谉 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讗转讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇砖诇讜诪讬 诇讬讛 讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 诪讬讙讜 讞讘讬转讗 讚诪砖讞讗

With regard to a case where one witness says that the plaintiff gave the defendant a barrel of wine, and the other one says that he gave him a barrel of oil, there was actually such an incident, and it came before Rabbi Ami. Since wine was cheaper than oil, Rabbi Ami deemed the defendant liable to pay the plaintiff only the value of a barrel of wine out of the value of a barrel of oil, an amount both witnesses agreed that he owed.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讻讗 讚讬砖 讘讻诇诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? Is it in accordance with the opinion transmitted by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Say that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said that two contradicting testimonies can be combined in a case where one hundred dinars is subsumed within two hundred; perhaps one of the witnesses saw only half the loan, and the other one saw it all. But in a case like this, where the testimonies are about completely different items, did he say that they can be combined?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讚诪讬

The Gemara answers: No, this is not a case of a direct contradiction. This ruling is necessary only with regard to monetary value, i.e., where one witness says that the defendant owes the value of a barrel of wine, and the second one says that he owes the value of a barrel of oil. Therefore, it is comparable to a case of one hundred dinars and two hundred dinars.

讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讚讬讜讟讗 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讚讬讜讟讗 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讜爪讬专祝 注讚讜转谉

With regard to a case where one witness says that the incident took place on the upper floor [badeyota] and the other one says that it occurred on the lower floor, Rabbi 岣nina says that an incident like this came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and he combined their testimonies. This was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, that since they agree with regard to the matter itself, the secondary details are insignificant.

讜诪谞讬讬谉 诇讻砖讬爪讗 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬讬谉 诇讻砖讬爪讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 壮讛专讬谞讬 诪讝讻讛 讜讞讘讬专讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讘诇 诪讛 讗注砖讛 砖讞讘讬专讬 专讘讜 注诇讬壮 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诇讗 转诇讱 专讻讬诇 讘注诪讬讱壮 讜讗讜诪专 壮讛讜诇讱 专讻讬诇 诪讙诇讛 住讜讚壮

搂 The mishna teaches: And from where is it derived that when the judge leaves the courtroom, he should not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? About this it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall not go as a talebearer among your people鈥 (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: 鈥淥ne who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but one who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter鈥 (Proverbs 11:13). The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that when the judge leaves he should not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not go as a talebearer among your people鈥 (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: 鈥淥ne who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets鈥 (Proverbs 11:13).

讛讛讜讗 转诇诪讬讚讗 讚谞驻讬拽 注诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讚讙诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转诪专 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讘转专 注砖专讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 讗驻拽讬讛 专讘 讗诪讬 诪讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 讚讬谉 讙诇讬 专讝讬讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain student, about whom a rumor emerged that he revealed a statement that was stated in the study hall and should have been kept secret, and the rumor emerged twenty-two years after the time the statement was revealed. Rav Ami removed him from the study hall as a punishment. Rav Ami said: This is a revealer of secrets and he cannot be trusted.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 住讜转专 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇 专讗讬讜转 砖讬砖 诇讱 讛讘讗 诪讬讻谉 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪爪讗 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 住讜转专 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专

MISHNA: Any time one of the litigants brings additional proof, he can overturn the verdict that was decided according to previous proofs. If one litigant said to the other: Bring all the proofs that you have from now until thirty days from now, if he found additional proof within thirty days, he can overturn the verdict. If he found it after thirty days, he cannot overturn the verdict anymore.

讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讝讛 砖诇讗 诪爪讗 讘转讜讱 砖诇砖讬诐 讜诪爪讗 诇讗讞专 砖诇砖讬诐

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: He can still overturn the verdict, as what should this litigant, who sought and did not find additional proof within thirty days but found it after thirty days, have done?

讗诪专 诇讜 讛讘讗 注讚讬诐 讜讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 注讚讬诐 讗诪专 讛讘讗 专讗讬讛 讜讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 专讗讬讛 讜诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜诪爪讗 注讚讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讻诇讜诐

In a case where one litigant said to the other: Bring witnesses, and the latter said: I have no witnesses, and the former said to him: Bring a proof, and he said: I have no proof, and he later brought a proof or found witnesses, in this case, this proof or these witnesses are worth nothing. It is apparently a false proof or false testimony.

讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪讛 讬注砖讛 讝讛 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 砖讬砖 诇讜 注讚讬诐 讜诪爪讗 注讚讬诐 诇讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 砖讬砖 诇讜 专讗讬讛 讜诪爪讗 专讗讬讛

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: What should this litigant, who did not know that he has witnesses and ultimately found witnesses, or who did not know that he has a proof and ultimately found proof, have done? Therefore, he can still overturn the verdict.

专讗讛 砖诪转讞讬讬讘 讘讚讬谉 讜讗诪专 拽专讘讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬注讬讚讜谞讬 讗讜 砖讛讜爪讬讗 专讗讬讛 诪转讞转 驻讜谞讚转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讻诇讜诐

If at the beginning of the discussion in the court one did not bring witnesses or other evidence for his claims, but then he saw that he was about to be deemed liable to pay in the judgment, and said: Bring so-and-so and so-and-so, and they will testify on my behalf, or he pulled out a proof from under his belt [pundato], even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that this is worth nothing. If there was truth in the testimony of these witnesses or in this proof, he would not have hidden it until now.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

GEMARA: With regard to the first halakha in the mishna, Rabba bar Rav Huna says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabba bar Rav Huna also says: The halakha is not in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.

驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪诪讬诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious? Since he says that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, we know by ourselves that the halakha is not in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 讗讘诇 讚讬注讘讚 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬 注讘讬讚 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this statement, that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, applies ab initio, but after the fact, even if the court ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the ruling is valid, as their opinion was not entirely rejected, Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore teaches us that if the court acts in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, we send the case back to court.

讗诪专 诇讜 讛讘讗 注讚讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

搂 The mishna teaches that in a case where one litigant said to the other: Bring witnesses, and he admitted that he had none, and he subsequently found witnesses, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that their testimony is valid. Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. And Rabba bar Rav Huna also says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪诪讬诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious? Since he says that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, we know by ourselves that the halakha is not in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘讛讛讬讗 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗 讘讻讜诇讛讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara answers: This statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna teaches us that specifically with regard to that halakha, the halakha is not in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; but with regard to all other statements of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the corpus of the Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪砖谞转谞讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讞讜抓 诪注专讘 讜爪讬讚谉 讜专讗讬讛 讗讞专讜谞讛

This is to the exclusion of that which Rabba bar bar 岣nna says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Anywhere that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught a ruling in our Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, except for the following three cases: The responsibility of the guarantor, and the incident that occurred in the city of Tzaidan, and the dispute with regard to evidence in the final disagreement. Whereas in the former dispute in the mishna here, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in the latter dispute in the mishna here, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabba bar Rav Huna, by contrast, maintains that in the case of a guarantor and in the case in Tzaidan, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讛讛讜讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讚转讘注讜讛讜 诇讚讬谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬转 诇讱 住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讗讬转 诇讱 专讗讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara relates: There was a certain child who was taken to court before Rav Na岣an. They said to him: Do you have witnesses on your behalf? The child said to them: No. They continued to ask: Do you have evidence? The child said to them: No. Rav Na岣an deemed him liable, in accordance with the claim of the other litigant.

讛讜讛 拽讗 讘讻讬 讜讗讝讬诇 砖诪注讜讛讜 讛谞讱 讗讬谞砖讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘诪讬诇讬 讚讗讘讜讱 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 讚讬谞讜拽讗 讘诪讬诇讬 讚讗讘讜讛 诇讗 讬讚注

The child was walking and crying. These people heard him, and said to him: We know about the monetary matters of your father and can testify on your behalf. When he brought them before Rav Na岣an, Rav Na岣an said: In a case like this, even the Rabbis concede that the testimony is accepted, as a child does not know about the monetary matters of his father. Clearly, when he said that he has no witnesses or proof, he said so out of ignorance and was mistaken; there is no concern about artifice.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚谞驻拽 砖讟专讗 诪转讜转讬 讬讚讛 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讬讚注谞讗 讘讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讚驻专讬注 讛讜讛 讛讬诪谞讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman from whose possession a promissory note emerged, i.e., she was appointed to hold it. She said to the judge: I know that this promissory note was repaid. The creditor should not use it to collect. Rav Na岣an deemed her testimony credible and did not allow the creditor to collect the debt.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: In accordance with whose opinion is your ruling? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that letters, i.e., the content of a promissory note, are acquired by merely transferring the document? In other words, there is no need to write a deed for the transfer of a monetary document from one individual鈥檚 ownership to another. By giving it to the recipient, he becomes the owner of the document. Therefore, since the promissory note is in this woman鈥檚 possession, she is considered its legal owner, and her claim that it was repaid is consequently accepted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 拽诇转讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: That is not the reason for my ruling; rather, here it is different. Here the woman鈥檚 claim is accepted in any event, as, since the promissory note was in her possession, if she had wanted to, she could have burned it. Therefore, she is presumably telling the truth.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讛讬诪谞讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讗 讗讬 讘注讬讗

Some say that there is another version of the story, according to which Rav Na岣an did not deem her testimony credible. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: But if she had wanted to,

拽诇转讬讛

she could have burned it. Why did you not accept her testimony?

讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 拽诇转讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rav Na岣an answered him: Since the promissory note was ratified in court, we do not say that she is deemed credible to nullify its validity because if she had wanted to, she could have burned it. The validity of a ratified document is not nullified without evidence.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讬诪驻讜谉 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜 讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讜讬爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 砖诇讬砖 讗讜 砖讬爪讗 讗讞专 讞讬转讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讻砖专 讗诇诪讗 砖诇讬砖 诪讛讬诪谉

Rava raised an objection to the ruling of Rav Na岣an from a baraita: A receipt [simfon] of repayment of a debt upon which witnesses are signed is ratified by means of its signatories. The witnesses testify that these are their signatures, and it is thereby ratified. If there are no witnesses signed on it, but the receipt emerged from the possession of a third party serving as a trustee, or if it emerged after the signing of the documents, i.e., the receipt was written on the promissory note beneath the content of the note and the witnesses鈥 signatures, it is valid. Rava states his objection: Apparently, the testimony of a third party serving as a trustee is deemed credible, as he can testify that the receipt is valid even if it was not signed by witnesses.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Na岣an is indeed a conclusive refutation.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 诪讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜住讜转专 注讚 砖讬住转转诐 讟注谞讜转讬讜 讜讬讗诪专 拽专讘讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛注讬讚讜谞讬

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One can always bring a proof for his claim and overturn the previous verdict, until his claims are stopped up, i.e., until he has no more claims, and he says: Come, so-and-so and so-and-so, and testify on my behalf, in which case those witnesses are not allowed to testify.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讬住转转诐 讟注谞讜转讬讜 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 讜讛讚专 讗诪专转 拽专讘讜 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛注讬讚讜谞讬 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult. When you say: Until his claims are stopped up, we arrive at, i.e., this represents, the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold in the mishna that once a litigant stops presenting his claims, he cannot present additional claims later. And when you then say: Until he says come, so-and-so and so-and-so, and testify on my behalf, we arrive at the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that it is only in that case that the testimony is not accepted.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 诪讗讬 注讚 砖讬住转转诐 讟注谞讜转讬讜 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 拽专讘讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛注讬讚讜谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讞讜抓 诪注专讘 讜爪讬讚谉 讜专讗讬讛 讗讞专讜谞讛

And if you would say that the entire statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Yo岣nan is explaining his own statement, saying: What is the meaning of the phrase: Until his claims are stopped up? Until he says: Come, so-and-so and so-and-so, and testify on my behalf, this is difficult. But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that anywhere that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught a ruling in our Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, except for the following three cases: The responsibility of the guarantor, and the incident that occurred in the city of Tzaidan, and the dispute with regard to evidence in the final disagreement? Evidently, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in this case.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注讜诇诐 诪讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜住讜转专 注讚 砖讬住转转诐 讟注谞讜转讬讜 讜讬讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛讘讗 注讚讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 注讚讬诐 讛讘讗 专讗讬讛 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 专讗讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 讚讬住拽讬讗 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 诪讜驻拽讚转 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜住讜转专

Rather, the Gemara presents another version of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement. When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One can always bring a proof and overturn the previous verdict until his claims are stopped up, and the judges say to him: Bring witnesses, and he says: I have no witnesses, and they say to him: Bring evidence, and he says: I have no evidence. This is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna. But if witnesses came from overseas, or if there was a saddlebag [disakkaya] of his father鈥檚 documents deposited by another individual, which are cases where he did not know of the evidence, he can bring this evidence and overturn the previous verdict, as there is no concern of artifice.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛转讜拽祝 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘讚讬谉 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞讚讜谉 讻讗谉 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞诇讱 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讜讜注讚 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讬诇讱 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讜讜注讚

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who attacks another in judgment, i.e., tenaciously raises legal claims against another, and one of the litigants says: Let us go to court here in our locale, and the other one says: Let us go to the place of the Assembly, i.e., the Sanhedrin, or another High Court, the former litigant is compelled to go to the place of the Assembly.

讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬 诪讬 砖谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讬讜爪讬讗 诪谞讛 注诇 诪谞讛 讗诇讗 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讚谉 讘注讬专讜

Rabbi Elazar said before him: My teacher, if so, must one who claims a debt of one hundred dinars from another spend one hundred dinars of travel and lodging expenses for the one hundred dinars he wants to collect? Rather, one is compelled to appear and be judged in a court that presides in his own city.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讬诐 砖谞转注爪诪讜 讘讚讬谉 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞讚讜谉 讻讗谉 讜讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 谞诇讱 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讜讜注讚 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讚谉 讘注讬专讜 讜讗诐 讛讜爪专讱 讚讘专 诇砖讗讜诇 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜砖讜诇讞讬谉

It was also stated that Rav Safra says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to two who were struggling in judgment, one of whom says: Let us go to court here, and one of whom says: Let us go to the place of the Assembly, the latter litigant is compelled to appear and be judged in a court that presides in his own city. And if the local court needs to ask a higher court about a certain matter, the judges write to the Assembly, and the higher court sends its response.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 讻转讘讜 讜转谞讜 诇讬 诪讗讬讝讛 讟注诐 讚谞转讜谞讬 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜

And if one of the litigants says to a court: Write for what reason you judged me in this manner and give it to me, as I do not trust your decision without explanation, the judges write it and give it to him.

讜讛讬讘诪讛 讛讜诇讻转 讗讞专 讛讬讘诐 诇讛转讬专讛

Another halakha was stated with regard to the location of the judgment: And with regard to a woman whose husband had a brother, and he died childless [vehayevama], she follows her brother-in-law [hayavam] for him to free her of the levirate bond through 岣litza. The yavam does not have to go to her.

注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讟讘专讬讗 诇爪驻讜专讬

The Gemara asks: How far does she have to go? Rabbi Ami says: Even from Tiberias to Tzippori. This is the halakha even though the court in Tiberias is more prestigious than the one in Tzippori.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讜拽专讗讜 诇讜 讝拽谞讬 注讬专讜 讜诇讗 讝拽谞讬 注讬专讛

Rav Kahana says: What is the verse that alludes to this halakha? It is the verse that states: 鈥淭hen the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him, and if he stands and says: I do not wish to take her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:8). The fact that the elders of his city, and not the elders of her city, are mentioned indicates that 岣litza is performed in his city and not in hers.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛讬诇讻转讗 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讬诇讱 诇诪拽讜诐 讛讜讜注讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讚谉 讘注讬专讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讜讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讗讘诇 诪诇讜讛 注讘讚 诇讜讛 诇讗讬砖 诪诇讜讛

Ameimar says: The halakha is that if one litigant wants to go to the place of the Assembly and the other does not, the latter is compelled to go to the place of the Assembly. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that he is compelled to appear and be judged in a court that presides in his own city? Ameimar answered: This statement applies in a case where the borrower said to the lender: Let us go to the place of the Assembly; in that case, the debtor is compelled to be judged in his city. But if the lender requests to go to the place of the Assembly, his request is accepted, as it is stated: 鈥淭he borrower is servant to the lender鈥 (Proverbs 22:7).

砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诇诪专 注讜拽讘讗 诇讚讝讬讜 诇讬讛 讻讘专 讘转讬讛 砖诇诐 注讜拽讘谉 讛讘讘诇讬 拽讘诇 拽讚诪谞讗 讬专诪讬讛 讗讞讬 讛注讘讬专 注诇讬 讗转 讛讚专讱 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛砖讬讗讜讛讜 讜讬专讗讛 驻谞讬谞讜 讘讟讘专讬讗

The Sages sent a letter to Mar Ukva, the Exilarch in Babylonia, which stated: To he who has light upon him, like Moses, who is called the son of Bithiah, Shalom. The letter continued: Ukvan the Babylonian complained before us as follows: Yirmeya, my brother, came past me, i.e., did me a great evil. And therefore tell Yirmeya; induce him [hassiuhu] to see our face in Tiberias, where we will judge his case.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诇诪讗 讚讬讬谞讜讛 讗转讜谉 讛砖讬讗讜讛讜 讜讬专讗讛 驻谞讬谞讜 讘讟讘专讬讗 讗诇诪讗 砖讚专讜讛讜 讛讻讗

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult to understand. You said: Tell him. Apparently the intention was: Judge him yourselves in Babylonia. But then the letter states: Induce him to see our face in Tiberias. Apparently the intention was: Send him here.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚讬讬谞讜 讗转讜谉 讗讬 爪讬讬转 爪讬讬转 讜讗讬 诇讗 讛砖讬讗讜讛讜 讜讬专讗讛 驻谞讬谞讜 讘讟讘专讬讗

Rather, this is what the Sages were saying: Tell him, i.e., judge him yourselves. If he listens to the court, he listens, and the issue is resolved. But if he does not listen, induce him to see our face in Tiberias.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讚讬谞讬 拽谞住讜转 讛讜讛 讜讘讘讘诇 诇讗 讚讬讬谞讜 讚讬谞讬 拽谞住讜转 讜讛讗 讚砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讻讚讬 诇讞诇讜拽 讻讘讜讚 诇诪专 注讜拽讘讗

Rav Ashi said: That is not the correct understanding of the letter. Rather, it was a case pertaining to the halakhot of fines, and in Babylonia the courts do not adjudicate in cases pertaining to the halakhot of fines, as there are no ordained judges there; such Sages are found only in Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, it was necessary to send the case to Eretz Yisrael. And the fact that they sent the letter to Mar Ukva using this wording, as though he were capable of adjudicating the case himself, was in order to give honor to Mar Ukva, who was a Sage and a leader. They hinted to him that he could not judge this case and that he therefore had to send the defendant to Eretz Yisrael.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讝讛 讘讜专专

 

Scroll To Top