Commentary for Sanhedrin 60:26

וארנקי שחורה בדיני נפשות לא והאמר רב חסדא אחד אומר בסייף הרגו ואחד אומר בארירן הרגו אין זה נכון אחד אומר כליו שחורים ואחד אומר כליו לבנים הרי זה נכון

viz.,surely it is then identical with the case of an admission after aloan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since it is necessary, according to this answer, that each witness shall know what the other has seen, it follows that an admission after a loan must be explained likewise, viz., he must have said to the latter witness: The maneh I have admitted receiving in your presence, I borrowed in the presence of so and so; and then he must have gone and said to the former witness: The maneh which I borrowed in your presence, I have admitted receiving before so and so. Why then did Rab need to state both laws? ');">²⁷</span> Thereupon he [R. Nahman b.Isaac] said to him: 'This proves what I heard about you folk, that you teardown palm trees and set them up again.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., you remove difficulties merely to resurrect them! ');">²⁸</span> The Nehardeans said: [In all cases,] whether of admission after admission,admission after loan, loan after loan, or loan after admission, the testimoniesare combined. With whom does this agree? — With R. Joshua b. Korha. Rab Judah said: Testimony that iscontradicted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the testimony of one witness contradicts that of the other. ');">²⁹</span> underexamination,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to attendant circumstances, e.g., regarding the colour of the clothes worn etc., in which cases the agreement or disagreement is immaterial in reference to the law of declaring them Zomemim. V infra 40a. ');">³⁰</span> is valid in civil suits.Raba said: Logically, Rab Judah's ruling refers to such a case as where onewitness says: '[I saw it paid] out of a black bag,' and the other says, 'Outof a white bag.' But if one declares, 'The money was old,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'black' (with use). ');">³¹</span> and the othersays, 'The money was new,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'white'. ');">³²</span> their testimonies cannot be combined. But incriminal cases, are not testimonies combined where there are differencessuch as over the colour of a bag? Did not R. Hisda say: 'If one testifiesthat it [sc. the murder] was with a sword, and the other maintains, it waswith a dagger, it is not valid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'certain', cf. Deut. XIII, 15. ');">³³</span> evidence;whereas if one affirms that the colour of his garments was black, and theother that it was white, their evidence is valid'?

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 60:26. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.