Halakhah for Sanhedrin 53:21

כי הא דבר חמא קטל נפשא אמר ליה ריש גלותא לרב אבא בר יעקב פוק עיין בה אי ודאי קטל ליכהיוהו לעיניה אתו תרי סהדי אסהידו ביה דודאי קטל אזל איהו אייתי תרי סהדי אסהידו ביה בחד מהנך חד אמר קמאי דידי גנב קבא דחושלא וחד אמר קמאי דידי גנב

oaths concerning money mattersare alluded to; then why state 'oaths' [plural]? — [To indicate] oaths ingeneral.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., such as are made in litigation. ');">²¹</span> An objection is raised: Do not accept the wicked as witness; [this means,]Do not accept a despoiler as witness, e.g., robbers andusurers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his wickedness must, to disqualify him, have been prompted by gain for money only, in contradistinction to the opinion of Abaye. ');">²²</span> This refutation of Abaye'sview is unanswerable. Shall we say that their difference is identical with that of Tannaim? [Forit has been taught:]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_23">²³</a> A witness proved a <i>Zomem</i> is unfit [to testify] inall Biblical matters: this is R. Meir's view. R. Jose said: That is onlyif he has been proved a <i>Zomem</i> in capitalcases;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, having been found dishonest in grave matters, his evidence is all the more suspect in matters less grave. ');">²⁴</span> but if in monetary cases,his evidence is valid in capital charges. Shall we affirm, Abaye agrees withR. Meir, and Raba with R. Jose? 'Abaye agrees with R. Meir,' who maintainsthat we impose [disqualification] in respect of major cases as a result ofa minor transgression.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the case under discussion is similar: that of a provocative Mumar only; nevertheless, he is declared incompetent to testify in a civil suit, though false evidence in such a case is evil both in the sight of God and man, and hence constitutes a greater transgression. ');">²⁵</span> 'AndRaba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that the evidence of a man who transgressed a ritual law (an evil in the sight of God alone) need not be doubted in a civil case. ');">²⁶</span> with R. Jose,' who says, Weimpose [disqualification] in respect of minormatters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., is the case of a Zomem in monetary cases. ');">²⁷</span> as a result of a majortransgression;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., in the case of a Zomem in capital cases. ');">²⁸</span> but not the reverse!— No! On R. Jose's opinion, there is no dispute atall.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye can certainly not agree with R. Jose, for he can in no wise hold that a Zomem in civil cases is eligible in capital cases. ');">²⁹</span> They differ only on the basisof R. Meir's opinion. Abaye certainly agrees with R. Meir. But Raba [mayargue]: So far R. Meir gives his ruling only in the case of a <i>Zomem</i> in amonetary case, who is evil in the sight of God and man. But in this case,since he is evil in the sight of Godalone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as is involved in the open defiance of the ritual law by eating Nebelah. ');">³⁰</span> even R. Meir does not disqualifyhim. And the law rests with Abaye. But has he not been refuted? — That [Baraithawhich refuted him] represents the opinion of R.Jose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the preceding argument (cf. n. 3). Abaye, however, rules as does R. Meir. ');">³¹</span> Granted; yet even so, [wherever]R. Meir and R. Jose [are in dispute], the <i>halachah</i> rests with R.Jose!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. 'Er. 46b. This is a general rule. ');">³²</span> — In the other case it isdifferent, for the Tanna has taught R. Meir's viewanonymously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a general principle that if an individual view is stated anonymously, as though it were a general opinion, the halachah rests with it. ');">³³</span> And where does thisoccur? — [As we find] in the case of Bar Hama, who committed murder. TheResh Galutha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Exilarch. ');">³⁴</span> said to R. Abba b.Jacob:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read with Ms.M., R. Aha b. Jacob, v. D.S. a.l.] ');">³⁵</span> Go and investigate the matter,if he is definitely the murderer, dim hiseyes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Perhaps, 'blind him,' 'put out his eyes.' Capital punishment was abolished four decades before the fall of Jerusalem (cf. infra 41a). Others, however, interpret it of Kenas, i.e., confiscation of property. ');">³⁶</span> Two witnesses thereafter appearedand testified to his definite guilt; but he [Bar Hama] produced two otherwitnesses, who gave evidence against one of the accusing witnesses. One deposed:In my presence this witness stole a <i>kab</i> of barley; the other testified: Inmy presence he stole

Explore halakhah for Sanhedrin 53:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.