Quoting%20commentary for Sanhedrin 65:17

חדא קתני דיני ממונות מחזירין לזכות שהיא חובה דכוותה גבי נפשות מחזירין לזכות

where he did not take and give with his own hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that case, an erroneous judgment was reversed. ');">³⁰</span> Now, that is correct in regard to pronouncing him who is not liable, 'liable'; when he might have taken [from the defendant] and given [to the plaintiff] with his own hand; but how is it conceivable in the reverse case [except] where he said to him: 'Thou art not liable'? Then he did not take [from one] and give [to the other] with his own hand! — Since he declared, 'Thou art not liable,' it is really as though he had taken [from one] and given [to the other] with his own hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he is confirming the defendant in the possession of the money claimed from him by the plaintiff. ');">³¹</span> Then what of our Mishnah, which teaches: IN MONETARY CASES THE DECISION MAY BE REVERSED BOTH FOR ACQUITTAL, AND FOR CONDEMNATION? As for acquittal, it is correct: this is conceivable where he [the judge] originally said to him, 'Thou art liable,' but did not actually take [from him] and give [to the other] with his own hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then he can subsequently revise his verdict. ');">³²</span> But how is it possible [to make any reversal] for condemnation, [except in the case] where the judge has first said to him: 'Thou art not liable'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And now declares that he is. ');">³³</span> But you maintain that when he said to him: 'Thou art not liable,' it is as though he had taken and given with, his own hand!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case judgment cannot be reversed according to R. Hisda, and yet it is taught that the verdict may be upset. ');">³⁴</span> — The Mishnah really states [only] one ruling. Viz., IN MONETARY CASES A DECISION MAY BE REVERSED IN FAVOUR [OF THE ONE],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc., the defendant, who had previously been pronounced liable. ');">³⁵</span> WHICH IS [TO THE OTHER'S (i.e.. THE PLAINTIFF'S)] DISADVANTAGE. Then by analogy, in regard to capital charges, [the statement,] THE VERDICT MAY BE REVERSED FOR ACQUITTAL ONLY

Explore quoting%20commentary for Sanhedrin 65:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.