Reference for Sanhedrin 61:29

איכא דאמרי לא הימנה רב נחמן אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן והא אי בעיא

Rabbah son of R. Huna also said: The <i>halachah</i> does not rest with the Sages. But is this not obvious; since he says that the <i>halachah</i> rests with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel it automatically follows that the <i>halachah</i> is not as the Sages? — I might have thought that his ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the halachah rests with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. ');">²⁶</span> holds good only at the outset;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if proof is brought after the prescribed time, it is to be accepted. ');">²⁷</span> but once it [i.e., the reverse] has been done,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the court had rejected this evidence and given a verdict accordingly. ');">²⁸</span> it is correct: therefore he informs us<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By his second statement that the halachah does not rest with the Sages. ');">²⁹</span> that even then, it [the decision] is reversed. IF THEY SAID TO HIM: 'BRING WITNESSES,' etc.&nbsp;… SAID RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL etc. — Rabbah son of R. Huna said in R. Johanan's name: The <i>halachah</i> rests with the Sages. Rabbah son of R. Huna also said in R. Johanan's name: The <i>halachah</i> does not rest with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. But is this not obvious; since he said that the <i>halachah</i> rests with the Sages it follows automatically that the <i>halachah</i> does not rest with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? What he teaches us is this: Only in this case is the <i>halachah</i> not as Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel holds; whereas in all other cases,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel is at variance with other Sages. ');">³⁰</span> the <i>halachah</i> rests with him. Thus he opposes the dictum of Rabbah b. Bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan, viz., Wherever Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel's view is taught in our Mishnah, the <i>halachah</i> rests with him, except in [the following three cases]: 'Areb,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surety. V. B.B. 173a. ');">³¹</span> Zidon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 74a. ');">³²</span> and 'the latter proof'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the case, dealt with in our Mishnah, of evidence offered late, the case under discussion; thus Rabbah b. R. Huna maintains that the halachah does rest with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel in respect to 'Areb and Zidon. ');">³³</span> A lad<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., minor. ');">³⁴</span> was once summoned for a [civil] suit before R. Nahman. The latter asked him: 'Have you any witnesses?' He answered: 'No.' 'Have you any [documentary] proof?' 'No,' was the reply. Consequently, R. Nahman ruled him to be liable. As he went along weeping, some people heard him and said to him, 'We know your father's affairs.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And can testify in your favour. ');">³⁵</span> Said R. Nahman: In such a case even the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who oppose Rabban Simeon B. Gamaliel in the Mishnah. ');">³⁶</span> agree that the youth is not expected to know his father's affairs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the decision can be reversed. ');">³⁷</span> A certain woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was a trustee, appointed by the creditor and debtor, of a bill of indebtedness. ');">³⁸</span> produced a note of a debt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'A Shetar came forth from under her hand.' ');">³⁹</span> but said to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The creditor. ');">⁴⁰</span> 'I know that this bill was discharged.' R. Nahman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before whom the dispute was brought. ');">⁴¹</span> believed her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Notwithstanding the creditor's denial; for as long as they kept her their trustee, they vouched thereby for her truthfulness. ');">⁴²</span> Said Raba to him: According to whose view [did you act]? According to Rabbi who said: [Ownership of] 'letters' is acquired through delivery?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a creditor wishes to make over a debt, he can do so merely by handing the note — referred to here as a compilation of (alphabetical) letters — to the assignee. Hence in our case, the woman could have claimed ownership of the note, on the plea that it had been handed to her not as a trustee, but in transference of the debt. Consequently her statement that the bill was paid may be regarded as true by reason of a Miggo, v. Glos. Raba was not in favour of the opinion of Rabbi, as it opposes the view of the majority of the Sages that a Shetar cannot be legally assigned by mere delivery. V. B.B. 76a. ');">⁴³</span> This case is different, he replied, since she could have burnt it, had she desired.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, without accepting Rabbi's ruling, there are still grounds for believing her. ');">⁴⁴</span> Others say, R. Nahman did not believe her. Thereupon Raba objected: But had she desired,

Jastrow

Jastrow