Related for Bekhorot 70:35
הלכה כרשב"ג
If this be the case, what need is there to state it? - You might be under the impression that we entertain a suspicion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the shepherd himself caused the blemish, or that, after all, a member of the household remained within the house (Tosaf.) . Another interpretation is: If witnesses testify that all the members of the household were outside when the ani mal emerged maimed, then their evidence is considered trustworthy and we do not suspect that the members of the household had been instrumental before leaving in bringing about the blemish by e.g., opening a pit or putting pressed dates on its ear so that a dog came and caused a blemish.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
Tosefta Demai
One who sends fruits to his friend, and he [presumably the friend] decides to return it, he comports himself [vis-a-vis the returned fruit] according to how it was (i.e., its prior status). Abba Shaul says, "I would be concerned lest it be switched." Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel says, "If he has a sharecropper who knows how to tithe, but he (i.e., the landowner) does not trust him as to tithes, and he (i.e., the sharecropper) brought his fruits to him, and he said, yours (i.e., your share) are tithed, he is believed [in this instance]." Rebbi says, "He is not trustworthy [according to the principle] that one who is suspected regarding [one] matter may neither adjudicate nor testify" (Bekh. 30a:3).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy