Bava Batra 62

Chapter 62

א באבהתא מי אתכחש
1 has it been confuted in regard to the father? May we say that [in principle] the difference between R. Nahman and Raba here is the same as that between R. Huna and R. Hisda in the following statement: If two sets<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to all the discussion which follows it should be borne in mind that according to Jewish law, two witnesses are required to establish a case (v. Deut. XIX, 15). ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב לימא רבא ורב נחמן בפלוגתא דרב הונא ורב חסדא קמיפלגי
2 of witnesses contradict one another [so that one set must be giving false evidence], R. Huna says that each set may give evidence as a whole [in another case];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is not disqualified by the suspicion of having given false evidence in this case. But one witness from one set may not combine with one from the other in another case, because one of them has certainly given false evidence in this case. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג דאיתמר ב' כתי עדים המכחישות זו את זו אמר רב הונא זו באה בפני עצמה ומעידה וזו באה בפני עצמה ומעידה ורב חסדא אמר בהדי סהדי שקרי למה לי לימא רב נחמן דאמר כרב הונא ורבא כרב חסדא
3 R. Hisda, however, says, What have we to do with false witnesses?' May we say then that R. Nahman here follows R. Huna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In admitting the evidence of witnesses whose veracity is suspect. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד אליבא דרב חסדא כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי אליבא דרב הונא רב נחמן כרב הונא ורבא עד כאן לא קאמר רב הונא אלא לעדות אחרת אבל לאותה עדות לא
4 and Raba, R. Hisda? — No. There is no difference between them in the application of R. Hisda's ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both would agree that according to R. Hisda the evidence in regard to the father cannot be accepted. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה הדר אייתי סהדי דאבהתיה היא אמר רב נחמן אנן אחתיניה אנן מסקינן ליה לזילותא דבי דינא לא חיישינן
5 Where they differ is in the application of R. Huna's ruling. R. Nahman would thus have acted on the ruling of R. Huna, whereas Raba [would maintain] that R. Huna only meant it to apply to evidence given in another case entirely, but not, as here, to another part of the same case.
ו מתיב רבא ואיתימא רבי זעירא שנים אומרים מת ושנים אומרים לא מת שנים אומרים נתגרשה ושנים אומרים לא נתגרשה הרי זו לא תנשא ואם נשאת לא תצא רבי מנחם ברבי יוסי אומר תצא
6 He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the occupier, having heard R. Nahman's decision. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז אמר ר' מנחם בר' יוסי אימתי אני אומר תצא בזמן שבאו עדים ואח"כ נשאת אבל נשאת ואח"כ באו עדים הרי זו לא תצא
7 then brought witnesses to prove that the land had belonged to his father. R. Nahman [thereupon] said: As we put him out, so we can put him in;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., we put him down and we can raise him up.' ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ח א"ל אנא סברי למעבד עובדא השתא דאותיבתן את ואותבן רב המנונא בסוריא לא עבדינן בה עובדא
8 and we disregard any disrepute that this may bring on the <i>Beth din</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which will be criticised for altering its decisions. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ט נפק עבד עובדא מאן דחזא סבר טעותא היא בידיה ולא היא אלא משום דתליא באשלי רברבי
9 Raba [or others say R. Ze'ira] objected [to this ruling on the strength of the following]: If two witnesses declare that a man is dead and two others declare that he is not dead, or if two declare that his wife had been divorced from him and two that she had not been divorced, she must not marry again, but if she has married she need not leave [her husband]. R. Menahem, son of R. Jose, says that she must leave [the second husband]. Said R. Menahem, son of R. Jose: When do I say that she must leave the husband? — If the witnesses [who say he is not dead] came first and she married afterwards;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because in that case if she bad consulted the Beth din, they would not have allowed her to marry. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י דתנן רבי יהודה אומר אין מעלין לכהונה על פי עד אחד אמר ר' אלעזר אימתי במקום שיש עוררין אבל במקום שאין עוררין מעלין לכהונה על פי עד אחד רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר משום ר' שמעון בן הסגן מעלין לכהונה ע"פ עד אחד
10 but if she was married before these witnesses came she need not leave her husband.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For fear that she might bring into disrepute the Beth din which gave her permission to marry again. This refutes R. Nahman. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יא רשב"ג היינו ר' אלעזר וכי תימא ערער חד איכא בינייהו רבי אלעזר סבר ערער חד
11 R. Nahman replied: I was going to act [according to the declaration I just made].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And reverse the first decision on the production of new evidence. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> Now, however, that you have brought arguments against me and that R. Hamnuna in Sura has [likewise] refuted me, I shall not act so. [In spite of this statement, however,] he subsequently did act so Those who saw it thought he had made a mistake, but this was not the case, because he had the support of great authorities.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'trees'. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> For we learnt: A man is not given the status of priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So as to be entitled to receive the priestly dues and perform the priestly functions. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> On the evidence of one witness. Said R. Eliezer: This is only when his title is called into question; but if no one calls his title into questions one witness is sufficient. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said in the name of R. Simeon the son of the Segan:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The title given to the Deputy High Priest. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> One witness is sufficient to prove a man's title to be a priest. Is not Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel merely repeating R. Eliezer? And should you say that they differ in regard to the case where there is only one challenger, R. Eliezer holding that an objection is valid if raised by one challenger, and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel holding
Previous ChapterNext Chapter