Sanhedrin 59

וכל לישני דבי דינא ולא הוה כתב בה במותב תלתא הוינא וחד ליתוהי

and was entirely worded like a Courtdocument,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it was signed only by two. ');">¹</span>

סבר רבינא למימר היינו דריש לקיש א"ל רב נתן בר אמי הכי אמרינן משמיה דרבא כל כי האי גוונא חיישינן לב"ד טועין

but did not include [theusual phrase], 'We were in a session of three judges one of whom [subsequently]absented himself.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Keth. 22a: If one of the three judges necessary for the authentication of a document died before signing it, the document should be so worded. ');">²</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אי כתב בה בי דינא תו לא צריך

Rabina thought to rule: This is covered by Resh Lakish'sdictum;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, where Resh Lakish said that it may be taken for granted that an attested document has been legally drawn up. Hence the presence of three originally may be assumed. ');">³</span>

ודילמא בית דין חצוף הוא דאמר שמואל שנים שדנו דיניהן דין אלא שנקראו ב"ד חצוף דכתב ביה בי דינא דרבנא אשי

but R. Nathan b. Ammi observed:It has been said on the authority of Raba: In all such cases a mistaken Bethdin is to be suspected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case where the phrase 'In a session of three judges' was omitted they might have thought that two judges sufficed for purposes of authentication. ');">⁴</span>

ודילמא רבנן דבי רב אשי כשמואל סבירא להו דכתיב בו (ואמרנא ליה לרבנא אשי) ואמר לן רבנא אשי

R. Nahmanb. Isaac said: If '<i>Beth din</i>' is mentioned anywhere in the document, no such[fear] is necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That two thought that they constitute a Beth din, for all know that the term 'Beth din' applies to three. ');">⁵</span>

ת"ר אמר להן אחד אני ראיתי אביכם שהטמין מעות בשידה תיבה ומגדל ואמר של פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן בבית לא אמר כלום בשדה דבריו קיימין

But suppose itwas a presumptuous <i>Beth din</i>: for Samuel said: If two tried a case, theirdecision stands, but they are called, 'A presumptuous <i>Beth din</i>!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 3a. ');">⁶</span>

כללו של דבר כל שבידו ליטלן דבריו קיימין אין בידו ליטלן לא אמר כלום

— No,for the document referred to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By R. Nahman b. Isaac. ');">⁷</span>

הרי שראו את אביהן שהטמין מעות בשידה תיבה ומגדל ואמר של פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן אם כמוסר דבריו קיימין אם כמערים לא אמר כלום

stated:'The <i>Beth din</i> of Rabbana Ashi.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The signatories belonged to his school, and they, no doubt, were aware that two cannot compose a Beth din. R. Ashi, the Babylonian Amora, is given here merely as an illustration because his was the principal court at the time when this passage was incorporated in the Gemara (cf. Rashi). 'Rabbana is a higher title than Rabbi, and is the Aramaic equivalent of Rabban', Chief Teacher (cf. Graetz, Geschichte, IV, 350ff). [According to Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien II, 103, however, the title Rabbana (the Great One) in Persia was reserved for Exilarchs, yet it was bestowed on R. Ashi owing to his unique position and the power he wielded, v. also I, 33.] ');">⁸</span>

הרי שהיה מצטער על מעות שהניח לו אביו ובא בעל החלום ואמר לו כך וכך הן במקום פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן זה היה מעשה ואמרו דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין:

&nbsp; But perhaps the Rabbis of Rabbana Ashi'sacademy agreed with Samuel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That two could form a Beth din, though they did not care about Samuel's uncomplimentary designation. ');">⁹</span>

שנים אומרים זכאי כו': מיכתב היכי כתבי

— Therewas written therein, 'Rabbana Ashi told us [to write thedocument].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The court must therefore have been legally constituted, since he would not have asked two to form a Beth din. ');">¹⁰</span>

ר' יוחנן אמר זכאי ריש לקיש אמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין (ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין) רבי (אליעזר) אמר מדבריהן נזדכה פלוני

'

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו לשלומי איהו מנתא בהדייהו דלמאן דאמר זכאי משלם ולמאן דאמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין לא משלם

Our Rabbis taught: If a man says tothem:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To heirs. ');">¹¹</span>

ולמ"ד זכאי משלם לימא להו אי לדידי צייתיתון אתון נמי לא שלמיתון

'I saw your father hidingmoney, [say,] in a strong box, a chest, or a store-room, and he told me thatit belonged to so and so, or that it was [for the redemption] of the secondtithe:'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 48, n. 4. ');">¹²</span>

אלא איכא בינייהו לשלומי אינהו מנתא דידיה למ"ד זכאי משלמי למ"ד פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין לא משלמי

&nbsp; if it [the hiding place] is in the house, his statement isvalueless,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unless there is another witness to support his statement. ');">¹³</span>

ולמאן דאמר זכאי משלמי ולימרו ליה אי לאו את בהדן לא הוה סליק דינא מידי

if in a field, his wordsstand. This is the general rule of the matter: Wherever he has access [tothe hiding place] his statementstands;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he is then not under suspicion of having been prompted in his statement by some ulterior motive, e.g., the desire to serve someone's interests; for had he wished, he himself could have handed over the amount to whomever he wished. ');">¹⁴</span>

אלא איכא בינייהו משום (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך רבי יוחנן אמר זכאי משום לא תלך רכיל

but otherwise, it is ofno value. If they [the heirs] saw their father hide money in a strong box,chest or store-room, saying, 'It belongs to so and so,' or 'It is for thepayment of the second tithe': if it [his statement] was by way of givingdirections, his words stand; but if it was in the nature of anevasion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as though he purposely told them this, so that they might not use it, or that they might not realise his wealth and indulge in extravagance. ');">¹⁵</span>

ריש לקיש אמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני פלוני מחייבין משום דמיחזי כשיקרא

his statement is of novalue. If one felt distressed over some money which his father had lefthim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And which he suspected to be tithe-money, but was unable to trace the amount. ');">¹⁶</span>

ור' אלעזר אית ליה דמר ואית ליה דמר הלכך כתבי הכי מדבריהם נזדכה פלוני:

and the dispenser ofdreams<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, 'The Master of Dreams', which merely represents the personification of the dream. ');">¹⁷</span>

גמרו את הדבר היו מכניסין כו': למאן אילימא לבעלי דינין התם קיימי אלא לעדים

appeared to him and namedthe sum, indicated the place, and specified its purpose, saying that it was[for the redemption] of the second tithe — such an incident once occurred,and they [the Rabbis on that occasion] said: Dreams have no importance forgood or ill.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'neither raise nor lower'. Hence the money might be used for secular purposes. Cf. Tosef., M. Sh. V. ');">¹⁸</span>

כמאן דלא כרבי נתן דתניא לעולם אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהן כאחד רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אפילו בזה אחר זה

IF TWO DECLARE HIM NOT LIABLE etc. How is it [the judgment]worded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in a case of disagreement. ');">¹⁹</span>

ואין עדותן מתקיימת בבית דין עד שיעידו שניהן כאחד רבי נתן אומר שומעין דבריו של זה היום וכשיבא חבירו למחר שומעין את דבריו

— R. Johanan said: [Thus;'The defendant is] not liable.' Resh Lakish said: 'So and so [of the judges]acquit; so and so holds him liable.' R. Eleazar said: 'As a result of their[the judges'] discussion, [it is decided that] he is not liable.' Whereindo they [practically] differ? — As to whether he is to share in the paymentof compensation, [in case of error,] together with theothers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' C. supra 6a; and infra 33a with reference to the liability of judges to compensate in cases of misjudgment. ');">²⁰</span>

לא לעולם לבעלי דינין ורבי נחמיה היא דתניא רבי נחמיה אומר כך היה מנהגן של נקיי הדעת שבירושלים מכניסין לבעלי דינין ושומעין דבריהן ומכניסין את העדים ושומעין דבריהם ומוציאין אותן לחוץ ונושאין ונותנין בדבר (גמרו את הדבר מכניסין אותן כו')

On the view [that the verdictis to be worded]: 'He [the defendant] is not liable,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Irrespective of whether there has been disagreement or not. ');">²¹</span>

והתניא גמרו את הדבר מכניסין את העדים ההיא דלא כרבי נתן

he [the dissentingjudge] must pay his share;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For without him, the remaining two could not have issued such a decree. ');">²²</span>

גופא לעולם אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהם כאחד רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אפילו בזה אחר זה במאי קמיפלגי איבעית אימא קרא ואיבעית אימא סברא

whileon the view [that the wording should be]: 'So and so acquit, and so and soholds him liable,' he makes norestitution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since his opinion is explicitly stated in the verdict. ');">²³</span>

איבעית אימא סברא אמנה דקא מסהיד האי לא קא מסהיד האי ומנה דקא מסהיד האי לא קמסהיד האי ואידך אמנה בעלמא תרוייהו קמסהדי

But even on the view[that the wording should be]: 'He is not liable,' he [the dissentient] mightargue, 'Had you accepted my opinion, you too would not have topay!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he himself should certainly bear no liability. ');">²⁴</span>

ואיבעית אימא קרא דכתיב (ויקרא ה, א) והוא עד או ראה או ידע

— But the difference arisesconcerning their liability to pay his share in addition to their own. Accordingto the view [that the verdict is framed thus]: 'He is not liable,' they bear[the whole] liability;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since their view is finally adopted. ');">²⁵</span>

ותניא ממשמע שנאמר (דברים יט, טו) לא יקום עד איני יודע שהוא אחד מה תלמוד לומר אחד

but on theview [that it is worded]: 'So and so [of the judges] acquit, and so and soholds him liable,' they do not pay [the dissentient'sshare].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The opinion of the two judges was specified to show that the final decision was given by only two (Rashi). ');">²⁶</span>

זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר עד הרי כאן שנים עד שיפרט לך הכתוב אחד

But even according to theopinion [that the wording should be]: 'He [the defendant] is not liable,'why should they pay [the whole amount]? They might surelyargue:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the third judge. ');">²⁷</span>

ואפקיה רחמנא בלשון חד למימר עד דחזו תרווייהו כחד ואידך והוא עד או ראה או ידע מ"מ:

Hadst thou not been withus, the trial would have had no result at all! — The difference must arisetherefore with reference to, Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebeareramong thy people.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 16. ');">²⁸</span>

ואין עדותן מתקיימת בב"ד עד שיעידו שניהן כאחד ר' נתן אומר שומעין דבריו של זה היום וכשיבא חבירו למחר שומעין דבריו במאי קמיפלגי איבעית אימא סברא איבעית אימא קרא

R. Johanan says:[The verdict is to be framed thus:] He is not liable,' because of this injunctionagainst talebearing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And stating the names of the dissenting judges is tantamount to talebearing ');">²⁹</span>

אב"א סברא מר סבר עד אחד כי אתי לשבועה אתי לממונא לא אתי

Resh Lakishholds [that the wording must be]: 'So and so acquit; so and so holds himliable,' since [otherwise] it [the verdict] would appear afalsehood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the protection of truth is more urgent than the avoidance of talebearing. ');">³⁰</span>

ואידך אטו כי אתו בהדי הדדי בחד פומא קא מסהדי אלא מצרפינן להו הכא נמי ליצרפינהו

while R. Eleazar agreeswith both; therefore it [the verdict] must be framed thus: 'After a decisionby the judges, he was found not liable.'

ואיבעית אימא קרא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו

WHEN THE VERDICT IS ARRIVED AT, etc. Whom [do they admit]? Shall we say,the litigants: but they are therealready?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nowhere in the Mishnah is it mentioned that they had to withdraw. ');">³¹</span> But [if it refers to] thewitnesses: whose view is this? Assuredly it does not agree with R. Nathan,for it has been taught: The evidence of witnesses cannot becombined,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is necessary for it to be valid. ');">³²</span> unless they simultaneouslysaw what they state in evidence. R. Joshua b. Korha said: Evidence is valideven if they witnessed it consecutively. Again, their evidence is not admissibleby the court unless they both testify together. R. Nathan said; The courtmay hear the evidence of one witness one day, and when the other appearsthe next day, they may hear hisevidence!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Tosef. Sanh. V; B.B. 32a. Hence if it is the witnesses who are admitted after a decision has been arrived at, which implies the necessity of their joint appearance this interpretation of the law is not in accord with the view of R. Nathan as given. ');">³³</span> No. In reality, the litigantsare meant, and this represents the view of R. Nehemiah. For it has been taught:R. Nehemiah said: This was the custom of thefair-minded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] v. supra p. 131, n. 3. Ms.M. [H] 'men of Jerusalem' whom Klein, S., loc. cit., regards as synonymous with [H]. ');">³⁴</span> in Jerusalem; firstthe litigants were admitted and their statements heard; then the witnesseswere admitted and their statements heard. Thenthey<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is understood to refer to the witnesses. ');">³⁵</span> were ordered out, and the matterwas discussed. [And when the verdict was arrived at etc.]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_36">³⁶</a> But has it notbeen explicitly taught: When the deliberations come to an end, the witnessesare readmitted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the necessity of their conjoint appearance. ');">³⁷</span> That certainly doesnot agree with R. Nathan. The above text [reads]: 'The evidence of witnesses cannot be combined unlessthey simultaneously saw what they state in evidence. R. Joshua b. Korha said:It is valid even if they saw it consecutively.' Wherein do they differ? —If you wish, I might say, in the interpretation of a Biblical verse;alternatively, in a matter of logic. On the latter assumption, [the firstTanna argues,] the [loan of the] <i>maneh</i> to which the one testifies, is notattested by the other, and viceversa.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if A claims a mina from B, and C testifies that he saw B receive a maneh from A on the first day of the month, while D testifies that he saw B receive a maneh on the second of the month, notwithstanding that both testify that A gave B a maneh, it is evident that they do not refer to the same transaction, and therefore there is only one witness for each alleged loan, and therefore the evidence is invalid. ');">³⁸</span> Whereas the other [Tanna]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_39">³⁹</a> [argues that, after all,] both testify to a mina ingeneral.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the fact of the loan is proved, though one witness must have mistaken the date. ');">⁴⁰</span> Alternatively, they differin respect to a Biblical verse. For it is written, And he is a witness whetherhe has seen or known of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 1, referring to witnesses who were adjured by parties in a case to testify before the court in their favour. ');">⁴¹</span> Now,it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sot. 2b; 31b. ');">⁴²</span> From theimplications of the verse, A witness shall not rise upetc.,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 15. ');">⁴³</span> do I not know that one ismeant? Why then state 'one'.? — That it may establish the principle thatwherever it says A witness, it implies two, unless one is specified by theverse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore in the text above, And he is a witness, two are implied. Also, because the guilt-offering for the transgression of the oath imposed on the witnesses ([H]), referred to in the Biblical text, applies only to two witnesses and not to one. V. J. Sanh. III, 9; and Shebu. 31b. ');">⁴⁴</span> And the Divine Law expressedit in the singular to teach that they must witness [the act in question]both together as one man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Otherwise their testimony is invalid. ');">⁴⁵</span> And theother?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joshua b. Korha: how does he interpret the verse? ');">⁴⁶</span> — He is a witness whetherhe hath seen or known of it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which appears superfluous, for a witness is supposed to see and know of things. ');">⁴⁷</span> teachesthat in all circumstances [the evidence isadmissible].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the act was witnessed or the evidence given at the same time or not. ');">⁴⁸</span> 'Again, their evidence is not admissible by the court unless they both testifytogether. R. Nathan said: The court may hear the evidence of one witnessone day, and when the other witness appears the next day, they may hear hisevidence.' Wherein do they differ? — Either in a matter of logic or in [theinterpretation of] a Biblical text. 'Either in a matter of logic.' One Master argues: A single witness comesto impose an oath, but not to proveliability.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the claimant produces one witness in his favour, an oath is imposed on the defendant, but he is not ordered to repay. (V. Shebu. 40a.) Hence, when witnesses testify separately, the evidence of neither proves liability, and therefore the two testimonies cannot be combined. ');">⁴⁹</span> Theother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nathan. ');">⁵⁰</span> argues: Even if they appearsimultaneously, do they testify with onemouth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! ');">⁵¹</span> But [nevertheless], theirevidence is combined. So here too [where they come separately] their evidencemay be combined. 'Or [in interpretation of] a Biblical text.' [And he is a witness whetherhe has seen or known of it;] If he do not utter it, then he shall bear hisiniquity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 1. ');">⁵²</span>