Sanhedrin 60

ודכולי עלמא כרבנן דפליגי עליה דרבי יהושע בן קרחה והכא באקושי הגדה לראיה קא מיפלגי מר סבר מקשינן הגדה לראיה ומר סבר לא מקשינן

R. Simeon b. Eliakim was anxious for R. Jose son of R. Hanina to be ordained,but an opportunity did not presentitself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 65, n. 3. ');">⁵</span>

רבי שמעון בן אליקים הוה משתקיד עליה דר' יוסי ברבי חנינא למסמכיה ולא קא מיסתייע מילתא יומא חד הוה יתיב קמיה דר' יוחנן

One day, as he was sittingbefore R. Johanan, the latter asked them [the students]: 'Does anyone knowwhether the <i>halachah</i> rests with R. Joshua b. Korha or not?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra. R. Joshua b. Korha holds that the two witnesses need not observe the deed attested simultaneously. ');">⁶</span>

אמר להו מי איכא דידע הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה או לא א"ל רבי שמעון בן אליקים דין ידע אמר ליה לימא איזו אמר ליה ליסמכיה מר ברישא סמכיה

R. Simeon b.Eliakim replied, 'This man here [R. Jose son of R. Hanina] knows.' 'Let himthen answer,' said R. Johanan. Thereupon P. Simeon b. Eliakim said: 'Letthe Master first ordain him.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For only traditions reported by ordained scholars can be relied upon. Cf. Rashal a.l. ');">⁷</span>

אמר ליה בני אמור לי כיצד שמעת א"ל כך שמעתי שמודה ר' יהושע בן קרחה לרבי נתן

So he ordained him and then asked: 'My son,what tradition in the matter have you heard?' — 'I heard,' replied R. Joseson of R. Hanina, 'that R. Joshua b. Korha agreed with R. Nathan [that theevidence need not be given simultaneously].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this answer, which has no bearing on the question, one might be led to conclude that R. Simeon b. Eliakim, though aware that R. Jose b. R. Hanina was incapable of providing the information desired by R. Johanan, nevertheless stated that he could give the information, in order to have him ordained. This cannot but appear as an unworthy ruse. A similar incident, however, is recorded in the Jerushalmi, though the names of the Sages figuring in the story are slightly different in order. There, the question is asked whether the halachah rests with R. Nathan, and the answer given there is more pertinent. This would seem to indicate that our text is in some confusion. [Cf. Weiss, Dor III, 90, n. 15] ');">⁸</span>

אמר לזה הוצרכתי השתא ומה עיקר ראיה בהדי הדדי אמר ר' יהושע בן קרחה לא בעינן הגדה מיבעיא

R. Johanan exclaimed: 'Is thatwhat I wanted? If R. Joshua b. Korha maintained that the essential witnessing[of the act need not have been simultaneous, is it necessary [to state this]in reference to the giving of evidence [in court]! However, he concluded,since you have ascended,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., seeing that the degree of Rabbi has been conferred upon you. ');">⁹</span>

א"ל הואיל ועלית לא תרד אמר ר' זירא שמע מינה גברא רבה כיון דסמיך סמיך

you neednot descend.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It will not be withdrawn. 'Ascended' and 'descended' are probably meant quite literally, the ordained scholars sitting on a higher bench than the unordained. ');">¹⁰</span>

א"ר חייא בר אבין אמר רב הלכה כר' יהושע בן קרחה בין בקרקעות בין במטלטלין

R. Zera said: We may infer from this that once a great manis ordained, he remains so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So the text as emended in the marginal note. Our reading is: once a great man confers ordination, it stands. ');">¹¹</span>

עולא אמר הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה בקרקעות אבל לא במטלטלין

R. Hiyya b. Abin said in Rab's name: The <i>halachah</i> rests with R. Joshua b.Korha in respect to both immovable and movableproperty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether the alleged transaction referred to, e.g., the sale of land, or the granting of a monetary loan. ');">¹²</span>

א"ל אביי הלכה מכלל דפליגי והאמר ר' אבא א"ר הונא אמר רב מודים חכמים לרבי יהושע בן קרחה בעדות קרקע

'Ulla said: The <i>halachah</i>rests with R. Joshua b. Korha only in respect toimmovable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Be-cause they must both be referring to the same transaction. ');">¹³</span>

ותני רב אידי בר אבין בנזיקין דבי קרנא מודין חכמים לרבי יהושע בן קרחה בעדות בכור ובעדות קרקע ובעדות חזקה וכן שבבן ושבבת

but not movableproperty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where each may be testifying with respect to a different object. ');">¹⁴</span>

גברא אגברא קא רמית מר סבר פליגי ומר סבר לא פליגי

Said Abaye to him: [Yourstatement as to the] <i>halachah</i>, implies that they [the Rabbis] dispute [thereon]:but did not Raba say in R. Huna's name in Rab's name: The Sages agree withR. Joshua b. Korha in respect to testimony concerning real estate? Moreover,R. Idi b. Abin learned in Karna's compilation [of Halachoth] onNezikin:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A collection of Baraithoth compiled by Karna and his Beth din, of which only quotations are found here and there in Talmud. V. Weiss, Dor, vol iii, p. 164. ');">¹⁵</span>

מאי וכן שבבן ושבבת אילימא אחד אומר אחת בגבה ואחד אומר אחת בכריסה האי חצי דבר וחצי עדות הוא

'The Sages agree with R.Joshua b. Korha in respect to [evidence regarding]firstborns,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after the destruction of the Temple a firstborn animal might not be employed for secular purposes unless it suffered from some physical blemish. To inflict such blemishes was strictly forbidden. In the case of animals belonging to Priests, two witnesses had to testify that their injuries were not man-inflicted, since Priests were under suspicion of exposing their firstborn animals to such defects in order that they might put them to domestic use. The testimony of one witness to one defect and of another to another defect on the same animal could be combined to declare the animal permissible for work. According to Tosaf., their difference concerns the testimony that one is a firstborn and so entitled to a double share of the patrimony. ');">¹⁶</span>

אלא אחד אומר שתים בגבה ואחד אומר שתים בכריסה

real estate,Hazakah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prove a three years' undisturbed possession of an estate, where one witness testifies to the possession of the land for the first three years of the Sabbatical cycle, and another for the latter three years, their evidence is combined for the establishment of the possessor's claim, since each separately testifies in reference to the same estate. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רב יוסף אנא אמינא משמיה דעולא הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה בין בקרקעות בין במטלטלין ורבנן דאתו ממחוזא אמרי אמר ר' זירא משמיה דרב בקרקעות אין אבל לא במטלטלין

and [the symptoms of puberty]in males and females likewise'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where it is necessary to establish the majority of a person, from which point he or she is to be regarded as an adult and responsible for his actions to the laws of the Community. His or her majority begins from the time when two hairs appear in the region of the pubes. V. Nid. 52a. Hence from the reference given above it may be seen that the Rabbis agree with the view of R. Joshua b. Korha regarding the case of immovable property. ');">¹⁸</span>

רב לטעמיה דאמר רב הודאה אחר הודאה הודאה אחר הלואה מצטרפי

— Would you oppose man to man!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Abba and R. Idi on the one hand, and 'Ulla on the other. They enjoyed equal status, so that the teaching of one cannot authoritatively refute that of the other. Nor does the fact that there are two against one make any difference. ');">¹⁹</span>

הלואה אחר הלואה הלואה אחר הודאה לא מצטרפי

One Master ['Ulla] holds that they differ: the other [R. Abba or R. Idi]holds that they do not.

אשכחיה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע א"ל מאי שנא הלואה אחר הלואה דלא דמנה דקא חזי האי לא קא חזי האי הודאה אחר הודאה נמי אמנה דקא מודה קמי האי לא מודי קמי האי

What is meant by, 'And [the symptoms of puberty] in males and females likewise'?Does it mean that one [witness] testified to [the appearance of] one hairon the part below [the genitals] and another to one hair on the part above?But that is both half of the necessary fact, and also half of the requisitetestimony!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., each witness does not individually testify to the complete fact necessary to establish puberty, but to half a fact. Moreover, that half fact (i.e., a single hair in a particular place) is attested by only half the necessary testimony — one witness instead of two. Whereas in the other cases under discussion each witness testifies to a whole fact, e.g., that A lent money to B. ');">²⁰</span>

דא"ל להאי בתרא בהאי מנה דאודיי ליה קמך אודיי ליה נמי קמי פלוני

— But it means thatone testified to two hairs on the part below, and the other to two hairson the part above.

אכתי בתרא ידע קמא לא ידע

R. Joseph said: I state on the authority of 'Ulla that the <i>halachah</i> is asR. Joshua b. Korha says, in respect to both movable and immovable property.Whilst the Rabbis who came from Mehuza state that R. Zera said in Rab's name:[This ruling holds good only] in the case of movable, but not immovable property.Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that successive evidence cannot be combined in the case of movable property. ');">²¹</span>

דהדר אזיל א"ל לקמא האי מנה דאודיי ליה קמך אודיי ליה נמי קמי פלוני א"ל תנוח דעתך שהתנחת את דעתי

follows his own views. For hesaid: An admission after anadmission,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where one witness testifies that A admitted indebtedness to B on the first day of the month, and another testifies likewise, but refers it to the second day of the month. ');">²²</span>

א"ל מאי ניחותא דרבא ואיתימא רב ששת שדא בה נרגא לאו היינו הודאה אחר הלואה

or an admission aftera loan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where one witness testifies to the transaction of a loan between A and B on the first day of the week, and another to A's admission of indebtedness to B on the second day. ');">²³</span>

אמר ליה היינו דשמיע לי עלייכו דרמיתו דיקלי וזקפיתו להו

may becombined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is quite possible that both refer to the same loan ');">²⁴</span>

נהרדעי אמרי בין הודאה אחר הודאה בין הודאה אחר הלואה בין הלואה אחר הלואה בין הלואה אחר הודאה מצטרפות כמאן כר' יהושע בן קרחה

But a loan after aloan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where one witness testifies to the transaction of a loan between A and B on one day, and another testifies to the same on another day. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר רב יהודה עדות המכחשת זו את זו בבדיקות כשרה בדיני ממונות

or a loan after an admissioncannot be combined.

אמר רבא מסתברא מילתיה דרב יהודה באחד אומר בארנקי שחורה ואחד אומר בארנקי לבנה אבל אחד אומר מנה שחור ואחד אומר מנה לבן אין מצטרפין

R. Nahman b. Isaac, on meeting R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, asked him: Whereindoes a loan after a loan differ, so that it [the testimony] is not [combined]:because the [loan of a] <i>maneh</i> witnessed by one is not the same as that witnessedby the other? Then the same applies to an admission after an admission: the[debt of a] <i>maneh</i> which he admitted in the presence of one witness may notbe the same as that which he admitted before the other witness! — It meansthat he declared to the latter (witness): 'Regarding the <i>maneh</i> which I haveadmitted in your presence, I have also made an admission in the presenceof so and so.' Yet even then, only the latter would know [this], but notthe former? — He [subsequently] went again and said to the first witness:'The <i>maneh</i> which I admitted receiving in your presence, I also admitted receivingin the presence of so and so.' Thereupon [R. Nahman] said to him [R. Hunathe son of R. Joshua]: 'May your mind be at ease as you have made mine.'Said he, 'Why at ease?' Did not Raba — others say, R. Shesheth — hurl ahatchet at this [answer];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., disproved the opinion. ');">²⁶</span>

וארנקי שחורה בדיני נפשות לא והאמר רב חסדא אחד אומר בסייף הרגו ואחד אומר בארירן הרגו אין זה נכון אחד אומר כליו שחורים ואחד אומר כליו לבנים הרי זה נכון

viz.,surely it is then identical with the case of an admission after aloan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since it is necessary, according to this answer, that each witness shall know what the other has seen, it follows that an admission after a loan must be explained likewise, viz., he must have said to the latter witness: The maneh I have admitted receiving in your presence, I borrowed in the presence of so and so; and then he must have gone and said to the former witness: The maneh which I borrowed in your presence, I have admitted receiving before so and so. Why then did Rab need to state both laws? ');">²⁷</span> Thereupon he [R. Nahman b.Isaac] said to him: 'This proves what I heard about you folk, that you teardown palm trees and set them up again.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., you remove difficulties merely to resurrect them! ');">²⁸</span> The Nehardeans said: [In all cases,] whether of admission after admission,admission after loan, loan after loan, or loan after admission, the testimoniesare combined. With whom does this agree? — With R. Joshua b. Korha. Rab Judah said: Testimony that iscontradicted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the testimony of one witness contradicts that of the other. ');">²⁹</span> underexamination,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to attendant circumstances, e.g., regarding the colour of the clothes worn etc., in which cases the agreement or disagreement is immaterial in reference to the law of declaring them Zomemim. V infra 40a. ');">³⁰</span> is valid in civil suits.Raba said: Logically, Rab Judah's ruling refers to such a case as where onewitness says: '[I saw it paid] out of a black bag,' and the other says, 'Outof a white bag.' But if one declares, 'The money was old,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'black' (with use). ');">³¹</span> and the othersays, 'The money was new,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'white'. ');">³²</span> their testimonies cannot be combined. But incriminal cases, are not testimonies combined where there are differencessuch as over the colour of a bag? Did not R. Hisda say: 'If one testifiesthat it [sc. the murder] was with a sword, and the other maintains, it waswith a dagger, it is not valid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'certain', cf. Deut. XIII, 15. ');">³³</span> evidence;whereas if one affirms that the colour of his garments was black, and theother that it was white, their evidence is valid'?