Sanhedrin 61

גברא אגברא קא רמית

— Would you oppose man to man!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 189, n. 2. ');">¹</span>

נהרדעי אמרי אפילו אחד אומר מנה שחור ואחד אומר מנה לבן מצטרפים

The Nehardeans said: Even if one testified that it was an old <i>maneh</i>, and the other declares that it was new, we combine [their testimony]. With whom does this agree: with R. Joshua b. Korha?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 185. For here too, after all, both testify to the same fact, viz., the debt of a maneh. ');">²</span>

כמאן כרבי יהושע בן קרחה אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהושע בן קרחה היכא דלא מכחשו אהדדי היכא דמכחשי אהדדי מי אמר

But tell me! when did you learn that R. Joshua b. Korha ruled thus? Only where they are not contradictory:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Differing only in the matter of date. ');">³</span>

אלא הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא אמר ר' שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על שתי כיתי עדים שאחת אומרת מאתים ואחת אומרת מנה שיש בכלל מאתים מנה

Yet did he rule so even where they contradict each other? — But they [i.e., the Nehardeans] agree with the following Tanna: For it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 41b, Nazir 20a. ');">⁴</span>

על מה נחלקו על כת אחת שבית שמאי אומרים נחלקה עדותן ובית הלל אומרים יש בכלל מאתים מנה

R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are at variance in the following case, viz., where of two sets of witnesses one testifies that A took upon himself the vow of neziruth for two years, and the other, for five years. The Shammaites maintain that since they differ, their evidence is invalid; the Hillelites say that, as both sets of witnesses testify for a period of not less than two years, the lesser period is considered proved. ');">⁵</span>

אחד אומר חבית של יין ואחד אומר חבית של שמן הוה עובדא ואתי לקמיה דרבי אמי חייביה רבי אמי לשלומי ליה חביתא דחמרא מיגו חביתא דמשחא

do not differ with respect to two sets of witnesses, [of which] one attests a debt of two hundred [<i>zuz</i>] and the other of one hundred [a <i>maneh</i>]: since one hundred is included in two hundred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the debt of a hundred zuz is witnessed to by both. ');">⁶</span>

כמאן כר"ש בן אלעזר אימר דאמר ר"ש [ב"א] היכא דיש בכלל מאתים מנה כי האי גוונא מי אמר

They differ only where there is but one set.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One witness testifying to a hundred, and the other to two hundred. ');">⁷</span>

לא צריכא לדמי

Beth Shammai say, Their testimony is sundered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., since one is obviously false, he is cut off from the other; hence there is no valid testimony at all. ');">⁸</span>

אחד אומר בדיוטא העליונה ואחד אומר בדיוטא התחתונה אמר רבי חנינא מעשה בא לפני רבי וצירף עדותן:

but Beth Hillel maintain, Two hundred include one hundred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there are two witnesses for a debt of a hundred. Hence the Nehardeans are supported by this view. ');">⁹</span>

ומניין לכשיצא כו': תנו רבנן מניין לכשיצא לא יאמר הריני מזכה וחבירי מחייבין אבל מה אעשה שחבירי רבו עלי תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך ואומר (משלי יא, יג) הולך רכיל מגלה סוד

If one witness attests [the loan of] a barrel of wine, and the other, of a barrel of oil: — such a case happened, and it was brought before R. Ammi, who ordered him [the defendant] to repay a barrel of wine out of [the value of] the barrel of oil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., since the value of the latter is greater, he regarded the smaller debt as proved. ');">¹⁰</span>

ההוא תלמידא דנפיק עליה קלא דגלי מילתא דאיתמר בי מדרשא בתר עשרין ותרתין שנין אפקיה רב אמי מבי מדרשא אמר דין גלי רזיא:

In accordance with whom? With R. Simeon b. Eleazar [as above]! But might it not be said that R. Simeon b. Eleazar ruled so only [of a case such as the former,] where a hundred <i>zuz</i> is certainly included in two hundred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a hundred is actually part of two hundred. ');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל זמן שמביא ראיה סותר את הדין אמר לו כל ראיות שיש לך הבא מיכן עד שלשים יום מצא בתוך שלשים יום סותר לאחר שלשים יום אינו סותר

Did he however rule thus in such a case as this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where they differ as to the substance. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא מצא בתוך שלשים ומצא לאחר שלשים

— This holds good only in respect to the value thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the witnesses did not attest the indebtedness of the defendant in actual wine or oil, but his indebtedness for their value. Accordingly they differed in respect to the amount. ');">¹³</span>

אמר לו הבא עדים ואמר אין לי עדים אמר הבא ראיה ואמר אין לי ראיה ולאחר זמן הביא ראיה ומצא עדים הרי זה אינו כלום

If one deposes, It [e.g., the loan] was given in the upper storey, and the other declares, In the lower storey, — R. Hanina said: It happened that such a case was brought before Rabbi and he combined their evidence.

אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא היה יודע שיש לו עדים ומצא עדים לא היה יודע שיש לו ראיה ומצא ראיה

AND WHENCE DO WE KNOW etc. Our Rabbis taught: Whence do we know that when he goes out he must not say: I was for acquittal, whilst my colleagues were for condemnation; but what could I do, seeing that they were in the majority? — Scripture states: Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 16. ');">¹⁴</span>

ראה שמתחייב בדין ואמר קרבו פלוני ופלוני ויעידוני או שהוציא ראיה מתחת פונדתו הרי זה אינו כלום:

and further, He that goeth about talebearing revealeth secrets.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XI, 13. ');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבה בר רב הונא הלכה כרשב"ג ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אין הלכה כדברי חכמים

It was rumoured of a certain disciple that he revealed a matter stated [as a secret] in the Beth ha-Midrash twenty-two years before. So R. Ammi expelled him from the Beth ha-Midrash saying: This man revealeth secrets.

פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כרשב"ג ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כחכמים

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. WHENEVER HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The defendant (Rashi). According to the Codifiers, Tur and Caro, any of the litigants, v. H.M. XVI, 1. ');">¹⁶</span>

מהו דתימא הני מילי לכתחילה אבל דיעבד שפיר דמי קמ"ל דאי עביד מהדרינן ליה:

BRINGS PROOF, IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The court (Rashi). ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר לו הבא עדים כו' אמר רשב"ג כו': אמר רבה בר רב הונא א"ר יוחנן הלכה כדברי חכמים ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רבי יוחנן אין הלכה כרשב"ג

CAN UPSET THE VERDICT. BUT IF THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The judges. So Alfasi, Me'iri and others. The text reads [H] (He, the other litigant, said unto him). The version rendered seems the more acceptable. ');">¹⁸</span>

פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כדברי חכמים ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כרשב"ג

HAVE TOLD HIM: 'ALL THE PROOFS WHICH YOU MAY HAVE YOU MUST PRODUCE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS:' IF HE DIES SO WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, IT UPSETS [THE DECISION]. AFTER THIRTY DAYS, IT DOES NOT. BUT RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: WHAT IS HE TO DO WHO DID NOT FIND [FAVOURABLE EVIDENCE] WITHIN THE THIRTY DAYS, BUT ONLY THEREAFTER?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if he produces it after the stipulated period, the decision may be reversed. ');">¹⁹</span>

הא קמ"ל דבההיא אין הלכה כרשב"ג הא בכולהו הלכה כרשב"ג

IF THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The judges. So Alfasi, Me'iri and others. The text reads [H] (He, the other litigant, said unto him). The version rendered seems the more acceptable. ');">¹⁸</span>

לאפוקי מהא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן כל מקום ששנה רשב"ג במשנתנו הלכה כמותו חוץ מערב וצידן וראיה אחרונה

HAVE SAID TO HIM, 'BRING WITNESSES,' AND HE ANSWERED, 'I HAVE NONE,' OR, 'BRING PROOF,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., documentary evidence. ');">²⁰</span>

ההוא ינוקא דתבעוהו לדינא קמיה דרב נחמן א"ל אית לך סהדי א"ל לא אית לך ראיה א"ל לא חייביה רב נחמן

AND HE REPLIED, 'I HAVE NONE:' YET SUBSEQUENTLY HE PRODUCED PROOF, OR FOUND WITNESSES, IT IS OF NO VALUE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he might forge a document or engage false witnesses. ');">²¹</span>

הוה קא בכי ואזיל שמעוהו הנך אינשי אמרו ליה אנן ידעינן במילי דאבוך אמר רב נחמן בהא אפילו רבנן מודו דינוקא במילי דאבוה לא ידע

SAID RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL: WHAT IS HE TO DO WHO DID NOT KNOW THAT WITNESSES WERE AVAILABLE, BUT FOUND THEM AFTERWARDS; OR THAT THERE WAS PROOF, YET DISCOVERED IT LATER?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., both documentary proof and witnesses are valid. ');">²²</span>

ההיא איתתא דנפק שטרא מתותי ידה אמרה ליה ידענא בהאי שטרא דפריע הוה הימנה רב נחמן

IF ON SEEING THAT HE WAS ABOUT TO BE CONDEMNED HE SAID: 'ADMIT SO AND SO TO TESTIFY IN MY FAVOUR,' OR PRODUCED [DOCUMENTARY] PROOF FROM HIS FUNDA,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gr. [G]. A moneybag or hollow belt for keeping money or documents. ');">²³</span>

אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן כמאן כרבי דאמר אותיות נקנות במסירה

IT IS VALUELESS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even according to Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel; since he knew of it, and yet did not produce it, we fear that it is false. ');">²⁴</span>

אמר ליה שאני הכא דאי בעיא קלתיה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: The <i>halachah</i> rests with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the first clause, where the litigant was asked to produce evidence within thirty days and did not say that he had none. ');">²⁵</span>

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,