Sanhedrin 62

קלתיה

she could have burnt it! — Since it had been proved at Court,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: Its genuineness had been proved in Court. Tosaf. however points out that even then, it was still in her power to burn it. Therefore Tosaf. explains: It had been proved at court that she had it in her possession. ');">¹</span>

כיון דאיתחזק בבי דינא איבעיא קלתיה לא אמרינן

we cannot say that she could have destroyed it had she desired.

איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן סימפון שיש עליו עדים יתקיים בחותמיו אין עליו עדים ויצא מתחת ידי שליש או שיצא אחר חיתום שטרות כשר אלמא שליש מהימן

Raba refuted R. Nahman: A witnessed receipt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Gr. [G], a kind of codicil, the precise significance of which is unknown. ');">²</span>

תיובתא דרב נחמן (תיובתא)

must be authenticated by the signatories. If unwitnessed, but produced by a trustee, or if written on the note of indebtedness, under the signatures of the witnesses, it is also valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the note is in the creditor's possession, and he would certainly not have permitted a false receipt to be written thereon. ');">³</span>

כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' יוחנן לעולם מביא ראיה וסותר עד שיסתתם טענותיו ויאמר קרבו פלוני ופלוני והעידוני

Hence we see that the trustee is believed! This refutation of R. Nahman remains unanswered.

הא גופא קשיא אמרת יסתתם טענותיו אתאן לרבנן והדר אמרת קרבו איש פלוני ופלוני והעידוני אתאן לרשב"ג

When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he said in R. Johanan's name: One may always adduce proof to upset [the decision unless he declares his arguments closed, and [immediately thereafter] says: Admit so and so to testify on my behalf.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This implies, that, having stated that he has no more evidence in his favour, he then asks, (presumably because he sees the case going against him, as in the Mishnah,) that certain witnesses shall be heard on his behalf. ');">⁴</span>

וכי תימא כולה רשב"ג ופרושי קא מפרש מאי עד שיסתתם טענותיו עד שיאמר קרבו פלוני ופלוני והעידוני והא אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן כל מקום ששנה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במשנתינו הלכה כמותו חוץ מערב וצידן וראיה אחרונה

But is not this selfcontradictory? First you say, 'Unless he declares his arguments closed,' — which agrees with the Rabbis;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that once he states that he has no more evidence, his case is closed, and new evidence cannot be offered even at a later date. ');">⁵</span>

אלא כי אתא רב שמואל בר יהודה א"ר יוחנן לעולם מביא ראיה וסותר עד שיסתתם טענותיו ויאמרו לו הבא עדים ואומר אין לי עדים הבא ראיה ואומר אין לי ראיה אבל באו עדים ממדינת הים או שהיתה דיסקיא של אביו מופקדת ביד אחר הרי זה מביא ראיה וסותר

then you say, 'and [immediately thereafter] says, Admit so and so to testify on my behalf' — which agrees with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this implies that the evidence is not admissible only because he offered witnesses of whose existence he had known and who were available at the time. But if he subsequently produced new evidence, unknown to him when he made his declaration, it would be valid. ');">⁶</span>

כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן התוקף את חבירו בדין אחד אומר נדון כאן ואחד אומר נלך למקום הוועד כופין אותו וילך למקום הוועד

And should you answer, The whole agrees with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, and that [the latter clause is] merely elucidatory [of the first] viz., What is meant by, 'Unless he declares his arguments closed'? That means he says, Admit so and so that he may give evidence for me:'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only if he immediately thereafter offers fresh evidence is it not accepted, the court abiding by his previous statement that his case was closed. ');">⁷</span>

אמר לפניו רבי אלעזר רבי מי שנושה בחבירו מנה יוציא מנה על מנה אלא כופין אותו ודן בעירו

but did not Rabbah b. Bar Hana say in R. Johanan's name: Wherever Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel's view is taught in our Mishnah, the <i>halachah</i> rests with him, save in the cases of 'Areb, Zidon, and the 'latter proof'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus proving that R. Johanan holds that once he has declared, 'I have no further proof,' he cannot produce any, much later. ');">⁸</span>

איתמר נמי א"ר ספרא (אמר רבי יוחנן) שנים שנתעצמו בדין א' אומר נדון כאן ואחד אומר נלך למקום הוועד כופין אותו ודן בעירו ואם הוצרך דבר לשאול כותבין ושולחין

— But when R. Samuel b. Judah came [from Palestine], he said in R. Johanan's name: One may always produce evidence to upset [a decision], unless he declares his case closed and they say unto him, 'Bring witnesses,' and he answers, 'I have no witnesses;' 'Bring proof,' and he replies, 'I have no proof.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At which point his defence is regarded as closed. ');">⁹</span>

ואם אמר כתבו ותנו לי מאיזה טעם דנתוני כותבין ונותנין לו

If, however, witnesses arrive from overseas, or if his father's despatch case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Gr. [G]; bisaccium, a bag with two pouches. ');">¹⁰</span>

והיבמה הולכת אחר היבם להתירה

had been deposited with a stranger, he can produce the evidence and upset [the decision].

עד כמה אמר רבי אמי אפילו מטבריא לצפורי

When R. Dimi came [from Palestine], he said in R. Johanan's name: If a man, known as a difficult adversary in court, [has a trial,]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_11">¹¹</a>

אמר רב כהנא מאי קרא (דברים כה, ח) וקראו לו זקני עירו ולא זקני עירה

and one of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The more influential man. ');">¹²</span>

אמר אמימר הילכתא כופין אותו וילך למקום הוועד א"ל רב אשי לאמימר והא אמר רבי אלעזר כופין אותו ודן בעירו הני מילי היכא דקאמר ליה לוה למלוה אבל מלוה (משלי כב, ז) עבד לוה לאיש מלוה

says: Let us be tried here; while the other says: Let us go to the place of Assembly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meeting place of scholars; the supreme Beth din in Jerusalem, according to Maim. Yad, San. XI, 6. For a full discussion of this and the following passage, v. Finkelstein, Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages, pp. 379 et seqq. (note C.). This was said with the hope that his opponent might be humbler out of respect for the Scholars (Rashi). ');">¹³</span>

שלחו ליה למר עוקבא לדזיו ליה כבר בתיה שלם עוקבן הבבלי קבל קדמנא ירמיה אחי העביר עלי את הדרך ואמרו לו השיאוהו ויראה פנינו בטבריא

he is compelled to go to the place of Assembly. R. Eleazar, however, said in his presence: Rabbi, if a man claims a <i>maneh</i> from his fellow, must he spend another <i>maneh</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In travelling expenses. ');">¹⁴</span>

הא גופא קשיא אמרת אמרו לו אלמא דיינוה אתון השיאוהו ויראה פנינו בטבריא אלמא שדרוהו הכא

on top of the first? Nay, he is compelled to attend the local court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The creditor's. ');">¹⁵</span>

אלא הכי קאמרי אמרו ליה דיינו אתון אי ציית ציית ואי לא השיאוהו ויראה פנינו בטבריא

It has been stated likewise: R. Safra said [in R. Johanan's name]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashal deletes the bracketed passage. See, however, Finkelstein, loc. cit. ');">¹⁶</span>

רב אשי אמר דיני קנסות הוה ובבבל לא דיינו דיני קנסות והא דשלחו ליה הכי כדי לחלוק כבוד למר עוקבא:

If two litigants are in obstinate disagreement with respect to [the venue of] a lawsuit, and one says: Let us be tried here; and the other says: Let us go to the place of Assembly;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Maintaining that he lacked confidence in the local court and feared an erroneous decision, ');">¹⁷</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך זה בורר</strong></big><br><br>

he [the defendant] must attend the court in his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plaintiff's. ');">¹⁸</span> home town. And if it is necessary to consult [the Assembly], the matter is written down and forwarded to them. And if the litigant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who declined to appear before the local court, v. Tosaf. ');">¹⁹</span> says 'Write down the grounds on which you made your decision and give them to me,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he might ascertain the legality of their decision. ');">²⁰</span> they must write them down and give him the document. The Yebamah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] fem. of [H] v. Glos. ');">²¹</span> is bound to follow the Yabam [to his own town] that he may release her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the obligations of levirate marriage. ');">²²</span> How far? — R. Ammi answered: Even from Tiberias to Sepphoris.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the court in the former city was more eminent (Rashi). Actually, these two towns were near to each other. ');">²³</span> R. Kahana said: What verse proves it? — Then the elders of his city shall call him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 8. ');">²⁴</span> but not the elders of her city. Amemar said: The law is that he is compelled to go to the place of the Assembly.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to a dispute between litigants regarding the place of trial. ');">²⁵</span> R. Ashi said to him: Did not R. Eleazar say, He is compelled to attend court in his [opponent's] town? — That is only where the debtor demands it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To go to the Assembly. ');">²⁶</span> of the creditor; but if the creditor [demands, it, the debtor must submit, for] The borrower is servant to the lender.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXII, 7. ');">²⁷</span> A message was once sent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the judicial court in Palestine. ');">²⁸</span> to Mar 'Ukba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He held the office of Ab-Beth-din in Kafri near by Nehardea, and was a contemporary of Samuel Yarhinai. v. Sabb. 55a; Rashi, Kidd. 44b. ');">²⁹</span> 'To him whose lustre is like that of the son of Bithia,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Moses (Rashi). V. p. 102. [Or, 'like the Son of the House', an honorific title among the Persian nobility, Funk, op. cit., I, 33, n. 1.] ');">³⁰</span> Peace be with thee. 'Ukban the Babylonian has complained to us, saying: "My brother Jeremiah has obstructed my way."31 Speak therefore to him, and see that he meets us in Tiberias.' But is this not self-contradictory? First you say, 'Speak to him,'i.e., judge him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, in Babylonia. ');">³²</span> and then you add, 'See that he meets us in Tiberias,' shewing [that they told him], Send him hither! — What they meant was: Speak to him and judge him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Judge you the case first. ');">³³</span> if he accepts your decision, well and good; if not, see to it that he appears before us in Tiberias.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we see that even where the plaintiff desired the defendant to appear in another court, yet at the outset preference was given to the local court. ');">³⁴</span> R. Ashi says: This was a case of Kenas, and in Babylonia they could not try cases of Kenas.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 84a. ');">³⁵</span> But as for their sending him a message in such terms,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying that they asked him to judge the case himself. ');">³⁶</span> that was only to shew respect to Mar 'Ukba.