Sanhedrin 65

Chapter 65

א מיכן שפותחין בדיני נפשות תחלה לזכות:

1 we infer from this that capital charges are opened for acquittal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture begins with the negative. Thus, Rabbi too understands by this that the 'opening for acquittal' is an assurance to the accused that he has nothing to fear if he is innocent. ');">1 IN MONETARY CASES THE DECISION MAY BE REVERSED etc. But the following contradicts this: 'If a man judged a case [by himself] and pronounced him who was liable, "not liable", or vice versa; the clean, "unclean," or the reverse: his decision stands, but he must pay an indemnity2

ב דיני ממונות מחזירין כו': ורמינהו דן את הדין זיכה את החייב חייב את הזכאי טימא את הטהור טיהר את הטמא מה שעשה עשוי וישלם מביתו

2 out of his own pocket'?3 — R. Joseph answered: This presents no difficulty: here it [our Mishnah] refers to a Mumheh;4

ג אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא כאן במומחה כאן בשאינו מומחה ובמומחה מחזירין והקתני אם היה מומחה לב"ד פטור מלשלם

3 there, to one who is no Mumheh.5 But in the case of a Mumheh, do we reverse [the decision]? Have we not learned: If he was recognised by the Beth din as a Mumheh, he is exempted from paying [compensation]! — 6 R. Nahman answered: Here [in our Mishnah] the circumstances are that there is a court superior to this one in learning and numbers;7

ד א"ר נחמן כאן שיש גדול הימנו בחכמה ובמנין כאן שאין גדול הימנו בחכמה ובמנין

4 whereas in the other Mishnah there is no court available superior to this in learning and numbers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And hence the desire to reverse the decision may be opposed by one of the parties. But in reality, both instances, viz., that of the Mishnah here, and that of the latter part of the Mishnah there, treat of a case where the decision is given by a Mumheh. ');">8 R. Shesheth said: Here it treats of a case where he [the judge] erred regarding a law cited in a Mishnah;9

ה רב ששת אמר כאן שטעה בדבר משנה כאן שטעה בשיקול הדעת דאמר רב ששת אמר רב אסי טעה בדבר משנה חוזר טעה בשיקול הדעת אינו חוזר

5 there, of a case where he erred in the weighing of [conflicting] opinions. For R. Shesheth said in R. Assi's name: If he erred in a law cited in the Mishnah, the decision is reversed; if he erred in the weighing of [conflicting] opinions, the decision may not be reversed. Rabina asked R Ashi: Is this also the case if he erred regarding a teaching of R. Hiyya or R. Oshaia?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., does the above ruling regarding an error in a law cited in Mishnah apply also to an error in a law cited in the Tosefta: a collection of Halachoth the redaction of which is attributed to R. Hiyya and R. Oshaia? The authority of the Tosefta is not equal to that of the Mishnah. ');">10

ו א"ל רבינא לרב אשי אפילו טעה בר' חייא ורבי אושעיא א"ל אין אפילו בדרב ושמואל אמר ליה אין אפילו בדידי ודידך א"ל אטו אנן קטלי קני באגמא אנן

6 — Yes, said he, And even in a dictum of Rab and Samuel?11 Yes, he answered. Even in a law stated by you and me? Are we then reed cutters in the bog?12

ז היכי דמי שיקול הדעת אמר רב פפא כגון תרי תנאי או תרי אמוראי דפליגי אהדדי ולא איתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר ואיקרי ועבד כחד מינייהו וסוגיא דשמעת' אזלי כאידך היינו שיקול הדעת

7 he retorted. How are we to understand the phrase: 'The weighing of [conflicting] opinions'? — R. Papa answered: If, for example, two Tannaim or Amoraim are in opposition, and it has not been explicitly settled with whom the law rests, but he [the judge] happened to rule according to the opinion of one of them, whilst the general practice;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Adopted by a majority of judges. So the text as given in Rashi and elsewhere. Our reading is: and the general trend of the (Talmudic) discussion thereon, v. supra 6a. ');">13

ח איתיבי' רב המנונא לרב ששת מעשה בפרה (של בית מנחם) שניטלה האם שלה והאכילה רבי טרפון לכלבים

8 follows the other, — this is a case of [an error] in the weighing of [conflicting] opinions. R. Hamnunah refuted R. Shesheth: It once happened that R. Tarfon ordered a cow [belonging to Menahem],14

ט ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ביבנה והתירוה שאמר תודוס הרופא אין פרה וחזירה יוצאת מאלכסנדריא של מצרים אלא אם כן חותכין האם שלה כדי שלא תלד א"ר טרפון הלכה חמורך טרפון אמר לו רבי עקיבא פטור אתה שכל המומחה לרבים פטור מלשלם

9 whose womb had been removed, to be given to dogs.15 When the matter was brought before the Sages in Jabneh, they permitted [her as human food], for Theodos16

י ואי איתא לימא ליה טועה בדבר משנה אתה וטועה בדבר משנה חוזר

10 the Physician stated that no cow or sow was allowed to leave Alexandria in Egypt unless her womb had first been cut out, so as to prevent her from having issue.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Egyptian breed was unique in its quality, and so they took this measure in order to limit its breeding to that country. Such a mutilation did not, however, affect them. ');">17 Thereupon R. Tarfon exclaimed: Thy ass is gone, Tarfon!18

יא חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דטועה בדבר משנה אתה וטועה בדבר משנה חוזר ועוד אי נמי בשיקול הדעת טעית מומחה לרבים אתה וכל המומחה לרבים פטור מלשלם

11 But R. Akiba said to him: You are not bound to make compensation, since he who is publicly recognised as a Mumheh is free from liability to pay.19 Now if it [your dictum] is correct,20

יב אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבא מאי קא מותיב רב המנונא לרב ששת מפרה פרה הרי האכילה לכלבים וליתא דתהדר

12 she should have said to him: You erred regarding a law cited in a Mishnah,21 and he who errs in a law cited in the Mishnah, may revoke his decision! — He22

יג הכי קאמר ליה אי אמרת בשלמא טעה בדבר משנה אינו חוזר אלמא קם דינא היינו דקא מפחיד ר"ט וקאמר ליה איהו מומחה לב"ד אתה ואתה פטור מלשלם אלא אי אמרת טעה בדבר משנה חוזר לימא ליה כיון דאילו הואי פרה דינך לאו דינא ולא כלום עבדת השתא נמי לא כלום עבדת

13 meant two things:23 Firstly, you have erred in a law cited in the Mishnah, and he who errs in a law cited in the Mishnah may reverse his decision. Secondly: even if you had erred in the weighing of [conflicting] opinions, you are a publicly recognised Mumheh, and such are free from liability to pay [compensation].

יד רב חסדא אמר כאן שנטל ונתן ביד כאן שלא נטל ונתן ביד

14 R. Nahman b. Isaac said to Raba: What objection did R. Hamnunah raise against R. Shesheth from the case of the cow? Surely, the cow had already been given as food to dogs, and was no longer available for return to its owner!24 — He meant this: Should you say, that he who errs regarding a law cited in the Mishnah may not reverse the decision, it is correct: seeing that his decision stands, R. Tarfon was apprehensive, whereupon [R. Akiba] said to him: You are recognised by the Court as a Mumheh, and free from liability to refund. But if you say that he who errs in a law stated in the Mishnah may revoke his decision, then [R. Akiba] should have said to him: Since if the cow were still in existence, your decision would have been invalid and you would have done nothing, so too now, [that the cow has been consumed] you have done nothing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., you personally did not throw it to the dogs: it was the owner's misfortune to follow your ruling. (V. B.K. 100a.) Seeing therefore that R. Akiba did not argue in the manner, it can be inferred that if one errs regarding a law cited in the Mishnah, the decision may not be reversed. ');">25

טו בשלמא חייב את הזכאי כגון שנטל ונתן ביד אלא זיכה את החייב היכי משכחת לה דאמר ליה פטור אתה והא לא נטל ונתן ביד כיון דאמר פטור אתה כמו שנטל ונתן ביד דמי

15 R. Hisda said:26 The one [Mishnah]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_27">27</a>

טז אלא מתניתין דקתני דיני ממונות מחזירין בין לזכות בין לחובה בשלמא לזכות משכחת לה דא"ל מעיקרא חייב אתה ולא נטל ולא נתן ביד אלא לחובה היכי משכחת לה דאמר ליה פטור אתה והאמרת כיון דא"ל פטור אתה כמו שנטל ונתן ביד דמי

16 treats of a case where he [the judge] took [from one] and gave [to the other] with his own hand;28 the other [Mishnah],29

יז חדא קתני דיני ממונות מחזירין לזכות שהיא חובה דכוותה גבי נפשות מחזירין לזכות

17 where he did not take and give with his own hand.30 Now, that is correct in regard to pronouncing him who is not liable, 'liable'; when he might have taken [from the defendant] and given [to the plaintiff] with his own hand; but how is it conceivable in the reverse case [except] where he said to him: 'Thou art not liable'? Then he did not take [from one] and give [to the other] with his own hand! — Since he declared, 'Thou art not liable,' it is really as though he had taken [from one] and given [to the other] with his own hand.31 Then what of our Mishnah, which teaches: IN MONETARY CASES THE DECISION MAY BE REVERSED BOTH FOR ACQUITTAL, AND FOR CONDEMNATION? As for acquittal, it is correct: this is conceivable where he [the judge] originally said to him, 'Thou art liable,' but did not actually take [from him] and give [to the other] with his own hand.32 But how is it possible [to make any reversal] for condemnation, [except in the case] where the judge has first said to him: 'Thou art not liable'?33 But you maintain that when he said to him: 'Thou art not liable,' it is as though he had taken and given with, his own hand!34 — The Mishnah really states [only] one ruling. Viz., IN MONETARY CASES A DECISION MAY BE REVERSED IN FAVOUR [OF THE ONE],35 WHICH IS [TO THE OTHER'S (i.e.. THE PLAINTIFF'S)] DISADVANTAGE. Then by analogy, in regard to capital charges, [the statement,] THE VERDICT MAY BE REVERSED FOR ACQUITTAL ONLY

Previous Chapter Next Chapter