Sanhedrin 66

ואין מחזירין לחובה מחזירין לזכות זכות גרידתא ואין מחזירין לחובה לזכות שהיא חובה

BUT NOT FOR CONDEMNATION, must mean, it can be reversed for acquittal, provided this involves only acquittal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it does not cause damage to anyone else, e.g in the ease of the intentional desecration of the Sabbath, or of adultery. ');">¹</span> BUT NOT FOR CONDEMNATION. i.e., [there must be no reversal] in favour [of one] which is detrimental [to the other]. But to whose detriment can it possibly be? — That is no difficulty: It means to the detriment of the avenger of blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XXXV, 19. It is a duty of the avenger of blood, the victim's nearest relative, to call the murderer to account (v. Mak. 12a; infra 45b; Mains. Yad, Rozeah I, 2), therefore in case the verdict were reversed for acquittal he would lose the opportunity of avenging his relative's blood. ');">²</span>

חובתיה דמאן הא לא קשיא חובתיה דגואל הדם משום חובתיה דגואל הדם קטלינן ליה להאי ועוד מאי בין בין קשיא

Because it is detrimental to him, are we to execute a man!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely it will not be argued that in order to soothe the kinsman's wrath we are to abide by the decision to execute the accused, even where there are reasons for reversing it. ');">³</span> Moreover, how explain, BOTH&nbsp;… AND?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the words of the Mishnah; BOTH FOR CONDEMNATION AND FOR ACQUITTAL; this proves that two statements are made, not one. ');">⁴</span>

רבינא אמר כגון שהיה לו בידו משכון ונטלו ממנו

This remains a difficulty. Rabina explained it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hisda's statement above, that where he found the guilty innocent, the decision cannot be reversed for condemnation, for that would mean actually a taking from the one and giving to the other. ');">⁵</span>

טימא את הטהור דאגעי ביה שרץ טיהר את הטמא שעירבן בין פירותיו:

thus: E.g he [the plaintiff] had a pledge [from the defendant] and he [the judge] had taken it from him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And had given it to the defendant on finding him not liable. ');">⁶</span> He declared the clean, 'unclean', means that he brought it into contact with a reptile;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a case where there was a doubt as to the cleanness of a certain object, and the judge established his decision by actually making it unclean. ');">⁷</span>

דיני נפשות כו': ת"ר מניין ליוצא מבית דין חייב ואמר אחד יש לי ללמד עליו זכות מניין שמחזירין אותו ת"ל (שמות כג, ז) נקי אל תהרג

he declared the unclean,'clean', by mixing it with his [the questioner's] own fruit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a demonstration of its cleanness. These are illustrations of the possibility of the judge himself causing loss through his verdict. ');">⁸</span> IN CAPITAL CHARGES etc. Our Rabbis taught: Whence [do we infer] that if the accused leaves the <i>Beth din</i> guilty, and someone says: 'I have a statement to make in his favour,' he is to be brought back?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For re-trial. ');">⁹</span>

ומניין ליוצא מב"ד זכאי ואמר אחד יש לי ללמד עליו חובה מניין שאין מחזירין אותו ת"ל (שמות כג, ז) צדיק אל תהרג

— Scripture reads: The guiltless<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], not guilty of the crime so long as there are still arguments in his favour unheard. ');">¹⁰</span> slay thou not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII, 7. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ר שימי בר אשי וחילופא למסית דכתיב (דברים יג, ט) לא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו רב כהנא מתני (דברים יג, י) מכי הרג תהרגנו

And whence [do we infer] that if he leaves the <i>Beth din</i> not guilty, and someone says: 'I have something to state against him,'he may not be brought back? — From the verse, And the righteous,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], found righteous in court, though not necessarily innocent, seeing that there is still evidence against him to be heard. ');">¹²</span> slay thou not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII, 7. ');">¹³</span>

בעא מניה רבי זירא מרב ששת חייבי גליות (מניין) אתיא רוצח רוצח

R. Shimi b. Ashi said: It is the reverse in the case of a Mesith, for it is written: Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIII, 9. ');">¹⁴</span> R. Kahana derived it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that it is the reserve in the case of a Mesith. ');">¹⁵</span>

חייבי מלקיות (מניין) אתיא רשע רשע

from the words: But thou shalt surely kill him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10. ');">¹⁶</span> R. Zera asked of R. Shesheth: What of those condemned to exile?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For unintentional homicide. Cf. Num XXXV, 11ff. Is his trial similar in procedure to trials in capital, or monetary cases? ');">¹⁷</span>

תניא נמי הכי חייבי גליות מניין אתיא רוצח רוצח חייבי מלקות מניין אתיא רשע רשע:

— Identical law is inferred from the use of rozeah in both cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]; 'murderer', as used in connection with murder (Num. XXXV, 16), where he is punished by death, and as used in connection with unintentional homicide (ibid. 11) which shows that the procedure with regard to reversing decisions is the same in both cases. ');">¹⁸</span> What of those liable to flagellation? Identical law is derived from the use of rasha' [guilty] in both cases,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. Flagellation: If the guilty is worthy to be beaten, Deut. XXV, 2; capital punishment: Who is guilty of death. Num. XXXV, 31. ');">¹⁹</span>

ואין מחזירין לחובה: אמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן והוא שטעה בדבר שאין הצדוקין מודין בו אבל טעה בדבר שהצדוקין מודין בו זיל קרי בי רב הוא

it has been taught likewise: Whence [do we infer the same procedure] for those liable to exile? — Identify of law is derived from the use of 'murderer' in both places. And in the case of those liable to flogging? — From the fact that 'guilty' is used in both places.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Sanh. VII. ');">²⁰</span> BUT NOT FOR CONDEMNATION. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: Proving that he erred in a matter which the Sadducees<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. A party holding views directly opposite to those of the Pharisees. They regarded only those observances obligatory which are contained in the written Word, and did not recognise those derived from Rabbinical interpretations; but v. p. 239, n. 9. ');">²¹</span>

בעא מיניה רבי חייא בר אבא מרבי יוחנן טעה בנואף ונואפת מהו א"ל אדמוקדך יקיד זיל קוץ קרך וצלי איתמר נמי א"ר אמי א"ר יוחנן טעה בנואף חוזר

do not admit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the prohibition in marriage of a father-in-law's mother (Cf. infra 75a) which is transmitted by oral law. ');">²²</span> But if he erred in a matter which even they admit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as a law found in the Biblical text. ');">²³</span>

אלא היכי דמי אין חוזרין א"ר אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן כגון שטעה שלא כדרכה:

let him go back to school and learn it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Since he erred in a Biblical law, his decision must be reversed. ');">²⁴</span> R. Hiyya b. Abba asked R. Johanan: What if he erred in a law regarding an adulterer or an adulteress?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas other criminal cases lend themselves to mistakes in judgment, owing to the investigation of the manifold details accompanying the act, in cases of illicit intercourse, once the act is done, there is no room for error (Rashi). According to R. Hananel, the question is, what if the judge erred by deciding that liability falls only on the male transgressor against whom alone Scripture provides, (cf. Lev. XVIII, 20), and not on the woman? ');">²⁵</span>

דיני ממונות הכל כו': הכל ואפילו עדים נימא מתניתין ר' יוסי ברבי יהודה היא ולא רבנן

— He answered: While thy fire is burning, go, cut thy pumpkin and roast it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when engaged in your lesson pursue it further, it will save you from asking questions, for the law provides against an adulteress in Lev. XX, 10. ');">²⁶</span> It has been stated likewise: R. Ammi said in R. Johanan's name: If he erred in the case of an adulterer, the decision must be reversed. Then in what cases are decisions not reversed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Mishnah. Decisions in capital cases (including adultery) may not be reversed for condemnation. ');">²⁷</span>

דתניא (במדבר לה, ל) ועד אחד לא יענה בנפש בין לזכות בין לחובה ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר עונה לזכות ואין עונה לחובה

— R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: E.g., If he erred in respect to unnatural intercourse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is derived from an interpretation of Lev. XVIII, 22, which the Saducees do not agree. V. infra 54a. ');">²⁸</span> IN MONETARY CASES, ALL etc. 'ALL' [implies] even the witnesses. Shall we say that our Mishnah represents the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah, and not that of our Rabbis? For it has been taught: 'But one witness shall not testify against any person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 30. ');">²⁹</span>

אמר רב פפא באחד מן התלמידים ודברי הכל

— both for acquittal and condemnation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., A witness who has testified in a case may not come again to bear other testimony in favour of, or against the accused, in the same case. ');">³⁰</span> R. Jose son of R. Judah said: He may testify for acquittal, but not for condemnation'? — Said R. Papa: ['ALL'] refers to [even] a single one of the disciples, and thus it agrees with all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with the Rabbis too. ');">³¹</span>