Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin

Folio 31a

The Nehardeans said: Even if one testified that it was an old maneh, and the other declares that it was new, we combine [their testimony]. With whom does this agree: with R. Joshua b. Korha?²  But tell me! when did you learn that R. Joshua b. Korha ruled thus? Only where they are not contradictory:³  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:⁴  R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel⁵  do not differ with respect to two sets of witnesses, [of which] one attests a debt of two hundred [zuz] and the other of one hundred [a maneh]: since one hundred is included in two hundred.⁶  They differ only where there is but one set.⁷  Beth Shammai say, Their testimony is sundered,⁸  but Beth Hillel maintain, Two hundred include one hundred.⁹

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.¹⁰  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 zuz is certainly included in two hundred.¹¹  Did he however rule thus in such a case as this?¹²  — This holds good only in respect to the value thereof.¹³

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.

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,¹⁴  and further, He that goeth about talebearing revealeth secrets.¹⁵

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.

MISHNAH. WHENEVER HE¹⁶  BRINGS PROOF, IT¹⁷  CAN UPSET THE VERDICT. BUT IF THEY¹⁸  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?¹⁹

IF THEY¹⁸  HAVE SAID TO HIM, 'BRING WITNESSES,' AND HE ANSWERED, 'I HAVE NONE,' OR, 'BRING PROOF,'²⁰  AND HE REPLIED, 'I HAVE NONE:' YET SUBSEQUENTLY HE PRODUCED PROOF, OR FOUND WITNESSES, IT IS OF NO VALUE.²¹  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?²²

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,²³  IT IS VALUELESS.²⁴

GEMARA. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: The halachah rests with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel.²⁵  Rabbah son of R. Huna also said: The halachah does not rest with the Sages. But is this not obvious; since he says that the halachah rests with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel it automatically follows that the halachah is not as the Sages? — I might have thought that his ruling²⁶  holds good only at the outset;²⁷  but once it [i.e., the reverse] has been done,²⁸  it is correct: therefore he informs us²⁹  that even then, it [the decision] is reversed.

IF THEY SAID TO HIM: 'BRING WITNESSES,' etc. … SAID RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL etc. — Rabbah son of R. Huna said in R. Johanan's name: The halachah rests with the Sages. Rabbah son of R. Huna also said in R. Johanan's name: The halachah does not rest with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. But is this not obvious; since he said that the halachah rests with the Sages it follows automatically that the halachah does not rest with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? What he teaches us is this: Only in this case is the halachah not as Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel holds; whereas in all other cases,³⁰  the halachah 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 halachah rests with him, except in [the following three cases]: 'Areb,³¹  Zidon³²  and 'the latter proof'.³³

A lad³⁴  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.'³⁵  Said R. Nahman: In such a case even the Rabbis³⁶  agree that the youth is not expected to know his father's affairs.³⁷  A certain woman³⁸  produced a note of a debt,³⁹  but said to him:⁴⁰  'I know that this bill was discharged.' R. Nahman⁴¹  believed her.⁴²  Said Raba to him: According to whose view [did you act]? According to Rabbi who said: [Ownership of] 'letters' is acquired through delivery?⁴³  This case is different, he replied, since she could have burnt it, had she desired.⁴⁴  Others say, R. Nahman did not believe her. Thereupon Raba objected: But had she desired,

1. V. p. 189, n. 2.
2. V. p. 185. For here too, after all, both testify to the same fact, viz., the debt of a maneh.
3. Differing only in the matter of date.
4. B.B. 41b, Nazir 20a.
5. 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.
6. So that the debt of a hundred zuz is witnessed to by both.
7. One witness testifying to a hundred, and the other to two hundred.
8. I.e., since one is obviously false, he is cut off from the other; hence there is no valid testimony at all.
9. So that there are two witnesses for a debt of a hundred. Hence the Nehardeans are supported by this view.
10. I.e., since the value of the latter is greater, he regarded the smaller debt as proved.
11. I.e., a hundred is actually part of two hundred.
12. Where they differ as to the substance.
13. 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.
14. Lev. XIX, 16.
15. Prov. XI, 13.
16. The defendant (Rashi). According to the Codifiers, Tur and Caro, any of the litigants, v. H.M. XVI, 1.
17. The court (Rashi).
18. 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.
19. I.e., even if he produces it after the stipulated period, the decision may be reversed.
20. Viz., documentary evidence.
21. Since he might forge a document or engage false witnesses.
22. I.e., both documentary proof and witnesses are valid.
23. Gr. [G]. A moneybag or hollow belt for keeping money or documents.
24. Even according to Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel; since he knew of it, and yet did not produce it, we fear that it is false.
25. In the first clause, where the litigant was asked to produce evidence within thirty days and did not say that he had none.
26. That the halachah rests with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel.
27. I.e., even if proof is brought after the prescribed time, it is to be accepted.
28. I.e., the court had rejected this evidence and given a verdict accordingly.
29. By his second statement that the halachah does not rest with the Sages.
30. Where Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel is at variance with other Sages.
31. Surety. V. B.B. 173a.
32. Git. 74a.
33. 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.
34. I.e., minor.
35. And can testify in your favour.
36. Who oppose Rabban Simeon B. Gamaliel in the Mishnah.
37. Hence the decision can be reversed.
38. Who was a trustee, appointed by the creditor and debtor, of a bill of indebtedness.
39. Lit., 'A Shetar came forth from under her hand.'
40. The creditor.
41. Before whom the dispute was brought.
42. Notwithstanding the creditor's denial; for as long as they kept her their trustee, they vouched thereby for her truthfulness.
43. 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.
44. Hence, without accepting Rabbi's ruling, there are still grounds for believing her.

Raba refuted R. Nahman: A witnessed receipt²  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.³  Hence we see that the trustee is believed! This refutation of R. Nahman remains unanswered.

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.⁴  But is not this selfcontradictory? First you say, 'Unless he declares his arguments closed,' — which agrees with the Rabbis;⁵  then you say, 'and [immediately thereafter] says, Admit so and so to testify on my behalf' — which agrees with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel!⁶  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:'⁷  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 halachah rests with him, save in the cases of 'Areb, Zidon, and the 'latter proof'?⁸  — 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.'⁹  If, however, witnesses arrive from overseas, or if his father's despatch case¹⁰  had been deposited with a stranger, he can produce the evidence and upset [the decision].

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,]¹¹  and one of them¹²  says: Let us be tried here; while the other says: Let us go to the place of Assembly,¹³  he is compelled to go to the place of Assembly. R. Eleazar, however, said in his presence: Rabbi, if a man claims a maneh from his fellow, must he spend another maneh¹⁴  on top of the first? Nay, he is compelled to attend the local court.¹⁵  It has been stated likewise: R. Safra said [in R. Johanan's name]:¹⁶  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;¹⁷  he [the defendant] must attend the court in his¹⁸  home town. And if it is necessary to consult [the Assembly], the matter is written down and forwarded to them. And if the litigant¹⁹  says 'Write down the grounds on which you made your decision and give them to me,²⁰  they must write them down and give him the document.

The Yebamah²¹  is bound to follow the Yabam [to his own town] that he may release her.²²  How far? — R. Ammi answered: Even from Tiberias to Sepphoris.²³  R. Kahana said: What verse proves it? — Then the elders of his city shall call him;²⁴  but not the elders of her city.

Amemar said: The law is that he is compelled to go to the place of the Assembly.²⁵  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 it²⁶  of the creditor; but if the creditor [demands, it, the debtor must submit, for] The borrower is servant to the lender.²⁷

A message was once sent²⁸  to Mar 'Ukba:²⁹  'To him whose lustre is like that of the son of Bithia,³⁰  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;³²  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;³³  if he accepts your decision, well and good; if not, see to it that he appears before us in Tiberias.³⁴

R. Ashi says: This was a case of Kenas, and in Babylonia they could not try cases of Kenas.³⁵  But as for their sending him a message in such terms,³⁶  that was only to shew respect to Mar 'Ukba.

1. 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.
2. [H] Gr. [G], a kind of codicil, the precise significance of which is unknown.
3. For the note is in the creditor's possession, and he would certainly not have permitted a false receipt to be written thereon.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Thus proving that R. Johanan holds that once he has declared, 'I have no further proof,' he cannot produce any, much later.
9. At which point his defence is regarded as closed.
10. [H] Gr. [G]; bisaccium, a bag with two pouches.
11. [Thus Rashi. According to Yad Ramah render, 'He who constrains his neighbour to stand with him for trial.']
12. The more influential man.
13. 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).
14. In travelling expenses.
15. The creditor's.
16. Rashal deletes the bracketed passage. See, however, Finkelstein, loc. cit.
17. Maintaining that he lacked confidence in the local court and feared an erroneous decision,
18. The plaintiff's.
19. Who declined to appear before the local court, v. Tosaf.
20. So that he might ascertain the legality of their decision.
21. [H] fem. of [H] v. Glos.
22. From the obligations of levirate marriage.
23. Although the court in the former city was more eminent (Rashi). Actually, these two towns were near to each other.
24. Deut. XXV, 8.
25. Referring to a dispute between litigants regarding the place of trial.
26. To go to the Assembly.
27. Prov. XXII, 7.
28. By the judicial court in Palestine.
29. 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.
30. 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.]
31. I.e., he treated me injuriously.
32. Hence, in Babylonia.
33. I.e., Judge you the case first.
34. 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.
35. V. B.K. 84a.
36. Implying that they asked him to judge the case himself.