MISHNAH: Money matters by three [judges]. Each party selects one judge and both together select a third, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the two judges together select a third.
HALAKHAH: “Money matters by three,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said, because he selected him, he will take care of his interests. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? So that all three should be chosen unanimously. What is the rabbis’ reason? “I do not trust you to select and let me sit with whom you want, but I and you shall select and empanel whom we want.” It is difficult for the rabbis: If one of them dies, will not all three have been chosen through the choice of one person?
MISHNAH: Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives or disqualified. But if they are unexceptionable or qualified by the court he cannot disqualify them.
HALAKHAH: “Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge, but not his own. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they spoke about Syrian courts 1:5, Note 107 . , but not about following Torah law courts formed by ignorant people. . Rebbi Joḥanan said, even following Torah law. How was this said? Two people had a case in Antioch. One said to the other, I am accepting everything which Rebbi Joḥanan will decide. Rebbi Joḥanan heard it and said, he is not empowered to tear apart his opponent, but they shall hear their arguments there and if need be they should write and send the case before the rabbis. Rebbi Eleazar said, if one says in Tiberias, but the other said in Sepphoris, one listens to the one who says in Tiberias.
Can he forever disqualify and have the other appoint [a replacement]? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they taught this about subsidiaries. Rebbi La said, what Rebbi Eleazar said about “one said in Tiberias, but the other said in Sepphoris,” is about those who live at the same place, from where to [Sepphoris] it is seven mil , but from there to [Tiberias] it is nine mil . Rebbi Yose said, one understands from this, that if two people had a case in Tiberias; one of them said in the permanent court, but the other said in an ad hoc court; one listens to the one who said in the permanent court courts of arbitration for monetary disputes, the party who wants to bring the case before the permanent rabbinic court of the community can force the opposing party to agree to his choice. .
MISHNAH: Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives or disqualified. But if they are unexceptionable or qualified by the court he cannot disqualify them.
HALAKHAH: “Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so is the Mishnah: “His witness,” but not his witnesses. 19:15 ). . But Rebbi Joḥanan said, even his witnesses, as it was stated: “One always adds judges until judgment is rendered, and the judges may change their opinions. After judgment is rendered they may no longer change their opinions.” Rebbi Joḥanan agrees, that if these were the only ones, he cannot disqualify them. Zeˋira said, he and a person from the street can team up to disqualify this testimony) explains what it means that “a party to a suit may disqualify the other side’s witness.” He and another witness may appear before the permanent communal court as witnesses to ask for a judgment which will disqualify the witness for the other side. Even if the other side has alternative witnesses, one should disqualify the party as a tainted witness. He is admitted only because the opposing party, by presenting a multitude of witnesses, cast doubt on the reliability of their own witnesses. . Rebbi Ḥanina asked, does not one witness force an oath everywhere. 19:15 spells out that “a single witness is insufficient for any conviction,” instead of saying that “a single witness is unacceptable,” it follows that a single witness is acceptable for anything short of a conviction. In money matters this implies that a single witness to a claim can force a party to swear to dispute the claim ( Sifry Deut . 188; Babli Ketubot 87b ). ? Rebbi Zeˋira said, by disqualification one can only be disqualified by a court. A relative does not have to be disqualified by the court. Rava bar Binah said in the name of Rav: Three are like final judgment.
MISHNAH: If somebody said, I am accepting my father; I am accepting your father; I am accepting three cowboys; Rebbi Meïr says, he may change his opinion, but the Sages say, he may not change his opinion. If one was obligated to swear to another, who asked him to make a vow “by his life”, Rebbi Meïr says, he may change his opinion, but the Sages say, he may not change his opinion.
HALAKHAH: “I am accepting my father,” etc. If somebody said, I am accepting your father, if he accepted in the presence of two others, he may retract; in the presence of three, he may not retract. Samuel said, as long as he did not take from one and give to the other retract.” This is Samuel’s opinion in the Babli, 24b . ; but if he took from one and gave to the other, he may retract. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say even if he took from one and gave to the other, he may retract. . קטו points to Thr. r . 1(30) ad 1:3 where קטו or קטיתא means “a bat”. This would give as meaning of the Tosephta: “be exposed to the mace and the bat in my hands.” The explanations in the standard commentaries are pure conjectures. “If he hit him with a mace that he should agree; if he accepted he may renege.”
“If one was obligated to swear to another,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if he told him, let your father tell it to me, then I shall have no claim on you. But if he told him: Let you father tell it, then I shall accept it; he seeks a pretext to confess to him. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, even if he told him, let you father tell it to me, then I shall accept it. We never find that testimony be accepted from the mouth of a relative.
MISHNAH: The following are disqualified: The dice-player, the lender on interest, participants in pigeon contests, dealers in sabbatical produce, and slaves in law, he could commit perjury with impunity. . Rebbi Simeon said, earlier they were listing harvesters of sabbatical produce; but since the increase of oppressors they returned to list only dealers in sabbatical produce, contribution of produce, was imposed yearly, it was necessary to permit harvesting in the Sabbatical year in order to deliver the annona and prevent confiscation of the land by the government. Therefore, only actual trade in sabbatical produce was sinful, not harvesting. . Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he has no profession but this; but if he has another profession, he is qualified.
HALAKHAH: “The following are disqualified: The dice-player,” etc. 1:9 and Ševuot 7:4. The dice player is the one who plays with small stones. “Not only the player with stones, even one who plays with shells of nuts or pomegranates is not accepted unless he break his stones or tear up his IOU’s, and be checked out and repent in complete repentance.”
“Participants in pigeon contests.” Whether one bets on pigeons or bets on any other domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird, he is not accepted unless he break his tools of the catch and repent in complete repentance.
“Dealers in sabbatical produce.” “Who is a dealer in sabbatical produce? One who sits idle all the years of a sabbatical cycle. As soon as the sabbatical year starts, be becomes active and trades in sabbatical produce. One does not accept them before another sabbatical year starts and he can be checked out that he repented in complete repentance.” It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, two sabbatical periods. “Rebbi Nehemiah says, repentance in money, not repentance in words; that he say to them, here are 200 denars, distribute them to the poor, for I earned them from forbidden produce.” They added shepherds, extortionists, and any who are suspect in money matters, that their testimony be invalid. Rebbi Abbahu said, only shepherds of small animals. 23:2 ). It concludes that Mishnah and baraitot refer to actions classified as extortion or robbery only by rabbinical standards. .
Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there 2:7 , formulated as testimony in R. Aqiba’s court in the name of R. Eliezer. : “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. : What is meant by “it is everybody’s opinion? That is what R. Yose meant to say:”. It makes clear that one refers to the statement of the Amora R. Yose. The entire discussion does not refer to the Mishnah in Sanhedrin but the one in Roš Haššanah . The text in Roš Haššanah has to be considered as the original. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he. come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated 1:10 . : “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they 3:6 . are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna: R. Jonah. In Ševuot : R. Huna. in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated 1:11 , in the name of R. Jehudah (student of R. Eliezer’s student.) : A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.
4:2, Notes 20–34. A few passages are reformulated. “Rebbi Simeon says, earlier they were listing harvesters of sabbatical produce; but since the increase of oppressors they returned to list only dealers in sabbatical produce. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he has no profession but this; but if he has another profession, he is qualified.” How is this implemented? If he was sitting idle all the years of the sabbatical cycle but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce. If at the same time he is engaged in another occupation, he is qualified; otherwise he is disqualified. But if he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycle and when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce, even if he has no other profession on the side he is qualified. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda was praised for formulating the tradition in the name of a person younger than himself.
Rebbi Ḥiyya stated restrictively. How is this implemented? If he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycle but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce. Even if he has another profession on the side he is disqualified. This is not what Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda was praised for formulating the tradition in the name of a person younger than himself. Here also should it be so? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the government is not oppressive, here the government is oppressive.
When the government was oppressing the first time, Rebbi Yannai instructed to plough a single ploughing 4:3, Note 23. . An apostate was passing by; he saw the putting up of the harrow. He said to them, hey you! Is it permitted for you to plough? Is it permitted for you to put up the harrow?
Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, I asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Did not [Rebbi] Zeˋira and Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yehoṣadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Niṭzah house in Lydda: About all the Torah, if a Gentile tells a Jew to transgress any commandment of the Torah except those concerning idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder, he should transgress and not be killed. That is in private, but in public he should not follow him even for the slightest commandment, as exemplified by Pappos and his brother Julianus to whom they gave water in a colored glass and they did not accept. He said, they do not intend to lead you to apostasy, they only want to collect annona . What means “in public”? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written. 22:32 . : I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel .
They saw the young Rebbi Bina collecting donkey’s dung on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose permitted baking for Ursicinus on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, I asked before my father Rebbi Jonah, did not Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yehoṣadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Niṭzah house in Lydda, etc.? He said, he did not intend to lead you to apostasy, he only wanted to eat warm bread.. What means “in public”? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written. 22:32 . : I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel .
Rebbi Abinna asked Rebbi Immi: Are Gentiles required to sanctify the Name? He answered him: I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel . Israel are required to sanctify the Name; the Gentiles are not required to sanctify the Name. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar understood it from the following: May the Eternal forgive His servant for this , etc. Israel are required to sanctify the Name; the Gentiles are not required to sanctify the Name.
Rebbi Abba bar Zemina was working as a tailor for somebody in Rome. He brought him carcass meat and told him to eat. He said to him, I will not eat. He said to him, eat! Otherwise I shall kill you. He said to him, if you have to kill, kill, for I shall not eat carcass meat. He said to him, certainly you should know that I would have killed you, had you eaten. Either one is a Jewish Jew or an Aramean Aramean. Rebbi Mana said, if Rebbi Abba bar Zemina had understood the words of the rabbis, he would have been gone.
4:2, Notes 35–37. The prohibition to work after the Sabbatical a field which was improved in the Sabbatical is purely rabbinical. If somebody improved [his field] today, what is the rule? Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that when the reason disappeared, the ordinance is void. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that even if the reason disappeared, the ordinance stands until another court abolishes it. 4:2, Note 43, Ketubot 9:3 Notes 109–110 . The connection with the preceding is a leniency of R. Jeremiah opposed by R. Yose. Similarly, how does an owner acquire his own produce in a Sabbatical year? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, from the moment he put it into his vessel. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that even if he put it into his vessel he did not acquire, for he thinks that it is his but it is not his.
When Proclus and identifies him as an officer of Ursicinus’s army (under the emperor Gallus.) entered Sepphoris, Rebbi Mana instructed the bakers to present their wares in the market. The rabbis of Newe a place Nova in the Golan. instructed to bake leavened on Passover.
. 33:6 , shorter Cant. r. ad 2:14, Eccl. r . ad 8:2 quote this in the name of the older R. Levy. Possibly there is no claim of originality asserted here for R. Yose ben R. Abun, three generations after R. Levy, but the sermon is quoted as objection to the lenient rulings mentioned before. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said: I shall keep the King’s sayings 8:2 . , Who told me at Sinai I am the Eternal, your God . 20:2 . , on the pronouncement 8:2 . , you shall not have other gods before Me . 20:3 . , of God’s oath 8:2 . , do not take the Name of the Eternal, your God, in vain . 20:7 . . In this matter we come together, this man and this dog. 33(6 ). are both equal.
Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.
MISHNAH: The following are the relatives: His brother, his father’s brother and his mother’s brother, his sister’s husband, his father’s sister’s husband and his mother’s sister’s husband, his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law; these, their sons and sons-in-law, but his steps alone. Rebbi Yose said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s teaching; but the original Mishnah was: His uncle and his uncle’s son in Lev . 25:29 . , and anybody in line to inherit from him, and any related to him at that moment 8:1 ) is barred to act as witness. At the dissolution of the marriage, by death or divorce, the relationship is terminated. . If he had been related but became unrelated, he is qualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, even if his daughter had died but he had children from him, he remains a relative.
HALAKHAH: “The following are the relatives,” etc. Since we have stated “his brother,” why does one have to state “his father’s brother”. 18:12 ); the brother’s daughter, for whom the husband would be the father’s brother, is biblically forbidden by Sadducees and Karaites, permitted (and recommended) by Pharisees and rabbinic Jews. The Midrash which asserts that Sarah was not Abraham’s paternal half-sister but his niece ( Yebamot 10:17 Note 210 ) is more an anti-Sadducee polemic than a genuine interpretation of the biblical text.] Since the Mishnah states that sons and in-laws of disqualified relations are also disqualified, the mention of the brother implies that the nephew is also disqualified. But for the nephew, the original person is the father’s brother; why does he have to be mentioned? ? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law.
“His father’s brother”. Since we have stated “his father’s brother,” why does one have to state “his mother’s brother”? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law.
“His mother’s brother”. Since we have stated “his sister’s husband,” why does one have to state “his father’s sister’s husband”? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law.
“His father’s sister’s husband”. Since we have stated “his father’s sister’s husband,” why does one have to state “his mother’s sister’s husband”? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law.
“His mother’s sister’s husband”. But did we not state: “his stepson alone”? Rav said, if his mother-in-law’s son-in-law is forbidden, then certainly his stepdaughter’s husband the second also describes one. . Explain it that she has sons and sons-in-law from him.
“His brother-in-law”. Some Tannaïm state: Including sons and sons-in-law; but some Tannaïm state: Excluding sons and sons-in-law. He who said, including sons and sons-in law, from her. But he who said, excluding sons and sons-in law, from another family brother-in-law. .
Rav went to sell hides(Commentary to Alfasi, 6b in the Wilna ed.) reads נְפַק לְמַזְבַּן מַשְׁכּוֹן “went to sell a pledge”. This agrees with the following possessive, לר׳ חייה. The parallel source in the Babli, 28a/b reads: רב איקלע למזבן גוילי “Rav happened to be selling parchment.” for the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. He passed by a place where he found Rebbi Joḥanan sitting and asking: We have stated, “his stepson alone.” What is the situation of his stepson’s wife, his stepdaughter’s husband? A woman is like her husband and the husband is like his wife. Therefore, the situation of his stepson’s wife is that of his stepson, and the husband is like his wife.
Rav Ḥisda asked: If the third generation permitted the first generation’s wife? Is Phineas’s wife permitted to Moses 2:4 . With all commentators one has to read the question whether Moses be qualified to testify for the wife of Phineas, his brother’s grandson. ? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one accepts the second and third generations with difficulty. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even with ease.
As the following: A brother-in-law of Rav Huna’s had a case with some person. He said, I am accepting anything which Rav Huna will decide. Rav Huna heard it and said, this is it. I know that just as they said for the preceding generations, so it is for the following. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.
MISHNAH: The lover and the hater. The lover, that is the best man. The hater, anyone who did not talk to him for three days because of ill-will. They told him, Israel are not suspected of this.
HALAKHAH: “The lover and the hater,” etc. Rebbi Tevelai, Rebbi Abinna in the name of Rav: They stated this for the seven days of wedding festivities.
MISHNAH: How does one check out the witnesses? One brings them to court and instills fear into them, then removes them but retains the greatest among them. One says to him, tell why you know that this person owes to the other one. If he said, he himself confessed to me that he owes the money, or another person told me that he owes it, he did not say anything until he says, before us he confessed to him that he owed him 200 denar.
HALAKHAH: “How does one check out the witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Johanan: If he had intended to appoint them as witnesses, their testimony is valid.
How does one judge? The judges are sitting, the parties are standing, and the claimant starts first with his words, as it is written 24:14 . : He who has something to say shall present before you .
From where that the burden of proof is on the claimant? Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Shall present before you , shall present his proofs 46b . .
12:7, Notes 123–124 . Rebbi Joḥanan asked, in the case of a sister-in-law, who runs after whom? Rebbi Eleazar answered: His sister-in-law shall come to the gate . 25:7 . . Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eleazar taught me correctly.
Rebbi Berekhiah and Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The claimant claims, the respondent responds, and the judge decides. Rebbi Simon said, the judge has to repeat their arguments, as it is said. 3:23 . : The king said, this one says, my son is the living and yours is the dead one, etc.
When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he was investigating. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element. Rav Huna made light of a judge who said, “accept a single witness,” but they should say it themselves. When Rav Huna realized an argument in favor of a person who himself did not know it, he guided him, following. 31:8 . open your mouth for the dumb .
Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who hides his witnesses behind a wall did not do anything. As in this case: A man happened to prepare food for a meal. He said to another, give me what you owe me. That one answered, yes. When he rose, he told him, I do not owe you anything. He answered, I have witnesses. The other said, I said that only in order not to spoil your food. The case came before Rebbi Immi, who said, this is what Rebbi Joḥanan said, he who hides his witnesses behind a wall did not do anything.
MISHNAH: One calls in the second [witness] and examines him. If their testimonies are found consistent, one argues the case. Two say not guilty and one says guilty, he is not guilty. Two say guilty and one says not guilty, he is guilty. One says not guilty, one says guilty, and one says “I do not know”, they shall add judges. Even if two say not guilty or guilty but one says “I do not know”, they shall add judges
HALAKHAH: “One calls in the second [witness],” etc. 4:1 is almost identical with the present text; the one in Yoma 6:1 is slightly rewritten (or changed in transmission.) The Ševuˋot text seems to be the original of most of the Halakhah. As explained in the author’s Logical problems in Jewish tradition (in: Confrontations with Judaism, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, pp. 171–196, mainly p. 174), talmudic interpretation of pentateuchal verses operates on a principle of definiteness : The language always is definite. Since the sequence of integers has a smallest but no largest element, an indefinite plural means “two”. Therefore, the explicit mention of “two” always implies some special meaning. Rams . 16:5 , 7 ,8 speaking of the rams used in the service of the Day of Atonement. , the minimum of rams are two. Why does the verse say two ? That both be equal 62b , Sifra Ahare Parašah 2(1 ). .
Sheep , the minimum of sheep are two. Why does the verse say two ? That both be equal ( Ex . 27:38, Num . 28:3 ). In both verses, the numeral is שְׁנַיִם ( Babli Yoma 62b ). .
The minimum of birds are two. Why does the verse say two ? that both be equal. 14:4 . Babli Yoma 62b , Mishnah Negaˋim 14:1 , Sifra Meṣora ˋ Introduction 11 . . The minimum of trumpets are two. Why does the verse say two ? that both be equal. 10:2 . Sifry Num . 74. .
Rebbi Ḥaggai objected to Rebbi Yasa. Is there not written: The two men shall stand . 19:17 . The verse can be read either as referring to the parties in a lawsuit or to the witnesses in a civil or criminal suit. Cf. Babli Ševu ˋ ot 30a. ? Now, is not two the minimum of “men”? Why does the verse say two ? That both be equal? But it is written. 24:17 . : Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan , … That means that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan. Then why is there written two ? It is free to be combined and to infer from it an equal cut 1:1 Note 70 , Nedarim 1 Notes 18,159, Nazir 4:1 Note 23 , Logical problems ( Note 150 ) pp. 185–186. Two identical expressions, written in two different connections, each of which is free , i. e., not used for an inference not otherwise possible, can be used to transfer rules from one connection to the other. This hermeneutical principle is accepted by all rabbinic schools. . It is said here two and it is said there two men were left 11:27 . Since Eldad and Medad are mentioned by name in the verse, it is obvious that two men are meant. . Since there one speaks of men but not women, also here men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a judge 30a , Sifry Deut . 190. and may not be a witness.
Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Joseph. It is said here two and it is said there. 19:15 . The verse explicitly speaks of witnesses. two . Since there it must be by the testimony of two witnesses, also here by the testimony of two witnesses. Then why does the verse say two ? Lest one of them be standing while the other be sitting; one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short 30a , Sifry Deut . 190. .
Rebbi Jehudah said, I heard that if the judge wants to let both of them sit, he may tell them to sit down 30a , Tosephta Sanhedrin 6:2 , Sifra Qedošim Pereq 4(4 ). . Rebbi Ismael says, one says to him, either you dress as he is dressed or pay him to be dressed as you are.
Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna: The witnesses have to stand while testifying, for it is said: the two men shall stand . Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Also the parties have to stand at the moment the verdict is given, as it is said. 19:17 . The verse can be read either as referring to the parties in a lawsuit or to the witnesses in a civil or criminal suit. Cf. Babli Ševu ˋ ot 30a. : who have the quarrel before the Eternal 30a . .
4:1. It is written. 24:16 . : Fathers shall not be killed because of sons . Is it not already written, each one should be killed for his own crime . 24:16 . ? Why does the verse say, fathers shall not be killed because of sons ? Fathers shall not be killed on the testimony of sons, and sons shall not be killed on testimony of fathers Deut . 280. . From here 4:1 מכן for מניין. that witnesses shall not be relatives of the accused.
From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony 9:8, Note 128 . Formal perjury, “plotting”, is testimony which is impossible, i. e., where it was proven that the witnesses were not at the place about which they testify at the time they assert to have seen the object of their testimony. If only one witness was perjured, there is only one valid witness and his testimony is worthless by biblical standards; for worthless testimony there can be no biblical punishment. Therefore, if the two perjured witnesses were related, each would be convicted by his relatives’ testimony; this is forbidden by Deut . 24:16 . But testimony which would not expose the witnesses to the penalty of perjury is worthless. The Babli, 28a , points out that this argument also eliminates a single relative among the witnesses. ? From where that witnesses may not be relatives of the judges? Think of it, if one of them be found perjured, he could not be killed unless the other also was found perjured. If you say so, would he not be killed by his sentence 9:8, Note 128 . Formal perjury, “plotting”, is testimony which is impossible, i. e., where it was proven that the witnesses were not at the place about which they testify at the time they assert to have seen the object of their testimony. If only one witness was perjured, there is only one valid witness and his testimony is worthless by biblical standards; for worthless testimony there can be no biblical punishment. Therefore, if the two perjured witnesses were related, each would be convicted by his relatives’ testimony; this is forbidden by Deut . 24:16 . But testimony which would not expose the witnesses to the penalty of perjury is worthless. The Babli, 28a , points out that this argument also eliminates a single relative among the witnesses. ?
From where that judges may not be relatives of one another? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since witnesses may not be relatives of one another, neither may judges be relatives of one another. 24:16 is indeterminate enough to include both testimony and sentence by relatives. .
So far. 24:16 . only fathers and sons; from where the other relatives? Rebbi Zeˋira says, and sons includes the remaining relatives.
So far according to Rebbi Aqiba ו which is not 100% necessary for the understanding of the text as an addition which invites extension of the rules. The statement attributed here to the late Amora R. Zeˋira is formulated in Sifry Deut . 280 as tannaïtic, representing R. Aqiba’s opinion. .
4:1. From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge . 35:24 , about the trial of the homicide who fled to a city of asylum. R Ismael objects to R. Aqiba’s inferences from additional את ,ו etc. and insists that any interpretations of verses conform to the plain sense of the verse within the purview of his hermeneutical rules. ; the congregation shall save . 35:25 . . The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another. 24:16 is indeterminate enough to include both testimony and sentence by relatives. ? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony 9:8, Note 128 . Formal perjury, “plotting”, is testimony which is impossible, i. e., where it was proven that the witnesses were not at the place about which they testify at the time they assert to have seen the object of their testimony. If only one witness was perjured, there is only one valid witness and his testimony is worthless by biblical standards; for worthless testimony there can be no biblical punishment. Therefore, if the two perjured witnesses were related, each would be convicted by his relatives’ testimony; this is forbidden by Deut . 24:16 . But testimony which would not expose the witnesses to the penalty of perjury is worthless. The Babli, 28a , points out that this argument also eliminates a single relative among the witnesses. ?
4:1; they are copied from the Halakhah there. The object of discussion is Lev. 5:1 : If a person sinned when he heard the sound of an imprecation, being a witness, either having seen or known, if he does not tell he has to bear his punishment. If one of the parties in a civil suit adresses a potential witness and by an oath tells him to appear as a witness in court, if the person so addressed refuses to appear or to testify he has to confess his sin (5:5) and bring a sacrifice graded according to his means (5:6–13). Mishnah Ševuˋot 4:1 details the rules under which a person may be declared guilty of violating the oath put on him. “Qualified one but not disqualified one.” For it is said, if he does not tell, he has to bear his punishment . If he told, the other would have to pay money. This excludes one where the other would not have to pay money even if he told 30a . .
“Before the court.” To exclude a single witness. If they told him that they would accept his word as if there were two [witnesses], would he be guilty? The verse says, if he had seen or known . One who is qualified to testify according to biblical standards; this excludes a single witness who is not qualified to testify according to biblical standards. 19:15 . .
“Outside of court.” If he does not tell, he has to bear his punishment. If he told, one would have to pay money. This excludes outside of court where the other would not have to pay money even if he told.
From where two witnesses? He and another make two. 5:1 and he is a witness , the copula implies the existence of a counterpart, a second witness. . Or following Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses. 19:15 , any mention of valid testimony in the biblical text must refer to two witnesses; cf. Sotah 6:2 Note 23 ; Babli 30a , 31b , Soṭah 2b . unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath. 5:4 : Or a person who blurts out swearing from his lips, to worsen or to improve, for anything a human might blurt out in an oath, and it slipped his mind but then he remembered and became guilty of one of these . A blurted oath is one which could have been avoided by some reflection. ? Since it is possible to say that another person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, how could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?
Should a relative be found guilty of a blurted oath? Does it follow what Rebbi Abba said (ben) [in the name of]. Samuel only had daughters. Samuel: . 5:4 sanctions only future-directed thoughtless oaths, to worsen or to improve , in Samuel’s opinion oaths that refer to past acts only are not included in the category of blurted oaths. They are meaningless oaths which might not be reparable by a sacrifice. “An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that X had not given; since there is nothing in the future there is nothing in the past. Or the following: 8:3. The person spoken to was an unpaid keeper responsible only if he appropriated another’s property for his own use, not if it was otherwise lost ( Bava mesiˋa 7:9). “One said to another, ˋwhere is my ox?’ He responded, ˋI do not know what you are referring to.’ It so happened that it had died, or was wounded, or captured, or lost. ˋI require you to swear;’ the other said ˋAmen’. He is not liable.” Rav said, he is not liable for a keeper’s oath but is liable because of a blurted oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is a religious duty to appease him, he is not liable because of a blurted oath. In Rav’s opinion, is there no religious duty to appease him? One appeases with truthful statements, not with lies.
Rebbi Ismael stated: He has to bear his punishment . 5:1 . , a sacrifice. From where that one needs a court? One learns “telling, telling texts in the Pentateuch which use the root נגד are Lev . 5:1 and Deut . 17:9–11 . The latter text contains the rules of the Supreme Court and the punishment for disobeying its rulings. ”. Since telling mentioned there is before a court, also telling here is before a court.
1:1, Notes 56–71 ( Ketubot 2:4 , Ševuˋot 4:1). Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly text: Two say one hair. . Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose], missing here. said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) text in brackets. [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.
. The entire story is told in the Babli, 30 a/b , about R. Johanan instead of R. Jonathan. And the following. One does not listen to the witnesses unless they come together; Rebbi Nathan says, one listens to the first and when the second comes, one listens to what he has to say. Rebbi Jonathan was sitting and asking, maybe somebody is here who heard that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina told him, that is Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. He said, may he come up. When he came up, he asked him, did you hear that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? He answered, I heard that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa agrees with Rebbi Nathan. He said, do we need this? He said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina only intended to elevate Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim because he was an important person.
Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose for Yose ; cf . Diqduqe Soferim Bava qamma p. 136b, Note 2. in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision 112b . . As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.
Rebbi Jeremiah had a suit against a certain person. They accepted testimony not in the presence of Rebbi Jeremiah, and decided against Rebbi Jeremiah. He was sitting despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties? Rebbi Hina, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Ḥuqoq did not go to the lecture on that day, but Rebbi Huna pushed, went in, and found Rebbi Jeremiah despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties even if they are present with them in the same city? He told him, this is seen to be the rabbis’ opinion, pp.3–4. .
MISHNAH: When they have come to a decision, they bring the parties in. The chief judge says, Mr. X, you are not guilty, Mr. X, you are guilty. From where that afterwards, one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty, but what can I do since they were a majority against me? On such a one it was said: The gossip uncovers secrets 11:13 . Since this is from the Hagiographs, it does not have the force of a Torah verse. .
HALAKHAH: “When they have come to a decision,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces the one who finds guilty to write “not guilty.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the one who finds guilty, writes “guilty”; the one who finds not guilty, writes “not guilty”. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “From where that afterwards, one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? That nobody could say, I really wanted to justify X in his suit but they did not let me do it. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That no other person should come, reason as he did, and say, also that one was there and he erred.
MISHNAH: Any time one produces a proof he may demand a new trial. If they told him, produce all your proofs within thirty days, if he produced within thirty days, he gets a new trial, after thirty days he does not get a new trial. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, what can one do if he did not find within thirty [days] but found after thirty [days]?
HALAKHAH: “Any time one produces a proof,” etc. Rebbi Oshaiah said, there, where it is possible to add, they continue to argue. But here it is impossible to add. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that even here it is possible to add Sanhedrin 8:2). .
MISHNAH: If they told him, produce witnesses; he said, I have no witness; produce proofs; he said, I have no proofs. If later he found a proof, or he found witnesses, this is irrelevant. Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; he did not know that he had proof, but he found proof? If they told him, produce witnesses; he said, I have no witness; produce proofs; he said, I have no proofs; when he saw that the decision would go against him he said, X and Y shall come and testify for me, or he produced proof from his money belt, this is irrelevant.
HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: Three Amoraïm. One said, any time he brings proof he can demand a new trial. The other said, if he brought within 30 days, he can demand a new trial, after 30 days he cannot demand a new trial. The other said, he never can demand a new trial unless he prove that he absolutely had no knowledge of it. But did we not state: “Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; that he had no proof, but found proof?” Rebbi La and Rebbi Zeˋira: One said, unless he voided his proofs; the other said, until he disclaimed his proofs.
Rebbi Levi had a suit against a certain person about houses; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented proof. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him, any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Rebbi Eumachos had a suit against a certain person about mills; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented witnesses. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, is that still a problem for you? Any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Why did it need two cases? In Rebbi Levy’s case, no formal verdict had been rendered, in Rebbi Eumachos’s case, a formal verdict had been rendered.
Does a judicial confirmation need a court? Rebbi Hoshaia in the name of Samuel, Rav Bannai in the name of Samuel. One said, it should be confirmed either by the handwriting of the witnesses or the handwriting of the judges; the other said, even with one handwriting and one judge 21a . .