| 31a. גברא אגברא קא רמית,נהרדעי אמרי אפילו אחד אומר מנה שחור ואחד אומר מנה לבן מצטרפים,כמאן כרבי יהושע בן קרחה אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהושע בן קרחה היכא דלא מכחשו אהדדי היכא דמכחשי אהדדי מי אמר,אלא הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא אמר ר' שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על שתי כיתי עדים שאחת אומרת מאתים ואחת אומרת מנה שיש בכלל מאתים מנה,על מה נחלקו על כת אחת שבית שמאי אומרים נחלקה עדותן ובית הלל אומרים יש בכלל מאתים מנה,אחד אומר חבית של יין ואחד אומר חבית של שמן הוה עובדא ואתי לקמיה דרבי אמי חייביה רבי אמי לשלומי ליה חביתא דחמרא מיגו חביתא דמשחא,כמאן כר"ש בן אלעזר אימר דאמר ר"ש [ב"א] היכא דיש בכלל מאתים מנה כי האי גוונא מי אמר,לא צריכא לדמי,אחד אומר בדיוטא העליונה ואחד אומר בדיוטא התחתונה אמר רבי חנינא מעשה בא לפני רבי וצירף עדותן:,ומניין לכשיצא כו': תנו רבנן מניין לכשיצא לא יאמר הריני מזכה וחבירי מחייבין אבל מה אעשה שחבירי רבו עלי תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך ואומר (משלי יא, יג) הולך רכיל מגלה סוד,ההוא תלמידא דנפיק עליה קלא דגלי מילתא דאיתמר בי מדרשא בתר עשרין ותרתין שנין אפקיה רב אמי מבי מדרשא אמר דין גלי רזיא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל זמן שמביא ראיה סותר את הדין אמר לו כל ראיות שיש לך הבא מיכן עד שלשים יום מצא בתוך שלשים יום סותר לאחר שלשים יום אינו סותר,אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא מצא בתוך שלשים ומצא לאחר שלשים,אמר לו הבא עדים ואמר אין לי עדים אמר הבא ראיה ואמר אין לי ראיה ולאחר זמן הביא ראיה ומצא עדים הרי זה אינו כלום,אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא היה יודע שיש לו עדים ומצא עדים לא היה יודע שיש לו ראיה ומצא ראיה,ראה שמתחייב בדין ואמר קרבו פלוני ופלוני ויעידוני או שהוציא ראיה מתחת פונדתו הרי זה אינו כלום:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבה בר רב הונא הלכה כרשב"ג ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אין הלכה כדברי חכמים,פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כרשב"ג ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כחכמים,מהו דתימא הני מילי לכתחילה אבל דיעבד שפיר דמי קמ"ל דאי עביד מהדרינן ליה:,אמר לו הבא עדים כו' אמר רשב"ג כו': אמר רבה בר רב הונא א"ר יוחנן הלכה כדברי חכמים ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רבי יוחנן אין הלכה כרשב"ג,פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כדברי חכמים ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כרשב"ג,הא קמ"ל דבההיא אין הלכה כרשב"ג הא בכולהו הלכה כרשב"ג,לאפוקי מהא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן כל מקום ששנה רשב"ג במשנתנו הלכה כמותו חוץ מערב וצידן וראיה אחרונה,ההוא ינוקא דתבעוהו לדינא קמיה דרב נחמן א"ל אית לך סהדי א"ל לא אית לך ראיה א"ל לא חייביה רב נחמן,הוה קא בכי ואזיל שמעוהו הנך אינשי אמרו ליה אנן ידעינן במילי דאבוך אמר רב נחמן בהא אפילו רבנן מודו דינוקא במילי דאבוה לא ידע,ההיא איתתא דנפק שטרא מתותי ידה אמרה ליה ידענא בהאי שטרא דפריע הוה הימנה רב נחמן,אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן כמאן כרבי דאמר אותיות נקנות במסירה,אמר ליה שאני הכא דאי בעיא קלתיה,איכא דאמרי לא הימנה רב נחמן אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן והא אי בעיא | 31a. The Gemara answers: bAre you settingthe statement of one bman againstthe statement of another bman?Rav Ḥisda holds that a contradiction with regard to secondary details does not disqualify the testimony even in capital law, and Rav Yehuda holds that it does disqualify the testimony. Neither Sage is bound by the statement of the other.,The Sages bof Neharde’a say: Evenif bone saysthat it was ba black coin andthe other bone saysthat it was ba white cointheir testimonies bare combined. /b,The Gemara asks: bIn accordance with whoseopinion is this? Is it bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa,that as long as both witnesses testify that the defendant owes the plaintiff the same sum, the testimonies are combined? bSay that you heard Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥasaying that two testimonies are combined in a case bwhere they do not contradict each other;but in a case bwhere they contradict each other, did he saythat they are combined?, bRather,the Sages of Neharde’a bstatedtheir opinion bin accordance withthe opinion of bthat itanna /i, as it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard toa case of btwo sets of witnesses, where oneset bsaysthat the plaintiff lent the defendant btwo hundreddinars, bandthe other bone saysthat he lent him bone hundred dinars.Both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree that this is not considered a contradiction, and the testimony is accepted concerning the amount of one hundred dinars, bas one hundred dinars issubsumed bwithin two hundred,i.e., testimony concerning a large amount includes testimony concerning a smaller amount., bWith regard to whatcase bdo they disagree?They disagree boverthe case of bone setof two witnesses, where one witness testifies that the defendant owes the plaintiff two hundred dinars, and the other witness says that he owes him one hundred. bAs Beit Shammai saythat btheir testimony is divided.Since they are not testifying about the same amount, the entire testimony is disqualified. bAnd Beit Hillel say: One hundred dinars issubsumed bwithin two hundred.Apparently, according to Beit Hillel’s opinion, as transmitted by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, although the testimonies are not identical, since both attest to the defendant’s liability to pay a certain amount of money, they are combined and accepted to that effect. This is the source for the opinion of the Sages of Neharde’a.,With regard to a case where bonewitness bsaysthat the plaintiff gave the defendant ba barrel of wine, andthe other bone saysthat he gave him ba barrel of oil, there wasactually such ban incident, and it came before Rabbi Ami.Since wine was cheaper than oil, bRabbi Ami deemedthe defendant bliable to paythe plaintiff only the value of ba barrel of wine out ofthe value of ba barrel of oil,an amount both witnesses agreed that he owed.,The Gemara asks: bIn accordance with whoseopinion is this ruling? Is it bin accordance withthe opinion transmitted by bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Say that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar saidthat two contradicting testimonies can be combined in a case bwhere one hundred dinars issubsumed bwithin two hundred;perhaps one of the witnesses saw only half the loan, and the other one saw it all. But in ba case like this,where the testimonies are about completely different items, bdid he saythat they can be combined?,The Gemara answers: bNo,this is not a case of a direct contradiction. This ruling is bnecessaryonly bwith regard to monetary value,i.e., where one witness says that the defendant owes the value of a barrel of wine, and the second one says that he owes the value of a barrel of oil. Therefore, it is comparable to a case of one hundred dinars and two hundred dinars.,With regard to a case where bonewitness bsaysthat the incident took place bon the upper floor [ ibadeyota /i] andthe other bone saysthat it occurred bon the lower floor, Rabbi Ḥanina saysthat ban incidentlike this bcame before RabbiYehuda HaNasi band he combined their testimonies.This was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, that since they agree with regard to the matter itself, the secondary details are insignificant.,§ The mishna teaches: bAnd from whereis it derived that bwhenthe judge bleavesthe courtroom, he should not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? About this it is stated: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but one who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Proverbs 11:13). bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bFrom whereis it derived that bwhenthe judge bleaves he should not say: I deemedyou bexempt and my colleagues deemedyou bliable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered meand consequently you were deemed liable? bThe verse states: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people”(Leviticus 19:16), band it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets”(Proverbs 11:13).,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain student, about whom a rumor emerged that he revealed a statement that was stated in the study halland should have been kept secret, and the rumor emerged btwenty-two years afterthe time the statement was revealed. bRav Ami removed him from the study hallas a punishment. Rav Ami bsaid: This is a revealer of secretsand he cannot be trusted., strongMISHNA: /strong bAny timeone of the litigants bbringsadditional bproof, he can overturn the verdictthat was decided according to previous proofs. If one litigant bsaid tothe other: bBring all the proofs that you have from now until thirty daysfrom now, if bhe foundadditional proof bwithin thirty days, he can overturnthe verdict. If he found it bafter thirty days, he cannot overturnthe verdict anymore., bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:He can still overturn the verdict, as bwhat should thislitigant, bwhosought and bdid not findadditional proof bwithin thirtydays bbut foundit bafter thirtydays, bhave done? /b,In a case where one litigant bsaid tothe other: bBring witnesses, andthe latter bsaid: I have no witnesses,and the former bsaidto him: bBring a proof, and he said: I have no proof, and he later brought a proof or found witnesses,in this case, bthisproof or these witnesses are worth bnothing.It is apparently a false proof or false testimony., bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: What should thislitigant, bwho did not know that he has witnesses andultimately bfound witnesses,or who bdid not know that he has a proof andultimately bfound proof, have done?Therefore, he can still overturn the verdict.,If at the beginning of the discussion in the court one did not bring witnesses or other evidence for his claims, but then bhe saw that hewas about to be bdeemed liableto pay bin the judgment, and said: Bring so-and-so and so-and-so, and they will testify on my behalf, or he pulled out a proof from under his belt [ ipundato /i],even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds bthat this isworth bnothing.If there was truth in the testimony of these witnesses or in this proof, he would not have hidden it until now., strongGEMARA: /strong With regard to the first ihalakhain the mishna, bRabba bar Rav Huna says:The ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabba bar Rav Hunaalso bsays:The ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. /b,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it bobvious? Since he saysthat the ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel, we know by ourselves thatthe ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance withthe statement of bthe Rabbis. /b,The Gemara answers: bLest you saythat bthis statement,that the ihalakhais not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, applies iab initio /i, but after the fact,even if the court ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the ruling is bvalid,as their opinion was not entirely rejected, Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore bteaches us that ifthe court bactsin accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, bwe sendthe case bbackto court.,§ The mishna teaches that in a case where one litigant bsaid tothe other: bBring witnesses,and he admitted that he had none, and he subsequently found witnesses, bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel saidthat their testimony is valid. bRabba bar Rav Huna saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:The ihalakha /iis bin accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. And Rabba bar Rav Hunaalso bsaysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:The ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it bobvious? Since he saysthat the ihalakha /iis bin accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, we know by ourselves thatthe ihalakhais not in accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b,The Gemara answers: bThisstatement of Rabba bar Rav Huna bteaches us thatspecifically bwith regard to that ihalakha /i, the ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel; but with regard to allother statements of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the corpus of the Mishna, the ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b,This is bto the exclusion of that which Rabba bar bar Ḥanna saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says: Anywhere that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taughta ruling bin our Mishna,the ihalakha /iis bin accordance with hisopinion, bexcept forthe following three cases: The responsibility of the bguarantor, andthe incident that occurred in the city of bTzaidan, andthe dispute with regard to bevidencein the bfinaldisagreement. Whereas in the former dispute in the mishna here, the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in the latter dispute in the mishna here, the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabba bar Rav Huna, by contrast, maintains that in the case of a guarantor and in the case in Tzaidan, the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain child who was taken to court before Rav Naḥman. They said to him: Do you have witnesseson your behalf? The child bsaid to them: No.They continued to ask: bDo you have evidence?The child bsaid to them: No. Rav Naḥman deemed him liable,in accordance with the claim of the other litigant.,The child bwas walking and crying. These people heard him,and bsaid to him: We know about themonetary bmatters of your fatherand can testify on your behalf. When he brought them before Rav Naḥman, bRav Naḥman said: Ina case like bthis, even the Rabbis concedethat the testimony is accepted, bas a child does not know about themonetary bmatters of his father.Clearly, when he said that he has no witnesses or proof, he said so out of ignorance and was mistaken; there is no concern about artifice.,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain woman from whose possessiona promissory bnote emerged,i.e., she was appointed to hold it. bShe said tothe judge: bI know that thispromissory bnote was repaid.The creditor should not use it to collect. bRav Naḥman deemed hertestimony bcredibleand did not allow the creditor to collect the debt., bRava said to Rav Naḥman: In accordance with whoseopinion is your ruling? Is it bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, bwho saysthat bletters,i.e., the content of a promissory note, bare acquired bymerely btransferringthe document? In other words, there is no need to write a deed for the transfer of a monetary document from one individual’s ownership to another. By giving it to the recipient, he becomes the owner of the document. Therefore, since the promissory note is in this woman’s possession, she is considered its legal owner, and her claim that it was repaid is consequently accepted.,Rav Naḥman bsaid to him:That is not the reason for my ruling; rather, bhere it is different.Here the woman’s claim is accepted in any event, bas,since the promissory note was in her possession, bif she had wantedto, bshecould have bburned it.Therefore, she is presumably telling the truth., bSome saythat there is another version of the story, according to which bRav Naḥman did not deem hertestimony bcredible. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: But if she had wantedto |
