Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY

(a) (Chachamim of Neharda'a): Even if they argue about the color of the coins, the testimony is valid.
(b) Suggestion: This is like R. Yehoshua ben Korchah.
(c) Rejection: We know that R. Yehoshua ben Korchah only joins testimonies when they do not contradict each other, we have no source that he joins in this case!
(d) Rather, Chachamim of Neharda'a hold like the following Tana.

1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai agree that if one pair of witnesses says that Reuven owes 100, and the other says that he owes 200, he must pay 100 (for all agree that he owes at least 100);
2. They argue when one witness says 100, the other 200: Beis Shamai consider this contradictory testimony (and Reuven is exempt), Beis Hillel obligate him to pay 100.

(e) A case occurred, one witness said that Reuven owed a barrel of wine, one said that he owed a barrel of oil; R. Ami made Reuven pay a barrel of wine (which is worth less than oil).
(f) Suggestion: This is like R. Shimon ben Elazar.
(g) Objection: R. Shimon ben Elazar only obligated in a case of 100 and 200, for 100 is included in 200 - we have no source to say that he obligates regarding wine and oil.
(h) Answer: The case is, the witnesses argued about whether he owed *the value of* a barrel of wine or of oil.
(i) A case occurred, one witness said that Reuven borrowed money from Shimon on the top floor, one said that he borrowed on the bottom floor; Rebbi joined the testimonies (like Rav Yehudah).
(j) (Mishnah): Question: What is the source that when they leave...
(k) (Beraisa) Question: What is the source that afterwards, a judge may not tell Ploni 'I wanted to acquit you, but they outnumbered me'?
(l) Answer: It says "Lo Selech Rachil b'Amecha" and "Holech Rachil Megaleh Sod".
(m) A matter was said in the Beis Medrash, it became known that a certain Talmid revealed it 22 years later - R. Ami expelled him from the Beis Medrash, because he reveals secrets.

(a) (Mishnah): If a party later brings a proof, it overturns the verdict.
(b) If Reuven was told to bring his proofs within 30 days, and he found proof within 30 days, it overturns the verdict;

1. If he found proof after 30 days, it does not overturn the verdict;
2. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, what should he have done, he did not find until after 30 days! (Therefore, it overturns the verdict.)

(c) Reuven was told to bring witnesses or a proof, and he said that he does not have; if he later finds witnesses or a proof, he may not use them;
(d) R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, what should he have done, he did not know at the time! (Therefore, he may use them.)

1. If he saw that he was going to lose the case and said 'Ploni and Almoni, come to testify!', or he pulled a proof out of his belt, it is invalid.

(e) (Gemara - Rabah bar Rav Huna): The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel (in the first law).
(f) (Rabah bar Rav Huna): The Halachah does not follow Chachamim.
(g) Objection: Since the Halachah follows R. Shimon, obviously it does not follow Chachamim!
(h) Answer: One might have thought, l'Chatchilah we follow R. Shimon, but if a judge ruled like Chachamim his verdict stands - Rabah teaches, this is not so.
(i) (Mishnah): Reuven was told to bring witnesses...R. Shimon ben Gamliel says...
(j) (Rabah bar Rav Huna): The Halachah follows Chachamim.
(k) (Rabah bar Rav Huna citing R. Yochanan): The Halachah does not follow R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
(l) Objection: Since the Halachah follows Chachamim, obviously it does not follow R. Shimon!
(m) Answer: He teaches that in this law, the Halachah does not follow R. Shimon ben Gamliel, but in *all* other Mishnayos, the Halachah follows him; he argues with Rabah bar bar Chanah.
(n) (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan): The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel in all Mishnayos except for three: the Mishnah of an Arev, the Get in Tzidon, and the litigant who found a proof after he said that he does not have one.
(o) A child was summonsed to judgment in front of Rav Nachman. He was asked if he has witnesses or a proof, and he said that he does not; Rav Nachman obligated him, the child left crying.

1. Ploni and Almoni heard about this; they came and said 'We know about his father's affairs'!
2. Rav Nachman: Even Chachamim admit in this case, for a child does not know about his father's affairs.

(a) A woman was holding a document (the lender and borrower entrusted her with it); she said 'I know that it was paid'.
(b) Version #1: Rav Nachman acted according to her words.
(c) Question (Rava): Is this like Rebbi, who says that a document is acquired by handing it over (therefore, it is like hers, she is believed about it)?
(d) Answer (Rav Nachman): It is even like Chachamim - she is believed because she could have burned the document if she wanted.
(e) Version #2: Rav Nachman did not believe her.
(f) Question (Rava): She should be believed because she could have burned the document if she wanted!

(g) Answer (Rav Nachman): Once a document has been seen in Beis Din, one is not believed (to disqualify it) Migo (because) he could have burned it.
(h) Question (Rava - Beraisa): A receipt which has witnesses is validated through the signatures;

1. If it has no witnesses, and a third party holds it or it is written on the loan document below the signatures, it is valid.
2. If a third party holds it, it is valid (the third party is believed, even though Beis Din saw the document).
3. If it is written on the loan document below the signatures, it is valid (the lender would not allow them to taint his document unless he was really paid).

(i) Rav Nachman is refuted.

(a) (Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan): One can always bring proofs, until he seals his claim (he says that he has no more proofs) and then says 'Ploni and Almoni, come testify for me!'
(b) Objection: The first part of this is like Chachamim (once he seals his claim, he cannot bring *any* proof), the end is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel (he cannot bring a proof that he had from the beginning, e.g. 'Ploni and Almoni, come testify for me!', but if he later finds a proof, he can bring it)!

1. Suggestion: The entire law is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, the end explains the beginning: sealing his claim means, saying 'Ploni and Almoni, come testify for me!'
2. Rejection: R. Yochanan said that the Halachah does not follow R. Shimon ben Gamliel in this case!

(c) (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah citing R. Yochanan): One can always bring proofs, until he says that he has no more witnesses or proofs;

1. If witnesses come from overseas, or if his father's documents were deposit by someone else, he may use them to overturn the verdict.

(a) (Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan): If Reuven was an overbearing litigant, and he wanted to take Shimon to a local Beis Din, Shimon may insist that they go to the Beis ha'Va'ad (where there are great Chachamim, Reuven will be embarrassed in front of them).
(b) Objection (R. Elazar): If Reuven is owed 100 Zuz by Shimon, must he spend 100 Zuz travelling to the Beis ha'Va'ad?!
(c) (R. Elazar): Rather, Reuven can force Shimon to go to a Beis Din in their city.
(d) (Rav Safra): If Levi and Yehudah were quarreling, Levi wants to go to a local Beis Din, Yehudah wants to go to the Beis ha'Va'ad, Levi can force him to be judged here;

1. If the local Beis Din does not know the law, they will (send a message and) ask the Beis ha'Va'ad.
2. If a litigant asks to know the reason for the verdict, they write it for him.
3. A Yevamah goes to the Yavam to do Chalitzah.

(e) Question: How far does her obligation extend?
(f) Answer (R. Ami): Even from Tiverya to Tzipori (even though Tiverya has a greater Beis Din).
(g) (Rav Kahana): He learns from "V'Kor'u Lo Ziknei Iro (of the Yavam)" - not the Zekenim of her city.
(h) (Ameimar): The Halachah is, we force him to go to the Beis ha'Va'ad.
(i) Question (Rav Ashi): But R. Elazar taught, he can force him to go to a Beis Din in their city!
(j) Answer: The lender can force the borrower (whether he wants to be judged here or in the Beis ha'Va'ad) - "V'Eved Loveh l'Ish Malveh".
(k) The Beis Din of Tiverya sent to Mar Ukva (in Bavel): Ukvan (of Bavel) claims that his brother Yirmeyah castrated him (some say - monetarily cheated him); (you, Mar Ukva) tell Yirmeyah (to come to you) for judgment, force him be judged (here) in Tiverya.
(l) Question: It says 'tell him' - this implies that Mar Ukva should judge him; 'force him to be judged in Tiverya' implies that Mar Ukva should send him here!
(m) Answer #1: They told him, you should judge him (there) - if he does not listen, persuade him to come before us in Tiverya.
(n) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It was a case of a fine, which we do not judge in Bavel;

1. They sent to Mar Ukva (even though he cannot judge it) to show honor to him.