## Bava Batra Daf 31b

###### Bava Batra 31b:1
[Bava Batra 31b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/31b:1)

בַּאֲבָהָתָא מִי אִתַּכְחַשׁ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**was** the testimony **contradicted with regard to** ownership of **the ancestors?**


###### Bava Batra 31b:2
[Bava Batra 31b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/31b:2)

לֵימָא רָבָא וְרַב נַחְמָן – בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא קָמִיפַּלְגִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Shall we say that Rava and Rav Naḥman disagree in the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda?**


###### Bava Batra 31b:3
[Bava Batra 31b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/31b:3)

דְּאִיתְּמַר: שְׁתֵּי כִּתֵּי עֵדִים הַמַּכְחִישׁוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ – אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: זוֹ בָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וּמְעִידָה, וְזוֹ בָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וּמְעִידָה. וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: בַּהֲדֵי סָהֲדֵי שַׁקָּרֵי לְמָה לִי? לֵימָא רַב נַחְמָן – דְּאָמַר כְּרַב הוּנָא, וְרָבָא כְּרַב חִסְדָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As** it **was stated** concerning **two groups of witnesses that contradict each other,** that **Rav Huna says: This** one **comes** to court **on its own and testifies, and that** one **comes** to court **on its own and testifies.** Despite the fact that one group certainly testified falsely, which should serve to disqualify one of the groups, each group is able to testify in another case. **And Rav Ḥisda says: Why do I** need **these lying witnesses?** In other words, they are all disqualified to testify in another case until it is clarified which of them had testified falsely. The Gemara asks: **Shall we say** that **Rav Naḥman** is the one **who says** his ruling **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Huna, and Rava** says his ruling **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Ḥisda?**


###### Bava Batra 31b:4
[Bava Batra 31b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/31b:4)

אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – אַלִּיבָּא דְרַב הוּנָא. רַב נַחְמָן – כְּרַב הוּנָא. וְרָבָא – עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אֶלָּא לְעֵדוּת אַחֶרֶת, אֲבָל לְאוֹתָהּ עֵדוּת – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **According to** the opinion **of Rav Ḥisda,** who holds that the witnesses are disqualified, **everyone agrees** that the testimony concerning ancestral ownership is not accepted, as the witnesses were contradicted concerning their testimony of usage of the land, and Rav Naḥman’s ruling cannot accord with his opinion. **When** Rav Naḥman and Rava **disagree** it is **according to** the opinion **of Rav Huna,** who does not disqualify the witnesses. The ruling of **Rav Naḥman** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Huna,** and he therefore accepts the testimony with regard to ancestral ownership, **and Rava** would say: **Rav Huna says** that the witnesses are accepted **only for another testimony,** i.e., in a different case. **But** they are **not** accepted **for the same testimony,** as in this incident, where both testimonies concerned ownership of the same land.


###### Bava Batra 31b:5
[Bava Batra 31b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/31b:5)

הֲדַר אַיְיתִי סָהֲדֵי דַּאֲבָהָתֵיהּ הִיא. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אֲנַן אַחֲתִינֵּיהּ, אֲנַן מַסְּקִינַן לֵיהּ; לְזִילוּתָא דְבֵי דִינָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates the continuation of the case above. The one who had brought witnesses only to his having profited from the land **then brought witnesses that it** had belonged **to his ancestors,** thereby balancing the evidence for the two litigants. Therefore, **Rav Naḥman said: We** previously **brought down** to the land the one who initially had evidence of ancestral ownership to take possession of it, and **we** now **bring him up** from it, removing him from the land. And **we** are **not concerned about** the possible **contempt of court** that might result from perceived indecisiveness.


###### Bava Batra 31b:6
[Bava Batra 31b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/31b:6)

מֵתִיב רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי זְעֵירָא: שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים מֵת, וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לָא מֵת; שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִתְגָּרְשָׁה, וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִתְגָּרְשָׁה – הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא, וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לֹא תֵּצֵא. רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: תֵּצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava, and some say** it is **Rabbi Zeira, raises an objection** from a *baraita*. If there was a married man whose fate was unknown, and **two** witnesses **say:** This married man **died, and two** witnesses **say: He did not die;** or if **two** witnesses **say:** This woman **was divorced, and two** witnesses **say: She was not divorced, this** woman **may not marry,** as there is not unequivocal testimony that she is no longer married, **but if she marries,** the marriage is valid and **she** need **not leave** her husband. **Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: She** must **leave** her husband.


###### Bava Batra 31b:7
[Bava Batra 31b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/31b:7)

אָמַר רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵימָתַי אֲנִי אוֹמֵר תֵּצֵא – בִּזְמַן שֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשֵּׂאת; אֲבָל נִשֵּׂאת וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּאוּ עֵדִים – הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵּצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: When do I say** that **she** must **leave** her husband? She must leave him **in** a case **where witnesses came** to testify that she is still married **and she then married** despite their testimony. **But** if **she married and the witnesses then came** to testify that she is still married, **this** woman is **not** required to **leave** her husband based on the uncertainty created by contradictory witnesses. The fact that she is not required to leave her marriage in light of the new testimony seems to indicate an unwillingness to reverse the court’s ruling that she may marry, contrary to the ruling of Rav Naḥman.


###### Bava Batra 31b:8
[Bava Batra 31b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/31b:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא סְבַרִי לְמֶעְבַּד עוֹבָדָא; הַשְׁתָּא דְּאוֹתֵיבְתַּן אַתְּ, וְאוֹתְבַן רַב הַמְנוּנָא בְּסוּרְיָא – לָא עָבֵידְנָא בַּהּ עוֹבָדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **said to him: I** had **thought to perform an action** and reverse the court’s ruling, but **now that you raised an objection against me, and Rav Hamnuna** also **raised a** similar **objection against me in Syria,** I will **not perform an action in this** matter.


###### Bava Batra 31b:9
[Bava Batra 31b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/31b:9)

נְפַק עֲבַד עוֹבָדָא. מַאן דַּחֲזָא, סָבַר: טָעוּתָא הִיא בִּידֵיהּ; וְלָא הִיא, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּתַלְיָא בְּאַשְׁלֵי רַבְרְבֵי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman then **went out** and **performed an action,** taking away the land from the litigant in whose favor he had previously ruled. **One who saw** what he did **thought** that **he** made **a mistake, but** that **is not so. Rather,** he performed an action despite the objections that had been raised **because** the matter **depends on great authorities [*ashlei ravrevei*].** Since, as the Gemara will demonstrate, this issue is subject to dispute between great authorities, he relied on those that supported his opinion.


###### Bava Batra 31b:10
[Bava Batra 31b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/31b:10)

דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַעֲלִין לַכְּהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵימָתַי – בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עוֹרְרִין, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹרְרִין – מַעֲלִין לַכְּהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן הַסְּגָן: מַעֲלִין לַכְּהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Ketubot* 23b): **Rabbi Yehuda says: One is not elevated to the** presumptive status of **priesthood on the basis** of the testimony **of one witness.** Two witnesses are required for that purpose. **Rabbi Elazar says: When** is that the *halakha*? **In** a case **where there are challengers** to his claim that he is a priest. **But in** a case **where there are no challengers, one is elevated to the** presumptive status of **priesthood on the basis** of the testimony **of one witness. Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy** High Priest: **One is elevated to the** presumptive status of **priesthood on the basis** of the testimony **of one witness.**


###### Bava Batra 31b:11
[Bava Batra 31b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/31b:11)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַיְינוּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר! וְכִי תֵּימָא: עַרְעָר חַד אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר: עַרְעָר חַד,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: The opinion of **Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel is** identical to the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar,** as they agree that one is elevated to the presumptive status of priesthood on the basis of one witness when there are no challengers. What is their dispute? **And if you would say** that **there is** a practical difference **between them** in a case where there is **a challenge** posed by **one** person, as **Rabbi Elazar holds: A challenge** posed by **one** person is sufficient to undermine one’s presumptive status of priesthood, and two witnesses are required to overcome that challenge;