## Bava Batra Daf 32a

###### Bava Batra 32a:1
[Bava Batra 32a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/32a:1)

וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: עַרְעָר – תְּרֵי; וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין עַרְעָר פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel holds** that an effective **challenge** requires **two** witnesses, one could then ask: **But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Everyone agrees** that **there is no** effective **challenge** with **fewer than two** witnesses?


###### Bava Batra 32a:2
[Bava Batra 32a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/32a:2)

אֶלָּא עַרְעָר תְּרֵי; וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּמַחְזְקִינַן לֵיהּ בַּאֲבוּהּ דְּהַאי – דְּכֹהֵן הוּא; וּנְפַק עֲלֵיהּ קָלָא דְּבֶן גְּרוּשָׁה וּבֶן חֲלוּצָה הוּא, וְאַחֲתִינֵּיהּ; וַאֲתָא עֵד אֶחָד וְאָמַר דְּכֹהֵן הוּא, וְאַסְּקִינֵּיהּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the **challenge** was established by **two** witnesses. **And with what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where we presume with regard to the father of that** man **that he is a priest, and a rumor emerged about** the son **that he is the son of** a priest and **a divorced woman, or the son of** a priest and **a *ḥalutza*, and we downgraded him** from the presumptive status of priesthood based on that rumor, **and one witness came and said that** the man in question **is a priest** of unflawed lineage, **and we elevated** him back to the priesthood, as one witness is sufficient to negate a rumor.


###### Bava Batra 32a:3
[Bava Batra 32a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/32a:3)

וַאֲתוֹ בֵּי תְרֵי וְאָמְרִי דְּבֶן גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה הוּא, וְאַחֲתִינֵּיהּ; וַאֲתָא עֵד אֶחָד וְאָמַר דְּכֹהֵן הוּא. וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – מִצְטָרְפִין עֵדוּת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues the case: **And** then **two** witnesses **came and said that he is the son of a divorced woman or** the son of **a *ḥalutza*, and we downgraded him** from the priesthood based on their testimony. Then **one witness came and said that he is a priest** of unflawed lineage, resulting in two witnesses testifying that his lineage is unflawed, and two testifying that it is flawed. **And everyone** agrees that the **testimony** of the two single witnesses **combine** to produce testimony that he is a priest of unflawed lineage, and his presumptive status of priesthood should be restored.


###### Bava Batra 32a:4
[Bava Batra 32a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/32a:4)

וְהָכָא בְּמֵיחַשׁ לְזִילוּתָא דְבֵי דִינָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְאַחֲתִינֵּיהּ – לָא מַסְּקִינַן לֵיהּ, חָיְישִׁינַן לְזִילוּתָא דְבֵי דִינָא. וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: אֲנַן אַחֲתִינֵּיהּ, וַאֲנַן מַסְּקִינַן לֵיהּ; וּלְזִילוּתָא דְבֵי דִּינָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the dispute: **And here** it is **with regard to concern about contempt of court** that **they disagree. Rabbi Elazar holds: Once we downgraded him** from the presumptive status of priesthood based on the testimony of two witnesses, **we do not** then **elevate him,** as **we are concerned about contempt of court,** as a reversal in the court’s decision creates the impression that the court operates indecisively. **And Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel holds: We downgraded him** from the presumptive status of priesthood **and we** then **elevate him, and we are not concerned about contempt of court.** The primary concern is that the matter should be determined based on the relevant testimonies.


###### Bava Batra 32a:5
[Bava Batra 32a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/32a:5)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא חַד? אֲפִילּוּ בִּתְרֵי נָמֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְזִילוּתָא דְבֵי דִינָא; וְהָכָא – בִּלְצָרֵף עֵדוּת קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְהָנֵי תַנָּאֵי –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi objects to** the analysis that they disagree with regard to concern about contempt of court: **If so, why specifically** is it necessary to establish the dispute in a case where first **one** witness testified as to his unflawed lineage, and then another testified later? **The same would hold true even in** a case where two witnesses testified together that he is unfit for the priesthood and the court downgraded him, and **two** witnesses testified together that he is fit for the priesthood and the court elevated him. The *tanna’im* would **also** disagree, as the same concern applies. **Rather, Rav Ashi said: Everyone** agrees that **we are not concerned about contempt of court. And here,** it is **with regard to** whether the court is able **to combine** the **testimony** of two single witnesses that **they disagree, and** it is **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the** following **dispute between these *tanna’im*.**


###### Bava Batra 32a:6
[Bava Batra 32a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/32a:6)

דְּתַנְיָא: לְעוֹלָם אֵין עֵדוּתָן מִצְטָרֶפֶת, עַד שֶׁיִּרְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה. אֵין עֵדוּתָן מִתְקַיֶּימֶת בְּבֵית דִּין, עַד שֶׁיָּעִידוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאֶחָד. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹמְעִין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל זֶה הַיּוֹם, וּלִכְשֶׁיָּבֹא חֲבֵירוֹ לְמָחָר – שׁוֹמְעִין דְּבָרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Sanhedrin* 5:5): The **testimony** of individual witnesses **never combines unless** it is so **that the two of them see** the incident transpire together **as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:** Their testimony combines **even in** a case where they witnessed the event **one after the other,** but **their testimony is established in court only** if it is so **that the two of them testify** together **as one. Rabbi Natan says:** They are not required to testify together. Their testimony is combined even if the court **hears the statement of this** witness **today and when the other** witness **arrives tomorrow** the court **hears his statement.** Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis, whether the separate testimonies can be combined.


###### Bava Batra 32a:7
[Bava Batra 32a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/32a:7)

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְחַבְרֵיהּ: מַאי בָּעֵית בְּהַאי אַרְעָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִינָּךְ זְבֵינְתַּהּ, וְהָא שְׁטָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates an incident where two people disputed the ownership of land. There was **a certain** person **who said to another: What do you want with this land** of mine? The possessor **said to him: I purchased it from you, and this** is **the bill** of sale.