## Sanhedrin Daf 23b

###### Sanhedrin 23b:1
[Sanhedrin 23b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:1)

וְאָמַר רַב דִּימִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף: כְּגוֹן דְּקַבְּלֵיהּ עֲלֵיהּ בְּחַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Dimi, son of Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Yosef, says:** This is referring to a case **where** the litigant **accepted** one of these people **upon himself as one** of the judges, in addition to two fit judges. Since the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis with regard to a litigant retracting his acceptance of someone who is generally disqualified from judging is stated in the next mishna, why is it stated in this mishna as well?


###### Sanhedrin 23b:2
[Sanhedrin 23b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:2)

צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי תְּנָא ״אַבָּא״ וְ״אָבִיךְ״ – בְּהָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן דְּלָא מָצֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּאַבָּא וְאָבִיךְ חֲזוּ לְעָלְמָא. אֲבָל חַד כְּבֵי תְרֵי, דִּלְעָלְמָא לָא חֲזֵי – אֵימָא: מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The statements in both *mishnayot* are **necessary. As, had** the Mishna **taught** this dispute only with regard to a litigant who said: **My father** is trusted to adjudicate for me, **or: Your father** is trusted to adjudicate for me, one might have reasoned that only **in this** case **did the Rabbis say that he cannot retract** his acceptance, **because: My father, and: Your father, are fit to** judge for **the general public. But** in a case where a litigant accepts **one** witness **as** equivalent to **two** witnesses, since one witness is someone **who is not fit to** testify by himself for **the general public** one might **say** that the Rabbis **concede to Rabbi Meir** that he can retract his acceptance. Therefore, it is necessary for the dispute to be stated with regard to the case in this mishna as well.


###### Sanhedrin 23b:3
[Sanhedrin 23b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:3)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֲבָל בְּהַהִיא – אֵימָא מוֹדוּ לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if** the Mishna **would teach us** their dispute only **with regard to this** case, where a litigant effectively accepted one witness as equivalent to two, one might have reasoned that specifically **in this** case **Rabbi Meir says** that he can retract his acceptance. **But in that** case, where he accepted his father or the father of the other litigant as a judge, one might **say** that Rabbi Meir **concedes to the Rabbis** that he cannot retract his acceptance. It is therefore **necessary** for the mishna to state both disputes.


###### Sanhedrin 23b:4
[Sanhedrin 23b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:4)

הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא ״דַּיָּינוֹ״, וְסֵיפָא ״עֵדָיו״ – אַלְמָא דַּוְקָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But from** the fact **that** in **the former clause** the mishna **teaches** that one litigant can disqualify **the judge,** in singular, chosen **by** the other litigant, **and** in **the latter clause** the wording is **his witnesses,** in plural, **evidently** the mishna **teaches** this **specifically** with regard to a case of two witnesses. It is incorrect to emend the text to read witness instead of witnesses.


###### Sanhedrin 23b:5
[Sanhedrin 23b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בְּבָא הוּא וְאַחֵר לְפוֹסְלָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar said:** The mishna is referring to a case **where** the litigant **and another** person **come to disqualify** the witnesses, testifying that they are disqualified from bearing witness.


###### Sanhedrin 23b:6
[Sanhedrin 23b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:6)

כֹּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ? נוֹגֵעַ בְּעֵדוּתוֹ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is it in his** power to testify that the witnesses of the other litigant are disqualified from bearing witness? **His testimony is** tainted by **a conflict of interest;** how can the court accept it?


###### Sanhedrin 23b:7
[Sanhedrin 23b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:7)

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּרָא עָלָיו עַרְעָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said:** The mishna is referring to a case **where he raised a challenge against** the witness’s fitness to testify, which cannot be disregarded due to his conflict of interest.


###### Sanhedrin 23b:8
[Sanhedrin 23b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:8)

עַרְעָר דְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא עַרְעָר דְּגַזְלָנוּתָא, כֹּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ? נוֹגֵעַ בְּעֵדוּתוֹ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **A challenge over which** matter? **If we say** that he raises **a challenge** by testifying that the witness is guilty **of theft** or some other transgression, **is it in his** power to testify to that effect? **His testimony is** tainted by **a conflict of interest.**


###### Sanhedrin 23b:9
[Sanhedrin 23b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:9)

אֶלָּא: עַרְעָר דִּפְגַם מִשְׁפָּחָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: הָנֵי אַמִּשְׁפָּחָה קָמַסְהֲדִי, וְאִיהוּ מִמֵּילָא קָפָסֵיל. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: סוֹף סוֹף נוֹגֵעַ בְּעֵדוּתוֹ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is **a challenge over a family flaw.** The litigant testifies that the witness’s lineage prevents him from testifying, as he is from a family of Canaanite slaves. **Rabbi Meir holds** that the litigant’s testimony is accepted, as **these** witnesses, the litigant and the witness who testifies with him, **are testifying about the family** of the witness, **and** the witness **is disqualified indirectly.** The litigant is therefore not disqualified from giving this testimony due to his conflict of interest. **And the Rabbis hold** that since **his testimony is ultimately** tainted by **a conflict of interest,** it is not accepted.


###### Sanhedrin 23b:10
[Sanhedrin 23b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:10)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בִּשְׁתֵּי כִּיתֵּי עֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute is with regard to** a case in which one of the litigants claims that there are **two sets of witnesses** who can testify on his behalf, and the other litigant responds that one of the sets of witnesses is disqualified. In this case, the second litigant’s claim is not tainted by a conflict of interest, as there is another set of witnesses who can testify against him in any event.


###### Sanhedrin 23b:11
[Sanhedrin 23b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:11)

דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵר, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵר. אֲבָל בְּכַת אַחַת – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין יָכוֹל לְפוֹסְלָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Meir** maintains that the litigant cannot give this testimony, **as** Rabbi Meir **holds** that a litigant who claims in court to have a certain number of witnesses ready to testify on his behalf **is required to substantiate** that they exist. Therefore, there is no concern that the other set of witnesses will not be brought to court, causing that litigant to lose the case due to the disqualification of the first set. **And the Rabbis hold** that one **is not required to substantiate** the existence of witnesses he claims to have. As the disqualification of the first set of witnesses can cause the first litigant to lose the case, the second litigant is consequently unable to disqualify that first set, due to his conflict of interest. **But in** a case of **one set** of witnesses, **everyone agrees** that a litigant **cannot disqualify them,** due to his conflict of interest.


###### Sanhedrin 23b:12
[Sanhedrin 23b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:12)

אָמְרוּ לְפָנָיו רַב אַמֵּי וְרַב אַסִּי: אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא כַּת אַחַת, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Dimi continued: **Rav Ami and Rav Asi said before** Rabbi Yoḥanan: If there **is only one set** of witnesses **there, what is** the *halakha*?


###### Sanhedrin 23b:13
[Sanhedrin 23b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:13)

אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא כַּת אַחַת? וְהָאָמְרַתְּ: אֲבָל בְּכַת אַחַת דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין יָכוֹל לְפוֹסְלָן! אֶלָּא, נִמְצֵאת כַּת שְׁנִיָּה קְרוֹבִין אוֹ פְסוּלִין – מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interrupts: If there **is only one set** of witnesses **there,** what is the dilemma? **But didn’t you** already **say: But in** a case of **one set** of witnesses, **everyone agrees** that a litigant **cannot disqualify them? Rather,** the question should be understood as follows: According to Rabbi Meir, who holds that a litigant can disqualify one of the other litigant’s two sets of witnesses, if **the second set is** ultimately **found to be related** to one of the litigants or to each other, **or is disqualified** from bearing witness for other reasons, **what is** the *halakha*? Can the litigant whose witnesses were disqualified then claim that the other litigant was not capable of disqualifying the first set, as it turned out that they were the only witnesses who would be testifying against him?


###### Sanhedrin 23b:14
[Sanhedrin 23b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:14)

אָמַר לָהֶן: כְּבָר הֵעִידוּ עֵדִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כְּבָר הֵעִידוּ עֵדִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to them: The first** pair of **witnesses,** i.e., the second litigant, who disqualified the other litigant’s first set of witnesses, **already testified.** Since his testimony was valid at the time it cannot be disqualified afterward. **Some say** this statement in the name of a different *amora*: **Rav Ashi says: The first** pair of **witnesses already testified.**


###### Sanhedrin 23b:15
[Sanhedrin 23b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:15)

נֵימָא, בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל קָמִיפַּלְגִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Shall we say** that Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis **disagree with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute between Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?**


###### Sanhedrin 23b:16
[Sanhedrin 23b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:16)

דְּתַנְיָא: הַבָּא לִידּוֹן בִּשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה, נִידּוֹן בִּשְׁטָר – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: נִידּוֹן בַּחֲזָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who comes** to court **to be judged** concerning a claim against land that is in his possession, if in order to support his claim of ownership he comes to court both **with a deed** of purchase proving that the land is his **and with** a claim of **presumptive ownership** of the land stating that it had been in his possession for the past three years, which would render the deed superfluous, in this case his claim **is judged on the basis of the deed.** The court examines whether or not the deed is valid. This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** His claim **is judged on the basis of** his **presumptive ownership.**


###### Sanhedrin 23b:17
[Sanhedrin 23b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:17)

וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: בַּחֲזָקָה וְלֹא בִּשְׁטָר? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אַף בַּחֲזָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we discussed** this dispute, asking: Can Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel possibly mean that the defendant’s claim is judged **on the basis of** only his **presumptive ownership and not on the basis of** his **deed,** i.e., is his deed of purchase ignored? Clearly, there is no reason to ignore the deed of purchase. **Rather, say** that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel means that the defendant’s claim is judged not only on the basis of the deed of purchase, but **even on the basis of** his **presumptive ownership.** In other words, either claim suffices.


###### Sanhedrin 23b:18
[Sanhedrin 23b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:18)

וְקַיְימָא לַן, דִּבְצָרִיךְ לְבָרֵר פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we maintain that they disagree with regard to** whether or not a litigant who claims to have more than one type of evidence is **required to substantiate** the existence of all his types of evidence. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that one who claims to have a deed of purchase is required to bring it to court and cannot rely on his presumptive ownership, whereas according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel he can rely on his presumptive ownership. Apparently, this dispute is parallel to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis in the mishna.


###### Sanhedrin 23b:19
[Sanhedrin 23b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:19)

לָא. אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי. דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר כְּרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No. According to** the opinion **of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, everyone agrees** that there is no need to substantiate the existence of all the types of evidence. **When** Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis **disagree** in the mishna it is **according to** the opinion **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **as Rabbi Meir** holds that one is required to substantiate the existence of all of his types of evidence, **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Sanhedrin 23b:20
[Sanhedrin 23b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:20)

וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי לָךְ: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי הָתָם אֶלָּא בַּחֲזָקָה, דְּמִכֹּחַ שְׁטָרָא קָאָתֵי. אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּהָנֵי עֵדִים לָאו מִכֹּחַ עֵדִים אַחֲרִינֵי קָאָתוּ, אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מוֹדֶה דְּאֵין צָרִיךְ לְבָרֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis** could have **said to you** that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says there** that one is required to substantiate the existence of his types of evidence **only vis-à-vis** a claim of **presumptive ownership** of the land. If one claims that he possesses the deed of sale for his land he cannot rely on his presumptive ownership, **as** the power of his presumptive ownership **comes from the power of the deed;** mere possession without an accompanying claim of how one became the owner is disregarded (see *Bava Batra* 41a). **But here,** in the case of two sets of witnesses, **since** the power of **these witnesses does not come from the power of the other witnesses, even Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **concedes that one is not required to substantiate** the existence of the other set of witnesses.


###### Sanhedrin 23b:21
[Sanhedrin 23b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/23b:21)

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רֵישָׁא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** a different interpretation of the dispute: **The former clause,** where Rabbi Meir rules that a litigant can disqualify a judge,