## Sanhedrin Daf 32b

###### Sanhedrin 32b:1
[Sanhedrin 32b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:1)

טָעוּ – לֹא יְשַׁלְּמוּ? כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁתִּנְעוֹל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוֹוִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
then if the judges **erred they should not** need to **pay** the party they wronged, as they can claim that they were prevented from examining the witnesses effectively. The Gemara answers: If that were to be the *halakha*, **all the more so that** this **would lock the door in the face of** potential **borrowers.** If people know that the courts are not responsible for an error in judgment, they will not be willing to lend money.


###### Sanhedrin 32b:2
[Sanhedrin 32b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:2)

רָבָא אָמַר: מַתְנִיתִין דְּהָכָא בְּדִינֵי קְנָסוֹת, וְאִידַּךְ בְּהוֹדָאוֹת וְהַלְוָאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** The ruling of **the mishna here,** that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated **with regard to laws of fines,** not standard cases of monetary law. **And the other** sources, i.e., the mishna in tractate *Shevi’it* and the *baraita*, which do not require inquiry and interrogation, are stated **with regard to** cases of **admissions and loans,** in which there is cause to relax the procedures of deliberation, as explained.


###### Sanhedrin 32b:3
[Sanhedrin 32b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:3)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּהוֹדָאָה וְהַלְוָאָה. כָּאן – בְּדִין מְרוּמֶּה, כָּאן – בְּדִין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְרוּמֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says: This and that,** i.e., both the mishna here and the other sources, are stated **with regard to** cases of **an admission and a loan.** The distinction between them is that the mishna **here,** which rules that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated **with regard to** a possibly **fraudulent trial,** where the court suspects that one party is attempting to defraud the other party and have witnesses offer false testimony on his own behalf. **There,** in the *baraita* and in the mishna in tractate *Shevi’it*, which do not require inquiry and interrogation, the ruling is stated **with regard to a trial that** does **not** appear **fraudulent.**


###### Sanhedrin 32b:4
[Sanhedrin 32b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:4)

כִּדְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ״, וּכְתִיב ״צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף״. הָא כֵּיצַד? כָּאן – בְּדִין מְרוּמֶּה, כָּאן – בְּדִין שֶׁאֵין מְרוּמֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This distinction is **in accordance with** the statement **of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish raises a contradiction** between two verses: It **is written** in one verse: **“In justice shall you judge your neighbor”** (Leviticus 19:15), **and** it **is written** in another verse: **“Justice, justice, shall you follow”** (Deuteronomy 16:20), with the repetition indicating that it is not enough to merely judge with justice. He continues: **How** can **these** texts be reconciled? **Here,** this latter verse is stated **with regard to** a possibly **fraudulent trial,** where the court must take extra care to judge with justice; and **there,** that former verse is stated **with regard to a trial that** does **not** appear **fraudulent.**


###### Sanhedrin 32b:5
[Sanhedrin 32b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:5)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מַתְנִיתִין כִּדְשַׁנִּין, קְרָאֵי אֶחָד לְדִין וְאֶחָד לִפְשָׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi says:** The ruling of **the mishna here,** that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is **as we answered,** i.e., in accordance with any one of the answers offered by the other *amora’im*. And those **verses** were not stated with regard to fraudulent trials; rather, **one** is stated **with regard to judgment,** in which the court must pursue justice extensively, **and one** is stated **with regard to compromise.**


###### Sanhedrin 32b:6
[Sanhedrin 32b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:6)

כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף״ – אֶחָד לְדִין וְאֶחָד לִפְשָׁרָה. כֵּיצַד? שְׁתֵּי סְפִינוֹת עוֹבְרוֹת בַּנָּהָר וּפָגְעוּ זֶה בָּזֶה, אִם עוֹבְרוֹת שְׁתֵּיהֶן – שְׁתֵּיהֶן טוֹבְעוֹת, בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹבְרוֹת. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי גְּמַלִּים שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹלִים בְּמַעֲלוֹת בֵּית חוֹרוֹן וּפָגְעוּ זֶה בָּזֶה, אִם עָלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן – שְׁנֵיהֶן נוֹפְלִין, בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – שְׁנֵיהֶן עוֹלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: When the verse states: **“Justice, justice, shall you follow,” one** mention of “justice” is stated **with regard to judgment and one** is stated **with regard to compromise. How so?** Where there are **two boats traveling on the river and they encounter each other, if both of them** attempt to **pass, both of them sink,** as the river is not wide enough for both to pass. If they pass **one after the other, both of them pass. And similarly,** where there are **two camels who were ascending the ascent of Beit Ḥoron,** where there is a narrow steep path, **and they encounter each other, if both of them** attempt to **ascend, both of them fall.** If they ascend **one after the other, both of them ascend.**


###### Sanhedrin 32b:7
[Sanhedrin 32b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:7)

הָא כֵּיצַד? טְעוּנָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה – תִּידָּחֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה מִפְּנֵי טְעוּנָה. קְרוֹבָה וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרוֹבָה – תִּידָּחֶה קְרוֹבָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרוֹבָה. הָיוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן קְרוֹבוֹת, שְׁתֵּיהֶן רְחוֹקוֹת – הָטֵל פְּשָׁרָה בֵּינֵיהֶן, וּמֵעֲלוֹת שָׂכָר זוֹ לָזוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How** does one decide which of them should go first? If there is one boat that is **laden and** one boat **that is not laden,** the needs of the one **that is not laden should be overridden due to** the needs of the one **that is laden.** If there is one boat that is **close** to its destination **and** one boat **that is not close** to its destination, the needs of the one that is **close should be overridden due to** the needs of the one **that is not close.** If **both of them were close** to their destinations, or **both of them were far** from their destinations, **impose a compromise between them** to decide which goes first, **and** the owners of the boats **pay a fee to one other,** i.e., the owners of the first boat compensate the owner of the boat that waits, for any loss incurred.


###### Sanhedrin 32b:8
[Sanhedrin 32b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:8)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף״ – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר בֵּית דִּין יָפֶה, אַחַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְלוֹד, אַחַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי לִבְרוּר חַיִל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** The verse states: **“Justice, justice, shall you follow.”** This teaches that one should **follow the best,** most prestigious, **court** of the generation. For example, follow **after Rabbi Eliezer to Lod, after Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai to Beror Ḥayil.**


###### Sanhedrin 32b:9
[Sanhedrin 32b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:9)

תָּנָא: קוֹל רֵיחַיִם בְּבוּרְנִי – שְׁבוּעַ הַבֵּן, שְׁבוּעַ הַבֵּן. אוֹר הַנֵּר בִּבְרוּר חַיִל – מִשְׁתֶּה שָׁם, מִשְׁתֶּה שָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **taught:** When the gentile authorities issued decrees outlawing observance of the mitzvot, members of Jewish communities devised clandestine ways of indicating observance of mitzvot to each other. For example: If one produces **the sound of a millstone in** the city called **Burni,** this is tantamount to announcing: **Week of the son, week of the son,** i.e., there will be a circumcision. If one displays the **light of a lamp in** the city called **Beror Ḥayil,** this is tantamount to announcing: There is a wedding **feast there,** there is a wedding **feast there.**


###### Sanhedrin 32b:10
[Sanhedrin 32b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:10)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף״ – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר חֲכָמִים לִישִׁיבָה. אַחַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְלוֹד, אַחַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי לִבְרוּר חַיִל, אַחַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לִפְקִיעִין, אַחַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְיַבְנֶה, אַחַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לִבְנֵי בְרָק, אַחַר רַבִּי מַתְיָא לְרוֹמִי, אַחַר רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן תְּרַדְיוֹן לְסִיכְנִי, אַחַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְצִיפּוֹרִי, אַחַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה לִנְצִיבִין, אַחַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לַגּוֹלָה, אַחַר רַבִּי לְבֵית שְׁעָרִים, אַחַר חֲכָמִים לְלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** The verse states: **“Justice, justice, shall you follow.”** This teaches that one should **follow the Sages to the academy** where they are found. For example, follow **after Rabbi Eliezer to Lod, after Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai to Beror Ḥayil, after Rabbi Yehoshua to Peki’in, after Rabban Gamliel to Yavne, after Rabbi Akiva to Bnei Brak, after Rabbi Matya to Rome [*Romi*], after Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon to Sikhnei, after Rabbi Yosei to Tzippori, after Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira to Netzivin, after Rabbi Yehoshua to the exile [*gola*],** i.e., Babylonia, **after Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **to Beit She’arim,** and **after the Sages** in the time of the Temple **to the Chamber of Hewn Stone.**


###### Sanhedrin 32b:11
[Sanhedrin 32b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:11)

דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת פּוֹתְחִין כּוּ׳. הֵיכִי אָמְרִינַן? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הָכִי אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ: מִי יֵימַר כִּדְקָאָמְרִיתוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that in cases of **monetary law,** the court **opens** the deliberations either with a claim to exempt the accused, or with a claim to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court opens the deliberations with a claim to acquit the accused, but does not open the deliberations with a claim to find him liable. The Gemara asks: **How do we say** this opening stage of the deliberations? In other words, with what claim does the court begin deliberating? **Rav Yehuda said: We say this to** the witnesses: **Who says** that the event occurred **as you said?** Perhaps you erred?


###### Sanhedrin 32b:12
[Sanhedrin 32b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ עוּלָּא: וְהָא חָסְמִינַן לְהוּ? וְלִיחַסְמוּ! מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, מַסִּיעִין אֶת הָעֵדִים מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּיטָּרֵף דַּעְתָּן וְיַחְזְרוּ בָּהֶן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said to him: But** by confronting the witnesses in this manner, **we silence them.** The witnesses will think that the court suspects them of lying, and they will not testify. Rav Yehuda said to him: **And let them be silenced. Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 9:1): **Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer says:** In cases of capital law, the court **brings the witnesses from** one **place to** another **place in order to confuse them so that they will retract** their testimony if they are lying.


###### Sanhedrin 32b:13
[Sanhedrin 32b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:13)

מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם מִמֵּילָא קָא מִידְּחוּ, הָכָא קָא דָחֵינַן לְהוּ בְּיָדַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **Are** the *halakhot* **comparable? There,** where Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer says to bring the witnesses from place to place, the witnesses **are repressed by themselves,** whereas **here, we repress them by** direct **action,** and that the court should not do.


###### Sanhedrin 32b:14
[Sanhedrin 32b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:14)

אֶלָּא אָמַר עוּלָּא: הָכִי אָמְרִינַן, ״יֵשׁ לְךָ עֵדִים לַהֲזִימָּם?״ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: וְכִי פּוֹתְחִין בִּזְכוּתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה שֶׁהִיא חוֹבָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Ulla says: We say this** to the accused: **Do you have witnesses to determine** that the witnesses who testified against you are **conspiring witnesses? Rabba said to him: But do we open** the deliberations **with** a claim to **acquit** the accused **that is** to **the liability of this** one, i.e., the witnesses? This claim can lead to the witnesses incurring liability for their testimony.


###### Sanhedrin 32b:15
[Sanhedrin 32b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:15)

וּמִי הָוְיָא חוֹבָתוֹ? וְהָתְנַן: אֵין עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions Rabba’s assumption: **But is** this to **the liability of** the witnesses? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Makkot* 5b): **Conspiring witnesses are not killed** for their testimony **until the verdict** of the one concerning whom they testified **is issued?** Therefore, if they will be shown to be conspiring witnesses at this early stage of the proceedings, they will not be liable.


###### Sanhedrin 32b:16
[Sanhedrin 32b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:16)

הָכִי אָמֵינָא: אִילּוּ שָׁתֵיק הַאי עַד דְּמִיגְמָר דִּינֵיהּ, וּמַיְיתִי עֵדִים וּמַזֵּים לְהוּ, הָוְיָא לֵיהּ חוֹבָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה. אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ, ״יֵשׁ לְךָ עֵדִים לְהַכְחִישָׁן?״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara restates Rabba’s objection: **This** is what **I say: If** the accused **would be silent until his verdict is issued and** then **brings witnesses and** the court **determines them** to be **conspiring** witnesses, it will be found that the statement of the court **is** to **the liability of this** one, i.e., the witnesses. **Rather, Rabba says: We say to** the accused: **Do you have witnesses to contradict them?** If the first witnesses are contradicted as to the facts of the case, no one is liable.


###### Sanhedrin 32b:17
[Sanhedrin 32b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:17)

רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: ״מִדִּבְרֵיכֶם נִזְדַּכָּה פְּלוֹנִי״. אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ, ״אִי לָא קְטַלְתְּ לָא תִּדְחַל״. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״כׇּל מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לוֹ זְכוּת יָבֹא וִילַמֵּד עָלָיו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana said:** We say to the witnesses: **Based on your statements, so-and-so is acquitted.** The court issues a *pro forma* declaration that it is possible to find a reason to acquit based on the testimony of the witnesses, and then they begin the deliberations. **Abaye and Rava both say: We say to** the accused: For example, **if you did not kill** anyone, **do not fear** the consequences of these proceedings, as you will be acquitted. **Rav Ashi says:** The court announces: **Whoever knows** of a reason **to acquit** the accused **should come and teach** this reason **concerning him.**


###### Sanhedrin 32b:18
[Sanhedrin 32b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/32b:18)

תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״אִם לֹא שָׁכַב אִישׁ אוֹתָךְ וְאִם לֹא שָׂטִית וְגוֹ׳״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **It is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the explanation **of Abaye and Rava. Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** The priest administering the *sota* rite to the *sota* says to her: **“If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray** to impurity while under your husband, you shall be free from this water of bitterness that causes the curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband…” (Numbers 5:19–20). The priest first states the scenario in which the woman is innocent of adultery.