MISHNAH: Money matters by three [judges]. Each party selects one judge and both together select a third, the words of Rebbi Meïr¹. But the Sages say, the two judges together select a third.

footnotes: ¹ The “court” is a panel of arbitration. The parties have the option to go before the permanent court of the community but are not required to do so.

HALAKHAH: “Money matters by three,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said, because he selected him, he will take care of his interests². What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? So that all three should be chosen unanimously. What is the rabbis’ reason? “I do not trust you to select and let me sit with whom you want, but I and you shall select and empanel whom we want.³” It is difficult for the rabbis: If one of them⁴ dies, will not all three have been chosen through the choice of one person?

footnotes: ² The arbitration judgment will be acceptable to all parties since each party expects his point of view to be forcefully represented. The Babli, 23a, holds that the judgment will be just since each party is represented in the panel of arbitrators. ³ The judges cannot be forced to sit with a third judge who is not agreeable to them. ⁴ If one of the original judges dies after the third has been chosen, his replacement who is chosen by one party only and is forced upon the two judges already empaneled. The situation preferred by Rebbi Meïr may develop also if the rabbis are followed.

MISHNAH: Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives⁵ or disqualified⁶. But if they are unexceptionable or qualified by the court⁷ he cannot disqualify them.

footnotes: ⁵ Anybody not acceptable as a witness in a case is unacceptable as a judge; cf. Mishnah 7. ⁶ A felon or a person disqualified under the rules of Mishnah 6. ⁷ He passed bar examinations.

HALAKHAH: “Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge,” etc. So is the Mishnah: Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge, but not his own. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they spoke about Syrian courts⁸ 1:5, Note 107., but not about following Torah law⁹ courts formed by ignorant people.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even following Torah law¹⁰. How was this said? Two people had a case in Antioch. One said to the other, I am accepting everything which Rebbi Joḥanan will decide¹¹. Rebbi Joḥanan heard it and said, he is not empowered to tear apart his opponent¹², but they shall hear their arguments there and if need be they should write and send the case before the rabbis¹³. Rebbi Eleazar said, if one says in Tiberias, but the other said in Sepphoris, one listens to the one who says in Tiberias¹⁴.

footnotes: ⁸ Greek ἀρχεῖον, cf. Giṭṭin ⁹ Ad hoc ¹⁰ In a court of arbitration it makes no difference whether a judge be learned in the law or not. ¹¹ Implying that he wants the case to be tried before the permanent court of the Academy in Tiberias. ¹² By forcing him to spend money and time in travelling from Antioch to Tiberias. ¹³ If one party wants to try a case out of town, the other party can appeal to the local permanent court to try the case in town, subject to submitting arguments in dispute to an out-of-town court of appeals; Babli 31b. ¹⁴ Between the court of the Academy in Tiberias and the local court in Sepphoris, precedence must be given to the court of the Academy.

Can he forever disqualify and have the other appoint [a replacement]¹⁵? Rebbi Zeˋira said, they taught this about subsidiaries¹⁶. Rebbi La said, what Rebbi Eleazar said about “one said in Tiberias, but the other said in Sepphoris,” is about those who live at the same place¹⁷, from where to [Sepphoris] it is seven mil, but from there to [Tiberias] it is nine mil¹⁸. Rebbi Yose said, one understands from this, that if two people had a case in Tiberias; one of them said in the permanent court, but the other said in an ad hoc court; one listens to the one who said in the permanent court¹⁹ courts of arbitration for monetary disputes, the party who wants to bring the case before the permanent rabbinic court of the community can force the opposing party to agree to his choice..

footnotes: ¹⁵ According to R. Meïr, cannot one party endlessly drag out the case by objecting to the other’s choice of judges? ¹⁶ R. Meïr permits rejections without cause only for judges not learned in the law. The other party can cut short the selection process either by appointing a judge learned in the law or by removing the case to the permanent local court. ¹⁷ And their village had no permanent local court. ¹⁸ A small inconvenience must be accepted in order to bring the case before the most competent court nearby. ¹⁹ Even though the Mishnah prescribes ad hoc

MISHNAH: Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives⁵ or disqualified⁶. But if they are unexceptionable or qualified by the court⁷ he cannot disqualify them.

footnotes: ⁵ Anybody not acceptable as a witness in a case is unacceptable as a judge; cf. Mishnah 7. ⁶ A felon or a person disqualified under the rules of Mishnah 6. ⁷ He passed bar examinations.

HALAKHAH: “Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, so is the Mishnah: “His witness,” but not his witnesses²⁰. 19:15).. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, even his witnesses²¹, as it was stated²²: “One always adds judges until judgment is rendered, and the judges may change their opinions. After judgment is rendered they may no longer change their opinions.” Rebbi Joḥanan agrees, that if these were the only ones²³, he cannot disqualify them. Zeˋira said, he and a person from the street can team up to disqualify this testimony²⁴) explains what it means that “a party to a suit may disqualify the other side’s witness.” He and another witness may appear before the permanent communal court as witnesses to ask for a judgment which will disqualify the witness for the other side. Even if the other side has alternative witnesses, one should disqualify the party as a tainted witness. He is admitted only because the opposing party, by presenting a multitude of witnesses, cast doubt on the reliability of their own witnesses.. Rebbi Ḥanina asked, does not one witness force an oath everywhere²⁵. 19:15 spells out that “a single witness is insufficient for any conviction,” instead of saying that “a single witness is unacceptable,” it follows that a single witness is acceptable for anything short of a conviction. In money matters this implies that a single witness to a claim can force a party to swear to dispute the claim (Sifry Deut. 188; Babli Ketubot 87b).? Rebbi Zeˋira said, by disqualification one can only be disqualified by a court²⁶. A relative does not have to be disqualified by the court²⁷. Rava bar Binah said in the name of Rav: Three are like final judgment²⁸.

footnotes: ²⁰ Since a single witness is never decisive, one of the parties can claim that a single witness appearing for one of the parties was unacceptable as a witness (Mishnah 6) without presenting formal proof. But if two witnesses are appearing together, only formal proof of ineligibility is admissible since “two or three witnesses are sufficient to confirm anything” (Deut ²¹ Even the credibility of a pair of witnesses can be attacked, under the conditions spelled out later in the Halakhah. ²² It seems that a text similar to Tosephta 6:4 is intended. That Tosephta states first that “One always may add judges until judgment is rendered.” If after hearing the case, the arbitration panel is split, one judge voting for each side, but the third cannot decide how to vote, then each of the parties has to select an additional judge. In case of an evenly split court one always adds two new judges until a majority verdict is reached. After a lengthy discussion of the deadlines to be imposed for the presentation of witnesses, the Tosephta concludes: “Witnesses can always change their testimony before being cross-examined; after they were cross-examined they can no longer change their testimony; this is a matter of principle.” R. Johanan holds that as long as witnesses may change their testimony, their credibility can be attacked. ²³ If the other side’s case depends on the testimony of one pair of witnesses, the other party has a monetary interest in seeing them disqualified. Therefore, the party to the dispute is barred from appearing as a witness against any of the witnesses since his testimony would be tainted (Babli 23b). ²⁴ Zeˋira (in the Babli he is called Zeˋiri ²⁵ Since Deut ²⁶ Only a permanent communal court is qualified to bar a person from being a witness, based on Mishnah 7. ²⁷ A person can be an acceptable witness for anybody but his close relatives. This case of disability is a matter of showing facts; it does not need the formal proclamation of a court. ²⁸ This has nothing to do with the Mishnah; it refers to the Tosephta quoted earlier, Note 22. As soon as a verdict is reached, one can no longer add judges. A verdict is rendered by three voting judges.

MISHNAH: If somebody said, I am accepting my father; I am accepting your father²⁹; I am accepting three cowboys³⁰; Rebbi Meïr says, he may change his opinion, but the Sages say, he may not change his opinion. If one was obligated to swear to another, who asked him to make a vow “by his life”³⁸, Rebbi Meïr says, he may change his opinion³⁹, but the Sages say, he may not change his opinion.

footnotes: ²⁹ These are disqualified by biblical law to serve as judges. They may be accepted on an arbitration panel as free choice of the parties. ³⁰ They are illiterate and ignorant of the law. ³⁸ He asked him to replace the oath by a vow not subject to dissolution. The claimant was afraid to be guilty of “putting a stumbling stone in the path of a blind man” if the other party was making a false oath because of him. ³⁹ And require a formal oath.

HALAKHAH: “I am accepting my father,” etc. If somebody said, I am accepting your father, ³¹ if he accepted in the presence of two others, he may retract³²; in the presence of three³³, he may not retract. Samuel said, as long as he did not take from one and give to the other³⁵ retract.” This is Samuel’s opinion in the Babli, 24b.; but if he took from one and gave to the other, he may retract. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say even if he took from one and gave to the other, he may retract³⁶. ³⁷. קטו points to Thr. r. 1(30) ad 1:3 where קטו or קטיתא means “a bat”. This would give as meaning of the Tosephta: “be exposed to the mace and the bat in my hands.” The explanations in the standard commentaries are pure conjectures.“If he hit him with a mace that he should agree; if he accepted he may renege.”

footnotes: ³¹ The discussion is based on R. Meïr’s point of view. ³² This is an agreement which according to R. Meïr can be rescinded. ³³ If these three are persons qualified to act as judges, they act as a court and once a panel of arbitration is empanelled by a court it cannot be changed. ³⁵ The context requires that one read: “but if he took from one and gave to the other, he may not ³⁶ Their opinion is not mentioned in the Babli. ³⁷ This sentence is corrupt, and probably belongs to the next Halakhah.A similar text is in Tosephta 5:1: “If somebody became obligated to swear and the other party instead required him to make a vow for his life, or by קייטא ובמקייטא דנקיטי R. Meïr and the Sages disagree whether he may retract his agreement.” D. Pardo declares the Tosephta text as unintelligible. Arukh s.v

“If one was obligated to swear to another,” etc. ⁴⁰ Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if he told him, let your father tell it to me, then I shall have no claim on you⁴¹. But if he told him: Let you father tell it, then I shall accept it; he seeks a pretext to confess to him⁴². Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, even if he told him, let you father tell it to me, then I shall accept it. We never find that testimony be accepted from the mouth of a relative⁴³.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ This paragraph refers to Mishnah 4. ⁴¹ The claimant tells the defendant that if the defendant’s father states that his son owes nothing, he will retract his suit. R. Meïr lets him change his mind. ⁴² The defendant tells the claimant that if the claimant’s father states that the sum is due to his son, the defendant will pay. R. Hiyya sees this as a confession cloaked in a face-saving device; R. Meïr will agree with the Sages that this is irrevocable. ⁴³ While R. Hiyya bar Abba’s argument may be correct, his conclusion is not, since as a matter of principle we never accept a relative’s testimony to be determining in law.

MISHNAH: The following are disqualified: The dice-player⁴⁴, the lender on interest⁴⁵, participants in pigeon contests⁴⁶, dealers in sabbatical produce⁴⁷, and slaves⁴⁸ in law, he could commit perjury with impunity.. Rebbi Simeon said, earlier they were listing harvesters of sabbatical produce; but since the increase of oppressors they returned to list only dealers in sabbatical produce⁴⁹, contribution of produce, was imposed yearly, it was necessary to permit harvesting in the Sabbatical year in order to deliver the annona and prevent confiscation of the land by the government. Therefore, only actual trade in sabbatical produce was sinful, not harvesting.. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he has no profession but this; but if he has another profession, he is qualified⁵⁰.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Since the player with honest dice will lose as often as he wins, he cannot possibly live off the income from his wagers. A gambler living off his gambling by necessity must be dishonest. ⁴⁵ The lender on interest to Jews shows that he is willing to break the law for monetary gain; he will be willing to commit perjury for a fee. ⁴⁶ Or any sport where money is made by betting. ⁴⁷ He is willing to break the law for monetary gain. ⁴⁸ Since a slave has no persona ⁴⁹ Biblical law requires that the produce of fields in a Sabbatical year be abandoned, available to anybody. Therefore, originally the owner of a field who harvested the field for his own use was branded as a scofflaw disqualified as witness or judge. But when Palestine was turned into a Roman province and, after the war of Bar Kokhba, the annona ⁵⁰ An occasional gambler and occasional trader in sabbatical produce are qualified.

HALAKHAH: “The following are disqualified: The dice-player,” etc. ⁵¹ 1:9 and Ševuot 7:4. The dice player is the one who plays with small stones⁵². ⁵³“Not only the player with stones, even one who plays with shells of nuts or pomegranates is not accepted unless he break his stones or tear up his IOU’s⁵⁴, and be checked out and repent in complete repentance.”

footnotes: ⁵¹ Parallels to the first part of this Halakhah are found in Roš Haššanah ⁵² Greek ψῆφος “pebble, cube; the stones used for mosaics and tokens used in elections.” Rashi defines as “marbles”. ⁵³ Similar texts are in the Babli 25b, Tosephta 5:2. ⁵⁴ This should be part of a separate sentence, as in the parallel Yerushalmi texts, Babli, and Tosephta.The lender on interest cannot repent unless he tear up his IOU’s and repent in complete repentance.

“Participants in pigeon contests.⁵⁵” ⁵³ Whether one bets on pigeons or bets on any other domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird, he is not accepted unless he break his tools of the catch and repent in complete repentance.

footnotes: ⁵⁵ The parallel sources show that there is a sentence missing here: “This is one who bets on pigeons.” Organizing pigeon contests is not dishonest, but making a living by betting on animal contests would be impossible for honest betters. ⁵³ Similar texts are in the Babli 25b, Tosephta 5:2.

“Dealers in sabbatical produce.” ⁵³“Who is a dealer in sabbatical produce? One who sits idle all the years of a sabbatical cycle. As soon as the sabbatical year starts, be becomes active and trades in sabbatical produce. One does not accept them before another sabbatical year starts and he can be checked out that he repented in complete repentance.” It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, two sabbatical periods. ⁵⁶“Rebbi Nehemiah says, repentance in money, not repentance in words; that he say to them, here are 200 denars, distribute them to the poor, for I earned them from forbidden produce.” ⁵⁷ They added shepherds, extortionists, and any who are suspect in money matters, that their testimony be invalid. Rebbi Abbahu said, only shepherds of small animals⁵⁸. 23:2). It concludes that Mishnah and baraitot refer to actions classified as extortion or robbery only by rabbinical standards..

footnotes: ⁵³ Similar texts are in the Babli 25b, Tosephta 5:2. ⁵⁶ Tosephta 5:2. ⁵⁷ A similar text in the Babli, 25b. ⁵⁸ Sheep and goats which are destructive of vegetation in agricultural areas. Herders of sheep and goats are acceptable only in regions devoid of agriculture. The Babli notes that robbers and other felons are excluded by biblical law (Ex

Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there⁵⁹ 2:7, formulated as testimony in R. Aqiba’s court in the name of R. Eliezer.: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s⁶⁰? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. ⁶¹: What is meant by “it is everybody’s opinion? That is what R. Yose meant to say:”. It makes clear that one refers to the statement of the Amora R. Yose. The entire discussion does not refer to the Mishnah in Sanhedrin but the one in Roš Haššanah. The text in Roš Haššanah has to be considered as the original. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he⁶². come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated⁶³ 1:10.: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they⁶⁴ 3:6. are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis⁶⁵! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna⁶⁶: R. Jonah. In Ševuot: R. Huna. in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement⁶⁷ parallels another disagreement, as it was stated⁶⁸ 1:11, in the name of R. Jehudah (student of R. Eliezer’s student.): A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Mishnah Idiut ⁶⁰ If this represents a minority opinion, it should have been labelled as such. ⁶¹ There is a sentence missing here. found in Roš Haššanah ⁶² The witnesses mentioned in the Mishnah Roš Haššanah ⁶³ Mishnah Roš Haššanah ⁶⁴ The people disqualified in Mishnah Sanhedrin ⁶⁵ In the anonymous Mishnah. ⁶⁶ In Roš Haššanah ⁶⁷ R. Eliezer and the rabbis, R. Meïr and R. Yose (the Tanna). ⁶⁸ Tosephta Makkot

⁶⁹ 4:2, Notes 20–34. A few passages are reformulated.“Rebbi Simeon says, earlier they were listing harvesters of sabbatical produce; but since the increase of oppressors they returned to list only dealers in sabbatical produce. Rebbi Jehudah said, when? If he has no profession but this; but if he has another profession, he is qualified.” How is this implemented? If he was sitting idle all the years of the sabbatical cycle but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce. If at the same time he is engaged in another occupation, he is qualified; otherwise he is disqualified. But if he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycle and when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce, even if he has no other profession on the side he is qualified. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah⁷⁰ of our Mishnah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda was praised for formulating the tradition in the name of a person younger than himself.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ This and the following paragraphs are from Ševiˋit ⁷⁰ Babli 26b.

Rebbi Ḥiyya stated restrictively. How is this implemented? If he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycle but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce. Even if he has another profession on the side he is disqualified. This is not what Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda was praised for formulating the tradition in the name of a person younger than himself. Here also should it be so? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the government is not oppressive, here the government is oppressive.

When the government was oppressing the first time, Rebbi Yannai instructed to plough a single ploughing⁷² 4:3, Note 23.. An apostate was passing by; he saw the putting up of the harrow. He said to them, hey you! Is it permitted for you to plough? Is it permitted for you to put up the harrow?

footnotes: ⁷² Babli 26a. This dates the change in Roman taxation policy to the end of the Severan dynasty. For הסטו cf. Ševiˋit

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, I asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Did not [Rebbi] Zeˋira and Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yehoṣadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Niṭzah house in Lydda: About all the Torah, if a Gentile tells a Jew to transgress any commandment of the Torah except those concerning idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder, he should transgress and not be killed⁷³. That is in private, but in public he should not follow him even for the slightest commandment, as exemplified by Pappos and his brother Julianus to whom they gave water in a colored glass and they did not accept. He said, they do not intend to lead you to apostasy, they only want to collect annona. What means “in public”? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written⁷⁴. 22:32.: I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.

footnotes: ⁷³ Babli 74a. ⁷⁴ Lev

They saw the young Rebbi Bina collecting donkey’s dung on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose permitted baking for Ursicinus on the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, I asked before my father Rebbi Jonah, did not Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yehoṣadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Niṭzah house in Lydda, etc.? He said, he did not intend to lead you to apostasy, he only wanted to eat warm bread.. What means “in public”? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written⁷⁴. 22:32.: I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ Lev

Rebbi Abinna asked Rebbi Immi: Are Gentiles required to sanctify the Name? He answered him: I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel. Israel are required to sanctify the Name; the Gentiles are not required to sanctify the Name. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar understood it from the following: May the Eternal forgive His servant for this, etc. Israel are required to sanctify the Name; the Gentiles are not required to sanctify the Name.

Rebbi Abba bar Zemina was working as a tailor for somebody in Rome. He brought him carcass meat and told him to eat. He said to him, I will not eat. He said to him, eat! Otherwise I shall kill you. He said to him, if you have to kill, kill, for I shall not eat carcass meat. He said to him, certainly you should know that I would have killed you, had you eaten. Either one is a Jewish Jew or an Aramean Aramean. Rebbi Mana said, if Rebbi Abba bar Zemina had understood the words of the rabbis, he would have been gone.

⁷⁶ 4:2, Notes 35–37. The prohibition to work after the Sabbatical a field which was improved in the Sabbatical is purely rabbinical. If somebody improved [his field] today, what is the rule? Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that when the reason disappeared, the ordinance is void. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that even if the reason disappeared, the ordinance stands until another court abolishes it. ⁷⁷ 4:2, Note 43, Ketubot 9:3 Notes 109–110. The connection with the preceding is a leniency of R. Jeremiah opposed by R. Yose. Similarly, how does an owner acquire his own produce in a Sabbatical year? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, from the moment he put it into his vessel. Rebbi Yose was of the opinion that even if he put it into his vessel he did not acquire, for he thinks that it is his but it is not his.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ The paragraph is a reformulation of one in Ševiˋit ⁷⁷ Ševiˋit

When Proclus⁷⁸ and identifies him as an officer of Ursicinus’s army (under the emperor Gallus.) entered Sepphoris, Rebbi Mana instructed the bakers to present their wares in the market. The rabbis of Newe⁷⁹ a place Nova in the Golan. instructed to bake leavened on Passover.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Grätz (Geschichte der Juden3 p. 314) reads Proculus ⁷⁹ Sometimes called Niniveh,

⁸⁰. 33:6, shorter Cant. r. ad 2:14, Eccl. r. ad 8:2 quote this in the name of the older R. Levy. Possibly there is no claim of originality asserted here for R. Yose ben R. Abun, three generations after R. Levy, but the sermon is quoted as objection to the lenient rulings mentioned before. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said: I shall keep the King’s sayings⁸¹ 8:2., Who told me at Sinai I am the Eternal, your God⁸². 20:2., on the pronouncement⁸¹ 8:2., you shall not have other gods before Me⁸³. 20:3., of God’s oath⁸¹ 8:2., do not take the Name of the Eternal, your God, in vain⁸⁴. 20:7.. In this matter we come together, this man⁸⁵ and this dog⁸⁶. 33(6). are both equal.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ The old Midrashim, Lev. r ⁸¹ Eccl. ⁸² Ex ⁸¹ Eccl. ⁸³ Ex ⁸¹ Eccl. ⁸⁴ Ex ⁸⁵ The speaker. ⁸⁶ Nebuchadnezzar, who is said to have barked like a dog during his spell of insanity, Lev. r

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah.

MISHNAH: The following are the relatives:⁸⁷ His brother, his father’s brother and his mother’s brother⁸⁸, his sister’s husband, his father’s sister’s husband and his mother’s sister’s husband, his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law⁸⁹; these, their sons and sons-in-law, but his steps⁹⁰ alone. Rebbi Yose said, this is Rebbi Aqiba’s teaching; but the original Mishnah was: His uncle and his uncle’s son⁹¹ in Lev. 25:29., and anybody in line to inherit from him, and any related to him at that moment⁹² 8:1) is barred to act as witness. At the dissolution of the marriage, by death or divorce, the relationship is terminated.. If he had been related but became unrelated, he is qualified. Rebbi Jehudah says, even if his daughter had died but he had children from him, he remains a relative⁹³.

footnotes: ⁸⁷ Since women are barred from giving formal testimony, only the males are enumerated. ⁸⁸ The father’s brother is a relative; so is the father himself. He is mentioned in some Mishnah mss. ⁸⁹ אֲגִיס is the Syriac form; the usual Babylonian is גִּיס. In Syriac the word denotes the wife’s sister’s husband. This is the meaning presumed in the Halakhah, but here it includes the wife’s brother. ⁹⁰ His wife’s son from a previous marriage. ⁹¹ Quoted as relative par excellence ⁹² Any man married to a woman who is a possible heir (as defined in Mishnah Bava batra ⁹³ Since the grandchildren are possible heirs, they are barred from being witnesses, and so is their father. This holds true even if the grandchildren all are female.

HALAKHAH: “The following are the relatives,” etc. Since we have stated “his brother,” why does one have to state “his father’s brother”⁹⁴. 18:12); the brother’s daughter, for whom the husband would be the father’s brother, is biblically forbidden by Sadducees and Karaites, permitted (and recommended) by Pharisees and rabbinic Jews. The Midrash which asserts that Sarah was not Abraham’s paternal half-sister but his niece (Yebamot 10:17 Note 210) is more an anti-Sadducee polemic than a genuine interpretation of the biblical text.] Since the Mishnah states that sons and in-laws of disqualified relations are also disqualified, the mention of the brother implies that the nephew is also disqualified. But for the nephew, the original person is the father’s brother; why does he have to be mentioned?? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law⁹⁵.

footnotes: ⁹⁴ Two unexpressed principles are underlying the discussion. The first is symmetry: If A is disqualified for B, then B is disqualified for A. The second one is that for the definition of “relative”, there is no difference between male and female.[It has to be noted that for the definition of incestuous relations, both principles are accepted by Sadducees and rejected by Pharisees. The father’s sister is biblically forbidden (Lev ⁹⁵ The Mishnah by implication disqualifies the cousin (or cousin’s husband); this disqualification is not implied by the disqualification of the brother (Babli 28a).

“His father’s brother”. Since we have stated “his father’s brother,” why does one have to state “his mother’s brother”⁹⁶? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law⁹⁷.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ In the Babli, 28a, the mention of the mother’s brother is taken as proof of the second rule of Note 92. The same is implied here. ⁹⁷ The same argument as before, to disqualify cousins from the mother’s side.

“His mother’s brother”. Since we have stated “his sister’s husband,” why does one have to state “his father’s sister’s husband”⁹⁸? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law⁹⁷.

footnotes: ⁹⁸ This question presupposes that any person disqualified for A also is disqualified for A’s son (Babli 28a). A’s sister’s husband is the father’s sister’s husband for A’s son. ⁹⁷ The same argument as before, to disqualify cousins from the mother’s side.

“His father’s sister’s husband”. Since we have stated “his father’s sister’s husband,” why does one have to state “his mother’s sister’s husband”? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law⁹⁹.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ This probably is a scribal error, copied from the preceding paragraph. The only reasonable answer would be: to show that in matters of disqualification as witnesses, relations by females are the equivalent of relations by males.

“His mother’s sister’s husband”. But did we not state: “his stepson alone”¹⁰⁰? Rav said, if his mother-in-law’s son-in-law¹⁰¹ is forbidden, then certainly his stepdaughter’s husband¹⁰² the second also describes one.. Explain it that she has sons and sons-in-law from him¹⁰³.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Excluding the stepson’s wife and his descendants and in-laws. ¹⁰¹ Husband of his father-in-law’s stepdaughter. ¹⁰² Since it was established that females be treated like males in this matter, the status of the mother-in-law is that of the father-in-law, and her children and children-in-law also are disqualified. Let A be the person in question, W his wife, F, M, his father and mother, D the mother-in-law’s daughter from another man, and H the daughter’s husband. The relationship between A and H can be given by a diagram:figure_pg125_01On the other hand, the relationship between a man and his stepdaughter’s husband can be described byfigure_pg125_02This graph clearly is a subgraph of the preceding (up to labelling, replacing F,M by A,W). Therefore, if the first graph describes a disqualifying relationship, a fortiori ¹⁰³ Since the preceding argument leads to a result contradicting the Mishnah, the premiss of the argument is shown to be false. The only siblings of a person’s wife disqualified as witnesses are her full or paternal siblings. “She” in this sentence is the mother-in-law.

“His brother-in-law”. Some Tannaïm state: Including sons and sons-in-law; but some Tannaïm state: Excluding sons and sons-in-law. He who said, including sons and sons-in law, from her¹⁰⁴. But he who said, excluding sons and sons-in law, from another family¹⁰⁵ brother-in-law..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ His wife’s sister. ¹⁰⁵ Another wife. In the Babli, 28b, there is a dispute whether “he alone” refers to the stepson or any

Rav went to sell hides¹⁰⁶(Commentary to Alfasi, 6b in the Wilna ed.) reads נְפַק לְמַזְבַּן מַשְׁכּוֹן “went to sell a pledge”. This agrees with the following possessive, לר׳ חייה. The parallel source in the Babli, 28a/b reads: רב איקלע למזבן גוילי “Rav happened to be selling parchment.” for the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. He passed by a place where he found Rebbi Joḥanan sitting and asking: We have stated, “his stepson alone.” What is the situation of his stepson’s wife, his stepdaughter’s husband? A woman is like her husband and the husband is like his wife¹⁰⁷. Therefore, the situation of his stepson’s wife is that of his stepson, and the husband is like his wife¹⁰⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ Text and meaning are in doubt. One might read מֵיתְרֵי מְשָׁכִין “to span hides”; this does not make much sense. Nimmuqe Yosef ¹⁰⁷ The Babli 28b treats the two statements as different; one does not necessarily imply the other. ¹⁰⁸ A person is disqualified from being a witness for or against his stepson’s wife or stepdaughter’s husband, but not for or against the stepchild’s children or children-in-law.

Rav Ḥisda asked: If the third generation permitted the first generation’s wife¹⁰⁹? Is Phineas’s wife permitted to Moses¹¹⁰ 2:4. With all commentators one has to read the question whether Moses be qualified to testify for the wife of Phineas, his brother’s grandson.? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one accepts the second and third generations with difficulty¹¹¹. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even with ease¹¹².

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ The brother’s children are disqualified by the Mishnah. What about the grand-children? ¹¹⁰ The question is formulated as one of permitted marriages. This does not fit the context, since that problem was discussed in Yebamot ¹¹¹ A court will accept testimony from persons one generation removed from the Mishnaic disqualifications only if no other witnesses are available. ¹¹² Any testimony not disqualified by the Mishnah is qualified.

¹¹³ As the following: A brother-in-law¹¹⁴ of Rav Huna’s had a case with some person. He said, I am accepting anything which Rav Huna will decide¹¹⁵. Rav Huna heard it and said, this is it¹¹⁶. I know that just as they said for the preceding generations, so it is for the following¹¹⁷. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah¹¹⁸.

footnotes: ¹¹³ This refers to the last part of the Mishnah, the statement of R. Jehudah. ¹¹⁴ The husband of one of Rav Huna’s sisters and one of the sisters had died. He had been a relative but now became unrelated. ¹¹⁵ Since Rav Huna was no longer a relative, he was qualified to be a judge. ¹¹⁶ The statement of the Mishnah. ¹¹⁷ The Mishnah refers to the relation between a person and his son-in-law, two different generations. Since R. Jehudah states that if there be grandchildren, the son-in-law remains related, it follows that the anonymous Tanna holds that in all cases the son-in-law becomes unrelated at the moment his marriage is dissolved by death or divorce. ¹¹⁸ This is also quoted in the Babli, 28b, as Rav’s opinion. The school of Samuel, represented by Rav Nahman, holds that practice does not follow R. Jehudah. Rav Nahman’s rulings have the status of Supreme Court decisions in Babylonia.

MISHNAH: ¹¹⁹ The lover and the hater¹²⁰. The lover, that is the best man. The hater, anyone who did not talk to him for three days because of ill-will. They told him, Israel are not suspected of this¹²¹.

footnotes: ¹¹⁹ The Mishnah is a continuation of R. Jehudah’s statement. ¹²⁰ Are disqualified as witnesses. ¹²¹ To testify falsely because of this. But a judge emotionally involved with one of the parties is disqualified (Babli 29a).

HALAKHAH: “The lover and the hater,” etc. Rebbi Tevelai, Rebbi Abinna in the name of Rav: They stated this for the seven days of wedding festivities¹²².

footnotes: ¹²² The best men are disqualified only during the festivities. Rav’s opinion is quoted in the Babli, 29a, where a later authority restricts R. Jehudah’s rule to the wedding day only.

MISHNAH: How does one check out the witnesses? One brings them to court and instills fear into them¹²³, then removes them¹²⁴ but retains the greatest among them¹²⁵. One says to him, tell why you know that this person owes to the other one. If he said, he himself confessed to me that he owes the money¹²⁶, or another person told me that he owes it¹²⁷, he did not say anything until he says, before us¹²⁸ he confessed to him that he owed him 200 denar.

footnotes: ¹²³ Since witnesses are not interrogated under oath, they have to be informed of the gravity of the crime of perjury. ¹²⁴ This also is the reading of Alfasi and Rosh. Maimonides and the Venice text of the Babli read: One removes everybody. ¹²⁵ The witnesses are interrogated separately. ¹²⁶ He might have said this either to establish credit or to publicize his needy status in order that no public service should be required of him. ¹²⁷ Hearsay has to be disregarded. ¹²⁸ At least two witnesses, whose word confirms everything by biblical standards.

HALAKHAH: “How does one check out the witnesses,” etc. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Johanan: If he had intended to appoint them as witnesses, their testimony is valid¹²⁹.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ Testimony that the debtor admitted to the debt (Note 126) is to be accepted if the debtor explicitly stated that he made the statement to his listeners for the purpose of testimony. There must be two listeners (Halakhah 10, Note 180).

How does one judge? The judges are sitting¹³⁰, the parties are standing, and the claimant starts first with his words, as it is written¹³¹ 24:14.: He who has something to say shall present before you¹³².

footnotes: ¹³⁰ They have to sit during the entire proceedings. ¹³¹ A misquote from Ex. ¹³² Tosephta 6:3.

From where that the burden of proof is on the claimant? Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Shall present before you, shall present his proofs¹³³ 46b..

footnotes: ¹³³ Babli Bava qamma

¹³⁴ 12:7, Notes 123–124. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, in the case of a sister-in-law, who runs after whom? Rebbi Eleazar answered: His sister-in-law shall come to the gate¹³⁵. 25:7.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eleazar taught me correctly.

footnotes: ¹³⁴ A slight reformulation of a text in Yebamot ¹³⁵ Deut

Rebbi Berekhiah and Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The claimant claims, the respondent responds, and the judge decides. Rebbi Simon said, the judge has to repeat their arguments¹³⁶, as it is said¹³⁷. 3:23.: The king¹³⁸ said, this one says, my son is the living and yours is the dead one, etc.

footnotes: ¹³⁶ To give each party the opportunity to complain that its arguments were not understood correctly by the judges. ¹³⁷ 1K ¹³⁸ Solomon, acting as judge.

When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he was investigating¹³⁹. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element¹⁴⁰. Rav Huna made light of a judge who said, “accept a single witness,” but they should say it themselves¹⁴¹. When Rav Huna realized an argument in favor of a person who himself did not know it, he guided him¹⁴², following¹⁴³. 31:8. open your mouth for the dumb.

footnotes: ¹³⁹ Witnesses using exactly the same language either bear false witness or they went over their testimony beforehand. Then they can be counted only as one witness, not as the biblically required two. ¹⁴⁰ He summarized the common points. ¹⁴¹ Two independent witnesses are absolutely necessary only in criminal trials. Civil suits may be determined on the basis of documents or, with the agreement of the parties, single witnesses. But accepting a single witness cannot be suggested by the court. ¹⁴² Since the parties are not supposed to consult lawyers, the judge may by a Socratic dialogue with the parties steer one of the parties to a certain argument which the latter did not see before. ¹⁴³ Prov

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who hides his witnesses behind a wall did not do anything¹⁴⁴. As in this case: A man happened to prepare food for a meal¹⁴⁵. He said to another, give me what you owe me. That one answered, yes. When he rose, he told him, I do not owe you anything. He answered, I have witnesses. The other said, I said that only in order not to spoil your food. The case came before Rebbi Immi, who said, this is what Rebbi Joḥanan said, he who hides his witnesses behind a wall did not do anything¹⁴⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁴ Babli 29a. ¹⁴⁵ Greek ἄριστον. ¹⁴⁶ What a person says not in the presence of witnesses must be interpreted following the speaker’s explanation.

MISHNAH: One calls in the second [witness] and examines him. If their testimonies are found consistent, one argues the case. Two¹⁴⁷ say not guilty¹⁴⁸ and one says guilty, he is not guilty. Two say guilty and one says not guilty, he is guilty. One says not guilty, one says guilty, and one says “I do not know”, they shall add judges. Even if two say not guilty or guilty but one says “I do not know”, they shall add judges¹⁴⁹

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ Of the judges. ¹⁴⁸ Since one deals with civil cases, this means that the claim is rejected. ¹⁴⁹ Since the judge who does not vote is considered absent, judgment cannot be given by two judges. There must be three voting judges for the verdict to stand..

HALAKHAH: “One calls in the second [witness],” etc. ¹⁵⁰ 4:1 is almost identical with the present text; the one in Yoma 6:1 is slightly rewritten (or changed in transmission.) The Ševuˋot text seems to be the original of most of the Halakhah. As explained in the author’s Logical problems in Jewish tradition (in: Confrontations with Judaism, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, pp. 171–196, mainly p. 174), talmudic interpretation of pentateuchal verses operates on a principle of definiteness: The language always is definite. Since the sequence of integers has a smallest but no largest element, an indefinite plural means “two”. Therefore, the explicit mention of “two” always implies some special meaning.Rams¹⁵¹. 16:5,7,8 speaking of the rams used in the service of the Day of Atonement., the minimum of rams are two. Why does the verse say two? That both be equal¹⁵² 62b, Sifra Ahare Parašah 2(1)..

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ There are two parallels to this text. The one in Ševuˋot ¹⁵¹ Lev ¹⁵² Babli Yoma

Sheep, the minimum of sheep are two. Why does the verse say two? That both be equal¹⁵³ (Ex. 27:38, Num. 28:3). In both verses, the numeral is שְׁנַיִם (Babli Yoma 62b)..

footnotes: ¹⁵³ The daily sacrifice required two sheep

The minimum of birds are two. Why does the verse say two? that both be equal¹⁵⁴. 14:4. Babli Yoma 62b, Mishnah Negaˋim 14:1, Sifra Meṣoraˋ Introduction 11.. The minimum of trumpets are two. Why does the verse say two? that both be equal¹⁵⁵. 10:2. Sifry Num. 74..

footnotes: ¹⁵⁴ The birds required for the purification of the person healed from skin disease, Lev ¹⁵⁵ The trumpets to be sounded at the time of sacrifices, Num

Rebbi Ḥaggai objected to Rebbi Yasa. Is there not written: The two men shall stand¹⁵⁶. 19:17. The verse can be read either as referring to the parties in a lawsuit or to the witnesses in a civil or criminal suit. Cf. Babli Ševuˋot 30a.? Now, is not two the minimum of “men”? Why does the verse say two? That both be equal? But it is written¹⁵⁷. 24:17.: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan, … That means that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan. Then why is there written two? It is free to be combined and to infer from it an equal cut¹⁵⁸ 1:1 Note 70, Nedarim 1 Notes 18,159, Nazir 4:1 Note 23, Logical problems (Note 150) pp. 185–186. Two identical expressions, written in two different connections, each of which is free, i. e., not used for an inference not otherwise possible, can be used to transfer rules from one connection to the other. This hermeneutical principle is accepted by all rabbinic schools.. It is said here two and it is said there two men were left¹⁵⁹ 11:27. Since Eldad and Medad are mentioned by name in the verse, it is obvious that two men are meant.. Since there one speaks of men but not women, also here men but not women nor underaged.¹⁶⁰ From this we learn that a woman may not be a judge¹⁶¹ 30a, Sifry Deut. 190. and may not be a witness.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁶ Deut ¹⁵⁷ Deut ¹⁵⁸ Cf. Berakhot ¹⁵⁹ Num. ¹⁶⁰ Only people potentially acceptable for Moses’s council of 70 Elders. ¹⁶¹ Babli Ševuˋot

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Joseph. It is said here two and it is said there¹⁶². 19:15. The verse explicitly speaks of witnesses. two. Since there it must be by the testimony of two witnesses, also here by the testimony of two witnesses. Then why does the verse say two? Lest one of them be standing while the other be sitting; one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short¹⁶¹ 30a, Sifry Deut. 190..

footnotes: ¹⁶² Deut ¹⁶¹ Babli Ševuˋot

Rebbi Jehudah said, I heard that if the judge wants to let both of them sit, he may tell them to sit down¹⁶³ 30a, Tosephta Sanhedrin 6:2, Sifra Qedošim Pereq 4(4).. Rebbi Ismael says, one says to him,¹⁶⁴ either you dress as he is dressed or pay him to be dressed as you are.

footnotes: ¹⁶³ Babli Ševuˋot ¹⁶⁴ A person appearing in court dressed better than usual.

Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna: The witnesses have to stand while testifying, for it is said: the two men shall stand. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Also the parties have to stand at the moment the verdict is given, as it is said¹⁵⁶. 19:17. The verse can be read either as referring to the parties in a lawsuit or to the witnesses in a civil or criminal suit. Cf. Babli Ševuˋot 30a.: who have the quarrel before the Eternal¹⁶⁵ 30a..

footnotes: ¹⁵⁶ Deut ¹⁶⁵ Babli Ševuˋot

¹⁶⁶ 4:1. It is written¹⁶⁷. 24:16.: Fathers shall not be killed because of sons. Is it not already written, each one should be killed for his own crime¹. 24:16.¹⁶⁸? Why does the verse say, fathers shall not be killed because of sons? Fathers shall not be killed on the testimony of sons, and sons shall not be killed on testimony of fathers¹⁶⁹ Deut. 280.. From here² 4:1 מכן for מניין. that witnesses shall not be relatives of the accused.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁶ This section also has an almost identical copy in Ševuot ¹⁶⁷ Deut ¹ Deut ¹⁶⁸ A slight misquote. ¹⁶⁹ Babli 17b, Sifry ² Read with Ševuot

From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony¹⁷⁰ 9:8, Note 128. Formal perjury, “plotting”, is testimony which is impossible, i. e., where it was proven that the witnesses were not at the place about which they testify at the time they assert to have seen the object of their testimony. If only one witness was perjured, there is only one valid witness and his testimony is worthless by biblical standards; for worthless testimony there can be no biblical punishment. Therefore, if the two perjured witnesses were related, each would be convicted by his relatives’ testimony; this is forbidden by Deut. 24:16. But testimony which would not expose the witnesses to the penalty of perjury is worthless. The Babli, 28a, points out that this argument also eliminates a single relative among the witnesses.? From where that witnesses may not be relatives of the judges? Think of it, if one of them be found perjured, he could not be killed unless the other also was found perjured. If you say so, would he not be killed by his sentence¹⁷⁰ 9:8, Note 128. Formal perjury, “plotting”, is testimony which is impossible, i. e., where it was proven that the witnesses were not at the place about which they testify at the time they assert to have seen the object of their testimony. If only one witness was perjured, there is only one valid witness and his testimony is worthless by biblical standards; for worthless testimony there can be no biblical punishment. Therefore, if the two perjured witnesses were related, each would be convicted by his relatives’ testimony; this is forbidden by Deut. 24:16. But testimony which would not expose the witnesses to the penalty of perjury is worthless. The Babli, 28a, points out that this argument also eliminates a single relative among the witnesses.?

footnotes: ¹⁷⁰ Cf. Gittin ¹⁷⁰ Cf. Gittin

From where that judges may not be relatives of one another? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since witnesses may not be relatives of one another, neither may judges be relatives of one another¹⁷¹. 24:16 is indeterminate enough to include both testimony and sentence by relatives..

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ Deut

So far¹⁶⁷. 24:16. only fathers and sons; from where the other relatives? Rebbi Zeˋira sais, and sons includes the remaining relatives.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ Deut

So far according to Rebbi Aqiba¹⁷² ו which is not 100% necessary for the understanding of the text as an addition which invites extension of the rules. The statement attributed here to the late Amora R. Zeˋira is formulated in Sifry Deut. 280 as tannaïtic, representing R. Aqiba’s opinion..

footnotes: ¹⁷² Who will consider any prefixed

¹⁷³ 4:1. From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge¹⁷⁴. 35:24, about the trial of the homicide who fled to a city of asylum. R Ismael objects to R. Aqiba’s inferences from additional את ,ו etc. and insists that any interpretations of verses conform to the plain sense of the verse within the purview of his hermeneutical rules.; the congregation shall save¹⁷⁵. 35:25.. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta¹⁷⁶. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another¹⁷¹. 24:16 is indeterminate enough to include both testimony and sentence by relatives.? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony¹⁷⁰ 9:8, Note 128. Formal perjury, “plotting”, is testimony which is impossible, i. e., where it was proven that the witnesses were not at the place about which they testify at the time they assert to have seen the object of their testimony. If only one witness was perjured, there is only one valid witness and his testimony is worthless by biblical standards; for worthless testimony there can be no biblical punishment. Therefore, if the two perjured witnesses were related, each would be convicted by his relatives’ testimony; this is forbidden by Deut. 24:16. But testimony which would not expose the witnesses to the penalty of perjury is worthless. The Babli, 28a, points out that this argument also eliminates a single relative among the witnesses.?

footnotes: ¹⁷³ A slightly changed parallel is in Ševuˋot ¹⁷⁴ Num ¹⁷⁵ Num ¹⁷⁶ This gives the missing argument in R. Ismael’s statement. ¹⁷¹ Deut ¹⁷⁰ Cf. Gittin

¹⁷⁷ 4:1; they are copied from the Halakhah there. The object of discussion is Lev. 5:1: If a person sinned when he heard the sound of an imprecation, being a witness, either having seen or known, if he does not tell he has to bear his punishment. If one of the parties in a civil suit adresses a potential witness and by an oath tells him to appear as a witness in court, if the person so addressed refuses to appear or to testify he has to confess his sin (5:5) and bring a sacrifice graded according to his means (5:6–13). Mishnah Ševuˋot 4:1 details the rules under which a person may be declared guilty of violating the oath put on him.“Qualified one but not disqualified one.” For it is said, if he does not tell, he has to bear his punishment. If he told, the other would have to pay money. This excludes one where the other would not have to pay money even if he told¹⁷⁸ 30a..

footnotes: ¹⁷⁷ These paragraphs all start with quotes from Mishnah Ševuˋot ¹⁷⁸ A person disqualified as witness never has to appear in court. Babli Ševuˋot

“Before the court.” To exclude a single witness. If they told him that they would accept his word as if there were two [witnesses], would he be guilty? The verse says, if he had seen or known. One who is qualified to testify according to biblical standards; this excludes a single witness who is not qualified to testify according to biblical standards¹⁷⁹. 19:15..

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ Deut

“Outside of court.” If he does not tell, he has to bear his punishment. If he told, one would have to pay money. This excludes outside of court where the other would not have to pay money even if he told.

From where two witnesses¹⁸⁰? He and another make two¹⁸¹. 5:1 and he is a witness, the copula implies the existence of a counterpart, a second witness.. Or following Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses¹⁸². 19:15, any mention of valid testimony in the biblical text must refer to two witnesses; cf. Sotah 6:2 Note 23; Babli 30a, 31b, Soṭah 2b. unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath¹⁸³. 5:4: Or a person who blurts out swearing from his lips, to worsen or to improve, for anything a human might blurt out in an oath, and it slipped his mind but then he remembered and became guilty of one of these. A blurted oath is one which could have been avoided by some reflection.? Since it is possible to say that another person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, how could you find him guilty of a blurted oath¹⁸⁴?

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ The sacrifice for disregarding an imprecation is due only if two witnesses can testify that the potential witness acknowledged the oath put on him. ¹⁸¹ This is R. Aqiba’s argument. Since it is written in Lev ¹⁸² Since a single witness is declared insufficient in Deut ¹⁸³ This refers to Lev ¹⁸⁴ By its nature, a blurted oath is totally disconnected from any judicial precedure.

Should a relative be found guilty of a blurted oath¹⁸⁵? Does it follow what Rebbi Abba said (ben) [in the name of]¹⁸⁶. Samuel only had daughters. Samuel: ¹⁸⁷. 5:4 sanctions only future-directed thoughtless oaths, to worsen or to improve, in Samuel’s opinion oaths that refer to past acts only are not included in the category of blurted oaths. They are meaningless oaths which might not be reparable by a sacrifice.“An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that X had not given; since there is nothing in the future there is nothing in the past. Or the following: ¹⁸⁸ 8:3. The person spoken to was an unpaid keeper responsible only if he appropriated another’s property for his own use, not if it was otherwise lost (Bava mesiˋa 7:9).“One said to another, ˋwhere is my ox?’ He responded, ˋI do not know what you are referring to.’ It so happened that it had died, or was wounded, or captured, or lost. ˋI require you to swear;’ the other said ˋAmen’. He is not liable.¹⁸⁹” Rav said, he is not liable for a keeper’s oath¹⁹⁰ but is liable because of a blurted oath¹⁹¹. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is a religious duty to appease him¹⁹², he is not liable because of a blurted oath. In Rav’s opinion, is there no religious duty to appease him? One appeases with truthful statements, not with lies.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁵ If only two witnesses are known to the party putting an imprecation on those who would not testify and one of these is a relative who could not testify, is the imprecation a blurted oath? ¹⁸⁶ From the text in Ševuˋot ¹⁸⁷ Since Lev ¹⁸⁸ Mishnah Ševuˋot ¹⁸⁹ If the keeper maintains that he never received the ox when he had in fact received it, but it died or was lost under circumstances which do not make the keeper responsible for the loss, he does not have to bring the sacrifice for a false oath since his lie did not result in monetary loss to another person. ¹⁹⁰ Since he could have told the truth and still not be liable for damages. ¹⁹¹ Since what he pronounced was an oath which resulted from speaking before thinking. ¹⁹² The keeper is under a religious obligation to tell the truth to the ox’s owner.

Rebbi Ismael stated: He has to bear his punishment¹⁹³. 5:1., a sacrifice¹⁹⁴. From where that one needs a court¹⁹⁵? One learns “telling, telling¹⁹⁶ texts in the Pentateuch which use the root נגד are Lev. 5:1 and Deut. 17:9–11. The latter text contains the rules of the Supreme Court and the punishment for disobeying its rulings.”. Since telling mentioned there is before a court, also telling here is before a court.

footnotes: ¹⁹³ Lev ¹⁹⁴ This supports Rav, that a sacrifice is due for any untruthful oath. ¹⁹⁵ That a sacrifice is required only for oaths connected with judicial proceedings. ¹⁹⁶ The only legal

¹⁹⁷ 1:1, Notes 56–71 (Ketubot 2:4, Ševuˋot 4:1). Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly¹⁹⁸ text: Two say one hair.. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose]¹⁹⁹, missing here. said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of)²⁰⁰ text in brackets. [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁷ This text is an incomplete copy of a text in Sotah ¹⁹⁸ It is obvious that one has to read with the Sotah ¹⁹⁹ From the text in Sotah ²⁰⁰ Text here, to be replaced by the Soṭah

²⁰¹. The entire story is told in the Babli, 30 a/b, about R. Johanan instead of R. Jonathan. And the following. One does not listen to the witnesses unless they come together; Rebbi Nathan says, one listens to the first and when the second comes, one listens to what he has to say. Rebbi Jonathan was sitting and asking, maybe somebody is here who heard that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina told him, that is Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. He said, may he come up²⁰². When he came up, he asked him, did you hear that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? He answered, I heard that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa agrees with Rebbi Nathan. He said, do we need this²⁰³? He said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina only intended to elevate Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim because he was an important person.

footnotes: ²⁰¹ From here on, there is no parallel in Ševuˋot ²⁰² Sit with the ordained judges. ²⁰³ This is obvious since R. Joshua ben Qorha does not require the witnesses to testify from the same point of view. Since he accepts testimonies which are consistent but not identical, he also must accept testimonies that are not synchronous.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose²⁰⁴ for Yose; cf*. Diqduqe Soferim Bava qamma* p. 136b, Note 2. in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision²⁰⁵ 112b.. As the following: Cahana²⁰⁶ died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses²⁰⁷ not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs²⁰⁸: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no²⁰⁹. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied²¹⁰ that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

footnotes: ²⁰⁴ Probably one should read Yasa ²⁰⁵ The Babli restricts hearing witnesses not in the presence of both parties to this and similar cases; Bava qamma ²⁰⁶ A Babylonian without relatives in Galilee. ²⁰⁷ That Cahana’s will conformed to the law of death-bed wills which supersedes the rights of heirs. ²⁰⁸ In Babylonia. ²⁰⁹ R. Yasa did not answer a purely theoretical question. Therefore, we do not know whether the other students of R. Eleazar accepted R. Eleazar’s position. ²¹⁰ R. Hiyya bar Abba’s student and successor.

Rebbi Jeremiah²¹¹ had a suit against a certain person. They accepted testimony not in the presence of Rebbi Jeremiah, and decided against Rebbi Jeremiah. He was sitting despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties? Rebbi Hina, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Ḥuqoq did not go to the lecture²¹² on that day, but Rebbi Huna pushed, went in, and found Rebbi Jeremiah despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties even if they are present with them in the same city? He told him, this is seen to be the rabbis’ opinion²¹³, pp.3–4..

footnotes: ²¹¹ A born Babylonian. ²¹² During the half-yearly study sessions. ²¹³ Since the decision always could be reversed on appeal and the rabbinic court anyhow acted only as an arbitration panel, in contrast to Babylonia where most of the time the rabbinic court had government backing in civil cases. Cf. the Introduction to Tractate Neziqin

MISHNAH: When they have come to a decision, they bring the parties in. The chief judge says, Mr. X, you are not guilty, Mr. X, you are guilty. From where that afterwards, one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty, but what can I do since they were a majority against me? On such a one it was said: The gossip uncovers secrets²¹⁴ 11:13. Since this is from the Hagiographs, it does not have the force of a Torah verse..

footnotes: ²¹⁴ Prov.

HALAKHAH: “When they have come to a decision,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces the one who finds guilty to write “not guilty.²¹⁵” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the one who finds guilty, writes “guilty”; the one who finds not guilty, writes “not guilty”²¹⁶. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “From where that afterwards, one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? That nobody could say, I really wanted to justify X in his suit but they did not let me do it²¹⁷. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That no other person should come, reason as he did, and say, also that one was there and he erred²¹⁸.

footnotes: ²¹⁵ The decision has to be signed by all three judges, Babli 30a. ²¹⁶ The dissenter may write a dissenting opinion, Babli 30a. ²¹⁷ His rule enforces the Mishnah. ²¹⁸ The dissenting opinion might in the course of history become the majority opinion; then its author should get due credit.

MISHNAH: Any time one produces a proof he may demand a new trial²¹⁹. If they told him, produce all your proofs within thirty days, if he produced within thirty days, he gets a new trial, after thirty days he does not get a new trial. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, what can one do if he did not find within thirty [days] but found after thirty [days]²²⁰?

footnotes: ²¹⁹ The person who lost a civil suit may request a new trial based on new documentary evidence (“proof”) or new witnesses. ²²⁰ He is entitled to a new trial if he can explain the delay. In general, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in the Mishnah.

HALAKHAH: “Any time one produces a proof,” etc. ²²² Rebbi Oshaiah said, there²²³, where it is possible to add, they continue to argue. But here it is impossible to add²²⁴. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that even here it is possible to add²²⁵ Sanhedrin 8:2)..

footnotes: ²²² The discussion of Mishnah 12 is in Halakhah 13. Therefore, the indication of a new Halakhah here is erroneous; the reference still is to Mishnah 11, in reference to a split decision of the court. ²²³ Mishnah 5:7, referring to criminal proceedings. If the court has the maximum number of members, 71, and 35 each are for conviction and acquittal while one is undecided, they have to continue to argue until the undecided judge makes up his mind. ²²⁴ He holds that in civil trials one never adds judges. Therefore, even if there are only three judges, they have to continue to argue among themselves until each one has made up his mind. ²²⁵ They hold that the rules of adding judges are identical for civil and criminal trials (Maimonides, Hilkhot

MISHNAH: If they told him, produce witnesses; he said, I have no witness; produce proofs; he said, I have no proofs. If later he found a proof, or he found witnesses, this is irrelevant²²¹. Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; he did not know that he had proof, but he found proof²²⁶? If they told him, produce witnesses; he said, I have no witness; produce proofs; he said, I have no proofs; when he saw that the decision would go against him he said, X and Y shall come and testify for me, or he produced proof from his money belt, this is irrelevant²²¹.

footnotes: ²²¹ The court has to assume that the documents are forged and the witnesses false. ²²⁶ This refers to the last case in Mishnah 12. Late submissions must be accepted if the litigant can prove that he had no knowledge of the witnesses or documents within the period allotted him by the court. ²²¹ The court has to assume that the documents are forged and the witnesses false.

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: Three Amoraïm²²⁷. One said, any time he brings proof he can demand a new trial. The other said, if he brought within 30 days²²⁸, he can demand a new trial, after 30 days he cannot demand a new trial. The other said, he never can demand a new trial unless he prove that he absolutely had no knowledge of it²²⁶. But did we not state: “Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; that he had no proof, but found proof?” Rebbi La and Rebbi Zeˋira: One said, unless he voided his proofs²²⁹; the other said, until he disclaimed his proofs²³⁰.

footnotes: ²²⁷ They explain Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s words. ²²⁸ Of judgment rendered. ²²⁶ This refers to the last case in Mishnah 12. Late submissions must be accepted if the litigant can prove that he had no knowledge of the witnesses or documents within the period allotted him by the court. ²²⁹ Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel will agree that he is restricted in asking for a new trial if he himself had belittled the possibility of finding other proof in a statement before the court. ²³⁰ He had affirmed before the court that there was nothing to be added.

Rebbi Levi had a suit against a certain person about houses; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented proof. He²³¹ asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him, any time one brings proof²³² he can demand a new trial. Rebbi Eumachos had a suit against a certain person about mills; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented witnesses. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, is that still a problem for you? Any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Why did it need two cases? In Rebbi Levy’s case, no formal verdict had been rendered, in Rebbi Eumachos’s case, a formal verdict had been rendered²²³.

footnotes: ²³¹ R. Eleazar. ²³² Since in the next case, the same expression of “proof” is used in connection with witnesses, it seems that it refers not to the actual proof submitted to the court but to the justification, submitting proof that the new material was unknown to the litigant during the trial. ²²³ Mishnah 5:7, referring to criminal proceedings. If the court has the maximum number of members, 71, and 35 each are for conviction and acquittal while one is undecided, they have to continue to argue until the undecided judge makes up his mind.

Does a judicial confirmation need a court²³⁴? Rebbi Hoshaia in the name of Samuel, Rav Bannai in the name of Samuel. One said, it should be confirmed either by the handwriting of the witnesses or the handwriting of the judges²³⁵; the other said, even with one handwriting and one judge²³⁶ 21a..

footnotes: ²³⁴ A mortgage foreclosure was certified by a certain court which confirmed the genuineness of document and claim. The property to be foreclosed was in the domain of another court. Does the second court have to ascertain that the certification be genuine or do we assume that court documents cannot be forged and the second court has to authorize the foreclosure? ²³⁵ Either the genuineness of the mortgage or the genuineness of the judicial endorsement has to be determined. ²³⁶ Two signatures have to be confirmed, but it may be the signature of one witness and one judge since the judges by their endorsement become witnesses to the genuineness of the document. This is the final determination of the Babli, Ketubot