REVACH L'DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
daf@dafyomi.co.il http://www.dafyomi.co.il
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net
|
|
SUMMARY
1. Ravin says in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that a litigant may invalidate the other litigant's witnesses or judges only if he has a Migo.
2. It is permitted to insulate cold water in sand on Shabbos in order to keep it cool.
3. Poverty in Torah is indicative of haughtiness.
4. The Talmud in Bavel is less clear than the Talmud of Eretz Yisrael.
5. There is a Machlokes regarding whether a litigant may retract his agreement to allow three shepherds to judge the case.
6. If a person is Chayav to make a Shevu'ah and the Ba'al Din tells him to swear on his own life rather than making a regular Shevu'ah, there is a Machlokes between the Tanaim regarding whether the Ba'al Din may retract.
7. There is a dispute between the Amoraim as to whether the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan applies to a case in which the claimant suggested that a relative serve as a judge or a case in which the suggestion came from the defendant.
8. There is a dispute between the Amoraim regarding whether the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan applies before or after the Gemar Din.
9. A Kinyan is always final.
10. A person who gambles or who lends money with interest is Pasul to be a witness.
|
A BIT MORE
1. Rebbi Meir maintains that a person who claims to have two sets of witnesses is not required to bring both sets to Beis Din, and consequently if he does bring both sets of witnesses and one set is found to be Pasul, the testimony of the other set is accepted by Beis Din. For this reason, according to Rav Dimi, Rebbi Meir permits a litigant in a court case to testify along with another person that one of his opponent's sets of witnesses is Pasul; he is not considered Nogei'a because the other set of witnesses will still be able to testify in Beis Din. However, Ravin maintains that the litigant's testimony is accepted only if he also testifies that the judges are Pasul and his testimony about the judges is found to be truthful. In such a situation, his testimony about the witnesses would be believed as well, because he has a Migo. In a case in which there is no Migo, however, a litigant would be unable to invalidate the other party's witnesses.
2. Even though it is forbidden to insulate a food item on Shabbos, the prohibition applies only when the food is insulated for the purpose of keeping it warm. It is permitted, however, to insulate food in order to keep it cool.
3. A person who is haughty will not be successful in learning Torah; therefore, in a place where there is poverty in Torah it indicates that the people are haughty.
4. The Talmidei Chachamim in Bavel spoke with each other sharply and in an argumentative manner, and their conclusions therefore lacked clarity. The Talmidei Chachamim in Eretz Yisrael spoke with each other pleasantly; therefore, they were able to reach clear conclusions.
5. The litigants in a case have the right to make an agreement allowing a relative to serve as a judge or allowing three shepherds to be the judges. However, Rebbi Meir maintains that each litigant may retract his agreement, while the Chachamim maintain that they may not retract their agreements.
6. Rebbi Meir maintains even if one of the litigants agreed to allow the other party to swear on his own life, which is a less stringent Shevu'ah, he may renege on his agreement and demand a regular, full-fledged Shevu'ah. The Chachamim disagree and maintain that a Ba'al Din may not renege once he has agreed to accept such a Shevu'ah.
7. According to Shmuel, the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan is about a case in which the claimant consents for a relative to judge the case. In such a situation, his consent is required in order for the verdict to stand if the defendant is found to be Patur. If the defendant is acquitted, Rebbi Meir maintains that the claimaint may renege on his agreement and demand that a Kosher judge adjudicate the case, while the Rabanan maintain that he may not renege because the defendant will already have been Zocheh in the money or object in dispute, since it is already in his possession. However, even the Rabanan agree that if the defendant agrees to allow a relative to judge the case, meaning that he agrees to accept the relative's verdict if he is found to be Chayav, he may renege on that agreement as long as he is still in possession of the disputed money or property. Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Shmuel and maintains that even Rebbi Meir would agree that a claimant cannot renege once he has agreed to allow a relative to serve as a judge, and the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan pertains to a case in which the defendant agrees to pay if a relative finds him to be Chayav.
8. According to Reish Lakish, even Rebbi Meir permits the litigants to renege on their agreement only before the Gemar Din, but both Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan agree that the litigants cannot rescind their agreement after the Gemar Din has already taken place. Rebbi Yochanan, however, maintains that the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan applies specifically after the Gemar Din, but even the Rabanan agree that the litigants may retract their agreement before the Gemar Din.
9. Both Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan agree that if the litigants made a Kinyan to finalize their agreement to allow a relative to be a judge, neither of them may rescind their agreement.
10. Rami Bar Chama maintains that a gambler is not a valid witness because the gamblers' agreement to pay each other according to the outcome of the game is considered an Asmachta (an agreement which is not Koneh because the parties did not really intend for it to take place). Anyone who gambles does so because he thinks that he will win, and thus does not fully intend to relinquish his money if he loses. For this reason, a person who gambles is inevitably a Gazlan (who cannot be a valid witness); all of his winnings are considered Gezel because the losers never really intended to relinquish their money to him. Rav Sheshes disagrees and maintains that gambling is not considered a case of Asmachta. Rav Sheshes explains that a gambler is Pasul because he is not occupied in settling the world.
|
Next Daf
Index to Revach for Maseches Sanhedrin
|
