SANHEDRIN 31 - Dedicated by Mrs. G. Kornfeld for the Yahrzeit of her mother, Mrs. Gisela Turkel (Golda bas Chaim Yitzchak Ozer), on 25 Av. Mrs. Turkel was an exceptional woman with an iron will who loved and respected the study of Torah.



תוספות ד"ה הוא דאמר כי האי תנא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconciles the Gemara's implication that Rav Yehudah does not hold like R. Shimon ben Elazar, with the Gemara in Bava Basra, which clearly holds that he does. They reject the suggestion that Rava's qualification of Rav Yehudah is his own opinion, and not that of Rav Yehudah himself).

משמע הכא, דרב יהודה, דאמר 'במנה שחור ובמנה לבן אין מצטרפין', לית ליה דרשב"א.


Clarification: This implies that Rav Yehudah, who holds that 'an old Manah and a new Manah do not combine', does not hold like R. Shimon ben Elazar.

ותימה, דבחזקת הבתים (ב"ב דף מא. ושם) גבי עובדא ד'רב כהנא שקל בידקא בארעיה' משמע בהדיא דרב יהודה אית ליה דרשב"א?


Question: In 'Chezkas ha'Batim' in the case where Rav Kahana took a piece of land', it is clearly implied that he does?

ואין לומר - דרב יהודה בכל ענין קאמר, ואפילו במנה שחור ובמנה לבן; והאי דקאמר רבא 'מסתברא מילתיה דרב יהודה באחד אמר ... ', רבא טעמא דנפשיה קאמר.


Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that Rav Yehudah himself speaks in all cases, even by an old Manah and a new Manah, and when Rava establishes the case by a black purse and a white purse (and not by an old Manah and a new Manah) he is presenting his own opinion, but not that of Rav Yehudah.

דא"כ, הל"ל 'והאלהים אמר רב יהודה אפילו במנה שחור ובמנה לבן!'


Reason: because in that case, he ought to have said 'I swear that Rav Yehudah said it even by an old Manah and a new Manah!'

כדאשכחן בפ"ק דגיטין (דף יג: ושם) 'מסתברא מילתיה דרב בפקדון ... '?


Proof: Like we find in the first Perek of Gitin 'Logically Rav's ruling applies by Pikadon, but I swear that he said it by Milveh too!'

דיש לומר, דודאי אית ליה דרשב"א, אלא שמחלק בין מנה ומאתים למנה שחור ומנה לבן.


Answer: In fact Rav Yehudah holds like R. Shimon ben Elazar, only he draws a distinction between one and two Manah (where the witnesses combine) and an old Manah and a new one (where they don't).



תוספות ד"ה שבית שמאי אומרים נחלקה עדותן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos give four reasons to explain why, even though if one pair of witnesses contradict one another, the Eidus is Bateil, that will not be the case when two pairs of witnesses do so).

ואם תאמר, כיון דבכת אחת 'בית שמאי אומרים "נחלקה עדותן" ', אם כן, בשתי כיתי עדים ה"ל נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול?


Question: Since by one group of witnesses, Beis Shamai hold that their testimony is divided (since they contradict one another), by two groups, it ought to be considered as if one of them was a relative or Pasul?

ויש לומר, דהיינו דווקא כשהפסול ידוע.


Answer #1: That would indeed be the case if the P'sul was known (but not here where it is not).

אי נמי, כמ"ד 'תתקיים העדות בשאר'.


Answer #2: Alternatively, this follows the opinion that holds that even if some of the witnesses become Pasul, the testimony stands with the remaining witnesses.

אי נמי, לא אמרינן 'נמצא אחד מהם קרוב או פסול... ' אלא בבאו בבת אחת תוך כדי דיבור, דאז חשיבי עדות אחת; והכא שבאו שני כיתי עדים זו אחר זו.


Answer #3: Alternatively, the principle that if one of the witnesses is declared a relative or Pasul, all the witnesses are disqualified' is confined to where they all arrived together and testified within 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of each other; whereas we are speaking here where the two pairs of witnesses arrived one after the other.

ועי"ל, דכי אמר 'נמצא אחד מהם קרוב או פסול ... ', ה"מ כי מסייעי אהדדי, אבל הכא דמכחשי אהדדי לא.


Answer #4: Finally, when we say that if one of them is a relative or Pasul, he disqualifies all of them, that is only if the witnesses support each other, but not if they contradict each other.



תוספות ד"ה חייביה רב נחמן

(SUMMARY: Tosfos prove that Rav Nachman does not conform with the opinion that forbids claiming from the property of Yesomim unless it is being consumed by Ribis. They are in two minds however, about whether one may accept witnesses even though Ketanim are always considered absent, and one is forbidden to accept witnesses unless the defendant is present in court).

לית ליה לרב נחמן הא דאמרינן 'אין נזקקין לנכסי יתומים אא"כ ריבית אוכלת בהן'. דאמר רב נחמן בפרק שום היתומים (ערכין דף כב.) 'מריש לא הוה מיזדקקנא לנכסי יתומים. כיון דשמענא להא דאמר רב 'דיתמי דאכלי דלאו דידהו ליזלו בתר שיבקייהו',מיזדקקנא.


Clarification: Rav Nachman does not agree with the principle of 'not claiming from the property of Yesomim unless it is being consumed by Ribis.

דאמר רב נחמן בפרק שום היתומים (ערכין דף כב.) 'מריש לא הוה מיזדקקנא לנכסי יתומים. כיון דשמענא להא דאמר רב 'דיתמי דאכלי דלאו דידהו, ליזלו בתר שיבקייהו',מיזדקקנא.


Source: Because in Perek Shum ha'Yesomim he made a statement that initially he did not claim from the property of Yesomim, until he heard Rav say that Yesomim who eat up what does not belong to them, will follow their father to the grave. Then he began to do so.

ומהאי טעמא נמי, אע"ג דבעלמא אין מקבלים עדים אלא בפני בעל דין, גבי קטן מקבלין.


Inference: And it is for the same reason that, even though that ordinarily one does not accept witnesses in the absence of the other litigant, by a Katan (who is considered absent), we do.

א"נ, לא קאמר 'נזקקין' אלא כשיש שטר, דמקיימין את השטר שלא בפני בעל דין, וכאן היה שטר.


Refutation: Alternatively, Rav Nachman would only accept claims against Yesomim if there was a Sh'tar, seeing as one is permitted to substantiate a Sh'tar even in the defendant's absence, and in our case there was a Sh'tar.




תוספות ד"ה כיון דאיתחזק בבי דינא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reject Rashi's explanation of 'Ischazek be'Vei Dina, and explain it differently).

פי' הקונטרס שכתוב בו הנפק.


Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it contained a Henpek (Beis-Din's stamp).

וקשה, דמכל מקום ניהמנה במיגו דאי בעי קלתיה?


Question: Why do we nevertheless not believe the defendant, with a 'Migu', since, if he wanted, he could have burned it.

וי"ל, ד'איתחזק בבי דינא' שראוהו בידה כי ההוא דשילהי מי שמת (ב"ב דף קנט.) שהוחזק כתב ידו בבית דין.


Explanation #2: When they stamped it they saw it in the woman's hands, like the case in Perek Mi she'Meis, where the man's signature was established in Beis-Din (see Tosfos there DH 'K'gon').



תוספות ד"ה סמפון שיש עליו עדים

(SUMMARY: Tosfos argue with Rashi with regard to whether a receipt is called Simpon when it is in the hands of the debtor, and based on that, also argue with him regarding the interpretation of 'Yiskayem be'Chosamav).

פ"ה, שובר ויוצא מתחת ידי לוה כמשפטו.


Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the receipt produced by the debtor, as it should be.

ור"ת פירש, דביד הלוה קרוי 'שובר', וכשהוא יוצא מתחת ידי המלוה קרוי 'סמפון'.


Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam however, explains that a receipt that is produced by the debtor is called a 'Shover', and it is when it is produced by the creditor that it is called ' 'Simpon'.

ו'יתקיים בחותמיו' - היינו דשיילינא לסהדי אי פריע אי לא פריע, כדאיתא שילהי פ"ק דב"מ (דף).


Explanation #2 (Part 2): 'Yiskayem be'Chosamav' therefore means (not that it is established through ts witnesses, but) that we ask the witnesses whether it has been paid or not, as we have learned in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a.



תוספות ד"ה אין עליו עדים ויוצא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos do not know whether the Tana is speaking where both the substantiated Sh'tar and the Simponos are in the hands of the third person, or just the Simponos).

... השטר והסמפונות מתחת ידי שליש, כשר.


Clarification: If the Sh'tar and the Simponos are produced by a third person, it is Kasher.

משמע ליה, אפילו איתחזק דומיא ד'יוצא אחר חיתום שטרות'.


Inference: Rava seems to understand that it speaks even if the Sh'tar has been substantiated, similar to where the Simpon comes after the signatures on the Sh'tar.

א"נ יש לפרש לאו דאין עליו עדים כלל, אלא יש עליו עדים ולא ידעי אי פריע אי לא פריע, ויוצא הסמפונות מתחת ידי שליש.


Alternative Explanation: Alternatively, 'no Eidim on it' does not mean that there are no Eidim at all, but that they do not know whether the Sh'tar has been paid or not, and the Simponos are in the hands of a Shelish.



תוספות ד"ה ויוציא מנה על מנה

מכאן למתחייב בדין דלא משלם לאידך יציאותיו, אע"פ שהזקיקו לילך לדון בעיר אחרת.


Inference: From here we can learn that the guilty party in a Din Torah is not obligated to pay the winner's costs, even there where he forced him to take his case to another town.



תוספות ד"ה ואם אמר כתבו ותנו לי מאיזה טעם כו'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos establish this ruling specifically with regard to a litigant whom Beis-Din forced to rule by them, but not otherwise. And they are two minds as to whether this is inherent in the Gemara in 'Eizehu Neshech').

דוקא היכא דנתעצמו לדון , וכפו אותו לדון כאן, אבל בעלמא, לא.


Clarification: This speaks exclusively where Beis-Din forced him to come and be judged by them, but not otherwise.

וכן משמע באיזהו נשך (ב"מ דף סט. ושם) גבי 'תרי כותאי דעבוד עיסקא, דא"ל "חזינא דכל בתר דידי קאזיל מר", וקאמר 'כי האי ודאי צריך לאודועי'.


Proof: And so it is implied in 'Eizehu Neshech' in the case of two people who entered into a business deal, where one of them said to Rav Nachman 'See that you seem to always side with me, where the Gemara concludes that in such a case one certainly needs to present the litigants with the reason (but not under normal circumstances).

מיהא יש לדחות, דהכי קאמר 'כי האי ודאי צריך לאודועי אע"פ שאין שואל מאיזה טעם נתחייב צריך לאודועי', אבל בעלמא אי שאיל אין, אי לא, לא.


Refutation: One can refute the proof however, in that what Rav Nachman meant was that in such a case one certainly needs to present the litigants with the reason, even there where they have not asked for it; but there where they have, one is always obligated to do so.



תוספות ד"ה אי ציית ציית

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that the suggestion that 'I Lo Tzayis is meant literally cannot be correct, and establish it to mean that the litigant declares his intention to take his case before the Beis-Din ha'Gadol).

אין לפרש 'אי לא ציית' - שלא תוכלו לכופו;


Rejected Explanation: This cannot mean that 'If they do not accept his ruling, that he cannot force them ...

דכ"ש שלא יוכל נשיא לכופו, דהכא שבט והתם מחוקק, ומר עוקבא ריש גולה הוה.


Reason: Because in that case, th Nasi (in Eretz Yisrael) would certainly not be able to force the litigant to accept his ruling, seeing as here (in Bavel) they are called 'staff' whereas there (in Eretz Yisrael) they are only called 'Mechokek' (see first Perek 5a).

אלא מפר"ת 'אי לא ציית' - כגון דאמר 'לב"ד הגדול קאזילנא'.


Explanation: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains 'If he does not listen ... ' to mean that the litigant declares that he wants to go to the Beis-Din ha'Gadol (which is his prerogative).