POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Sanhedrin 30
1) CONCERN THAT BEIS DIN ERRED
(a) (Ravina): If an Odisah did not mention testimony, rather,
it used languages of judges (e.g. 'Zichron Devarim'), but
it (only had two signatures, and it) did not say 'We sat
as three judges, and one of us died', Reish Lakish's
2) WHEN IS AN OUTSIDER BELIEVED?
(b) Rejection (Rav Noson bar Ami): Rava taught, in such a
case we are concerned that Beis Din erred (i.e. two
people thought that they suffice for a Beis Din).
(c) (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): If it says 'Beis Din', we are
not concerned (that they erred).
(d) Question: Perhaps this was an impudent Beis Din!
1. (Shmuel): If two judged a monetary case, the verdict
stands, just it is called an impudent Beis Din.
(e) Answer: He means, if it says 'The Beis Din of our Rebbi,
(f) Question: Perhaps Rav Ashi's Talmidim hold like Shmuel!
(g) Answer: It says 'Rav Ashi told us...'
(a) (Beraisa): If Reuven told Shimon's orphans 'I saw Shimon
hide money in a chest, he said that it was Ploni's or
3) GIVING THE VERDICT
1. If the chest is in their house, we ignore his words
(one witness is not believed);
(b) If they saw their father hide money in a chest and he
said that it was Ploni's or Ma'aser Sheni':
2. If the chest is in the field, he is believed;
3. The general rule is: he is believed only if he could
have taken the money himself.
1. If this was like a command what do with the money,
we fulfill his words;
(c) A case occurred: Levi was pained that he did not know
where his father left his money, and he was told in a
dream 'the amount is such and such, they are in such and
such place, they are Ma'aser Sheni - Chachamim ruled,
dreams have no bearing (the money is Chulin).
2. If he said this cunningly (so they will not take the
money or think that he is rich), we ignore his
(a) (Mishnah): If two decide that he is exempt...
4) WHEN DO TESTIMONIES JOIN?
(b) Question: How do we write the verdict?
(c) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): He is exempt.
(d) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): David and Kalev Mezakim,
Yehudah is Mechayev.
(e) Answer #3 (R. Elazar): From the judges' words, Ploni is
(f) Question: What is the difference between these answers?
(g) Answer #1: They argue about which judges pay if they
1. According to R. Yochanan (we do not know if a judge
dissented), all pay;
(h) Rejection: All should agree that the dissenting judge is
exempt, his colleagues erred by not heeding him!
2. According to Reish Lakish, the dissenting judge does
(i) Answer #2: Rather, they argue about whether or not the
erring judges pay the share of the third.
1. According to R. Yochanan they pay his share;
(j) Rejection: All should agree that the erring judges do not
pay his share, they could not have judged the case
2. According to Reish Lakish, they do not.
(k) Answer #3: Rather, they argue about "Lo Selech Rachil
1. R. Yochanan says that we do not say who dissented,
on account of "Lo Selech Rachil";
(l) (Mishnah): When they finish deciding, they bring them
2. Reish Lakish says that we say what each judge said,
lest it look like Sheker;
3. R. Elazar is concerned for both, therefore the
verdict suggests that one dissented without
(m) Question: Whom do they bring in?
(n) Answer #1: The litigants.
(o) Rejection: They are there the entire time!
(p) Answer #2: Rather, they bring in the witnesses.
(q) Suggestion: Our Mishnah is not like R. Noson.
1. (Beraisa): Witnesses cannot testify together unless
they saw the testimony together;
(r) Defense of Answer #1: Really, they bring in the
litigants; the Mishnah is R. Nechemyah.
2. R. Yehoshua ben Korchah says, we can join their
testimony even if they saw it one after the other;
3. Also, their testimony is invalid unless they testify
together in Beis Din;
4. R. Noson says, we can accept the testimony of one of
them today, and the other will testify when he comes
to Beis Din tomorrow. (But our Mishnah requires
returning the witnesses, so they will be together!)
1. (Beraisa - R. Nechemyah): Nekiyei ha'Da'as of
Yerushalayim used to bring in the litigants and hear
their claims, bring in the witnesses and hear their
testimony, and tell them to leave while they judged.
(s) Question (Beraisa): When they decided, they would bring
in the witnesses.
(t) Answer: That is not like R. Noson.
(a) (Beraisa): Witnesses cannot testify together unless they
saw the testimony together;
(b) R. Yehoshua ben Korchah says, we can join their testimony
even if they saw it one after the other.
(c) Question: On what do they argue?
(d) Answers: They argue about reasoning, or a verse:
(e) Answer #1: They argue about reasoning - the first Tana
says, if they did not see the testimony together, perhaps
they testify about different loans;
1. R. Yehoshua ben Korchah says, in any case, both
agree that he owes the money!
(f) Answer #2: They argue about a verse: "V'Hu Ed O Ra'ah O
1. (Beraisa) Question: "Lo Yakum Ed" already implied
'one' - why did the Torah have to say "Echad"?
(g) (Beraisa): Also, their testimony is invalid unless they
testify together in Beis Din;
2. Answer: This teaches that "Ed" always connotes two,
unless specified otherwise.
i. The Torah refers to two witnesses seeing
testimony in a singular language to teach that
they must see like one (at the same time);
ii. R. Yehoshua ben Korchah says, "V'Hu Ed O Ra'ah
O Yada" - any way he knows testimony is
(h) R. Noson says, we can accept the testimony of one of them
today, and the other will testify when he comes to Beis
(i) Question: On what do they argue?
(j) Answers: They argue about reasoning, or a verse:
(k) Answer #1: They argue about reasoning - the first Tana
says that one witness only comes to obligate an oath
(therefore, he cannot be joined to a witness to obligate
1. R. Noson says, in any case (even when they come to
Beis Din together), they do not testify at the same
moment, yet the Torah obligates money according to
(l) Answer #2: They argue about a verse: "(O Ra'ah...) Im Lo
Yagid v'Nasa Avono".
5) WHEN DO TESTIMONIES JOIN? (Cont.)
1. All hold like Chachamim that argue with R. Yehoshua
ben Korchah (they must see the testimony together)
(m) R. Shimon ben Elyakim strove to give Semichah to R. Yosi
b'Rebbi Chanina, he was not able.
2. They argue about whether or not we equate testifying
(Yagid) to seeing (Ra'ah) the testimony: the first
Tana equates them, R. Noson does not.
1. R. Yochanan: Does anyone know whether or not the
Halachah follows R. Yehoshua ben Korchah?
(n) (R. Zeira): This teaches that once someone receives
Semichah, he keeps it.
2. R. Shimon ben Elyakim: He (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina)
3. R. Yochanan: Let him tell us!
4. R. Shimon ben Elyakim: First give him Semichah.
5. R. Yochanan gave him Semichah.
6. R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina: I heard that R. Yehoshua
ben Korchah holds like R. Noson.
7. R. Yochanan: This is obvious! The essence of
testimony is seeing it, R. Yehoshua does not require
them to see it together - all the more so, they need
not say it together!
i. In any case, since you received Semichah, you
(a) (R. Chiya bar Avin): The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua ben
Korchah, both regarding (testimony about) land and
(b) (Ula): The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua ben Korchah
regarding land, but not regarding Metaltelim.
(c) Question (Abaye): This implies that there is an argument
about land - but R. Aba taught that Chachamim agree with
R. Yehoshua ben Korchah regarding land!
1. (Rav Idi bar Avin): Chachamim agree with R. Yehoshua
ben Korchah regarding testimony about a Bechor,
land, Chazakah, and similarly in a boy or girl (this
will be explained).
(d) Answer: They are Amora'im, R. Chiya bar Aba and Ula argue
with them (and say that Chachamim argue about land)!
(e) Question: What does it mean 'similarly in a boy or girl'?
1. Suggestion: One witness says that he saw one hair
(of adulthood) on the front, one witness says that
he saw one on the back.
(f) Answer: Rather, one witness says that he saw two hairs on
the front, one witness says that he saw one on the back.
2. Rejection: Each witness only testifies about half of
what is required!
(g) (Rav Yosef citing Ula): The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua
ben Korchah, both regarding land and Metaltelim;
1. (R. Zeira citing Rav): The Halachah follows R.
Yehoshua ben Korchah regarding land, but not
(h) Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): What is the
difference between different loans and different
2. This is as Rav taught elsewhere.
3. (Rav): (Testimony of) different admissions join (if
'Reuven admitted to Shimon 'I owe you' in front of
Ploni', and later admitted in front of Almoni);
4. (Testimony of) an admission joins (testimony of one
witness who saw) a loan *before* the admission;
5. (Testimony of) different loans do not join, nor does
an admission join a loan *after* the admission.
1. Different loans do not join, because they do not
testify about the same money - likewise, different
admissions should not join, (perhaps) they are not
about the same money!
(i) Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): The case is, when
Reuven admitted in front of Almoni, he said 'I already
admitted about this debt in front of Ploni'.
(j) Question: Still, Ploni does not know that he testifies
about the same money as Almoni does!
(k) Answer: The case is, Reuven later told Ploni 'I admitted
in front of Almoni about the debt I admitted to in front
1. Rav Nachman was grateful for the answer; Rav Huna
told him, a great difficulty remains.
(l) Question (Rava): If the witnesses must know that they
testify about the same money, the same applies to an
admission after a loan, Reuven must tell Ploni 'I
admitted in front of Almoni about the money I borrowed in
front of you';
1. Rav Nachman: I heard that people of this city give
great explanations, then destroy them!
(m) (Chachamim of Neharda'a): We join (testimony of) two
admissions, two loans, or one of each (in either order).
1. This is like R. Yehoshua ben Korchah.
(n) (Rav Yehudah): If the witnesses contradicted each other
in Bedikos (matters not essential to the testimony), the
testimony is valid for monetary cases.
(o) (Rava): Presumably, Rav Yehudah only refers to a
contradiction such as the color of the wallet - but if
they argue about the color of the coins, the testimony is
(p) Question: This implies that a contradiction about the
color of the wallet disqualifies testimony for capital
1. But Rav Chisda taught, if one witness said that
Reuven killed with a sword, the other said that he
used an axe, they do not join;
(q) Answer: Rav Yehudah and Rav Chisda are Amora'im, they
argue with each other.
2. If one said that his clothes were black, the other
said that they were white, the testimonies join