Sanhedrin Daf 30 - Tziruf of Witnesses
Summary
- The shiur analyzes whether a presumption of expert *sofrim* validates a deficient *shtar hodaa*, evaluates a *beit din*-styled document with only two signatures, sets rules for when a person’s admission is rejected (including the status of dreams: דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין), formulates how to record a split *beit din* verdict while balancing *lo telech rachil* and *machzei k’shikra*, clarifies who is brought back after deliberation, and develops the two core issues of צירוף עדות: whether witnesses must see together and whether they must testify together. It presents the story that yielded *semikhah* for R. Yosi b. Chanina and the ensuing halachic conclusions, including where we combine testimonies for land, movables, and specific cases like שם בן ושם בת, and it delineates which combinations of *hodaa* and *halva’ah* do or do not combine.
- The shiur is sponsored by Dr. David Lander in honor of his wife and children and לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום, and by Daniel Sady for the success of כלל ישראל and the הצלחה and safe return of soldiers and captives.
- Abaye and Rava apply ריש לקיש’s presumption—אין עדים חותמים על השטר אלא אם כן נעשה גדול—to validate a *shtar hodaa* lacking “אמר לנו כתבו וחתמו והבו ליה,” asserting a חזקה that *edim* would sign only if authorization existed and the omission is a scribal lapse. Rav Pappa (and some say Rav Huna b. Rav Yehoshua) objects that even *dayanim* may not know “הודאה בפני שנים ולא אמר להם כתבו אין כותבין,” and all the more so a *sofer* might err. The Gemara answers that the *sofrim* of Abaye and of Rava do know these laws, since this is their craft.
- A *shtar* written in the language of *dayanim* (דוכרן פתגמי וכל לישנא דבי דינא) bears only two signatures and lacks “במושב תלתא הוינא וחד לא הוה.” Ravina seeks to apply the presumption of ריש לקיש to assume proper procedure with three *dayanim*, but Rav Natan bar Ami cites Rava that כל כי האי גוונא חשינן לבית דין טועין. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says that if it states *bei dina*, that suffices, since two are not called a *beit din*; the Gemara challenges that perhaps it is a *beit din chatsuf* per Shmuel’s שנים שדנו, דיניהם דין, אלא שנקראו בית דין חצוף. The document is secured if it says “*bei dina d’*Rav Ashi,” and if it records that Rav Ashi told them to write, the presence of three is assured.
- The baraita rules that if a person tells *yetomim* “I saw your father’s money בשידה תיבה ומגדל and he said של פלוני הן or של מעשר שני הן,” if the cache is in their house, לא אמר כלום, but if it is in the field, דבריו קיימין; the rule is כללו של דבר: כל שבידו ליטלן, דבריו קיימין; אין בידו ליטלן, לא אמר כלום. If the father himself hid funds and said they are not theirs and are for פלוני or *ma’aser sheni*, then אם כמצווה דבריו קיימין but אם כמערים לא אמר כלום. A case where a *baal halom* revealed the exact amount and place and asserted של מעשר שני הן concludes זה המעשה ואמרו: דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין, even though אין חלום בלא דברים בטלים. The חידושי הר״ן asks what the novelty is beyond an עד אחד in their house and answers that even though a dream is אחד בשישים מנבואה and enjoys רגליים לדבר, still דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין; later sources note exceptions such as נידוהו בחלום due to סכנה, and the Noda BiYehuda rejects overturning a prior heter based on a dream, attributing such dreams to prior doubt rather than a message מן השמים.
- Rebbi Yochanan says to write “*zakkai*,” Reish Lakish says to write “Ploni and Ploni מזכין,” and Rabbi Elazar says to write “מדבריהן נזדכה פלוני.” The initial proposed nafka minot about fee sharing among *dayanim* fall away, and the real difference is that Rebbi Yochanan prioritizes משום לא תלך רכיל and avoids naming who voted how, while Reish Lakish prioritizes avoiding *machzei k’shikra* by not suggesting unanimity, and Rabbi Elazar crafts “מדבריהן נזדכה פלוני” to avoid both רכילות and false implication.
- The Mishnah’s “היו מכניסין אותן” can refer to the *baalei dinim*, consistent with Rabbi Nechemiah’s description of נקי הדעת: מכניסין לבעלי דינים ושומעין דבריהם, ומכניסין את העדים ושומעין דבריהם, ומוציאין אותם לחוץ, ונושאים ונותנים בדבר. A baraita that states explicitly גמרו את הדבר מכניסין את העדים follows those who require joint testimony and is דלא כרבי נתן, while the Mishnah can follow Rabbi Natan.
- The Tanna Kamma requires that אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהם כאחד, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah allows אפילו בזה אחר זה. One rationale says the Tanna Kamma views two separate sightings of a loan as different events lacking two *edim* per event, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah treats both as testimony to a single debt. A scriptural rationale derives for the Tanna Kamma from והוא עד said in singular though meaning two *edim* (per לא יקום עד … עד אחד), teaching עד דחזו תרוייהו כחד, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah reads והוא עד או ראה או ידע as a ריבוי that permits combination מכל מקום.
- The Tanna Kamma requires שאין עדות מתקיימת בבית דין עד שיעידו שניהם כאחד, while Rabbi Natan allows one to testify today and the other tomorrow. A sevara grounds the Tanna Kamma that each lone *ed* arrives only to obligate a שבועה, not ממון, whereas Rabbi Natan notes that even when both come together they do not speak “בחד פומא,” yet we combine them, so time separation should not block combination. A textual approach makes a hekesh between הגדה and ראייה from אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו, with the Tanna Kamma requiring them together like ראייה, and Rabbi Natan denying that hekesh for הגדה.
- Rabbi Shimon ben Elikim procures *semikhah* for Rabbi Yosi b. Chanina from Rabbi Yochanan before revealing that he heard משמו דרבי יהושע בן קרחה that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah is מודה to Rabbi Natan that witnesses need not testify together. Rabbi Yochanan responds that this is obvious if even seeing need not be together; Rabbi Zeira infers שמע מינה גברא רבה כיון דאסתמך אסתמך.
- Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rav that the halacha follows Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah both for land and movables, while Ulla limits it to land. Abaye cites Rav’s tradition that מודים חכמים לרבי שמעון בן קרחה בעדות קרקע and the teaching from נזיקין דבי קרנא listing four cases where even the Sages agree to combine separate events: בעדות בכור, בעדות קרקע, בעדות חזקה, וכן שם בן ושם בת. The Gemara concludes that Amoraim dispute whether there is any disagreement regarding עדות קרקע, with Ulla assuming there is and others assuming there is not.
- The case of שם בן ושם בת is not where each *ed* saw only one hair, which would be חצי דבר וחצי עדות, but where each *ed* reports שתי שערות on different parts of the body, and we combine their testimonies to establish *gadol/gdolah* status.
- Rav rules that הודאה אחר הודאה and הודאה אחר הלוואה are מצטרפי, while הלוואה אחר הלוואה and הלוואה אחר הודאה are not. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak challenges why הודאה אחר הודאה combines if the two admissions may refer to different funds, and Rav Huna b. Rav Yehoshua answers that the debtor explicitly aligns both admissions to “בההוא מנה,” and he informs each *ed* of the other admission so that both are on the same principal; the interlocutor responds תנוח דעתך שהנחת דעתי.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions