Sanhedrin - Daf 30
- Machlokes how the verdict is written regarding naming the opinions
The Mishnah on Daf 29a stated that the verdict is issued to the parties without mentioning the opinions of the specific judges. It adds that a judge may not tell one party that he judged in his favor, but was outvoted by his colleagues, which would be רכילות – gossipmongering. The Gemara asks how a verdict is written, and three opinions are presented. Rebbe Yochanan says they simply write, "זכאי" – [Ploni is] not liable. Reish Lakish says they explicitly write the opinion of each judge. Rebbe Elazar says they write: מדבריהן נזדכה פלוני – From [the judges’] words, Ploni was found not liable. The Gemara explains that R’ Yochanan holds they only write "זכאי", to avoid violating "לא תלך רכיל" – Do not be a gossipmonger. Reish Lakish holds this would be מיחזי כשיקרא – appear like a lie (by implying the verdict was unanimous), so they must write each judge’s opinion. Rebbe Elazar takes both concerns into account, so they write “Through their words, Ploni was found not liable.”
- Machlokes if witnesses must see the event together
A Baraisa states: לעולם אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהן כאחד – [Witnesses’] testimony can never be combined unless they both see the event together, but not if they testified about different loans. Rebbe Yehoshua ben Korchah argues: אפילו בזה אחר זה – even if they witnessed separate events one after the other, their testimony is combined. The Gemara first explains the machlokes based on logic, that the Tanna Kamma holds אמנה דקא מסהיד האי לא קא מסהיד האי – the maneh about which this witness testifies, the other witness does not testify, and vice versa, so they cannot be combined. Rebbe Yehoshua ben Korchah holds: אמנה בעלמא תרוייהו קמסהדי – they are both testifying about a general maneh of debt and can be combined. Alternatively, they argue about the passuk: "והוא עד או ראה או ידע" – and he is a witness; he saw or he knew. This means a pair of witnesses, but was written in the singular to teach they cannot be combined עד דחזו תרווייהו כחד – unless they both saw the event together. Later, Amoraim argue if the halachah follows Rebbe Yehoshua ben Korchah only by קרקע (where both witnesses testify to the same fact of ownership), or even loans (which are different obligations). The Nehardeans conclude the halachah follows him in all cases.
- Machlokes if witnesses must testify together
The Baraisa continues: ואין עדותן מתקיימת בבית דין עד שיעידו שניהן כאחד – their testimony cannot be accepted unless they testify together. Rebbe Nassan argues: שומעין דבריו של זה היום – we listen to the words of this [witness] today, וכשיבא חבירו למחר שומעין דבריו – and when his colleague comes tomorrow, we listen to his words and combine their separate testimonies. Again, the Gemara first explains this machlokes as based on logic, that the Tanna Kamma holds: עד אחד כי אתי לשבועה אתי – a single witness is only effective for obligating the defendant to make a shevuah, לממונא לא אתי – but is not effective for obligating money, so two single witnesses cannot be combined to generate a monetary obligation. Rebbe Nassan responds that just as two witnesses cannot testify בחד פומא – with one mouth, but their testimonies are combined, so too separately delivered testimonies are also combined. Alternatively, they argue about a passuk: "אם לוא יגיד ונשא עונו" – if he does not testify, he shall bear his sin. Both Tannaim hold like the Rabbonon above, that only witnesses to the same event can be combined. They argue if מקשינן הגדה לראיה – we compare testifying to witnessing, which would require them to testify together, just as they must witness the event together.
