Sanhedrin - Daf 31
- Witnesses which contradict each other on a peripheral or central detail
On the previous Daf, Rav Yehudah said that if witnesses contradict each other during questioning, the testimony is still valid for דיני ממונות. Rava said this is reasonable where the witnesses disagreed if the loaned money was in a black or white purse, which is a peripheral detail. But if the contradiction was about a central detail, e.g. whether he lent “a black maneh” (old coins) or “a white maneh” (new coins), their testimony is incompatible. The Nehardeans say: אפילו אחד אומר מנה שחור ואחד אומר מנה לבן – even if one says the loaned money was a black maneh and one says it was a white maneh, מצטרפים – they can be combined. The Gemara explains that they hold like Rebbe Shimon ben Elazar, that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree that where two pairs of witnesses disagree if a loan was one hundred or two hundred zuz, the amount which all witnesses agreed on may be collected. They argue only about a single pair of conflicting witnesses, where Beis Shammai says their testimony is invalid, and Beis Hillel says יש בכלל מאתים מנה – included in testimony about two hundred is testimony about one hundred, and it is accepted regarding the agreed amount.
- Bringing evidence after a deadline, or after admitting he has none
The next Mishnah states: כל זמן שמביא ראיה סותר את הדין – Whenever one brings evidence to prove his claim, he can overturn the ruling. If Beis Din gave the litigant thirty days to produce any evidence which he has, and he brings it after thirty days, the Tanna Kamma holds the proof is not accepted. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: מה יעשה זה שלא מצא בתוך שלשים – what should this person do if he could not find evidence during thirty days, ומצא לאחר שלשים – and found it after thirty days? Rather, the proof is accepted. If the judges told him to bring evidence or witnesses, and he said he has none, and later produced evidence, the Tanna Kamma says it is not accepted. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel again says that he may not have known about the evidence, and it is accepted. This second case is the only place, or one of three places (ערב וצידון ו"ראיה אחרונה" – “the latter case of evidence”) where Rebbe Yochanan does not pasken like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in a Mishnah. If the litigant saw he was about to lose the court case, and suddenly produced evidence, all agree it is not accepted.
- Forcing another בעל דין to go to a different court
Rebbe Yochanan said: התוקף את חבירו בדין – if one litigant is being difficult with his fellow litigant in court, and wants the case to be judged locally, and his counterpart says, "נלך למקום הוועד" – let us go to the place of assembly of תלמידי חכמים to judge the case (hoping he would be embarrassed to be difficult in their presence), we force him to travel there. Rebbe Elazar asked, “Rebbe, if someone is owed a maneh, יוציא מנה על מנה – should he spend a maneh on traveling expenses to collect the maneh?!” Rather, כופין אותו ודן בעירו - we force [the other party] to litigate the case in his own city. Rav Safra ruled the same way and added that if something needs to asked of the superior Beis Din, they send the question to them. Also, the losing party may request a document explaining the ruling, so he may present it to a superior Beis Din. Ameimar paskened that we do force the litigant to travel to the בית הוועד for the court case, but clarified he was discussing where the מלוה demands that the לוה join him there, because the passuk says: עבד לוה לאיש מלוה – the borrower is a slave to the lender.
