Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 15, scan section 43

of wine, as a barrel of oil amounts to twice as much as a barrel of wine. But according to whom was his decision ? Is it in accord- ance with R. Simeon b. Elazar? He said so, because in the amount of two hundred a hundred is surely included ; but did he say so in such a case as that of the barrels ? The case was that they testified not for the barrels themselves, but for the value {i.e.y one testified that he owed him the amount of a barrel of wine and the other the amount of a barrel of oil, which is twice as much). Suppose one of the witnesses says the law was made in the first attic, and the other says in the second attic. Said R. Hanina : Such a case came before a rabbi, and he conjoined their testimony. " And whence do we know that one of the judges must not say ? " The rabbis taught : Whence do we know that one of the judges, when he is going out, must not say, " I was in favor of the defend- ant, but my colleagues were against, and I could not help it, as they were the majority"? To this it reads [Lev. xix. 16]: "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people"; and it reads also [Prov. xi. 13]: "He that walketh about as a talebearer revealeth secrets." There was a disciple of whom there was a rumor that he told a secret thing which was taught in the college, after twenty-two years, and R. Ami drove him out of the college, saying : This man is telling secrets. 94 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. MISHNA VI. : So long as the defendant brings evidence to his advantage, the decision may be nullified by the court. If he was told : " All the evidence which you have, you may bring before the court within thirty days," if he found such within thirty days, it affects the decision, but after that it does not. Exclaimed R. Simeon b. Gamaliel : But what should the man do who could not find such within thirty days, but found it after? If he was told to bring witnesses, and he said, " I have none " ; "Bring any other evidence," and he said, "I have none," and after the time had elapsed he brought evidence and found also witnesses, it is as nothing. And to this also R. Simeon b. Gamaliel exclaimed : What should this defendant do if he was not aware that there were witnesses and evidence ? However, if, after he said " I have no witnesses," seeing that he is about to be liable, he says, " Bring in so and so to testify in this case," or he takes out from under his girdle a new evidence, it counts nothing (even according to R. Simeon). GEMARA : Said Rabba b. R. Hana : The Halakha prevails with R. Simeon. And the same says again : The Halakha does not prevail with the sages. Is this not self-evident? If it pre- vails with R. Simeon, it cannot prevail with the sages? One might say the Halakha prevails with R. Simeon to start with ; but if some have done in accordance with the sages, it should remain so. He comes to teach us that even if it was so done, it must be changed. " 1/ /te was told to bring witnesses,'^ etc. Said Rabba b. R. Hana in the name of R. Johanan : The Halakha prevails with the sages. And the same said again : The Halakha does not pre- vail with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Is this not self-evident — that if the Halakha prevails with the sages it cannot prevail with R. Simeon ? He comes to teach us that only in this case the Ha- lakha does not prevail with R. Simeon, but in all other cases it does ; and this is to deny what Rabba b. b. Hana said in the name of R. Johanan, that everywhere R. Simeon b. Gamaliel is men- tioned in the Mishnayoth the Halakha prevails with him, etc. (Last Gate, p. 388). There was a young man who was summoned to the court before R. Na'hman, and he asked him : "Have you no witnesses? " and he answered : " No." " Have you some other evidence?" and he answered : "No," And R. Na'hman made him liable. The young man went and wept ; and some people heard him cry, and said : We know something in your behalf m the case of your father. Said R. Na'hman : " In such a case even TRACT SANHEDRIN (SUPREME COUNCIL). 95 the rabbis would admit that the young man was not acquainted with the business of his father and therefore the new evidence is to be taken into consideration." There was a woman with whom a document was deposited and she gave it away to some one, saying : " I am aware that this document is already paid, " and R. Na'hman did not believe her. Said Rabha to him : Why should she not be trusted ? Should she desire to tell a lie, she could burn it. And R. Na'hman answered : Inasmuch as it was approved by the court and known that it was deposited with her, the supposition that if she wanted to He she could burn it does not apply. And Rabha objected to R. Na'hman from the follow- ing : A receipt which was signed by witnesses may be approved by its signer. If, however, there were no witnesses, but he was coming out from a depository ; or the receipt was written on the document after the signature of the witness (which was in the hands of the creditor), it is valid. Hence we see that a deposi- tory is to be trusted. This objection remains. When R. Sam- uel b. Jehudah came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan : The defendant has always a right to bring evidence against the decision of the court, unless all his claims are concluded and he himself confesses that he has no more witnesses nor any other evidence. However, even after this, if witnesses ar- rived from the sea countries, or the box of documents of his father was deposited with a stranger who has returned it after he was found liable, it may be taken into consideration to change the first decision. When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan : If one is summoning a party who says, " I want my case to be brought before the assembly of sages," while the plaintiff says, " It is sufificient that it be tried in the court of this city, " the plaintiff may be compelled to follow the defendant to the assembly. Said R. Elazar : Rabbi, is it right that, if the plaintiff claims one mana from the defendant, he shall spend another mana to go with him to the assembly ? Therefore the reverse must be done : The defendant should be compelled to bring the case before the court in that city. It was taught also in the name of R. Saphra : If two men were cruel to one another, and one of them insisted, « We shall try our case here," while the other says, " Let us go to the assembly," the latter must be compelled to try his case in that city. However, if there was a necessity to question the assembly, they might write and send it in writing. And also, if the defendant demands, " Write down the reason why you accused me, and give it to me, " he 96 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD.