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 31
1) CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY
(a) (Chachamim of Neharda'a): Even if they argue about the
color of the coins, the testimony is valid.
2) BRINGING A PROOF LATER
(b) Suggestion: This is like R. Yehoshua ben Korchah.
(c) Rejection: We know that R. Yehoshua ben Korchah only
joins testimonies when they do not contradict each other,
we have no source that he joins in this case!
(d) Rather, Chachamim of Neharda'a hold like the following
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): Beis Hillel and
Beis Shamai agree that if one pair of witnesses says
that Reuven owes 100, and the other says that he
owes 200, he must pay 100 (for all agree that he
owes at least 100);
(e) A case occurred, one witness said that Reuven owed a
barrel of wine, one said that he owed a barrel of oil; R.
Ami made Reuven pay a barrel of wine (which is worth less
2. They argue when one witness says 100, the other 200:
Beis Shamai consider this contradictory testimony
(and Reuven is exempt), Beis Hillel obligate him to
(f) Suggestion: This is like R. Shimon ben Elazar.
(g) Objection: R. Shimon ben Elazar only obligated in a case
of 100 and 200, for 100 is included in 200 - we have no
source to say that he obligates regarding wine and oil.
(h) Answer: The case is, the witnesses argued about whether
he owed *the value of* a barrel of wine or of oil.
(i) A case occurred, one witness said that Reuven borrowed
money from Shimon on the top floor, one said that he
borrowed on the bottom floor; Rebbi joined the
testimonies (like Rav Yehudah).
(j) (Mishnah): Question: What is the source that when they
(k) (Beraisa) Question: What is the source that afterwards, a
judge may not tell Ploni 'I wanted to acquit you, but
they outnumbered me'?
(l) Answer: It says "Lo Selech Rachil b'Amecha" and "Holech
Rachil Megaleh Sod".
(m) A matter was said in the Beis Medrash, it became known
that a certain Talmid revealed it 22 years later - R. Ami
expelled him from the Beis Medrash, because he reveals
(a) (Mishnah): If a party later brings a proof, it overturns
3) A THIRD PARTY HOLDING A DOCUMENT
(b) If Reuven was told to bring his proofs within 30 days,
and he found proof within 30 days, it overturns the
1. If he found proof after 30 days, it does not
overturn the verdict;
(c) Reuven was told to bring witnesses or a proof, and he
said that he does not have; if he later finds witnesses
or a proof, he may not use them;
2. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, what should he have
done, he did not find until after 30 days!
(Therefore, it overturns the verdict.)
(d) R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, what should he have done, he
did not know at the time! (Therefore, he may use them.)
1. If he saw that he was going to lose the case and
said 'Ploni and Almoni, come to testify!', or he
pulled a proof out of his belt, it is invalid.
(e) (Gemara - Rabah bar Rav Huna): The Halachah follows R.
Shimon ben Gamliel (in the first law).
(f) (Rabah bar Rav Huna): The Halachah does not follow
(g) Objection: Since the Halachah follows R. Shimon,
obviously it does not follow Chachamim!
(h) Answer: One might have thought, l'Chatchilah we follow R.
Shimon, but if a judge ruled like Chachamim his verdict
stands - Rabah teaches, this is not so.
(i) (Mishnah): Reuven was told to bring witnesses...R. Shimon
ben Gamliel says...
(j) (Rabah bar Rav Huna): The Halachah follows Chachamim.
(k) (Rabah bar Rav Huna citing R. Yochanan): The Halachah
does not follow R. Shimon ben Gamliel.
(l) Objection: Since the Halachah follows Chachamim,
obviously it does not follow R. Shimon!
(m) Answer: He teaches that in this law, the Halachah does
not follow R. Shimon ben Gamliel, but in *all* other
Mishnayos, the Halachah follows him; he argues with Rabah
bar bar Chanah.
(n) (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan): The Halachah
follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel in all Mishnayos except for
three: the Mishnah of an Arev, the Get in Tzidon, and the
litigant who found a proof after he said that he does not
(o) A child was summonsed to judgment in front of Rav
Nachman. He was asked if he has witnesses or a proof, and
he said that he does not; Rav Nachman obligated him, the
child left crying.
1. Ploni and Almoni heard about this; they came and
said 'We know about his father's affairs'!
2. Rav Nachman: Even Chachamim admit in this case, for
a child does not know about his father's affairs.
(a) A woman was holding a document (the lender and borrower
entrusted her with it); she said 'I know that it was
(b) Version #1: Rav Nachman acted according to her words.
(c) Question (Rava): Is this like Rebbi, who says that a
document is acquired by handing it over (therefore, it is
like hers, she is believed about it)?
(d) Answer (Rav Nachman): It is even like Chachamim - she is
believed because she could have burned the document if
(e) Version #2: Rav Nachman did not believe her.
(f) Question (Rava): She should be believed because she could
have burned the document if she wanted!
(g) Answer (Rav Nachman): Once a document has been seen in
Beis Din, one is not believed (to disqualify it) Migo
(because) he could have burned it.
4) BRINGING A PROOF LATER
(h) Question (Rava - Beraisa): A receipt which has witnesses
is validated through the signatures;
1. If it has no witnesses, and a third party holds it
or it is written on the loan document below the
signatures, it is valid.
(i) Rav Nachman is refuted.
2. If a third party holds it, it is valid (the third
party is believed, even though Beis Din saw the
3. If it is written on the loan document below the
signatures, it is valid (the lender would not allow
them to taint his document unless he was really
(a) (Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan): One can always bring
proofs, until he seals his claim (he says that he has no
more proofs) and then says 'Ploni and Almoni, come
testify for me!'
5) WHO DECIDES WHERE THEY WILL BE JUDGED
(b) Objection: The first part of this is like Chachamim (once
he seals his claim, he cannot bring *any* proof), the end
is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel (he cannot bring a proof
that he had from the beginning, e.g. 'Ploni and Almoni,
come testify for me!', but if he later finds a proof, he
can bring it)!
1. Suggestion: The entire law is like R. Shimon ben
Gamliel, the end explains the beginning: sealing his
claim means, saying 'Ploni and Almoni, come testify
(c) (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah citing R. Yochanan): One can
always bring proofs, until he says that he has no more
witnesses or proofs;
2. Rejection: R. Yochanan said that the Halachah does
not follow R. Shimon ben Gamliel in this case!
1. If witnesses come from overseas, or if his father's
documents were deposit by someone else, he may use
them to overturn the verdict.
(a) (Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan): If Reuven was an
overbearing litigant, and he wanted to take Shimon to a
local Beis Din, Shimon may insist that they go to the
Beis ha'Va'ad (where there are great Chachamim, Reuven
will be embarrassed in front of them).
(b) Objection (R. Elazar): If Reuven is owed 100 Zuz by
Shimon, must he spend 100 Zuz travelling to the Beis
(c) (R. Elazar): Rather, Reuven can force Shimon to go to a
Beis Din in their city.
(d) (Rav Safra): If Levi and Yehudah were quarreling, Levi
wants to go to a local Beis Din, Yehudah wants to go to
the Beis ha'Va'ad, Levi can force him to be judged here;
1. If the local Beis Din does not know the law, they
will (send a message and) ask the Beis ha'Va'ad.
(e) Question: How far does her obligation extend?
2. If a litigant asks to know the reason for the
verdict, they write it for him.
3. A Yevamah goes to the Yavam to do Chalitzah.
(f) Answer (R. Ami): Even from Tiverya to Tzipori (even
though Tiverya has a greater Beis Din).
(g) (Rav Kahana): He learns from "V'Kor'u Lo Ziknei Iro (of
the Yavam)" - not the Zekenim of her city.
(h) (Ameimar): The Halachah is, we force him to go to the
(i) Question (Rav Ashi): But R. Elazar taught, he can force
him to go to a Beis Din in their city!
(j) Answer: The lender can force the borrower (whether he
wants to be judged here or in the Beis ha'Va'ad) -
"V'Eved Loveh l'Ish Malveh".
(k) The Beis Din of Tiverya sent to Mar Ukva (in Bavel):
Ukvan (of Bavel) claims that his brother Yirmeyah
castrated him (some say - monetarily cheated him); (you,
Mar Ukva) tell Yirmeyah (to come to you) for judgment,
force him be judged (here) in Tiverya.
(l) Question: It says 'tell him' - this implies that Mar Ukva
should judge him; 'force him to be judged in Tiverya'
implies that Mar Ukva should send him here!
(m) Answer #1: They told him, you should judge him (there) -
if he does not listen, persuade him to come before us in
(n) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It was a case of a fine, which we
do not judge in Bavel;
1. They sent to Mar Ukva (even though he cannot judge
it) to show honor to him.