brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net
1. Beis Din rules in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the judges.
2. If the judges err in their ruling they must compensate the damaged party.
3. There is a Machlokes if the two witnesses are required to have seen together the facts that they testify about.
4. There is a Machlokes if the two witnesses must testify together in Beis Din.
5. There is a Machlokes regarding whether the Ba'alei Dinim are sent out of the Beis Din after the testimony.
6. Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Korchah agrees with Rebbi Nasan.
7. There is a Machlokes if the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Korchah's opinion even with regard to Metaltelin.
8. There is a Machlokes if the Chachamim agree with Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Korchah with regard to testimony that deals with Karka.
9. Rav Yehudah says that even if witnesses contradict each other in the Bedikos, their testimony is still accepted with regard to Dinei Mamonos.
10. Rav Chisda says that if witnesses in a murder case contradict each other with regard to what the murder weapon was, their testimony is rejecteds.
A BIT MORE
1. If two judges rule that a Ba'al Din is Zakai and one judge rules that he is Chayav, Rebbi Yochanan maintains that Beis Din should record that they ruled that he is Zakai. They cannot record that one judge maintained that he is Chayav because that would be a transgression of the prohibition of Rechilus. Reish Lakish maintains that the ruling of each judge should be recorded in order to avoid the appearance of falsehood. Rebbi Elazar maintains that they must avoid both Rechilus and falsehood, and therefore they should write, "It emerges from their words that Ploni is Zakai."
2. If two judges erred in their ruling and the third judge ruled correctly, only the judges who erred must pay. Each one of the two judges pays a third of the damages and the other third is not paid at all.
3. The Tana Kama maintains that two witnesses are permitted to testify only about a transaction that they witnessed together. They may not testify about two different incidents that they witnessed separately, even though each incident would obligate the defendant to pay the same amount. Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Korchah maintains that two witnesses may testify on a monetary obligation even if they did not witness a transaction together because the content of their testimony is the same.
4. The Tana Kama maintains that both witnesses must testify together, and if they testify separately, they are considered individual witnesses who can be Mechayev only a Shevu'ah but not actual payment. Rebbi Nasan maintains that they may testify separately because even when witnesses testify together in Beis Din, they do not testify at exactly the same time, so Beis Din must have the ability to combine their two testimonies.
5. Rebbi Nechemyah says that the Minhag of the Nikiyei ha'Da'as in Yerushalayim was to send the Ba'alei Dinim out of Beis Din while the Beis Din was debating the Din. They were called back in for the final ruling.
6. Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Korchah maintains that two witnesses may testify even if they did not witness a transaction or incident at the same time. He also agrees with Rebbi Nasan, who permits two witnesses to testify separately in Beis Din.
7. Rebbi Chiya Bar Avin rules in the name of Rav that the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Korchah's opinion with regard to both Karka and Metaltelim. Ula maintains that the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Korchah's opinion only with regard to Karka because both witnesses are testifying about the same Karka. The Halachah does not follow his opinion, however, in a court case regarding Metaltelim since the two witnesses are not testifying about the same Metaltelim.
8. Rav Huna says in the name of Rav that the Chachamim agree with Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Korchah with regard to two witnesses who testify about Karka. Rav Idi Bar Avin quotes a Beraisa that states that the Chachamim agree with Rebbi Yehoshua Ben Korchah with regard to witnesses who testify on a Bechor, on a Chazakah of Karka, and on the Simanim of a Gadol. In all these cases, even if the witnesses observed the facts separately, they still may testify because they will be testifying about the same animal, person, or Karka.
9. Rava explains that Rav Yehudah's opinion is that if one witness says that the money was taken from a black purse and the other witness says that it was a white purse, their testimony is still valid. However, even Rav Yehudah agrees that if one witness says that the coins were black and the other witness says that they were white, their testimony is Pasul.
10. Rav Chisda states that if one witness says that the murder weapon was a knife and the other witness says that it was an axe, their testimony is not accepted. However, if one witness says that the murderer was wearing black clothing and the other witness says that he was wearing white clothing, their testimony is accepted.
Next Daf Index to Revach for Maseches Sanhedrin