brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net
1. There is a Machlokes as to whether an Ohev and a Soneh are qualified to testify.
2. The judges are required to attempt to frighten the witnesses regarding the severity of giving false testimony.
3. If witnesses testify that a person admitted to owing money or that they were told that the person owes money, Beis Din does not obligate the person to pay on the basis of such testimony.
4. In certain situations, if a person who is being judged does not make a claim in his own defense, Beis Din makes a claim for him.
5. It is forbidden to add to the Torah.
6. There is a Machlokes if a person is assumed to be a liar if he admits in front of witnesses that he owes money and later denies having done so.
7. If a person says that he owes money to someone and later denies it, he is Patur.
8. If a person admits in front of two people that he owes money, they may not write a Shtar Hoda'ah.
9. If a person admits in front of three people that he owes money, there is a Machlokes regarding whether they may write a Shtar Hoda'ah.
10. There is a Machlokes regarding whether a Shtar Hoda'ah may be written when a person admits that Karka that is in his possession belongs to someone else.
A BIT MORE
1. The Tana Kama maintains that an Ohev and a Soneh may not testify. The Rabanan maintain that their testimony is valid. However, even according to the Rabanan, a Soneh is permitted only to be a witness, but not a judge. If a judge hates one of the Ba'alei Dinim in a case, he is not permitted to judge that case because he will not be capable of finding a merit for that Ba'al Din. The Rabanan also maintain that two Talmidei Chachamim who hate each other may not sit together to judge a case.
2. The judges frighten the witnesses by telling them that people who hire false witnesses to testify in court are contemptuous of them.
3. If a person admits in front of witnesses that he owes money and later claims that he had been joking, he is believed unless he specifically told the witnesses, "You are my witnesses." If he does not claim that he was joking, however, and merely refuses to pay until the claimant produces witnesses who can testify to the actual loan, Beis Din does obligate him to pay on the basis of the witnesses who testify to his prior admission.
4. Beis Din is required to make any possible claims in the defense of a person who is being judged for Dinei Nefashos unless the person is a Mesis (someone who entices another person to worship Avodah Zarah). The Torah forbids defending a Mesis in this way. This prohibition is derived from the Torah's account of the punishment of the snake who enticed Adam and Chavah to sin. Just as Hashem did not make claims in the snake's defense even though it would have been possible to make such claims, Beis Din is not permitted to make claims in the defense of any other Mesis.
5. It is prohibited to add to the Torah because adding to the Torah actually constitutes subtracting from it. For example, when Adam added to Hashem's command, that addition caused Chavah to sin. Hashem forbade them only to eat from the Etz ha'Da'as, but Adam told Chavah that it was prohibited even to touch it. That is how the snake was able to persuade her to sin. The snake pushed her against the tree and then told her that just as she did not die from touching the tree, she would not die from eating its fruit.
6. If a person acknowledges in front of witnesses that he owes money but does not say "You are my witnesses," Abaye maintains that he will be Chayav if he later denies that he admitted to the debt. Even though he is believed if he claims that he was joking, he is not believed if he denies that he ever admitted to owing money, since there are witnesses who testify that he did admit. Rava maintains that he is Patur even if he denies having made such an admission. It can be assumed that he forgot the original admission since it was only a joke, and he did not knowingly utter a falsehood.
7. It is common for a person to say that he owes money, even if he really does not have debts, so that people will not think that he is rich. Thus, if a person merely states that he owes money to a certain individual, that statement cannot be used against him in Beis Din. However, if a person makes such a statement before his death, there is a Machlokes regarding whether he is Chayav. Rebbi Yishmael Bar Yosi maintains that he is Chayav since people who are on their deathbeds have no reason to give off the impression that they are not wealthy. Rebbi Chiya maintains that even a statement that a person makes on his deathbed cannot be used to prove that he owes money. A person might make such a statement in order to prevent others from thinking that his children are rich.
8. Even if a person tells two witnesses, "You are my witnesses that I owe money," they may not write a Shtar Hoda'ah. If a Kinyan was made, however, they are permitted to write a Shtar Hoda'ah.
9. Rav maintains that if a person says to three other people, "You are my witnesses that I owe money," they may write a Shtar Hoda'ah. Rav Asi disagrees and maintains that even in such a case, a Shtar Hoda'ah may not be written. Rav Ada Bar Ahavah maintains that they may write a Shtar Hoda'ah, but only if he personally gathered the three people together, whereas if he merely found a group of three people who were already together and admitted before them that he owes money, they may not write a Shtar Hoda'ah. Rava maintains that even if he gathered the three people together, the Shtar may be written only if he also told them, "You are my judges." Mar Bar Rav Ashi maintains that they may write a Shtar only if the judges sat in a designated place and sent a Shali'ach to summon the debtor to Beis Din. In such a case, if he admits before them that he owes the money, they may write a Shtar Hoda'ah.
10. There is a Machlokes regarding whether a Shtar Hoda'ah may be written when a person admits in front of two witnesses that someone else owns a piece of land that was thought to belong to him. The Halachah is that the Shtar may be written. When a person admits that certain Metaltelin in his possession belong to someone else, Ravina maintains that a Shtar Hoda'ah may be written just as in the case of Karka, but Rav Ashi maintains that the Din regarding Metaltelin is different since they still must be collected, and a Shtar Hoda'ah may not be written.
Next Daf Index to Revach for Maseches Sanhedrin