Gemara Clarity

Sanhedrin 30a

סנהדרין ל׳ ע״א

Learn Sanhedrin 30a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Sanhedrin 30a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Trusting court documents, believing statements about hidden money, writing split verdicts, and joining two witnesses' testimony

Overview

The amud opens by finishing a case about a court document signed by only two people. The גמרא worries about a mistaken court that thought two judges were enough, and it concludes that the document can be trusted only when it shows that רב אשי himself took part. A ברייתא then teaches when a statement about hidden money is believed. A witness is believed if he could have taken the money himself. A father is believed if he was truly passing on information rather than using a trick. A dream is not believed at all. The גמרא next asks how a split verdict is written. רבי יוחנן avoids רכילות, ריש לקיש avoids a misleading document, and רבי אלעזר combines both concerns: 'מדבריהם נזדכה פלוני'. Then it asks who is 'brought in' after the judges decide, the witnesses or the litigants. This leads to a ברייתא about joining two witnesses who saw the event at different times, and two witnesses who testified on different days. For each argument the גמרא offers a reason from logic and a reason from a פסוק, and the פסוק-based explanation of רבי נתן's argument continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

וְכֹל לִישָּׁנֵי דְּבֵי דִינָא,

and all the standard wording of the court was in it,

וְלָא הֲוָה כְּתִב בַּהּ

but it did not have written in it:

״בְּמוֹתַב תְּלָתָא הֲוֵינָא

'We were in a session of three,

וְחַד לֵיתוֹהִי״.

and one is no longer here.'

The steps (46)

  1. StatementThe document had full court wording but no mention of a third judge
  2. Statementרבינא first thinks ריש לקיש's rule makes the document valid
  3. Rejectionרב נתן בר אמי: we worry about a court that made a mistake
  4. Statementרב נחמן בר יצחק: writing 'the court' is enough
  5. ChallengeChallenge: maybe it was a 'בית דין חצוף' of only two judges
  6. ResolutionAnswer: the document named the court of רבנא אשי
  7. ChallengeMaybe רב אשי's sages also followed שמואל
  8. Resolutionרב אשי himself was part of the discussion
  9. StatementA witness says the father's hidden money belongs to someone else
  10. StatementThe general rule: could he have taken it?
  11. StatementWhen the father himself tells his children
  12. StatementA dream says the inherited money is second tithe
  13. QuestionHow is a split verdict written?
  14. ResponseThree ways to word the verdict
  15. QuestionWhat is the practical difference?
  16. ResponseDoes the minority judge pay his share?
  17. ChallengeWhy should the outvoted judge have to pay?
  18. ResolutionNew difference: do the majority judges cover his share?
  19. ChallengeWhy should the majority judges pay his share?
  20. ResolutionThe difference is only wording, because of רכילות
  21. Resolutionריש לקיש names the judges so the document is not misleading
  22. Conclusionרבי אלעזר combines both concerns in one wording
  23. QuestionWho is brought back in after the judges decide?
  24. ResponseThe witnesses are the ones brought back in
  25. QuestionWhose opinion does this fit? Not רבי נתן's
  26. ProofThe ברייתא about joining two witnesses' testimony
  27. Proofרבי נתן allows witnesses to testify on different days
  28. RejectionThe משנה really means the litigants, following רבי נחמיה
  29. ProofThe custom of the careful people of ירושלים
  30. ChallengeA ברייתא says the witnesses are brought in
  31. ResolutionThat ברייתא does not follow רבי נתן
  32. StatementBack to the ברייתא: must the witnesses see the event together?
  33. QuestionWhat is the argument about?
  34. ResponseEither a פסוק or logic
  35. ResponseThe logic-based reason for the argument
  36. ResponseThe פסוק-based reason begins
  37. ProofA ברייתא asks why the תורה says 'one witness'
  38. Response'עד' in the תורה means two witnesses
  39. ResponseThe singular word teaches that both must see it together
  40. ResponseThe other view: testimony works in any case
  41. StatementMust the witnesses testify at the same time?
  42. QuestionWhat is the reason for this argument?
  43. ResponseLogic or a verse: two ways to explain
  44. ResponseThe logic of the first opinion: one witness only brings an oath
  45. Responseרבי נתן's reply: בית דין joins them anyway
  46. ResponseThe second explanation: the argument comes from a פסוק