Gemara Clarity

Sanhedrin 31a

סנהדרין ל״א ע״א

Learn Sanhedrin 31a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Sanhedrin 31a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Combining witnesses who do not fully match, keeping judges' votes secret, and when late evidence can overturn a verdict

Overview

The amud first settles a contradiction: רב חסדא and רב יהודה are two different people who may simply disagree. The נהרדעי then rule that witnesses who differ on a small detail, like the color of the coins, still combine. The גמרא finds their source in בית הלל, who say 100 is included in 200. Cases of wine versus oil and upper versus lower floor are also accepted. Next comes the rule that a judge may not reveal how the judges voted, with a story of a student sent out for revealing secrets. A new משנה follows about late evidence. It asks whether new proof can overturn a verdict after a thirty-day deadline, or after someone said 'I have no witnesses.' רבן שמעון בן גמליאל argues for the litigant. The גמרא rules like him in the first case and like the חכמים in the second, and explains what each double ruling adds. Stories about רב נחמן close the amud: a child who did not know his father's affairs, and a woman holding a שטר she says was paid. רבא's challenge in the second version of that story continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

גַּבְרָא אַגַּבְרָא קָא רָמֵית?

Are you setting one man against another man?

נְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי:

The rabbis of Neharde'a say:

אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״מָנֶה שָׁחוֹר״,

Even if one says "a black maneh,"

וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״מָנֶה לָבָן״ – מִצְטָרְפִים.

and one says "a white maneh," they combine.

The steps (33)

  1. ResolutionTwo different rabbis may simply disagree
  2. StatementBlack coin versus white coin still combines
  3. QuestionWhose opinion do the נהרדעי follow?
  4. Rejectionרבי יהושע בן קרחה is not a fit
  5. ResponseThe real source: 100 is included in 200
  6. ProofWhere בית שמאי and בית הלל disagree: one set of witnesses
  7. StatementA real case of wine versus oil before רבי אמי
  8. QuestionDoes רבי אמי follow רבי שמעון בן אלעזר?
  9. ChallengeWine and oil are not like 100 and 200
  10. ResolutionThe case was about money value
  11. StatementWitnesses disagree about upper or lower floor
  12. ProofSource that a judge may not reveal how the judges voted
  13. StatementStudent removed for revealing a secret years later
  14. StatementNew proof can overturn a verdict, unless a deadline passed
  15. Statementרבן שמעון בן גמליאל argues about the thirty-day limit
  16. StatementSomeone who said 'I have no witnesses' and later brings them
  17. Statementרבן שמעון בן גמליאל: he did not know he had witnesses
  18. StatementSuddenly producing witnesses or proof when about to lose
  19. StatementOn the thirty-day case, the הלכה follows רבן שמעון בן גמליאל
  20. ChallengeWhy say both statements? It is obvious
  21. ResolutionThe second statement teaches that a ruling like the חכמים is reversed
  22. StatementOn the case of saying he had no witnesses, the הלכה follows the חכמים
  23. ChallengeWhy add the second half of the ruling?
  24. ResolutionOnly this case is an exception
  25. ResolutionThis rejects the list of three exceptions
  26. StatementA child with no witnesses and no proof
  27. StatementThe crying child finds witnesses
  28. StatementEven the רבנן agree for a child
  29. StatementA woman says the שטר she holds was paid
  30. ChallengeDoes this follow רבי?
  31. ResolutionShe could have burned it
  32. StatementA second version: רב נחמן did not believe her
  33. Challengeרבא starts to argue that she could have destroyed the שטר