Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DISQUALIFYING JUDGES AND WITNESSES

(a) Answer #4 (Ravin): The beginning of the Mishnah is when Reuven disqualifies Shimon's witnesses and his choice of judges, and it was found (undisputedly) that the witnesses are indeed invalid;

1. R. Meir says, Migo (since) Reuven was right about the witnesses, he is also believed about the judges (Chachamim do not say Migo);
2. The end of the Mishnah is when Reuven disqualifies Shimon's witnesses and judges, and it was found that the judges are indeed invalid;
3. R. Meir says, Migo Reuven was right about the judges, he is also believed about the witnesses (Chachamim do not say Migo).

(b) Objection (Rava): Granted, when Reuven was right about the witnesses, we allow him to disqualify the judges - Shimon (need not lose, he) can go to another Beis Din;

1. But when Reuven was right about the judges, why can he disqualify the witnesses - Shimon will lose, unless he can find more witnesses!

(c) Answer: The case is, Shimon has another pair of witnesses.
(d) Question - Inference: If Shimon has only one pair of witnesses, Reuven cannot disqualify his witnesses;

1. This is as Rav Dimi taught!

(e) Answer: They argue about whether or not we say Migo: Ravin says that R. Meir applies Migo, Rav Dimi says that he does not.
(f) (Reish Lakish (above)): The awesome R. Meir would never say this (that either party can disqualify the other's witnesses)!

1. Rather, R. Meir says that either party can disqualify the other's *witness*!

(a) Question: But Ula said, Reish Lakish would uproot mountains and grind them against each other (his reasoning was so sharp - why would he speak so reverently of R. Meir?)!
(b) Answer (Ravina): R. Meir was even sharper, he uprooted giant mountains and ground them.

1. This teaches how much Chachamim endeared each other.

(c) Rebbi: Hatmanah (wrapping food to preserve its temperature) of cold food is forbidden on Shabbos.
(d) R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi: My father permitted it!
(e) Rebbi: The elder has already ruled (I retract)!
(f) Rav Papa: See how much Chachamim endeared each other! If R. Yosi was alive, he would have been submissive to Rebbi, for R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi was as great as his father, and he was submissive to Rebbi, yet Rebbi said 'The elder has already ruled'!
(g) (R. Oshaya): We learn this from "...Shnei Maklos...No'am (and) Chovelim";

1. "No'am" refers to Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, who pleasantly help each other in Halachah;
2. "Chovelim" refers to Chachamim of Bavel, who attack (try to refute) each other in Halachah.

(h) (R. Yitzchak): "...Benei ha'Yitzhar ha'Omedim" (and it says before this) "U'Shnayim Zeisim Aleha" - "Yitzhar" refers to Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, who are as pleasant to each other in Halachah as olive oil;

1. "Zeisim" refer to Chachamim of Bavel, who are as bitter to each other in Halachah as olives.

(i) (R. Yochanan): "...Shtayim Nashim Yotze'os v'Ru'ach b'Chanfeihem...va'Tisenah Es ha'Eifah..." - the two women represent flattery and haughtiness, which descended to Bavel;
(j) Question: But we learned that 10 Kavim (measures) of haughtiness descended to the world, Eilam (Shushan) received nine, the rest of the world received one!
(k) Answer: It first descended to Bavel, later it spread (and Eilam got most of it).

1. Support: "Livnos *Lah* Bayis b'Eretz Shinar" (one of the women (flattery) will stay in Bavel, the other will not).

(l) Question: But we learned that poverty is a sign of haughtiness, and poverty is in Bavel!
(m) Answer: Poverty *in Torah* is a sign of haughtiness (and that is in Eilam).

1. (R. Yochanan): "Achos Lanu Ketanah v'Shadayim Ein Lah" - this refers to Eilam, which merited to learn but not to teach.

(n) Question: What is the significance of the name 'Bavel'?
(o) Answer (R. Yochanan): It is Balul (blended) with written Torah, Mishnah, and Talmud.
(p) (R. Yirmeyah): "B'Machashakim Hoshivani k'Mesei Olam" - this is the Talmud of Bavel.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): If Reuven said 'You may use my father (or your father, or three cattle shepherds) to judge our case', he may retract;
(b) Chachamim say, he may not retract.
(c) R. Meir says, if Shimon was obligated to swear to Reuven, and Reuven said 'You may swear to me by the life of your head', Reuven can retract (and demand a proper oath, which is with Hash-m's name);
(d) Chachamim say, he may not retract.
(e) (Gemara - Rav Dimi brei d'Rav Nachman): The case is, he accepted his (or his opponent's father) to be *one* of the judges.
(f) (Rav Yehudah): The Tana'im argue when Reuven claims from Shimon, and agreed to pardon him (if a Beis Din including his father (or...) will rule that Shimon is exempt);

1. But if Shimon claims from Reuven, and Reuven agreed to pay him (if such a Beis Din will obligate Reuven), all agree that Reuven may retract.

(g) (R. Yochanan): They argue when Reuven agreed to pay.
(h) Question: Does he mean that they argue only when Reuven agreed to pay, but all agree that he may not retract when he agreed to pardon?

1. Or, does he mean that they argue even when Reuven agreed to pay?

(i) Answer: Rava taught that they argue only when Reuven agreed to pay, but all agree that he may not retract when he agreed to pardon.

1. If this is R. Yochanan's opinion, Rava holds like R. Yochanan;
2. But if R. Yochanan says that they argue in both cases, as whom does Rava hold?

(j) Rejection: Rava gives his own (third) opinion.
(k) Question (against Rava - Rav Acha bar Tachlifa - Beraisa): If Shimon was obligated to swear to Reuven, and Reuven said 'You may swear to me by the life of your head', Reuven can retract;
(l) Chachamim say, he may not retract.

1. Suggestion: Shimon was obligated to swear that he is exempt, Reuven agreed to pardon him (if he swears by his head).

(m) Answer: No, Shimon was obligated to swear in order to collect, Reuven agreed to pay him.
(n) Question: But (according to Rava) the beginning of the Mishnah is when Reuven agreed to pay - why must the end of the Mishnah also teach this?
(o) Answer: It teaches when he agreed to pay if others (invalid judges) will say so, and when he agreed to pay if his opponent wants (and swears);

1. We must teach both cases.
2. If we only taught when he agreed to pay if others will say so, one might have thought that only then R. Meir allows him to retract, because he did not decide absolutely to pay (perhaps the judges will acquit him), but R. Meir agrees that Reuven cannot retract when he agreed to pay if Shimon wants;
3. If we only taught when he agreed to pay if Shimon wants, one might have thought that only then Chachamim do not allow him to retract (because he knew that Shimon will take the oath to collect), but Chachamim agree that Reuven can retract when he accepted invalid judges.

(a) (Reish Lakish): The argument is before the final verdict, but after the final verdict, all agree that he cannot retract.
(b) (R. Yochanan): They argue after the final verdict.
(c) Question: Does he mean that the argument is only after the final verdict, but before this, all agree that he can retract?

1. Or, does he mean that the argument is even after the final verdict?

(d) Answer: Rava taught, if he accepted a relative or invalid witness, he can retract only until the final verdict.

1. If this is R. Yochanan's opinion, Rava holds like R. Yochanan, according to Chachamim (surely, he would not rule like R. Meir against Chachamim);
2. But if R. Yochanan says that they argue in both cases, as whom does Rava hold?
3. We conclude that they only argue after the final verdict.

(e) Version #1 - Question (Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda): Is the argument before or after the final verdict; as whom is the Halachah?
(f) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yakov): The argument is after the final verdict, the Halachah follows Chachamim.
(g) Version #2 (Rav Ashi) Question (Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda): Is the argument when Reuven agreed to pardon Shimon, or when Reuven agreed to pay him (if a Beis Din with his father... will rule thusly); as whom is the Halachah?
(h) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yakov): The argument is when Reuven agreed to pay; the Halachah follows Chachamim.
(i) Version #3 (Chachamim of Pumbadisa) Question (Bei Rav): May Reuven retract before the final verdict if an acquisition was done?
(j) Answer (Shmuel): One can never retract after an acquisition.

(a) (Mishnah): The following are disqualified (from judging or testifying): diceplayers, those who lend on Ribis (usury), Mafrichei Yonim (this will be explained) and Socharei (those who sell) Shemitah produce.
(b) R. Shimon: At first, they used to call such people gatherers of Shemitah produce; after extortionists became rampant, they called them Socharei Shemitah.
(c) R. Yehudah: When is this? If they have no other profession - but if they have another profession, they are Kesherim.
(d) (Gemara) Question: Why are diceplayers disqualified?
(e) Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama): Betting is Asmachta (the loser did not expect to lose; he did not decide absolutely to give his money), it is not an acquisition (the winner is not entitled to the money).
(f) Rejection (Rav Sheshes): This is not Asmachta (the loser realized that he may win or lose, he knowingly agreed that the loser will pay)!
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes): They are disqualified because they do not contribute to society.
(h) Question: What is the difference between these answers?
(i) Answer: If he has a profession (Rami bar Chama disqualified him, Rav Sheshes is Machshir).