rebbi

Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna: The witnesses have to stand while testifying, for it is said: the two men shall stand. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Also the parties have to stand at the moment the verdict is given, as it is said: who have the quarrel before the Eternal.

Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna: The witnesses have to stand while testifying, for it is said: the two men shall stand. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Also the parties have to stand at the moment the verdict is given, as it is said: who have the quarrel before the Eternal.

So far only fathers and sons; from where the other relatives? Rebbi Zeˋira says, and sons includes the remaining relatives.

So far according to Rebbi Aqiba.

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge; the congregation shall save. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony?

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge; the congregation shall save. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony?

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge; the congregation shall save. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony?

From where two witnesses? He and another make two. Or following Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath? Since it is possible to say that another person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, how could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?

From where two witnesses? He and another make two. Or following Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath? Since it is possible to say that another person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, how could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?

From where two witnesses? He and another make two. Or following Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath? Since it is possible to say that another person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, how could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?

Should a relative be found guilty of a blurted oath? Does it follow what Rebbi Abba said (ben) [in the name of] Samuel: “An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that X had not given; since there is nothing in the future there is nothing in the past. Or the following: “One said to another, ˋwhere is my ox?’ He responded, ˋI do not know what you are referring to.’ It so happened that it had died, or was wounded, or captured, or lost. ˋI require you to swear;’ the other said ˋAmen’. He is not liable.” Rav said, he is not liable for a keeper’s oath but is liable because of a blurted oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is a religious duty to appease him, he is not liable because of a blurted oath. In Rav’s opinion, is there no religious duty to appease him? One appeases with truthful statements, not with lies.

Should a relative be found guilty of a blurted oath? Does it follow what Rebbi Abba said (ben) [in the name of] Samuel: “An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that X had not given; since there is nothing in the future there is nothing in the past. Or the following: “One said to another, ˋwhere is my ox?’ He responded, ˋI do not know what you are referring to.’ It so happened that it had died, or was wounded, or captured, or lost. ˋI require you to swear;’ the other said ˋAmen’. He is not liable.” Rav said, he is not liable for a keeper’s oath but is liable because of a blurted oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is a religious duty to appease him, he is not liable because of a blurted oath. In Rav’s opinion, is there no religious duty to appease him? One appeases with truthful statements, not with lies.

Rebbi Ismael stated: He has to bear his punishment, a sacrifice. From where that one needs a court? One learns “telling, telling”. Since telling mentioned there is before a court, also telling here is before a court.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi [Yose] said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mama said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses], and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥinena learns it (because of) [from the years of] squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.

And the following. One does not listen to the witnesses unless they come together; Rebbi Nathan says, one listens to the first and when the second comes, one listens to what he has to say. Rebbi Jonathan was sitting and asking, maybe somebody is here who heard that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina told him, that is Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. He said, may he come up. When he came up, he asked him, did you hear that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? He answered, I heard that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa agrees with Rebbi Nathan. He said, do we need this? He said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina only intended to elevate Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim because he was an important person.

And the following. One does not listen to the witnesses unless they come together; Rebbi Nathan says, one listens to the first and when the second comes, one listens to what he has to say. Rebbi Jonathan was sitting and asking, maybe somebody is here who heard that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina told him, that is Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. He said, may he come up. When he came up, he asked him, did you hear that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? He answered, I heard that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa agrees with Rebbi Nathan. He said, do we need this? He said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina only intended to elevate Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim because he was an important person.

And the following. One does not listen to the witnesses unless they come together; Rebbi Nathan says, one listens to the first and when the second comes, one listens to what he has to say. Rebbi Jonathan was sitting and asking, maybe somebody is here who heard that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina told him, that is Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. He said, may he come up. When he came up, he asked him, did you hear that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? He answered, I heard that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa agrees with Rebbi Nathan. He said, do we need this? He said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina only intended to elevate Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim because he was an important person.

And the following. One does not listen to the witnesses unless they come together; Rebbi Nathan says, one listens to the first and when the second comes, one listens to what he has to say. Rebbi Jonathan was sitting and asking, maybe somebody is here who heard that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina told him, that is Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. He said, may he come up. When he came up, he asked him, did you hear that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? He answered, I heard that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa agrees with Rebbi Nathan. He said, do we need this? He said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina only intended to elevate Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim because he was an important person.

And the following. One does not listen to the witnesses unless they come together; Rebbi Nathan says, one listens to the first and when the second comes, one listens to what he has to say. Rebbi Jonathan was sitting and asking, maybe somebody is here who heard that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina told him, that is Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. He said, may he come up. When he came up, he asked him, did you hear that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? He answered, I heard that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa agrees with Rebbi Nathan. He said, do we need this? He said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina only intended to elevate Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim because he was an important person.

And the following. One does not listen to the witnesses unless they come together; Rebbi Nathan says, one listens to the first and when the second comes, one listens to what he has to say. Rebbi Jonathan was sitting and asking, maybe somebody is here who heard that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina told him, that is Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. He said, may he come up. When he came up, he asked him, did you hear that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? He answered, I heard that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa agrees with Rebbi Nathan. He said, do we need this? He said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina only intended to elevate Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim because he was an important person.

And the following. One does not listen to the witnesses unless they come together; Rebbi Nathan says, one listens to the first and when the second comes, one listens to what he has to say. Rebbi Jonathan was sitting and asking, maybe somebody is here who heard that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina told him, that is Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. He said, may he come up. When he came up, he asked him, did you hear that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? He answered, I heard that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa agrees with Rebbi Nathan. He said, do we need this? He said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina only intended to elevate Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim because he was an important person.

And the following. One does not listen to the witnesses unless they come together; Rebbi Nathan says, one listens to the first and when the second comes, one listens to what he has to say. Rebbi Jonathan was sitting and asking, maybe somebody is here who heard that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina told him, that is Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. He said, may he come up. When he came up, he asked him, did you hear that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? He answered, I heard that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa agrees with Rebbi Nathan. He said, do we need this? He said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina only intended to elevate Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim because he was an important person.

And the following. One does not listen to the witnesses unless they come together; Rebbi Nathan says, one listens to the first and when the second comes, one listens to what he has to say. Rebbi Jonathan was sitting and asking, maybe somebody is here who heard that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina told him, that is Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. He said, may he come up. When he came up, he asked him, did you hear that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? He answered, I heard that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa agrees with Rebbi Nathan. He said, do we need this? He said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina only intended to elevate Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim because he was an important person.

And the following. One does not listen to the witnesses unless they come together; Rebbi Nathan says, one listens to the first and when the second comes, one listens to what he has to say. Rebbi Jonathan was sitting and asking, maybe somebody is here who heard that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina told him, that is Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim. He said, may he come up. When he came up, he asked him, did you hear that practice follows Rebbi Nathan? He answered, I heard that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa agrees with Rebbi Nathan. He said, do we need this? He said, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina only intended to elevate Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim because he was an important person.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if [the absent party] appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rebbi Joshia. Rebbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence [of the heirs] and handed the estate to Rebbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rebbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rebbi Nissai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rebbi Zeˋira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.

Rebbi Jeremiah had a suit against a certain person. They accepted testimony not in the presence of Rebbi Jeremiah, and decided against Rebbi Jeremiah. He was sitting despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties? Rebbi Hina, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Ḥuqoq did not go to the lecture on that day, but Rebbi Huna pushed, went in, and found Rebbi Jeremiah despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties even if they are present with them in the same city? He told him, this is seen to be the rabbis’ opinion.

Rebbi Jeremiah had a suit against a certain person. They accepted testimony not in the presence of Rebbi Jeremiah, and decided against Rebbi Jeremiah. He was sitting despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties? Rebbi Hina, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Ḥuqoq did not go to the lecture on that day, but Rebbi Huna pushed, went in, and found Rebbi Jeremiah despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties even if they are present with them in the same city? He told him, this is seen to be the rabbis’ opinion.

Rebbi Jeremiah had a suit against a certain person. They accepted testimony not in the presence of Rebbi Jeremiah, and decided against Rebbi Jeremiah. He was sitting despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties? Rebbi Hina, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Ḥuqoq did not go to the lecture on that day, but Rebbi Huna pushed, went in, and found Rebbi Jeremiah despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties even if they are present with them in the same city? He told him, this is seen to be the rabbis’ opinion.

Rebbi Jeremiah had a suit against a certain person. They accepted testimony not in the presence of Rebbi Jeremiah, and decided against Rebbi Jeremiah. He was sitting despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties? Rebbi Hina, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Ḥuqoq did not go to the lecture on that day, but Rebbi Huna pushed, went in, and found Rebbi Jeremiah despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties even if they are present with them in the same city? He told him, this is seen to be the rabbis’ opinion.

Rebbi Jeremiah had a suit against a certain person. They accepted testimony not in the presence of Rebbi Jeremiah, and decided against Rebbi Jeremiah. He was sitting despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties? Rebbi Hina, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Ḥuqoq did not go to the lecture on that day, but Rebbi Huna pushed, went in, and found Rebbi Jeremiah despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties even if they are present with them in the same city? He told him, this is seen to be the rabbis’ opinion.

Rebbi Jeremiah had a suit against a certain person. They accepted testimony not in the presence of Rebbi Jeremiah, and decided against Rebbi Jeremiah. He was sitting despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties? Rebbi Hina, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Ḥuqoq did not go to the lecture on that day, but Rebbi Huna pushed, went in, and found Rebbi Jeremiah despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties even if they are present with them in the same city? He told him, this is seen to be the rabbis’ opinion.

Rebbi Jeremiah had a suit against a certain person. They accepted testimony not in the presence of Rebbi Jeremiah, and decided against Rebbi Jeremiah. He was sitting despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties? Rebbi Hina, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Ḥuqoq did not go to the lecture on that day, but Rebbi Huna pushed, went in, and found Rebbi Jeremiah despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties even if they are present with them in the same city? He told him, this is seen to be the rabbis’ opinion.

Rebbi Jeremiah had a suit against a certain person. They accepted testimony not in the presence of Rebbi Jeremiah, and decided against Rebbi Jeremiah. He was sitting despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties? Rebbi Hina, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah from Ḥuqoq did not go to the lecture on that day, but Rebbi Huna pushed, went in, and found Rebbi Jeremiah despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties even if they are present with them in the same city? He told him, this is seen to be the rabbis’ opinion.

HALAKHAH: “When they have come to a decision,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces the one who finds guilty to write “not guilty.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the one who finds guilty, writes “guilty”; the one who finds not guilty, writes “not guilty”. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “From where that afterwards, one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? That nobody could say, I really wanted to justify X in his suit but they did not let me do it. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That no other person should come, reason as he did, and say, also that one was there and he erred.

HALAKHAH: “When they have come to a decision,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces the one who finds guilty to write “not guilty.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the one who finds guilty, writes “guilty”; the one who finds not guilty, writes “not guilty”. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “From where that afterwards, one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? That nobody could say, I really wanted to justify X in his suit but they did not let me do it. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That no other person should come, reason as he did, and say, also that one was there and he erred.

HALAKHAH: “When they have come to a decision,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces the one who finds guilty to write “not guilty.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the one who finds guilty, writes “guilty”; the one who finds not guilty, writes “not guilty”. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “From where that afterwards, one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? That nobody could say, I really wanted to justify X in his suit but they did not let me do it. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That no other person should come, reason as he did, and say, also that one was there and he erred.

HALAKHAH: “When they have come to a decision,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces the one who finds guilty to write “not guilty.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the one who finds guilty, writes “guilty”; the one who finds not guilty, writes “not guilty”. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “From where that afterwards, one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? That nobody could say, I really wanted to justify X in his suit but they did not let me do it. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That no other person should come, reason as he did, and say, also that one was there and he erred.

HALAKHAH: “When they have come to a decision,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one forces the one who finds guilty to write “not guilty.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the one who finds guilty, writes “guilty”; the one who finds not guilty, writes “not guilty”. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “From where that afterwards, one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? That nobody could say, I really wanted to justify X in his suit but they did not let me do it. What is Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That no other person should come, reason as he did, and say, also that one was there and he erred.

HALAKHAH: “Any time one produces a proof,” etc. Rebbi Oshaiah said, there, where it is possible to add, they continue to argue. But here it is impossible to add. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that even here it is possible to add.

HALAKHAH: “Any time one produces a proof,” etc. Rebbi Oshaiah said, there, where it is possible to add, they continue to argue. But here it is impossible to add. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that even here it is possible to add.

HALAKHAH: “Any time one produces a proof,” etc. Rebbi Oshaiah said, there, where it is possible to add, they continue to argue. But here it is impossible to add. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that even here it is possible to add.

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: Three Amoraïm. One said, any time he brings proof he can demand a new trial. The other said, if he brought within 30 days, he can demand a new trial, after 30 days he cannot demand a new trial. The other said, he never can demand a new trial unless he prove that he absolutely had no knowledge of it. But did we not state: “Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; that he had no proof, but found proof?” Rebbi La and Rebbi Zeˋira: One said, unless he voided his proofs; the other said, until he disclaimed his proofs.

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: Three Amoraïm. One said, any time he brings proof he can demand a new trial. The other said, if he brought within 30 days, he can demand a new trial, after 30 days he cannot demand a new trial. The other said, he never can demand a new trial unless he prove that he absolutely had no knowledge of it. But did we not state: “Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; that he had no proof, but found proof?” Rebbi La and Rebbi Zeˋira: One said, unless he voided his proofs; the other said, until he disclaimed his proofs.

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: Three Amoraïm. One said, any time he brings proof he can demand a new trial. The other said, if he brought within 30 days, he can demand a new trial, after 30 days he cannot demand a new trial. The other said, he never can demand a new trial unless he prove that he absolutely had no knowledge of it. But did we not state: “Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; that he had no proof, but found proof?” Rebbi La and Rebbi Zeˋira: One said, unless he voided his proofs; the other said, until he disclaimed his proofs.

Rebbi Levi had a suit against a certain person about houses; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented proof. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him, any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Rebbi Eumachos had a suit against a certain person about mills; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented witnesses. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, is that still a problem for you? Any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Why did it need two cases? In Rebbi Levy’s case, no formal verdict had been rendered, in Rebbi Eumachos’s case, a formal verdict had been rendered.

Rebbi Levi had a suit against a certain person about houses; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented proof. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him, any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Rebbi Eumachos had a suit against a certain person about mills; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented witnesses. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, is that still a problem for you? Any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Why did it need two cases? In Rebbi Levy’s case, no formal verdict had been rendered, in Rebbi Eumachos’s case, a formal verdict had been rendered.

Rebbi Levi had a suit against a certain person about houses; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented proof. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him, any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Rebbi Eumachos had a suit against a certain person about mills; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented witnesses. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, is that still a problem for you? Any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Why did it need two cases? In Rebbi Levy’s case, no formal verdict had been rendered, in Rebbi Eumachos’s case, a formal verdict had been rendered.

Rebbi Levi had a suit against a certain person about houses; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented proof. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him, any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Rebbi Eumachos had a suit against a certain person about mills; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented witnesses. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, is that still a problem for you? Any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Why did it need two cases? In Rebbi Levy’s case, no formal verdict had been rendered, in Rebbi Eumachos’s case, a formal verdict had been rendered.

Rebbi Levi had a suit against a certain person about houses; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented proof. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him, any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Rebbi Eumachos had a suit against a certain person about mills; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented witnesses. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, is that still a problem for you? Any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Why did it need two cases? In Rebbi Levy’s case, no formal verdict had been rendered, in Rebbi Eumachos’s case, a formal verdict had been rendered.

Rebbi Levi had a suit against a certain person about houses; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented proof. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him, any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Rebbi Eumachos had a suit against a certain person about mills; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented witnesses. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, is that still a problem for you? Any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Why did it need two cases? In Rebbi Levy’s case, no formal verdict had been rendered, in Rebbi Eumachos’s case, a formal verdict had been rendered.

Rebbi Levi had a suit against a certain person about houses; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented proof. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him, any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Rebbi Eumachos had a suit against a certain person about mills; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented witnesses. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, is that still a problem for you? Any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Why did it need two cases? In Rebbi Levy’s case, no formal verdict had been rendered, in Rebbi Eumachos’s case, a formal verdict had been rendered.

Rebbi Levi had a suit against a certain person about houses; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented proof. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who told him, any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Rebbi Eumachos had a suit against a certain person about mills; they had it judged before Rebbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented witnesses. He asked Rebbi Joḥanan, who said to him, is that still a problem for you? Any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Why did it need two cases? In Rebbi Levy’s case, no formal verdict had been rendered, in Rebbi Eumachos’s case, a formal verdict had been rendered.

Does a judicial confirmation need a court? Rebbi Hoshaia in the name of Samuel, Rav Bannai in the name of Samuel. One said, it should be confirmed either by the handwriting of the witnesses or the handwriting of the judges; the other said, even with one handwriting and one judge.

HALAKHAH: “Both civil suits,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: What does one do in practice? He answered, following Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Ze‘ir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rav Jehudah, one said: You shall cross-examine, investigate, and inquire well. The other said, equity, equity you shall pursue. How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it; otherwise, act in equity.

HALAKHAH: “Both civil suits,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: What does one do in practice? He answered, following Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Ze‘ir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rav Jehudah, one said: You shall cross-examine, investigate, and inquire well. The other said, equity, equity you shall pursue. How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it; otherwise, act in equity.

HALAKHAH: “Both civil suits,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: What does one do in practice? He answered, following Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Ze‘ir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rav Jehudah, one said: You shall cross-examine, investigate, and inquire well. The other said, equity, equity you shall pursue. How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it; otherwise, act in equity.

HALAKHAH: “Both civil suits,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: What does one do in practice? He answered, following Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Ze‘ir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rav Jehudah, one said: You shall cross-examine, investigate, and inquire well. The other said, equity, equity you shall pursue. How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it; otherwise, act in equity.

HALAKHAH: “Both civil suits,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: What does one do in practice? He answered, following Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Ze‘ir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rav Jehudah, one said: You shall cross-examine, investigate, and inquire well. The other said, equity, equity you shall pursue. How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it; otherwise, act in equity.

HALAKHAH: “Both civil suits,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa: What does one do in practice? He answered, following Rebbi Joḥanan, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell why you know that this person owes the other.” Ze‘ir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina and Rav Jehudah, one said: You shall cross-examine, investigate, and inquire well. The other said, equity, equity you shall pursue. How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it; otherwise, act in equity.

How does one start for acquittal? One says, is it possible that this one be a murderer? Rebbi Yose said, if this is so, if one of the witnesses said, I have something to say in his defense, and his colleague comes to support him, is that support? If you say so, would you not put guilt on the judges, to lead witnesses to lie?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody who cannot argue for the crawling animal to make it pure a hundred times cannot start arguing for acquittal. How does one argue about a crawling animal? Rebbi Joḥanan said, since a snake which kills is pure, a rat which does not kill logically should be pure. Since a rat which does not kill is impure, a snake which kills logically should be impure. Rebbi Phineas objected: Is there not the scorpion which kills and is pure? It was found that a Tanna said, snake and scorpion both follow the same rules.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody who cannot argue for the crawling animal to make it pure a hundred times cannot start arguing for acquittal. How does one argue about a crawling animal? Rebbi Joḥanan said, since a snake which kills is pure, a rat which does not kill logically should be pure. Since a rat which does not kill is impure, a snake which kills logically should be impure. Rebbi Phineas objected: Is there not the scorpion which kills and is pure? It was found that a Tanna said, snake and scorpion both follow the same rules.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody who cannot argue for the crawling animal to make it pure a hundred times cannot start arguing for acquittal. How does one argue about a crawling animal? Rebbi Joḥanan said, since a snake which kills is pure, a rat which does not kill logically should be pure. Since a rat which does not kill is impure, a snake which kills logically should be impure. Rebbi Phineas objected: Is there not the scorpion which kills and is pure? It was found that a Tanna said, snake and scorpion both follow the same rules.

Rebbi said, Rebbi [ ] had a self-confident student who was arguing for purity or impurity of the crawling animal a hundred times. They said, this student never could instruct. Rebbi Jacob bar Dositheos said, this student was cut-off from Mount Sinai.

Rebbi said, Rebbi [ ] had a self-confident student who was arguing for purity or impurity of the crawling animal a hundred times. They said, this student never could instruct. Rebbi Jacob bar Dositheos said, this student was cut-off from Mount Sinai.

Rebbi said, Rebbi [ ] had a self-confident student who was arguing for purity or impurity of the crawling animal a hundred times. They said, this student never could instruct. Rebbi Jacob bar Dositheos said, this student was cut-off from Mount Sinai.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits are decided,” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, if the Torah had been given decided, no foot could stand. What is the reason? The Eternal spoke to Moses. He said before Him: Master of the Universe, inform me what is the practice. He told him, to bend after the majority. If there was a majority for acquitting, they acquitted; if there was a majority for convicting, they convicted; so that the Torah could be explained in 49 ways impure and 49 ways pure, the numerical value of ודגלו. And so it says: the commands of the Eternal are pure sayings; molten silver in an earthenware crucible, refined sevenfold. And it says, the straightforward love You.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits can be retried both for credit and for debit,” etc. If he left the court being acquitted, and they found reasons for conviction, could I understand that one returned him? The verse says, do not slay the acquitted. If he left the court being convicted, and they found reasons for acquittal, could I understand that one should not return him? The verse says, but do not slay the innocent. I could think that if he is acquitted in your court, he is acquitted in My court; the verse says, I shall not acquit the wicked. Rebbi Isaac said, Rebbi Yose told me: There is no difference; if the acquittal was in error, one retries him.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits can be retried both for credit and for debit,” etc. If he left the court being acquitted, and they found reasons for conviction, could I understand that one returned him? The verse says, do not slay the acquitted. If he left the court being convicted, and they found reasons for acquittal, could I understand that one should not return him? The verse says, but do not slay the innocent. I could think that if he is acquitted in your court, he is acquitted in My court; the verse says, I shall not acquit the wicked. Rebbi Isaac said, Rebbi Yose told me: There is no difference; if the acquittal was in error, one retries him.

“In civil suits, anybody may argue for credit or debit,” etc. Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Even an adulterer and an adulteress? He told him, your patch came off.

“In civil suits, anybody may argue for credit or debit,” etc. Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Even an adulterer and an adulteress? He told him, your patch came off.

HALAKHAH: “In civil suits, one who argued for credit,” etc. Rebbi said, if they only miss saying, Mr. X, you are acquitted, or you are convicted; it does not apply to the discussion. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it also applies to the discussion.

HALAKHAH: “In civil suits, one who argued for credit,” etc. Rebbi said, if they only miss saying, Mr. X, you are acquitted, or you are convicted; it does not apply to the discussion. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it also applies to the discussion.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits are decided on the same day,” etc. It was stated: A witness may not argue either for acquittal or conviction. From where this? A witness shall not argue about anybody on trial for his life. And from where that he himself may not argue either for acquittal or conviction? The verse says, one shall not argue about anybody on trial for his life. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, sometimes a person sees himself set up by perjured witnesses and he speaks much lest he be put to death.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore one does not judge [criminal matters] on Sabbath eve or holiday eve”? Hence, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for action.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore one does not judge [criminal matters] on Sabbath eve or holiday eve”? Hence, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for action.