Sanhedrin 30: Court Process, Joining Witnesses

The Gemara discusses a number of issues in some detail.  Some of the major points:

• when one judge disagrees about the verdict, should that difference be discussed?

• concerns include the perception that the beit din erred and only two judges judged

• in a monetary case the verdict would stand, though it would be called an 'errant beit din'

• if a person is told, or dreams, that otherwise forbidden money is hidden and it turns out to be true, who owns the money?

• dreams hold no value when it comes to ownership

• the teller is believed if he could have taken the money himself (like a migo)

• the teller is not believed if he described the money to benefit himself in any way

• a new mishna teaches about the beit din's process:

• first the litigants are brought in to speak

• then the witnesses are brought in to testify

• both groups are taken out

• the judges deliberate and write out their verdict

• the group is brought back to the room where the judges read out the verdict

• this process is based on the one used in Jerusalem

• the rabbis share examples of other courtroom process possibilities

• the rabbis discuss in great length when and how witnesses' testimonies might support or detract from each other

• did they have to witness the testimony together?

• do they have to testify at the same time?

• we are told the story of rabbi Yosei Ben Rabbi Chanina's smicha, given so that he would share information about witnesses' testimonies, and that information is not helpful.  He is permitted to retain his status because he was otherwise deserving

• the cases of witnesses regarding monetary matters are compared with those of witnesses regarding land

• witnesses to assess adulthood are compared: if two witnesses claim to each have seen one hair on the youth's body, that testimony is invalid 

• if two witnesses claim each to have seen two hairs then their testimony is valid, even if they saw different hairs in different places

• differing or corroborating witness testimonies are debated

• with much debate, the rabbis agree that 

• witnesses need not agree about secondary details - colours of dress or of a purse, etc.

• witnesses do need to agree on primary details, like the weapon used or the colour of the coin in question