Sanhedrin 31: Lowest Denominator, New Proof/Witnesses, Location of Court

The rabbis complete their ongoing conversation about when and how the testimonies of different witnesses are joined.  One of the sources used is a baraita regarding Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, who had argued about a claim of owing either 100 or 200 dinars.  Because both agree that the person owed at least 100 dinars, 100 should be paid.  But when one witness says 100 and the other says 200 dinars are owed, Beit Shammai say that this is contradictory evidence.  Beit Hillel still require the payment of 100 dinars.  Similarly, another case orders one to pay back a barrel of wine, worth less than a barrel of oil, when it is disputed whether a barrel of oil or wine is owed.  The wine is 'included' in the oil.

We are introduced to a New Mishna regarding the timing of proof.  It teaches that new proof will overturn a verdict.  This is the case:

• when one is told to bring proof within 30 days and he does so
• when proof is found within 30 days
• possibly when proof is found later (Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel)

The rabbis argue about whether or not it is fair to stop someone from presenting proof or witnesses at a later date.  It its discussion of this question, the rabbis speak of a child who was called to testify without proof or witnesses.  He was forced to pay a fine.  The child was left crying.  The rabbis explained that the child knew of his father's nefarious affairs.  But a child does not know of his father's affairs.  Tosafot explain that sometimes minors were called to testify.

A woman claimed that she held a contract for a lender and borrower where the money had been repaid.  Is she believed because she has acquired and thus owns the document, or is she believed because she could have burned the document and been cleared of any questionable behaviour?  The rabbis clarify that a document is valid if it has no witnesses, the third party holds it, or it is written on the loan document below the signatures.

The rabbis ask when a proof and/or witnesses can be brought back to the beit din.  Some rabbis believe that once the claim is sealed, no more proofs can be brought forward.  Others, like Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, citing Rabbi Yochanan, say that proofs and witnesses are permitted until a claimant says that he has no more proofs nor witnesses.  Further, if witnesses arrive from far away or if one's father's documents were left with someone else, the verdict may be overturned.

The rabbis end today's daf with an argument about which court might be used to oversee the judgement of a case.  One might wish to take the case to the beit ha'vaad to embarrass the man who frivolously charged him.  One might wish to force another to stay in their city to minimize travel costs.  As well, the rabbis argue that 

• if the local beit din does not know the law, they will consult with the beit ha'vaad
• if a person wishes to know the reason for their verdict, it will be written out for him
• this should be similar to the yevamah who herself goes to the yavam to do chalitza

The rabbis continue to debate over who should come to whom - and how far they should have to travel - in different cases - chalitza, lending and borrowing, violent offender or their and victim.