קלתיה

she could have burned it. Why did you not accept her testimony?

כיון דאיתחזק בבי דינא איבעיא קלתיה לא אמרינן

Rav Naḥman answered him: Since the promissory note was ratified in court, we do not say that she is deemed credible to nullify its validity because if she had wanted to, she could have burned it. The validity of a ratified document is not nullified without evidence.

איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן סימפון שיש עליו עדים יתקיים בחותמיו אין עליו עדים ויצא מתחת ידי שליש או שיצא אחר חיתום שטרות כשר אלמא שליש מהימן

Rava raised an objection to the ruling of Rav Naḥman from a baraita: A receipt [simfon] of repayment of a debt upon which witnesses are signed is ratified by means of its signatories. The witnesses testify that these are their signatures, and it is thereby ratified. If there are no witnesses signed on it, but the receipt emerged from the possession of a third party serving as a trustee, or if it emerged after the signing of the documents, i. e., the receipt was written on the promissory note beneath the content of the note and the witnesses’ signatures, it is valid. Rava states his objection: Apparently, the testimony of a third party serving as a trustee is deemed credible, as he can testify that the receipt is valid even if it was not signed by witnesses.

תיובתא דרב נחמן תיובתא

The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Naḥman is indeed a conclusive refutation.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן לעולם מביא ראיה וסותר עד שיסתתם טענותיו ויאמר קרבו פלוני ופלוני והעידוני

§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One can always bring a proof for his claim and overturn the previous verdict, until his claims are stopped up, i. e., until he has no more claims, and he says: Come, so-and-so and so-and-so, and testify on my behalf, in which case those witnesses are not allowed to testify.

הא גופא קשיא אמרת יסתתם טענותיו אתאן לרבנן והדר אמרת קרבו איש פלוני ופלוני והעידוני אתאן לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult. When you say: Until his claims are stopped up, we arrive at, i. e., this represents, the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold in the mishna that once a litigant stops presenting his claims, he cannot present additional claims later. And when you then say: Until he says come, so-and-so and so-and-so, and testify on my behalf, we arrive at the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that it is only in that case that the testimony is not accepted.

וכי תימא כולה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ופרושי קא מפרש מאי עד שיסתתם טענותיו עד שיאמר קרבו פלוני ופלוני והעידוני והא אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל מקום ששנה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במשנתינו הלכה כמותו חוץ מערב וצידן וראיה אחרונה

And if you would say that the entire statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Yoḥanan is explaining his own statement, say ing: What is the meaning of the phrase: Until his claims are stopped up? Until he says: Come, so-and-so and so-and-so, and testify on my behalf, this is difficult. But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that anywhere that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught a ruling in our Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion, except for the following three cases: The responsibility of the guarantor, and the incident that occurred in the city of Tzaidan, and the dispute with regard to evidence in the final disagreement? Evidently, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in this case.

אלא כי אתא רב שמואל בר יהודה אמר רבי יוחנן לעולם מביא ראיה וסותר עד שיסתתם טענותיו ויאמרו לו הבא עדים ואומר אין לי עדים הבא ראיה ואומר אין לי ראיה אבל באו עדים ממדינת הים או שהיתה דיסקיא של אביו מופקדת ביד אחר הרי זה מביא ראיה וסותר

Rather, the Gemara presents another version of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement. When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One can always bring a proof and overturn the previous verdict until his claims are stopped up, and the judges say to him: Bring witnesses, and he says: I have no witnesses, and they say to him: Bring evidence, and he says: I have no evidence. This is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna. But if witnesses came from overseas, or if there was a saddlebag [disakkaya] of his father’s documents deposited by another individual, which are cases where he did not know of the evidence, he can bring this evidence and overturn the previous verdict, as there is no concern of artifice.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן התוקף את חבירו בדין אחד אומר נדון כאן ואחד אומר נלך למקום הוועד כופין אותו וילך למקום הוועד

§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to one who attacks another in judgment, i. e., tenaciously raises legal claims against another, and one of the litigants says: Let us go to court here in our locale, and the other one says: Let us go to the place of the Assembly, i. e., the Sanhedrin, or another High Court, the former litigant is compelled to go to the place of the Assembly.

אמר לפניו רבי אלעזר רבי מי שנושה בחבירו מנה יוציא מנה על מנה אלא כופין אותו ודן בעירו

Rabbi Elazar said before him: My teacher, if so, must one who claims a debt of one hundred dinars from another spend one hundred dinars of travel and lodging expenses for the one hundred dinars he wants to collect? Rather, one is compelled to appear and be judged in a court that presides in his own city.

איתמר נמי אמר רב ספרא אמר רבי יוחנן שנים שנתעצמו בדין אחד אומר נדון כאן ואחד אומר נלך למקום הוועד כופין אותו ודן בעירו ואם הוצרך דבר לשאול כותבין ושולחין

It was also stated that Rav Safra says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to two who were struggling in judgment, one of whom says: Let us go to court here, and one of whom says: Let us go to the place of the Assembly, the latter litigant is compelled to appear and be judged in a court that presides in his own city. And if the local court needs to ask a higher court about a certain matter, the judges write to the Assembly, and the higher court sends its response.

ואם אמר כתבו ותנו לי מאיזה טעם דנתוני כותבין ונותנין לו

And if one of the litigants says to a court: Write for what reason you judged me in this manner and give it to me, as I do not trust your decision without explanation, the judges write it and give it to him.

והיבמה הולכת אחר היבם להתירה

Another halakha was stated with regard to the location of the judgment: And with regard to a woman whose husband had a brother, and he died childless [vehayevama], she follows her brother-in-law [hayavam] for him to free her of the levirate bond through ḥalitza. The yavam does not have to go to her.

עד כמה אמר רבי אמי אפילו מטבריא לצפורי

The Gemara asks: How far does she have to go? Rabbi Ami says: Even from Tiberias to Tzippori. This is the halakha even though the court in Tiberias is more prestigious than the one in Tzippori.

אמר רב כהנא מאי קרא וקראו לו זקני עירו ולא זקני עירה

Rav Kahana says: What is the verse that alludes to this halakha? It is the verse that states:“ Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him, and if he stands and says: I do not wish to take her” (Deuteronomy 25:8). The fact that the elders of his city, and not the elders of her city, are mentioned indicates that ḥalitza is performed in his city and not in hers.

אמר אמימר הילכתא כופין אותו וילך למקום הוועד אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר והא אמר רבי אלעזר כופין אותו ודן בעירו הני מילי היכא דקאמר ליה לוה למלוה אבל מלוה עבד לוה לאיש מלוה

Ameimar says: The halakha is that if one litigant wants to go to the place of the Assembly and the other does not, the latter is compelled to go to the place of the Assembly. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say that he is compelled to appear and be judged in a court that presides in his own city? Ameimar answered: This statement applies in a case where the borrower said to the lender: Let us go to the place of the Assembly; in that case, the debtor is compelled to be judged in his city. But if the lender requests to go to the place of the Assembly, his request is accepted, as it is stated:“ The borrower is servant to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7).

שלחו ליה למר עוקבא לדזיו ליה כבר בתיה שלם עוקבן הבבלי קבל קדמנא ירמיה אחי העביר עלי את הדרך ואמרו לו השיאוהו ויראה פנינו בטבריא

The Sages sent a letter to Mar Ukva, the Exilarch in Babylonia, which stated: To he who has light upon him, like Moses, who is called the son of Bithiah, Shalom. The letter continued: Ukvan the Babylonian complained before us as follows: Yirmeya, my brother, came past me, i. e., did me a great evil. And therefore tell Yirmeya; induce him [hassiuhu] to see our face in Tiberias, where we will judge his case.

הא גופא קשיא אמרת אמרו לו אלמא דיינוה אתון השיאוהו ויראה פנינו בטבריא אלמא שדרוהו הכא

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult to understand. You said: Tell him. Apparently the intention was: Judge him yourselves in Babylonia. But then the letter states: Induce him to see our face in Tiberias. Apparently the intention was: Send him here.

אלא הכי קאמרי אמרו ליה דיינו אתון אי ציית ציית ואי לא השיאוהו ויראה פנינו בטבריא

Rather, this is what the Sages were say ing: Tell him, i. e., judge him yourselves. If he listens to the court, he listens, and the issue is resolved. But if he does not listen, induce him to see our face in Tiberias.

רב אשי אמר דיני קנסות הוה ובבבל לא דיינו דיני קנסות והא דשלחו ליה הכי כדי לחלוק כבוד למר עוקבא

Rav Ashi said: That is not the correct understanding of the letter. Rather, it was a case pertaining to the halakhot of fines, and in Babylonia the courts do not adjudicate in cases pertaining to the halakhot of fines, as there are no ordained judges there; such Sages are found only in Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, it was necessary to send the case to Eretz Yisrael. And the fact that they sent the letter to Mar Ukva using this wording, as though he were capable of adjudicating the case himself, was in order to give honor to Mar Ukva, who was a Sage and a leader. They hinted to him that he could not judge this case and that he therefore had to send the defendant to Eretz Yisrael.

הדרן עלך זה בורר