Talmud su Deuteronomio 16:20

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.⁵While the Mishnah requires the same kind of cross-examinations and determinations in civil as in criminal cases, R. Johanan holds that by rabbinic fiat, witnesses in civil cases are not to be subjected to cross-examinations that stray from the main topic. While it is necessary in criminal trials to disqualify any witness whose testimony is not 100% consistent (since God has promised to punish every evildoer who escapes human justice,Ex. 23:7), excessively rigid standards in civil cases would prevent most owners of capital from lending it, therefore leading to the ruin of the poor. It is in the public interest that claims be swiftly and easily adjudicated. The question quoted (Mishnah 3:9) is the paradigm for any questions to be asked.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yasa⁶One has to read יסא for יוסי. R. Hiyya bar Abba was R. Yasa’s student and R. Yose’s teacher’s teacher.: 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 well⁷Deut. 13:15, referring to a criminal case.. The other said, equity, equity you shall pursue.⁸Deut. 16:20, referring to all judicial proceedings. How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it⁹In criminal cases, there is an obligation on the judges to ascertain the truth as well as possible. In the Babli, 32a, the duty to careful investigation is emphasized in all cases where the judges suspect foul play by one of the parties; cf. Note 10.; otherwise, act in equity.¹⁰In civil cases, the judges have to ascertain that the judgment be equitable.

Rav said, if testimony was contradicted in its essence, the testimony is not void¹²³The court may try to piece together an account of what really happened.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradicted in itself, the testimony is void in the opinion of everybody¹²⁴Both the testimony and the opposing testimony are eliminated from the record.. If testimony was contradicted in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void¹²⁵The example given below is concurrent testimony how the murder was committed but conflicting testimony as to the direction of escape of the murderer, which is testimony to what happened after the criminal act was committed.. Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent since Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted¹²⁶In some case before the court one needs to establish the fact that one party counted a certain amount of money. but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he counted from a wallet and the others say he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony¹²⁷For R. Joḥanan, concurrent testimony by several witnesses is biblical testimony binding on the court only if it holds up under cross examination; Deut. 19:18: “The judges have to investigate thoroughly”., the testimony is void but according to Rav, the testimony is not void¹²⁸In the first case, there was no testimony. If both witnesses had testified in a coherent way, the fact would have been established by two independent witnesses and would be testimony by biblical standards which is binding on the court. In the second case, Rav holds that both testimonies are binding by biblical standards and can be used to establish any fact that is uncontested between the two groups; in that example that one of the parties counted money.. These say, he counted into his bosom, the others say he counted into his money-belt; everybody agrees that is contradicting testimony after the main testimony, and the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void and Rav will agree that the testimony is void¹²⁹In criminal cases, the testimony of a single witness has no standing; if the two testimonies do not combine in a meaningful way, there is no testimony (this example is quoted by Rav Ḥisda in the Babli, Sanhedrin30b,41a). (In civil cases, a single witness also cannot testify but he can be used to ascertain circumstances.). Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he killed him with a mace and the others say, he killed him with a sword. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If these say, he ran away to the South and those say, he ran away to the North, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void¹²⁵The example given below is concurrent testimony how the murder was committed but conflicting testimony as to the direction of escape of the murderer, which is testimony to what happened after the criminal act was committed.. The strength of Rav comes from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.” He did nor hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Judah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses¹¹²Witnesses who contradict one another in details that have no essential bearing on the case before the court are nevertheless legally contradicting one another, making their testimony worthless. In the Babli, 118a, R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan reject any distinction by R. Jehudah and R. Simeon between women and witnesses.. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? Did they not consider the co-wife’s words as nonexistent for her companion¹¹¹Nothing a wife says has any legal consequences for her co-wife. (The Babli, 118a, quotes R. Joḥanan as holding that a quarrel whether the husband is dead or not is not a contradiction. That opinion is characterized as difficult to understand. The simple solution offered here is not mentioned; this implies that it is rejected.)? (Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he heard it from me and formulated it¹¹³A frequent complaint of R. Joḥanan, that R. Eleazar should have formulated his statement for the permanent record as stating: R. Joḥanan says.….)¹³⁰The text in parenthesis is from ms. A only; probably it is copied from above by an unthinking scribe. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav¹³¹Mishnah Sanhedrin 5:2.: “Both in investigations¹³²The procedures before a Talmudic court are inquisitory. In a first stage the witnesses are queried about the alleged crime. and in cross examinations¹³³These are questions about matters of secondary importance put to each witness in the absence of the other to ferret out any prior understanding between the witnesses, which would invalidate the testimony, or inconsistencies in detail which would impair its standing., if they contradict one another their testimony is void.” Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain that as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases: “Justice, justice you shall pursue”¹³⁴Deut. 16:20. In criminal cases, proof beyond any reasonable doubt is required..

MISHNAH: He who has 50 zuz and uses them for trade should not take¹³⁵Neither the agricultural gifts to the poor nor public assistance.. One who has no need to take but takes will not die of old age until he needs the creatures¹³⁶I. e., people.. One who has need to take but does not take will not die of old age until he can provide for others from what is his; for him is was said (Jer. 17:7): “Blessed be the man who will be confident in the Eternal, the Eternal will be his trust.” The same applies to a judge who delivers strictly true judgment¹³⁷While compromise is usually preferred, he who negotiates a compromise does not have the same responsibility as one who has to deliver unassailable true judgment.. But one who is neither lame nor blind nor limping and presents himself as such will not die from old age until he will be one of them, as it is said (Deut. 16:20): “Justice, justice you shall pursue.” But every judge who takes bribes and bends the law will not die from old age until his eyes are dimmed, as it is said (Ex. 23:8): “Do not take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the seeing.”¹³⁸The blinding of the seeing can also be applied to welfare fraud, as it was stated in Halakhah 6 that certifying eligibility for welfare is a judicial task.
In the most trustworthy Mishnah manuscripts, the text after the quote from Jeremiah is missing. In others, only the reference to honest and dishonest judges is added. It is clear from the disconnected text that the insertion about simulants is the last. Since these additions are not discussed in the Halakhah, it seems that they are late additions to emphasize the end of the tractate (probably being added by the compilers of the Yerushalmi.)