Q&A: Summary of the Discussion: The Dispute Between Rabbi and the Rabbis
Summary of the Discussion: The Dispute Between Rabbi and the Rabbis
Question
With God’s help,
The summary is excellent—relatively brief and concise—but it raises several questions. The judge was not present at the event when the witnesses signed for the maneh in the document, so it is not clear how Rav Yehuda puts the witness and the judge together as testimony on the same plane—after all, the judge is testifying only about the witnesses who appeared before him, while he did not see the maneh in the document.
Also, if one judge testifies, that should be enough, since by his testimony that he sat on the court, presumably he did not sit alone, and a court of three would have been valid.
Answer
First, it is Rav Yehuda (an amora, a student of Rav and Shmuel), not Rabbi Yehuda (who is a tanna). That itself is the claim of Rava and Rav Ashi. I will explain Rav Yehuda’s view later. This is only the first lesson on the topic.
As a rule, if you are asking a question about a lesson or article, it is proper to provide a link so others will also know what is being discussed.
Regarding your last question: because he is only one witness, we do not have sufficient testimony that such a proceeding took place at all. If one witness came regarding a murder and testified that there was another witness with him, would we treat his testimony as if it were two?