Rav Nachman was not concerned that overturning a court ruling based on new testimony would cause a lack of respect for the courts in the future. He relied on the ruling of Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who disagreed with other tannaim in a case involving akohenabout whom there was concern that he was the son of a kohen and a divorcee. As the details of this debate are clarified, Rav Ashi concludes that both hold that the court can overturn a ruling and they disagree about a different issue: can two individual witnesses testify separately? From here, the conclude that Rav Nachman was relying on two great scholar, Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
In another case of contested property, one brought a document, and the other accused him of presenting a false document. Then, the one who brought the document admitted it was a forgery but claimed there was a real document but he lost it. Rava held that his claim was valid under the principle of "ma li leshaker" since he could have lied and maintained it was a valid document. But Rav Yosef disagreed as the document was a complete forgery. Which opinion do we pasken like? Rav Idi distinguished in his ruling between land and money.
Podden och tillhörande omslagsbild på den här sidan tillhör Michelle Cohen Farber. Innehållet i podden är skapat av Michelle Cohen Farber och inte av, eller tillsammans med, Poddtoppen.
