Study Sanhedrin folio 32B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
then if the judges erred they should not need to pay the party they wronged, as they can claim that they were prevented from examining the witnesses effectively. The Talmud answers: If that were to be the halakha, all the more so that this would lock the door in the face of potential borrowers. If
Rava says: The ruling of the Mishnah here, that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated with regard to laws of fines, not standard cases of monetary law. And the other sources, i.e., the Mishnah in tractate Shevi’it and the baraita, which do not require inquiry and inte
Rav Pappa says: This and that, i.e., both the Mishnah here and the other sources, are stated with regard to cases of an admission and a loan. The distinction between them is that the Mishnah here, which rules that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated with regard to a
This distinction is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish raises a contradiction between two verses: It is written in one verse: “In justice shall you judge your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:15), and it is written in another verse: “Justice, justice, shall you follow” (Deutero
Rav Ashi says: The ruling of the Mishnah here, that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is as we answered, i.e., in accordance with any one of the answers offered by the other amora’im. And those verses were not stated with regard to fraudulent trials; rather, one is stated w