{"id":3978,"date":"2017-02-23T09:07:40","date_gmt":"2017-02-23T07:07:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/?p=3978"},"modified":"2017-02-23T09:07:40","modified_gmt":"2017-02-23T07:07:40","slug":"bava-batra-32","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/2017\/02\/bava-batra-32\/","title":{"rendered":"Bava Batra 32"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rav Nachman was not concerned that overturning a ruling of the court based on new testimony would cause a lack fo respect in the future for the courts. \u00a0He relied on Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s ruling in a case of a kohen about whom concern was raised that he was the son of a kohen and a divorcee. \u00a0The details of the exact case are clarified and lead to the fact that all agree that one can overturn a ruling – the debate was over a different issue – can 2 individual witnesses testify each separately and it can be considered one testimony? \u00a0Other cases are brought where one brings a document and the other side accuses him for bringing a false document. \u00a0Then the one who brought the document says that the document is a forgery but there was a real document that got lot. \u00a0Is the claim valid as a “ma li leshaker<\/em>” – since he could have lied and said it was a valid docuemnt. \u00a0The commentaries disagree as to the exact details of the case – was it really a forged document or was it a shtar amana<\/em>? \u00a0How do we rule in cases like this?<\/p>\n

\n