Bava Batra

in our Mishnah  [remains]! — It  teaches us this: That two [witnesses] on a folded [deed are] like one witness on a plain [one]; as in the latter  the defect is Biblical,  so also in the former  the defect is Biblical.  [This]  can be proved.  for the members of the College  sent  [the following enquiry] to R. Jeremiah:  [In the case of witnesses] one of whom had signed  [the deed] and the other [confirmed the contents] orally,  are they combined?  According to the first Tanna of R. Joshua b. Korha,  the question does not arise because, [according to him, independent evidence  of two can] not be combined even [in the case where] the two [witnesses] signed the deed,  or the two [gave] oral [evidence]. The question, however, arises according to R. Joshua b. Korha.  Is the [independent evidence] combined only [in the case where] the two [witnesses] signed the deed  or where the two [gave] oral [evidence], but [in the case where] one witness signed  and one [testified] orally, [their evidence] is not combined, or [is there], perhaps, no difference? He sent to them [the following reply]: I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me; but your disciple is inclined to the opinion  that [the witnesses] may be [regarded as] combined. He  said unto him:  We learned it  thus:  for the members of the College sent [the following enquiry] to R. Jeremiah: [In the case of] two [witnesses] who gave evidence, one at one court  and the other  at another court,  may [one] court come to the other and [thus cause the evidence to be] combined? According to the first Tanna of R. Nathan  the question does not arise, since, [according to him, such evidence  can] not be combined even where [it was given before] one court. The question, however, arises according to R. Nathan.  Is [the evidence] combined only [where it was given] at one court, but [if] at two courts [it is] not combined, or [is there], perhaps, no difference? And he sent to them [his reply]; I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me, but your disciple is inclined to the opinion  that [the witnesses may] be [regarded as] combined. Mar b. Hiyya said: This was [the enquiry] addressed to him: [In the case where] two gave evidence at one  court, and then they gave evidence at another  court,  may one [member] of either court come [to the other court] and combine?  According to [the view] of R. Nathan,  the question does not arise, [for] since witnesses may be combined, is there [any] need [to say that] judges [may be combined]? The question, however, arises according to the first Tanna of R. Nathan.  [Is it] witnesses only that are not combined but judges are, or is there, perhaps, no difference? He sent to them [in reply]: I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me; but your disciple is inclined to the view  that they may be combined. Rabina said; Such was [the enquiry] sent to him: [Where] three [judges] sat down to confirm a deed, and one of them died,  [is it] necessary to write; 'We were in a session  of three  and one is [now] no more,  or not?  He sent to them [in reply]: I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me; but your disciple is inclined to the view  that it is necessary to write, 'We were in a session of three  and one is [now] no more'. And on account of this  R. Jeremiah was re-admitted to the College. MISHNAH. [WHEN] IN [A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS] IT IS WRITTEN. 'A HUNDRED ZUZ WHICH ARE TWENTY  SELA' [THE CREDITOR] RECEIVES ONLY  TWENTY [SELA'].  [IF THE ENTRY WAS]. 'A HUNDRED [ZUZ] WHICH ARE THIRTY [SELA']' HE  RECEIVES ONLY  A MANEH.  [IF THE ENTRY READS], SILVER ZUZ IN WHICH ARE … AND [THE AMOUNT IS] BLOTTED OUT, [IT REPRESENTS] NO LESS THAN TWO. [IF THE ENTRY READS]. 'SILVER SELA'S WHICH ARE…', AND [THE AMOUNT IS] BLOTTED OUT, [IT REPRESENTS] NO LESS THAN TWO. [IF], 'DARICS  WHICH ARE … AND [THE AMOUNT IS] BLOTTED OUT, [IT IS] NO LESS THAN TWO. [IF] ABOVE  A MANEH  IS WRITTEN AND BELOW  TWO HUNDRED,  [OR IF] TWO HUNDRED  [ARE WRITTEN] ABOVE AND A MANEH  BELOW, ONE IS ALWAYS TO BE GUIDED BY THE LOWER ENTRY.  IF SO,  WHY SHOULD THE UPPER [PORTION AT ALL] BE WRITTEN? — IN CASE A LETTER IN THE LOWER [SECTION] BE RUBBED OFF IT MAY BE INFERRED  FROM THE UPPER [PORTION]. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught:  'Silver'  [signifies]no less than a silver denar. 'Silver denarii' or 'denarii silver' [signifies] no less than two silver denarii. 'Silver for denarii', [signifies] silver for no less than two gold denarii. The Master said: '"Silver" [signifies] no less than a silver denar.' Might it not signify  a bar [of silver]? — R. Eleazar replied: [This is a case] where coin was mentioned.  Might it not signify  small change? — R. Papa replied: In [the case of] a place where small silver coins are not current. Our Rabbis taught: 'Gold'  [signifies] no less than a golden denar. 'Gold denarii' or 'denarii gold' [signifies] no less than two gold denarii. 'Gold for denarii' [signifies] gold of the value of no less than two silver denarii. The Master said: "gold" [signifies] no less than a gold denar'. Might it not mean  a bar [of gold]? — R. Eleazar replied: [In the case] where coin was mentioned.