Sanhedrin

Raba refuted R. Nahman: A witnessed receipt  must be authenticated by the signatories. If unwitnessed, but produced by a trustee, or if written on the note of indebtedness, under the signatures of the witnesses, it is also valid.  Hence we see that the trustee is believed! This refutation of R. Nahman remains unanswered. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he said in R. Johanan's name: One may always adduce proof to upset [the decision unless he declares his arguments closed, and [immediately thereafter] says: Admit so and so to testify on my behalf.  But is not this selfcontradictory? First you say, 'Unless he declares his arguments closed,' — which agrees with the Rabbis;  then you say, 'and [immediately thereafter] says, Admit so and so to testify on my behalf' — which agrees with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel!  And should you answer, The whole agrees with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, and that [the latter clause is] merely elucidatory [of the first] viz., What is meant by, 'Unless he declares his arguments closed'? That means he says, Admit so and so that he may give evidence for me:'  but did not Rabbah b. Bar Hana say in R. Johanan's name: Wherever Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel's view is taught in our Mishnah, the halachah rests with him, save in the cases of 'Areb, Zidon, and the 'latter proof'?  — But when R. Samuel b. Judah came [from Palestine], he said in R. Johanan's name: One may always produce evidence to upset [a decision], unless he declares his case closed and they say unto him, 'Bring witnesses,' and he answers, 'I have no witnesses;' 'Bring proof,' and he replies, 'I have no proof.'  If, however, witnesses arrive from overseas, or if his father's despatch case  had been deposited with a stranger, he can produce the evidence and upset [the decision]. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine], he said in R. Johanan's name: If a man, known as a difficult adversary in court, [has a trial,]  and one of them  says: Let us be tried here; while the other says: Let us go to the place of Assembly,  he is compelled to go to the place of Assembly. R. Eleazar, however, said in his presence: Rabbi, if a man claims a maneh from his fellow, must he spend another maneh  on top of the first? Nay, he is compelled to attend the local court.  It has been stated likewise: R. Safra said [in R. Johanan's name]:  If two litigants are in obstinate disagreement with respect to [the venue of] a lawsuit, and one says: Let us be tried here; and the other says: Let us go to the place of Assembly;  he [the defendant] must attend the court in his  home town. And if it is necessary to consult [the Assembly], the matter is written down and forwarded to them. And if the litigant  says 'Write down the grounds on which you made your decision and give them to me,  they must write them down and give him the document. The Yebamah  is bound to follow the Yabam [to his own town] that he may release her.  How far? — R. Ammi answered: Even from Tiberias to Sepphoris.  R. Kahana said: What verse proves it? — Then the elders of his city shall call him;  but not the elders of her city. Amemar said: The law is that he is compelled to go to the place of the Assembly.  R. Ashi said to him: Did not R. Eleazar say, He is compelled to attend court in his [opponent's] town? — That is only where the debtor demands it  of the creditor; but if the creditor [demands, it, the debtor must submit, for] The borrower is servant to the lender. A message was once sent  to Mar 'Ukba:  'To him whose lustre is like that of the son of Bithia,  Peace be with thee. 'Ukban the Babylonian has complained to us, saying: "My brother Jeremiah has obstructed my way."31 Speak therefore to him, and see that he meets us in Tiberias.' But is this not self-contradictory? First you say, 'Speak to him,'i.e., judge him;  and then you add, 'See that he meets us in Tiberias,' shewing [that they told him], Send him hither! — What they meant was: Speak to him and judge him;  if he accepts your decision, well and good; if not, see to it that he appears before us in Tiberias. R. Ashi says: This was a case of Kenas, and in Babylonia they could not try cases of Kenas.  But as for their sending him a message in such terms,  that was only to shew respect to Mar 'Ukba.