Shevuot

or, [with reference to] the discretion of the judges.1 Ulla said: The controversy2 is in regard to the litigants, but in regard to witnesses all agree that they must stand, for it is written: And the two men shall stand. R. Huna said: The controversy is in regard to the time of the discussion,3 but at the time of the completion of the case4 all agree that the judges sit and the litigants stand, for it is written: And Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood.5 Another version: The controversy is in regard to the time of the discussion, but at the time of the completion of the case all agree that the judges sit and the litigants stand, for witnesses are like the completion of the case,6 and it is written with reference to them: And the two men shall stand.7 The widow of R. Huna had a case before R. Nahman. He said [to himself]: What shall I do? If I should rise before her,8 the plea of her opponent will be stopped up;9 if I should not rise before her, [I should be doing wrong, for] the wife of a scholar is like a scholar.10 So he said to his attendant: ‘Go and make a duck fly over me, and urge it towards me, so that I will rise.’11 But the Master said: The controversy is in regard to the time of the discussion, but at the time of the completion of the case all agree that the judges sit and the litigants stand!12 — He sits as one who unties his shoes,13 and says, ‘You, So-and-so, are innocent, and you, So-and-so, are guilty.’ Rabbah son of R. Huna said: If a Rabbinical scholar and an illiterate person have some dispute with each other, [and come to court,] we persuade the Rabbinical scholar to sit; and to the illiterate person we also say, ‘Sit’, and if he stands, it matters not. Rab son of R. Sherabya had a case before R. Papa. He told him to sit, and told his opponent also to sit; but the attendant of the court came and nudged14 the illiterate man and made him stand up. And R. Papa did not say to him, ‘Sit’. How could he do so; will not the other's plea be stopped up?15 — R. Papa may say: He16 will say, ‘He has17 asked me to sit, but the attendant was not appeased by me.’18 And Rabbah son of R. Huna said: If a Rabbinical scholar and an illiterate person have some dispute with each other, the scholar should not come first and sit down [before the judge],19 because it will appear as if he is setting forth his case. And we do not say this except when he has not a fixed time with him;20 but if he has a fixed time with him, it matters not,21 for he22 will say, he is occupied with his lesson. And Rabbah son of R. Huna said: If a Rabbinical scholar knows some testimony, and it is undignified for him to go to the judge, who is inferior to him, to give testimony before him, he need not go. R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said: We also learnt thus: If he found a sack or a basket which it is not his custom to handle, he need not take it.23 However, this is only the case in money matters,24 but in the case of a prohibition25 [he must give evidence, for it is written]: There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord:26 wherever there is a profanation of the Name, the honour of a scholar is not regarded. R. Yemar knew some testimony for Mar Zutra, and came before Amemar. He told them all to sit. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: Did not Ulla say: The controversy is in regard to the litigants, but in regard to witnesses all agree that they should stand? — He replied to him: This is a positive precept,27 and that is a positive precept;28 the positive precept enjoining respect for the Torah 29 is greater. (Mnemonic: Advocate, Uncultured, Robbery, False.) Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that a judge should not appoint an advocate for his words?30 — Because it is said: From a false matter keep far.31 And how do we know that a judge should not allow an uncultured disciple to sit before him?32 Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. And how do we know that a judge who knows his colleague to be a robber, or a witness who knows his colleague to be a robber, should not join with him?33 Because it is said: From a false matter keep far. And how do we know that a judge who knows that a plea is false34 should not say, Since the witnesses give evidence, I will decide it, 35 and message to R. Nahman that, if the case in which Ulla was involved was of such a nature, he should use his discretion in his favour, because he was a learned and righteous man, and was therefore more likely to be in the right. off the duck. verdict? opponent arrives. take into his house, because he deems it undignified, he need not pick it up in order to restore it to its owner. re-marry; and this scholar knows her husband to be alive, he must give his evidence before the judge, though he is his junior or inferior, for, in face of a prohibition, his dignity does not count. will being opposed. enjoined; v. B.K. 41b. trying to think of further arguments to support it, because he is ashamed to change his view.