Study Bava Kamma folio 114A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אפומא דחד. ולא אמרן אלא חד, אבל בתרי לא. וחד נמי לא אמרן אלא בדיני דמגיסתא, אבל בי דוואר – אינהו נמי חד אמומתא שדו ליה.
based on the word of one witness, which is insufficient evidence according to Jewish law. And we said that this is so only when one individual testifies alone against his fellow Jew, but when two witnesses testify against a Jew, we do not excommunicate them, as their testimony is sufficient evidence according to Jewish law as well, and they have not caused the defendant any unjustified financial loss even according to halakha. And in a case of a single witness also, we said that we excommunicate him only if he testified in a court of villagers [demagista], but if he testified in the official government courthouse [bei davar], he is not excommunicated. This is because they also prescribe an oath to the defendant based on the testimony of a single witness, but they do not expropriate money, in accordance with Jewish law.
אמר רב אשי: כי הוינא בי רב הונא, איבעיא לן: אדם חשוב דסמכי עליה כבי תרי – מפקי ממונא אפומיה, ולא איבעי ליה לאסהודי; או דלמא כיון דאדם חשוב הוא – לא מצי משתמיט להו, ומצי לאסהודי? תיקו.
The Talmud relates that Rav Ashi said: When I was in the academy of Rav Huna, the following dilemma was raised before us: What is the halakha with regard to an important person, whose testimony is relied upon by the non-Jew courts as if it were the testimony of two witnesses? Since the non-Jew court will expropriate money based on his word, should the halakha be that he should not testify? Or perhaps, since he is an important person, he cannot escape the authorities who demand his testimony, and he may therefore testify. The Talmud concludes: The dilemma should stand unresolved.
אמר רב אשי: האי בר ישראל דזבין ליה ארעא לגוי אמצרא דבר ישראל חבריה – משמתינן ליה. מאי טעמא? אי נימא משום דינא דבר מצרא, והאמר מר: זבן מגוי, וזבין לגוי, ליכא משום דינא דבר מצרא!
§ The Talmud cites another situation where a Jew is excommunicated for causing harm to another Jew. Rav Ashi said: In the case of a Jewish man who sells a non-Jew a plot of land that is on the border of the property of his fellow Jew, we excommunicate him. What is the reason? If we say it is because he has ignored the right of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor to be the first one offered the purchase of the field, but doesn’t the Master say: With regard to one who purchases land from a non-Jew, and one who sells land to a non-Jew, there is no right of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor to be the first one offered the purchase of the field?