You’re no help TB Sanhedrin 30

 The Gemara loves the back and forth of the debate often coming to the conclusion that both sides are valid. Although in the Beit Midrash this is a satisfying intellectual exercise, in real life sometimes people just want the one “real” answer.

We must remember that two witnesses are needed to substantiate what truly happened. Today’s daf TB Sanhedrin 30 spent a lot of time discussing when two witnesses who did not see the event together’s testimony can be combined. When the court case involves land the consensus is “And Rav Idi bar Avin teaches in the halakhot of damages that were taught at the school of the Sage Karna: The Rabbis concede to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa that the witnesses do not need to see the incident together ” (Sefaria.org translation) Because a piece of property remains the same forever, witnesses don’t have to see the incident together. The same cannot be said about loans. Just because a witness testifies on Monday that the person took out a loan of $100 and another person testifies that the person testifies on Tuesday that the person took out a loan of $100, doesn’t mean they are witnessing the same loan. Perhaps the borrower took out two loans each of $100.

“Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak encountered Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. He said to him: What is different about a loan following a loan, in which case the testimonies are not combined, as the one hundred dinars that this witness saw, that witness did not see? In the case of an admission following an admission as well, perhaps the one hundred dinars about which the respondent admitted in the presence of this witness, he did not admit in the presence of that witness. Perhaps his admissions were in reference to two separate loans, and therefore the testimonies should not be combined.

“Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered him: The reference is to a case where the respondent said to this last witness: With regard to the one hundred dinars that I admitted to owing in your presence, I admitted to owing them in the presence of so-and-so, the first witness, as well. “

“Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak asked: Still, the last witness knows that he is testifying about the same loan as the first witness, but the first witness does not know this. Since only one witness testifies that it is the same loan, the testimonies still cannot be combined.

“Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered: It is a case where, after his admission to the second witness, the respondent went back and said to the first witness: With regard to those one hundred dinars that I admitted to owing in your presence, I admitted owing them in the presence of so-and-so as well. Therefore, both witnesses know that they are testifying about the same loan. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: May your mind be settled, as you have settled my mind and put it at ease by answering this question that was troubling me.

“Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to him: What is settling about this explanation? As Rava, and some say Rav Sheshet, threw an ax at my answer, i.e., he rejected my explanation, as follows: According to this interpretation of the case of an admission following an admission, isn’t this the same as an admission following a loan? The case of an admission following an admission is now rendered superfluous, as it adds no new insight on the matter.

“Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: This is what I heard about you Sages of Meḥoza, that you knock down palm trees and erect them, i.e., you build and then destroy what you built. After you came up with such an excellent explanation, you ruined it yourselves.” (Sefaria.org translation) Basically Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak tells Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua you’re no help at all.

I’m reminded what the Gemara taught on yesterday’s daf. Sometimes too much information is not good. “Ḥizkiyya says: From where is it derived that anyone who adds, subtracts (שֶׁכׇּל הַמּוֹסִיף גּוֹרֵעַ)? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated that Eve said: “God has said: You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it” (Genesis 3:3), whereas God had actually rendered prohibited only eating from the tree but not touching it, as it is stated: “But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it” (Genesis 2:17). Because Eve added that there was a prohibition against touching the tree, the snake showed her that touching it does not cause her to die, and she consequently sinned by eating from it as well.” (TB Sanhedrin 29a, Sefaria.org translation)

I  suspect modern rabbis (me included) are guilty like the sages from Meḥoza by giving too much information, frustrating the questioner, and are no help either.