daf bit: Nazir 20

[cellio]

(Today's daf is 19.)

The mishna teaches: if two groups of witnesses testify about a man, one saying that he vowed to become a nazir for two years and the other that he vowed for five, how do we resolve the difference? Beit Shammai rules that because there is conflicting credible testimony he is not a nazir at all -- we can't tell, so we eliminate both. Beit Hillel, on the other hand, says that five includes two -- those who say five agree that he vowed for at least two. Thus he is a nazir for two years because everybody agrees on that much. (20a)

I wonder if the "at least this much" approach applies to torts too, like disputed loans or damages. It seems reasonable that it should.

Comments

[eub.livejournal.com]

The "five includes two" approach seems completely logical to me, so it's interesting to consider the other ruling. Not quite sure where it comes from. Possibly that the attestation is a speech act that is to be done directly, rather than by logical implication?

[cellio]

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that it's either what you say or that they need to be able to report his exact words -- and if there's disagreement about what they were then we really don't know if we can trust the rest of the report.

(Sorry for the delay; I somehow managed to miss the notification on this comment.)