משנה: כָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִבְדִּיקוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּבָּח. מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָדַק בֶּן זַכַּאי בְּעוּקְצֵי תְאֵנִים. וּמַה בֵּין חֲקִירוֹת לִבְדִיקוֹת. אֶלָּא שֶׁבַּחֲקִירוֹת אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. בְּדִיקוֹת אָמַר אֶחָד אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין עֵדוּתָן קַייֶמֶת. אֶחָד חֲקִירוֹת וְאֶחָד בְּדִיקוֹת בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מַכְחִישִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה׃ MISHNAH: Anybody who adds inquiries40About the details of the crime which are investigated after time and place have been established. is praiseworthy. It happened that Ben Zakkai41According to the Sanhedrin.41">Babli, 41a/b, it is possible that he is Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai. During the time that capital jurisdiction was still in the hands of a Jewish court, not yet in that of the Roman governor, he was not yet the head of the Synhedrion and, therefore, had no title. cross-examined about fig stalks. What is the difference between investigations and cross-examinations? In investigations, if one said “I do not know”, their testimony is worthless42As testimony which cannot be shown to be perjured.. In cross-examinations, if one said “I do not know”, or even two say “we do not know,” their testimony remains valid43The credibility of the witnesses may be impaired. This is a matter to be decided by the judges, not an absolute obstacle.. Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless44A conviction requires testimony by two witnesses. If there are conflicting testimonies and the judges believe one of them, no conviction could result since it would be based on the word of one witness alone..
הלכה: כָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִבְדִּיקוֹת כול׳. בַּמֶּה לִקְטָן. בְּעוּקְצֵיהֶן לִקְטָן. בַּמֶּה אֲכָלָן. בְּגַלְעִינֵיהֶן. HALAKHAH: “Anybody who adds inquiries,” etc. How did he pluck them45An example of Ben Zakkai’s inquiry; cf. Sanhedrin.41a">Babli 41a.? He plucked them with their stalks. How did he eat them? With their pits46Referring to olives..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. מִי שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים מְעִידִין. אֵילּוּ מְעִידִין שֶׁנָּזַר שְׁתַּיִם וְאֵילּוּ מְעִידִין שֶׁנָּזַר חָמֵשׁ. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. נֶחְלְקָה עֵדוּתָן. אֵין כָּאן נְזִירוּת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. יֵשׁ בִּכְלָל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם. וִיהֵא נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם׃ רַב אָמַר. בִּכְלָל נֶחְלְקוּ. אֲבָל בִּפְרָט כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדוּ נֶחְלְקָה הָעֵדוּתָ. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּמוֹנֶה נֶחְלְקוּ. אֲבָל בְּכוֹלֵל כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בִּכְלָל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם. הֵידֵינוֹ כוֹלֵל וְהֵידֵינוֹ מוֹנֶה. כּוֹלֵל. אָהֵן אוֹמֵר תַּרְתֵּי וְאָהֵן אָמַר חָמֵשׁ. מוֹנֶה. אָהֵן אָמַר חָדָא תַרְתֵּי. וְאָהֵן אָמַר תְּלַת אַרְבָּעֵי. 47Parallel texts to this and the following paragraphs are in Yevamot 15:5:3-4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.15.5.3-4">Yebamot 15:5 (Notes 115–134) and Nazir 3:7:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.3.7.2">Nazir 3:7 (Notes 110–112). There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir twice, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut there. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that the testimony is split. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that five contains two. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four.
רַב אָמַר. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת לֹא בָֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָּֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת לְאַחַר עֵדוּת לֹא בָֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵהָדָא. דָּמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הוּחְזַק הַמּוֹנֶה. זֶה אוֹמֵר. מִן הַכִּיס מָנָה. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. מִן הַצְּרוֹר מָנָה. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת אוֹף רַב מוֹדֶה שֶׁבָּֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים. אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. מִן הַכִּיס מָנָה. וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. מִצְּרוֹר מָנָה. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָּֽטְלָה עֵדוּת. וּכְרַב לֹא בָֽטְלָה עֵדוּת. אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. לְתוֹךְ חֵיקוֹ מָנָה. וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. לְתוֹךְ פּוּנְדָּתוֹ מָנָה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת לֹא בָֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בַּסַּייִף הֲרָגוֹ. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בַּמַּקֵּל הֲרָגוֹ. הַכְחֵשׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת אוֹף רַב מוֹדֶה שֶׁבָּֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים. אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. בַּסַּייִף. וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. בַּמַּקֵּל. הַכְחֵשׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָּֽטְלָה עֵדוּת. וּכְרַב לֹא בָֽטְלָה עֵדוּת. אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. לַצָּפוֹן נָטָה. וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. לַדָּרוֹם פָּנָה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת לְאַחַר עֵדוּת לֹא בָֽטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. חֵיְילֵיהּ דְּרַב מֵהָדָא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. רִבִּי יוּדָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִין. הוֹאִיל וְזוֹ וָזוֹ מוֹדוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ קַייָם יִנָּשֵׂאוּ. וְלֹא שְׁמִיעַ דָּמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּעֵדִים. מַה בֵין עֵדִים וּמַה בֵין צָרָה. לֹא עָשׂוּ דִּבְרֵי צָרָה בַחֲבֵירָתָהּ כְּלוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִין אָֽמְרָהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר מִינִּי שְׁמָעָהּ וַאֲמָרָהּ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. אֶחָד חֲקִירוֹת וְאֶחָד בְּדִיקוֹת בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכְחִישִׁין זֶה לָזֶה עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. מָה עֲבַד לָהּ רַב. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. פָּתַר לָהּ רָב עֵד בְּעֵד. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אֲפִילוּ יִפְתָּר כַּת בְּכַת שַׁנְייָא הִיא לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּכְתִיב צֶ֥דֶק צֶדֶ֭ק תִּרְדּוֹף. Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar48Read with the parallel sources: R. Abba, R. Hiyya. Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.