משנה: שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא בַנָּשִׁים בָּרְחוֹקִין וְלֹא בַקְּרוֹבִין בַּכְּשֵׁרִים וְלֹא בַפְּסוּלִין. וְאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בָרְאוּיִין לְהָעִיד בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ. וּמִפִּי אֲחֵרִים אֵין חַיָיבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בֵּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ וּבֵין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים אֵינָן חַיָיבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין: וְחַיָיבִין עַל זְדוֹן שְׁבוּעָה וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. וְעַל זְדוֹן הָעֵדוּת וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. וּמָה הוּא חַיָיב עַל זְדוֹנָהּ קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: MISHNAH: An oath about testimony1Lev. 5:1 requires a variable value sacrifice by a person who heard an imprecation when he had knowledge and refuses to testify. This is read to mean that a person is approached by a party in a civil suit and asked to testify in their behalf. If then either he swears an oath that he will testify in court (“by his own word”) or the party asks him to swear that he will appear (“by the word of others”) while he answers “Amen” but does not utter an oath by himself, he becomes liable for the sacrifice if he reneges on his commitment. applies to men but not to women2Since women are not admitted as formal witnesses in court, the rule of an oath of testimony cannot apply to them., to unrelated persons but not to relatives3Since relatives are barred from appearing as witnesses in court, the rule of an oath of testimony cannot apply to them., to qualified but not to disqualified ones4Felons are not permitted to appear as witnesses in court; the rule of an oath of testimony cannot apply to them.; it applies only to those admitted to testify5Even if their disability only is a rabbinic tradition they will not be heard and the rule of an oath of testimony cannot apply to them., in court and out of court, and by the person’s own words. By the words of others they only become liable if they renege before a court, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, whether by the person’s own words or by the words of others they only become liable if they renege before a court6Since testimony is used only in court, a refusal to testify outside of court is irrelevant and cannot trigger liability..
They are liable both for intentional [violation of the] oath and for erroneous one27If he swore falsely that he did not know testimony but did not know that this makes him liable for a sacrifice., and for intentional [refusal of] testimony, but one is not liable unintentionally28If honestly he was erroneously thinking that he did not know testimony.. What is one liable for if intentional? A variable value sacrifice.
הלכה: שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת כול׳. שְׂעִירִים. מִיעוּט שְׂעִירִים שְׁנַיִם. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר שְׁנֵי. שֶׁיְּהוּ שָׁוִין. HALAKHAH: “An oath about testimony,” etc. 7This text essentially is Sanhedrin 3:10, Notes 150–165, with a related text in Yoma 6:1. The many parallels in Babli (30a,b, Yoma 62b), Tosephta, and halakhic Midrashim are indicated in Sanhedrin.Rams8Lev. 16:5,7,8. Any indeterminate plural means 2, the minimum of many., the minimum of rams are two. Why does the verse say two? That they be equal.
כְּבָשִׂים. מִיעוּט כְּבָשִׂים שְׁנַיִם. אִם כֵּן מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר שְׁנֵי. שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. Sheep, the minimum of sheep are two. Then why does the verse say two? That both be equal9Ex. 27:38, Num. 28:3..
צִפֹּרִים. מִיעוּט צִפֹּרִים שְׁנַיִם. אִם כֵּן מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר שְׁתֵּי. שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. The minimum of birds are two. Then why does the verse say two? that both be equal10Lev. 14:4..
חֲצוֹצְרוֹת. מִיעוּט חֲצוֹצְרוֹת שְׁתַּיִם. אִם כֵּן מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר שְׁתֵּי. שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁתֵּיהֵן שָׁווֹת. The minimum of trumpets are two. Then why does the verse say two? that both be equal11Num. 10:1..
הָתִיב רִבִּי חַגַּיי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוּסֵי. וְהָכְתִיב וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים. מִיעוּט אֲנָשִׁים שְׁנַיִם. וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר שְׁנֵי. שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. וְהָכְתִיב לֹא תַטֶּה מִשְׁפַּט גֵּר יָתוֹם. הֲרֵי מָצִינוּ גֵר דָּן עִם מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גֵר. יָתוֹם דָּן עִם מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָתוֹם. אַלְמָנָה עִם בְּעוּלַּת בַּעַל. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר שְׁנֵי. מוּפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ וְלָדוּן הִימֶּינּוּ גְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן שְׁנֵי וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וַיִּשָּׁאֲרוּ שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים בַּמַּחֲנֶה. מַה לְהַלָּן אֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא נָשִׁים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים אַף כָּאן אֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא נָשִׁים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים. הֲרֵי לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה דָנָה. מֵעַתָּה אֵין הָאִשָּׁה מֵעִידָה. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected to Rebbi Yose12This is the correct reading, also given in Yoma, not R. Yasa as in Sanhedrin.. Is there not written: The two men shall stand13Deut. 19:17.? Now, is not two the minimum of “men”? Why does the verse say two? That both be equal? But it is written14Deut. 24:17.: Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan, … That means that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan, a widow against a married woman. Then why is there written two? It is free to be combined and to infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there two men were left15Num. 11:26.74. Since there one speaks of men but not women nor underaged, also here men but not women nor underaged. From this we learn that a woman may not be a judge; consequently a woman may not be a witness.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי בּוּן רִבִּי הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן שְׁנֵי וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. מַה לְהַלָּן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אַף כָּאן עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר שְׁנֵי. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אֶחָד עוֹמֵד וְאֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב. אֶחָד מְדַבֵּר כָּל צוֹרְכוֹ וּלְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לוֹ. קַצֵּר דְּבָרֶיךָ. כְּנֶגֶד אֶחָד מַאֲרִיךְ פָּנִים וּכְנֶגֶד אֶחָד מֵעִיז פָּנִים. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Yose16Here it seems better to read “Rav Joseph” with the other two sources.. It is said here two and it is said there17Deut. 19:15. by the mouth of two witnesses. Since there it must be by the testimony of two witnesses, also here by the testimony of two witnesses. Then why does the verse say two13Deut. 19:17.? Lest one of them be standing while the other be sitting; one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short. With one he puts up, to the other he is unfriendly.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁאִם רָצָה הַדַּיָין לְהוֹשִׁיב אֶת שְׁנֵיהֶן מוֹשִׁיב. הָאָסוּר שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא זֶה עוֹמֵד וְזֶה יוֹשֵׁב. זֶה מְדַבֵּר כָּל צוֹרְכוֹ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר לוֹ. קַצֵּר דְּבָרֶיךָ. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר. אוֹמְרִין לוֹ. לְבוֹשׁ כְּשֶׁלּוֹבֵשׁ. אוֹ הַלְבִּישֵׁהוּ כְשֶׁאַתָּה לוֹבֵשׁ. Rebbi Jehudah said, I heard that if the judge wants to let both of them sit, he may tell them to sit down. What is forbidden is that not one be standing and the other sitting; one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short. Rebbi Ismael says, one says to him, either you dress as he is dressed or pay him to be dressed as you are.
רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב הוּנָא. צְרִיכִין הָעֵדִים לִהְיוֹת עוֹמְדִין בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמֵּעִידִין. מַה טַעַם. וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אַף הַנִּידּוֹנִין עוֹמְדִין בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמְקַבְּלֵין עֵדוּתָן. מַה טַעַם. אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם הָרִיב לִפְנֵי יי. Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna: The witnesses have to stand while testifying. What is the reason? The two men shall stand13Deut. 19:17.. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Also the parties have to stand at the moment the verdict is given. What is the reason?: Who have the quarrel before the Eternal13Deut. 19:17..
כְּתִיב לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וגו׳. וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר אִישׁ בְּחֶטְאוֹ יוּמָת. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים. אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יוּמְתוּ בָנִים בְּעֵדוּת אָבוֹת וְאָבוֹת בְּעֵידוּת בָּנִים. מִיכָּן שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הָעֵדִים קְרוֹבִין שֶׁלַּנִּידוֹנִין. 18This and the following paragraphs also have an almost identical copy in Sanhedrin 3:10, Notes 166–200. (Babli Sanhedrin 27b,28a). It is written19Deut. 24:16.: Fathers shall not be killed because of sons. Is it not already written, each one should be killed for his own crime? Why does the verse say, fathers shall not be killed because of sons? Fathers shall not be killed on the testimony of sons, and sons shall not be killed on testimony of fathers. From here that witnesses shall not be relatives of the accused.
וּמְנַיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הָעֵדִים קְרוֹבִין זֶה לָזֶה. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׂהוּזְמוּ לֹא מִפִּיהֶן נֶהֱרָגִין. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הָעֵדִים קְרוֹבִים שֶׁלַּדַּיָינִין. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׂאִם הוּזָם אֶחָד מֵהֶם אֵינוֹ נֶהֱרַג עַד שֶׁיּוּזָם חֲבֵירוֹ. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצָא נֶהֱרַג עַל פִּיו. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would each of them not be killed by the other’s testimony? From where that witnesses may not be relatives of the judges? Think of it, if one of them be found perjured, he could not be killed unless the other also was found perjured. If you say so, would he not be killed by the other’s sentencing?
וּמְנַיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הַדַּיָינִין קְרוֹבִין זֶה לָזֶה. אָמְרָה תוֹרָה. הֲרוֹג עַל פִּי עֵדִים. הֲרוֹג עַל פִּי דַיָינִים. מָה הָעֵדִים אֵינָן קְרוֹבִין זֶה לָזֶה. אוּף הַדַּיָינִין כֵּן. From where that judges may not be relatives of one another? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since witnesses may not be relatives of one another, neither may judges be relatives of one another.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אָבוֹת וּבָנִים. שְׁאָר קְרוֹבִין מְנַיִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זֵירָא. וּבָנִים. לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר קְרוֹבִין. So far only fathers and sons; from where the other relatives? Rebbi Ze`ira says, and sons includes the remaining relatives.
כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וְשָׁפְטוּ הָעֵדָה בֵּין הַמַּכֶּה וגו׳. שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא הָעֵדָה קְרוֹבָה לֹא לַמַּכֶּה וְלֹא לַמּוּכֶּה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן קְרוֹבִין לַנִּיכֶּה נִמְצְאוּ בֵית דִּין גּוֹאֲלֵי הַדָּם. מִיכָּן שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הַדַּיָינִין קְרוֹבִין לַנִּידּוֹנִין. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הָעֵדִים קְרוֹבִים לַנִּידּוֹנִין. אָמְרָה תוֹרָה. הֲרוֹג עַל פִּי עֵדִים. הֲרוֹג עַל פִּי מַטִּין. מַה הַדַּיָינִין אֵינָן קְרוֹבִין לַנִּידּוֹנִין אַף הָעֵדִים כֵּן. מְנַיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הָעֵדִים קְרוֹבִין זֶה לָזֶה. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׂהוּזְמוּ לֹא מִפִּיהֶן הֵן נֶהֱרָגִין. From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge between the beater, etc20Num.35:24; between the slayer and the avenger of the blood.. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of those who vote21I. e., the judges; the expression is from Ex. 23:2.. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by each other’s testimony?
וּמְנַיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הָעֵדִים קְרוֹבִין לַדַּיָינִין. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׂהוּזָם אֶחָד מֵהֶן. כְּלוּם נֶהֱרַג עַד שֶׁיּוּזָם חֲבֵירוֹ. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן לֹא נִמְצָא נֶהֱרַג עַל פִּיו. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of the judges? Think of it, if one of them be found perjured, he could not be killed unless the other also was found perjured. If you say so, would he not be killed by his sentence?
בַּכְּשֵׁרִין לֹא בִפְסוּלִין. מְנַיִין. אִם לֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲווֹנוֹ. אֶת שֶׁמַּגִּיד וַחֲבֵירוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם מָמוֹן. יָצָא פָסוּל שֶׁמַּגִּיד וְאֵין חֲבֵירוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם מָמוֹן. “To qualified but not to disqualified ones.” For it is said, if he does not tell, he has to bear his punishment21aLev. 5:1. If he told, the other would have to pay money. This excludes one where the other would not have to pay money even if he told.
בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין. לְהוֹצִיא עֵד אֶחָד. בְּשֶׁאָמְרוּ לֹו. הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּבָּל עָלֵינוּ כִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים. יְהֵא חַיָיב. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ. אֵת שֶׁכָּשֵׁר לָהָעִיד עֵדוּת תּוֹרָה. יָצָא אֶחָד שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לָהָעִיד. “Before the court.” To exclude a single witness. If they told him that they would accept his word as if there were two witnesses, from where? The verse says, if he was a witness, had seen or known; if he does not tell he shall bear his punishment21aLev. 5:1. One who is qualified to testify according to biblical standards; this excludes a single witness who is not qualified to testify.
שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין. אִם לֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲווֹנוֹ. מָקוֹם שֶׁמַּגִּיד וַחֲבֵירוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם מָמוֹן. יָצָא חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין אֲפִילוּ מַגִּיד אֵין חֲבֵירוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. “Outside of court.” If he does not tell, he has to bear his punishment. If he told, one would have to pay money. This excludes outside of court where the other would not have to pay money even if he told.
וּמְנַיִין לִשְׁנֵי עֵדִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר. וְהוּא עֵד. הֲרֵי כָאן שְׁנַיִם. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּאָמַר. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עֵד סְתָם הֲרֵי הוּא בִכְלָל שְׁנַיִם עַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעֲךָ הַכָּתוּב אֶחָד. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. אֶחָד מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ חַיָיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. אֶיפְשַׁר לוֹמַר. אֶחָד רָאוּי לְצוֹרְפוֹ לְחַיְיבוֹ מִשׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת עֵדוּת וְאַתְּ מְחַיְיבוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת עֵדוּת. וְאַתְּ מְחַיְיבוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. From where two witnesses? And he is a witness, this makes two. Following Rebbi Ismael, who said, any place where the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses; unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Two witnesses.” Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath? Since it is possible to say that one person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, you could find him liable for an oath of testimony. How could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?
קָרוֹב מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ חַיָיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. יָיבֹא כְהָדָא. דָּמַר רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁנָּתַן פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי וְנִמְצָא שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לָבֹא אֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְשֶׁעָבַר. וּכְהָדָא. אֵיכָן שׁוֹרִי. אָמַר לוֹ. אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה אַתָּה סָח. רִבִּי פּוֹטֵר מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּיקָּדוֹן וּמְחַיֵיב מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מֵאַחַר שֶׁמִּצְוָה לְהַפִיסוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּעַת בִּיטּוּי. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּנִן אֵין מְצֻוֶּה לְהַפִּיסוֹ. מְפַיְיסוֹ עַל הָאֱמֶת וְאֵינוֹ מְפַיְיסוֹ עַל הַשֶׁקֶר. Should a relative be found guilty of a blurted oath? Does it follow what Rebbi Abba said in the name of Samuel22Chapter 3:6, Note 75. Babli 49b.: “An oath that X gave to Y,” and it turns out that X had not given; since there is nothing in the future there is nothing in the past. Or the following: “Where is my ox?” He responded, “I do not know what you are referring to.” Rebbi declares him not liable for a keeper’s oath but liable because of a blurted oath. Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is a religious duty to appease him, he is not liable because of a blurted oath. In the rabbis’ opinion, is there no religious duty to appease him? One appeases with truthful statements, not with lies.
תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וְנָשָׂא עֲווֹנוֹ. קָרְבָּן. מְנָלָן בֵּית דִּין. הֲגָדָה הֲגָדָה. מָה הֲגָדָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בֵּית דִּין אַף כָּאן בֵּית דִּין. Rebbi Ismael stated: He has to bear his punishment21I. e., the judges; the expression is from Ex. 23:2., a sacrifice. From where that one needs a court? “Telling, telling”. Since telling mentioned there is before a court, also telling here is before a court.
כְּהָדָא. אֵין מְקַבְּלִין הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא אִם רָאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ זֶה אַחַר זֶה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק בְּשֵׁם רַב יִצְחָק שֶׁאָמַר בְּשֵׁם רַב. מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּעֵידֵי בְכוֹרָה וְעֵידֵי חֲזָקָה. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אַף בְּעֵידֵי סֵימָנִין כֵּן. מֵהָדָא פְשִׁיטָא בְּשֶׁזֶּה אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוּת בְּגַבּוֹ. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בְּגַבּוֹ. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי אַחַת בִּכְרֵיסוֹ. לֹא כְלוּם הִיא. כָּל שֶׁכֵּן גַּבּוֹ וְגַבּוֹ. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים. רָאִינוּ שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בְּגַבּוֹ. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׂעָרָה אַחַת בְּכְרֵיסוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה בַּר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. חַד אָמַר. פָּסוּל. וְחַד אָמַר. כָּשֵׁר. מָאן דְּאָמַר פָּסוּל. בְּמֵעִיד בַּחֲצִי סֵימָן. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר כָּשֵׁר. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. שֶׁמָּא נִשְׁרָה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוּת בְּגַבּוֹ. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. רָאִיתִי שְׁנַיִם בִּכְרֵיסוֹ. רִבִּי בָּא אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כָּשֵׁר. רִבִּי חַגַּיי אָמַר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּסוּל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. רִבִּי יוּדָן אָמַר. בְּמַחֲלוֹקֶת. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי לְרִבִּי חַגַּיי. הָא רִבִּי יוּדָן סָבַר כְּוָותִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. עַל דְּרַבֵּיהּ אֲנָא פְלִיג כָּל שֶׁכֵּן עֲלוֹי. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. אִילּוּ שְׁטָר שֶׁמְחוּתָם בְּאַרְבָּעָה חוֹתָמוֹת זֶה מַתִּיר עַל ב׳ וְזֶה מְעוֹרֵר עַל ב׳ וְקָרָא עָלָיו עֶרֶר. שֶׁמָּא כְלוּם הוּא. וְאֵין כָּל חֲתִימָה צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. וָכָא כָּל סֵימָן וְסֵימָן צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה שָׁמַע לָהּ מִשְּׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אִילּוּ אֶחָד מֵעִידוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁנָה אַחַת וּב׳ וְג׳. וְאֶחָד מֵעִידוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ ד׳ וְה׳. שֶׁמָּא כְלוּם הוּא. וְאֵין כָּל חֲזָקָה צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. הָכָא כָּל סֵימָן וְסֵימָן צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. 23This is a careless copy of a text in Soṭah 1:1 Notes 56–71, Ketubot 2:4 Note 87, Sanhedrin 3:10 Note 197. Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac in the name of Rav Isaac who said in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back24There is a sentence missing: “the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If”. and one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so much more his back and his back25It should read: “back and side”.. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and one is saying, I saw one hair on his belly. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe it was rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back; and one says, I saw two on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid [testimony]. Rebbi Yose says, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yudan said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person (permitted)26This clearly is corrupt. In both cases, read: “testified to”. two, and another (questioned)26This clearly is corrupt. In both cases, read: “testified to”. the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanina learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth and fifth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single sign needs two witnesses.