Makkot

SAID R. JOSE: THESE AFOREMENTIONED LIMITATIONS APPLY ONLY TO WITNESSES IN CAPITAL CHARGES;1 BUT IN MONETARY SUITS, THE EVIDENCE MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY THE REST.2 RABBI3 SAYS: IT IS ONE AND THE SAME RULE, BE IT IN MONETARY SUITS OR CAPITAL CHARGES; THAT IS, PROVIDED THE DISQUALIFIED WITNESSES TOOK PART IN THE PRE-ADMONITION.4 BUT WHERE THEY WERE NOT OF THOSE WHO GAVE THE PRE-ADMONITION [TO THE OFFENDERS], WHAT COULD TWO BROTHERS DO THAT SAW5 SOMEONE SLAYING A PERSON? GEMARA. [EVEN TWO OR THREE CAN INCRIMINATE A HUNDRED.] Said Raba: And such[an incrimination by two against a hundred witnesses] could be sustained only where they all had given their evidence in ‘un-intermittent utterance’. R. Aha of Difti remarked to Rabina: Seeing that ‘un-intermittent utterance’ is generally defined as the brief interval which a disciple would take in uttering the salutation, Peace Upon Thee, my Master and Guide! — the evidence of a hundred witnesses will take a great deal more time than that! Said Rabina: [What is meant is that] each one follows the other un-intermittently [which renders the whole as one undivided group]. R. AKIBA OBSERVES THAT THE THIRD WITNESS WAS SUPERADDED... SO IT IS WITH THREE; IF ONE OF THEM WAS FOUND TO BE A KINSMAN . . . THEIR EVIDENCE IS DISQUALIFIED. R. Papa observed to Abaye: But, then, [admitting such extreme pretexts against capital punishment] let the very presence of the murdered man himself6 [at the murder] save [the delinquent from the ‘death penalty]?7 — [Said Abaye: The penalty can be inflicted in case] he was attacked from behind.8 Let the presence of the victim in a case of sodomy save the delinquent from the death penalty? — [The penalty can be inflicted where] the assault was from behind. Then why not let the presence of the criminal9 [in each of these cases] be made a pretext for disqualifying the evidence? Abaye remained silent. When R. Papa came [with these questions] before Raba, the latter replied: The Holy Writ prescribes, at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established;10 the text11 thus refers only to those who have to establish the matter.12 SAID R. JOSE: THESE LIMITATIONS APPLY ONLY. .. IN CAPITAL CHARGES ... RABBI SAYS. .. BE IT IN MONETARY SUITS OR CAPITAL CHARGES, PROVIDED THE WITNESSES DISQUALIFIED WITNESSES TOOK PART IN THE PRE-ADMONITION How do we [the Judges] put it to the witnesses? — Said Raba: [We ask them] whether they had come13 as mere onlookers, or to give evidence. If they say to give evidence, and one is found to be a near kinsman, or disqualified person, the entire evidence is disqualified, but if they say they had come as mere onlookers [the evidence is allowed to stand]. WHAT COULD TWO BROTHERS DO THAT SAW SOMEONE SLAYING A PERSON? It is stated: Rab Judah reported [his Master] Samuel to have said that the halachah14 was to follow the view of R. Jose15 while R. Nahman said that the halachah was to follow the view of Rabbi.16 deliver the slayer . . . and the congregation shall restore him . . . Num. XXXV, 25. invalidated as it serves to enforce an oath (Tosaf.). Cf. Shebu. 40a. consequences. is sheer casuistry; yet these conundrums lead to the examination of the legal principles involved. Han. verbal evidence; it is not so strictly enforced in some documentary evidence. Cf. Han. and Alfasi.