Sanhedrin

An objection is raised: Do not accept the wicked as witness; [this means,] Do not accept a despoiler  as witness; e.g., robbers, and those who have trespassed by [false] oaths.  Surely this refers to both a vain oath  and an oath concerning money matters?  — No; in both cases,  oaths concerning money matters are alluded to; then why state 'oaths' [plural]? — [To indicate] oaths in general. An objection is raised: Do not accept the wicked as witness; [this means,] Do not accept a despoiler as witness, e.g., robbers and usurers.  This refutation of Abaye's view is unanswerable. Shall we say that their difference is identical with that of Tannaim? [For it has been taught:]  A witness proved a Zomem is unfit [to testify] in all Biblical matters: this is R. Meir's view. R. Jose said: That is only if he has been proved a Zomem in capital cases;  but if in monetary cases, his evidence is valid in capital charges. Shall we affirm, Abaye agrees with R. Meir, and Raba with R. Jose? 'Abaye agrees with R. Meir,' who maintains that we impose [disqualification] in respect of major cases as a result of a minor transgression.  'And Raba  with R. Jose,' who says, We impose [disqualification] in respect of minor matters  as a result of a major transgression;  but not the reverse! — No! On R. Jose's opinion, there is no dispute at all.  They differ only on the basis of R. Meir's opinion. Abaye certainly agrees with R. Meir. But Raba [may argue]: So far R. Meir gives his ruling only in the case of a Zomem in a monetary case, who is evil in the sight of God and man. But in this case, since he is evil in the sight of God alone,  even R. Meir does not disqualify him. And the law rests with Abaye. But has he not been refuted? — That [Baraitha which refuted him] represents the opinion of R. Jose.  Granted; yet even so, [wherever] R. Meir and R. Jose [are in dispute], the halachah rests with R. Jose!  — In the other case it is different, for the Tanna has taught R. Meir's view anonymously.  And where does this occur? — [As we find] in the case of Bar Hama, who committed murder. The Resh Galutha  said to R. Abba b. Jacob:  Go and investigate the matter, if he is definitely the murderer, dim his eyes.  Two witnesses thereafter appeared and testified to his definite guilt; but he [Bar Hama] produced two other witnesses, who gave evidence against one of the accusing witnesses. One deposed: In my presence this witness stole a kab of barley; the other testified: In my presence he stole