Sanhedrin

Or, if you prefer, you may say that [R. Meir and the Rabbis differ in a case] where the witnesses contradicted themselves during the Court cross-examination regarding accompanying circumstances  but corroborated each other during cross-examination [on such matters as date, time and place]. And their point of dispute is that of the principle on which the Rabbis and Ben Zakkai differ; for we learnt:  Ben Zakkai once examined the witnesses minutely, enquiring as to the size of the prickles on the fig-[tree under which a certain crime had been committed]. R. Joseph said: If a husband has produced witnesses testifying to his wife's guilt, and her father has brought witnesses refuting their evidence,  the former are liable to death  but are exempted from paying [the value of the Kethubah].  If, however, the husband has again brought witnesses to refute the father's witnesses, the latter are then liable to death  and also to pay the fines  — the money fine for intended injury to one person, and the death penalty for intended death to another. R. Joseph again said:If a man says that so and so committed sodomy with him against his will, he himself with another witness can combine to testify to the crime. If, however, he admits that he acceded to the act, he is a wicked man [and therefore disqualified from acting as witness] since the Torah says: Put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.  Raba said: Every man is considered a relative to himself, and no one can incriminate himself.  Again Raba said: