[San 9a.: We begin on the fourth line. The gemara has been analyzing the dispute on how many judges are needed to rule in the case of a slanderer; R. Meir says three, and the Sages say twenty-three. So far, we have seen five explanations for the dispute: Ulla (whether gossip will bring out witnesses and create a capital crime), Rava (we are concerned with the dignity of the court), Abbaye (was the warning specific enough), Rav Pappa (does a scholar requires warning) and Rav Ashi (whether offenses leading to judicial lashes require a court of three or of twenty-three). We now go to a sixth explanation.]

Ravina said: It is a case in which [the husband brought witnesses to the wife's infidelity and] one of the witnesses was found to be related [to another, which disqualifies them] or otherwise ineligible, and the dispute [in our mishna] is parallel to the dispute between R. Yosei and Rabbi according to R. Akiva. [Scripture (Deut 19:15) says: "At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established."] R. Akiva says: The third (witness) is mentioned only for a stringency, to make his sentence the same as the first two. [Witnesses who testimony has been proven false {e.g., they were in a different place and could not have seen what they claimed} are given the punishment that would have been meted out to the person against whom they testified (Deut. 19:19).

The third witness might claim immunity, on the grounds that the testimony of the first two witnesses was sufficient, and his testimony added nothing to the weight of evidence.] If Scripture punishes an accomplice to a transgressor [the third witness] just like the transgressor, even more so shall Scripture reward an accomplice to a mitzvah like one who performs the mitzvah.

And just as if there were two witnesses and one was found to be related or otherwise ineligible, their testimony is invalid [since only one valid witness would remain, and at least two witnesses are required], even if there were three witnesses and one was found to be a relative or ineligible, their testimony is invalid [even though two valid witnesses remain, the entire testimony is rejected]. And from where do we know even 100 witnesses [and one is invalid, that the testimony of the remaining 99 is rejected]? Scripture says (Deut 19:15) "witnesses" [the word is used twice in the verse.]

[We finally reach text that is relevant to our own gemara:]

R. Yosei said: When does this apply? In capital cases. But in monetary cases, the testimony can be established by the other witnesses [i.e., by those who remain after one witness was found invalid]. Rabbi said: Monetary and capital cases are the same [i.e., one invalid witness disqualifies the entire group of witnesses]. When? When (in a capital case the invalid witness) had warned [the transgressor before the act]. But if (the invalid witness) had not warned [the transgressor, the invalid witness would not be considered part of the group of witnesses, and the testimony of the remaining witnesses would be accepted.] Otherwise, what would two brothers and a third person do if they witnessed a murder? [One brother and the other witness warn the transgressor. The other brother's ineligibility does not disqualify the "group.]

[The parallel with our mishna: The Sages agree with Rabbi. If one witness was ineligible but did not join in the warning, the other witnesses' testimony remains intact, it's a capital case, and a court of twenty-three is required. R. Meir agrees with R. Yosei; even if the ineligible witness did not give a warning, the entire testimony is rejected, and the case of the slanderer is monetary, and only three judges are required.]

[We end on the second line of 9b.]

Return to the Talmud page.