Show notes
The Mishna rules that regardless of the number of individuals who testify, they are all considered a single group. Rava qualifies this ruling, limiting it to cases where the witnesses testify in immediate succession (toch k'dei dibbur).
Rabbi Akiva rules in the Mishna that if even one witness is related to another witness, to the defendant, or is otherwise disqualified, the entire group is disqualified. Rav Papa raises three practical difficulties with this ruling. Abaye resolves two of these difficulties but is unable to answer the third, which Rava subsequently resolves.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (Rebbi) rules that only those who explicitly intended to act as witnesses are considered as such. This intent is established if they issued a warning (hatra'ah) to the defendant. The Gemara then explores what additional questions the judges may pose to the witnesses to confirm this intent.
The Mishna discusses a scenario where witnesses observe an event from separate windows while a third party issues the warning. If the witnesses can see one another, they are considered a single group. Consequently, if they see each other and it is later determined that one was a conspiring witness (ed zomem) but the other was not, the conspiring witness does not receive capital punishment. Rabbi Yosi rules that a defendant is only executed if the warning was issued by the witnesses themselves. Therefore, in the aforementioned case, even if they were conspiring witnesses, they would not be executed because their testimony could never have led to a conviction, as they were not the ones who issued the warning.
A judge is prohibited from accepting testimony through a translator.
Rav provides a source for the ruling that two witnesses who did not see one another cannot join together to testify. A braita is cited to support his derivation (drasha); a difficulty raised against the braita is ultimately resolved.
Rava presents rulings regarding the relationship between the witnesses and the person who warned the defendant, as well as the nature of the warning itself. Rav Nachman limits the requirement for witnesses to see each other to capital cases, excluding monetary law. Rav Zutra raises a challenge against Rav Nachman's distinction, which remains unresolved.
A contradiction is raised against Rabbi Yosi's ruling in the Mishna based on a conflicting statement of his in Makkot (9b). Abaye resolves this by explaining that these statements were made by two different individuals with the same name, citing a braita in support.
Given the Mishna's rule against using a translator, the Gemara questions how Rava utilized one in a specific case. The Gemara explains that Rava understood the witnesses' language but used the translator to convey his words to them, as he could comprehend the language but not speak it fluently.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
