משנה: עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת אִם מִתְקַייֶמֶת הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁנַיִם לָמָּה פָרַט הַכָּתוּב בִּשְׁלשָׁה אֶלָּא לְהַקִּישׁ שְׁלשָׁה לִשְׁנַיִם. מַה שְּׁלשָׁה מַזִּימִין אֶת הַשְּׁנַיִם אַף הַשְּׁנַיִם יָזֹמּוֹ הַשְּׁלשָׁה. וּמְנַיִין אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עֵדִים. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר מַה שְׁנַיִם אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן זוֹמְמִין אַף שְׁלשָׁה אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן זוֹמְמִין. וּמְנַיִין אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עֵדִים. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר לֹא בָא הַשְּׁלִישִׁי אֶלָּא לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו וְלַעֲשׂוֹת דִּינוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָאֵילּוּ. אִם כֵּן עָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב לַנִּיטְפָּל לְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה כְּעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה יְשַׁלֵּם שָׂכָר לַנִּיטְפָּל לְעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה כְּעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה׃ מַה שְׁנַיִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה אַף שְׁלשָׁה נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. וּמְנַיִין אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עֵדִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת אֲבָל בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת תִּתְקַייֵם הָעֵדוּת בַּשְּׁאָר. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיתְרוּ בָהֶן. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא הִתְרוּ בָהֶן מַה יַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁרָאוּ בְאֶחָד שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ׃ MISHNAH: By the words of two witnesses or three witnesses shall a death sentence be imposed41Deuteronomy.19.15">Deut. 19:15. Criminal sentences can be imposed only on the basis of oral testimony, not of circumstantial evidence.. If testimony is confirmed by two, why did the verse mention three? Only to compare three to two. Since three may prove that two are plotters, two also may prove that three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”42The repetition, two witnesses or three witnesses, when it could have been “two or three witnesses”, implies that any number of witnesses have the same status as do two..
Rebbi Simeon says, since two are executed only if both are plotters, so three are executed only if all three are plotters. And from where even a hundred? The verse says “witnesses”42The repetition, two witnesses or three witnesses, when it could have been “two or three witnesses”, implies that any number of witnesses have the same status as do two..
Rebbi Aqiba says, the third is only mentioned to punish him harshly and to identify his judgment with that of the others. If the verse in this way punished the accessory of criminals like criminals43Since the third witness is not essential for proof in court., so much more it will reward the accessory to one who keeps the commandments as one who keeps the commandments.
Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person51If one witness is disqualified by the rules of Mishnah Sanhedrin either 3:6 or 3:7, there is only one testimony, insufficient by biblical standards., the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says42The repetition, two witnesses or three witnesses, when it could have been “two or three witnesses”, implies that any number of witnesses have the same status as do two., witnesses.
Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? In criminal trials, but in civil trials the testimony should be upheld by the remaining [witnesses]52Since Deuteronomy.19.19">Deut. 19:19 is formulated for criminal trials, the argument that any number of witnesses have the same status as two witnesses is not necessarily true for civil trials. In money matters, any two qualified witnesses can testify. For example, it is admissible that marriage contracts be signed first by two qualified witnesses and after them by any number of family members of both sides (cf. Gittin 8:10:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.8.10.1">Gittin 8:12, Note 105).. Rebbi says, both in criminal and in civil trials, if they warned them53If in a criminal case a disqualified person or two related persons both warned the perpetrator not to engage in criminal behavior, their action makes them witnesses and all witnesses have to be disqualified under the argument of Mishnah 12. But if they were eye witnesses but not those who delivered the warning, they are not forced to testify; the trial may proceed without them.. But if they did not warn them, what should two brothers do who were eye-witnesses to a murder?
הלכה: אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כול׳. יֵאָמֵר דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאַל יֵאָמֵר דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. שֶׁאִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַקַּלִּים שְׁלֹשָׁה מְזַמְמִין אֶת הַשְּׁנַיִם וּשְׁנַיִם אֵין מְזַמִּין אֶת הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה. מְנַיִין אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עֵדִים. אוֹ אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַחֲמוּרִין שְׁנַיִם מְזַמִּין אֶת הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵינָן מְזִימִין אֶת הַשְּׁנַיִם. מְנַיִין אֲפִילּוּ הֵן מֵאָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עֵדִים. HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said?” 54The argument refers to all Mishnaiot 9–13. The requirement of “two witnesses or three witnesses” for criminal convictions is written in Deuteronomy.17.6">Deut. 17:6, Deuteronomy.19.15">19:15. (In addition, rendering judgment in a criminal trial on the basis of a single testimony is forbidden in Numbers.35.30">Num. 35:30.) While in both verses of Deut. the background clearly is that of criminal trials, the redundancy is taken as a sign that in civil trials (not on arbitration panels) the biblical rules of evidence of criminal trials have to be followed. The Babli disagrees in the name of Rav Nahman (6b). It should have been said for civil trials and would not have been needed for criminal trials. If it had been said for civil trials, not for criminal trials, I would have said that in the relaxed standards of civil trials three [witnesses] may prove two [witnesses] to be plotting but two may not prove three to be plotting. From where even a hundred? The verse says, witnesses42The repetition, two witnesses or three witnesses, when it could have been “two or three witnesses”, implies that any number of witnesses have the same status as do two.. Or if it had been said for criminal trials, not for civil trials, I would have said that according to the stringent standards of criminal trials two [witnesses] may prove three [witnesses] to be plotting; three may not prove two to be plotting55It seems to be clear that in thissentence the positions of “two” and “three” have to be switched, resulting in a sentence completely parallel to the preceding one.. From where even a hundred? The verse says, witnesses42The repetition, two witnesses or three witnesses, when it could have been “two or three witnesses”, implies that any number of witnesses have the same status as do two..