Commentary for Sanhedrin 46:2
צריכא דאי תנא אבא ואביך בהא קאמרי רבנן דלא מצי הדר ביה משום דאבא ואביך חזו לעלמא אבל חד כבי תרי דלעלמא לא חזי אימא מודו ליה לר"מ
he said in R. Johanan's name: Thecontroversy arises only where [the plaintiff said that he could produce]two pairs of witnesses. Now, R. Meir holds that the litigant is obliged toverify [his statements regarding his second set ofwitnesses];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, the defendant is not regarded as an interested party when he testifies to the family unfitness of one of the first pair, since the plaintiff is bound to adduce the second set in any case, who are themselves sufficient. Should the plaintiff be unable to adduce a second set, he is the cause of his own loss. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 46:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.