Halakhah for Sanhedrin 119:25

והשלישי אומר אף אני כמוהו: סתמא כר"ע דמקיש ג' לשנים:

Our Rabbis taught: He who hears [the Name blasphemed], and he who hears itfrom the person who first heard it [i.e., from the witness who testifies],are both bound to rend their garments. But the witnesses are not obligedto rend their clothes [when they hear themselves repeating the blasphemyin the course of their testimony], because they had already done so on firsthearing it. But what does this matter: do they not hear it nowtoo?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence they should be obliged to rend their clothes again. ');">²³</span> — You cannot think so, becauseit is written, And it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard it [sc. thereport of Rab-Shakeh's blasphemy] that he rent his clothes. Thus, Hezekiahrent his clothes, but they did not. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: He whohears the Divine Name blasphemed by a gentile need not rend his clothes.But if you will object, what ofRab-Shakeh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was a gentile, and yet his hearers rent their clothes: in fact, that incident is the basis of the law. ');">²⁴</span> — He was an apostateIsraelite. Rab Judah also said in Samuel's name: One must rend his clothes only on hearingthe Shem hameyuhad<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 408, n. 1. ');">²⁵</span> blasphemed, butnot for an attribute of the Divine Name. Now both of these statements conflictwith R. Hiyya's views. For R. Hiyya said: He who hears the Divine Name blasphemednowadays need not rend his garments, for otherwise one's garments would bereduced to tatters.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Blasphemy being of such frequent occurrence. ');">²⁶</span> From whom doeshe hear it? If from an Israelite — are they so unbridled [as to sin thusso frequently]? But it is obvious that he refers to a gentile. Now, if theShem hameyuhad is meant, are the gentiles so well acquainted with it [asto make such frequency possible]? Hence it must refer to an attribute, andconcerning that he says that only nowadays is one exempt, but formerly onehad to rend his clothes. This proof is conclusive. THE SECOND WITNESS STATED, I TOO HAVE HEARD THUS. Resh Lakish said: Thisproves that 'I too have heard thus' is valid evidence in civil and capitalcases,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in these cases, when the first witness has testified, it is sufficient, by Biblical law, for the second to say, 'I too heard (or saw) thus', without explicitly stating what he had heard or seen. ');">²⁷</span> but that the Rabbis imposeda greater degree of stringency [insisting that each witness should explicitlytestify]. Here, however, since this is impossible [on account of the desireto avoid unnecessary blasphemy], they reverted to Biblical law. For shouldyou maintain that such testimony is [Biblically] invalid, can we executea person when it is impossible for the evidence to be validlygiven?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the testimony must be given in particular form, but cannot, it is obvious that the malefactor should not be executed. ');">²⁸</span> AND THE THIRD DID LIKEWISE. This anonymous statement agrees with R. Akiba,who likens three witnesses totwo.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is in reference to Deut. XIX, 15: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established. The difficulty arises, if two witnesses are sufficient, surely three are: then why state it? R. Akiba answers, To teach that just as in the case of two, if one is proved invalid, the whole testimony loses its validity (since only one witness is left), so also, even if there are three or more, and one was proved invalid, the testimony of all is valueless, though there are still two or more valid witnesses left. Now, when the Mishnah states that the third also must testify 'I too heard thus', it is in conformity with R. Akiba's ruling, so that should he be contradicted as having been absent, the entire testimony is null. Otherwise, it would be unnecessary for the third witness to be examined at all. ');">²⁹</span>

Sefer HaChinukh