Responsa for Sanhedrin 60:26
וארנקי שחורה בדיני נפשות לא והאמר רב חסדא אחד אומר בסייף הרגו ואחד אומר בארירן הרגו אין זה נכון אחד אומר כליו שחורים ואחד אומר כליו לבנים הרי זה נכון
viz.,surely it is then identical with the case of an admission after aloan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since it is necessary, according to this answer, that each witness shall know what the other has seen, it follows that an admission after a loan must be explained likewise, viz., he must have said to the latter witness: The maneh I have admitted receiving in your presence, I borrowed in the presence of so and so; and then he must have gone and said to the former witness: The maneh which I borrowed in your presence, I have admitted receiving before so and so. Why then did Rab need to state both laws? ');"><sup>27</sup></span> Thereupon he [R. Nahman b.Isaac] said to him: 'This proves what I heard about you folk, that you teardown palm trees and set them up again.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., you remove difficulties merely to resurrect them! ');"><sup>28</sup></span> The Nehardeans said: [In all cases,] whether of admission after admission,admission after loan, loan after loan, or loan after admission, the testimoniesare combined. With whom does this agree? — With R. Joshua b. Korha. Rab Judah said: Testimony that iscontradicted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the testimony of one witness contradicts that of the other. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> underexamination,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to attendant circumstances, e.g., regarding the colour of the clothes worn etc., in which cases the agreement or disagreement is immaterial in reference to the law of declaring them Zomemim. V infra 40a. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> is valid in civil suits.Raba said: Logically, Rab Judah's ruling refers to such a case as where onewitness says: '[I saw it paid] out of a black bag,' and the other says, 'Outof a white bag.' But if one declares, 'The money was old,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'black' (with use). ');"><sup>31</sup></span> and the othersays, 'The money was new,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'white'. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> their testimonies cannot be combined. But incriminal cases, are not testimonies combined where there are differencessuch as over the colour of a bag? Did not R. Hisda say: 'If one testifiesthat it [sc. the murder] was with a sword, and the other maintains, it waswith a dagger, it is not valid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'certain', cf. Deut. XIII, 15. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> evidence;whereas if one affirms that the colour of his garments was black, and theother that it was white, their evidence is valid'?
Teshuvot Maharam
R. Meir's opinion was as follows:
The testimony of R. Shealtiel and his sons is of no consequence for two reasons. a) They are related to each other; their testimony is that of a single witness, and, therefore, insufficient. b) The foetus could have lingered in the mother's womb for twelve months (cf. Yeb. 80b). Sarah's giving birth to a child twelve months after her husband left her, is, therefore, no proof of her depravity. The testimony of the other witness regarding Sarah's indecent behavior on the evening of Shabuot, being the testimony of a single witness, does not deprive Sarah of her right to her ketubah. If R. Isaac believes the aforementioned witness or if he takes the word of his wife's own father, he must divorce Sarah even against her will. If she renders it impossible for him to divorce her, he may marry another woman without divorcing Sarah as a warning to all indecent and depraved women. But he must pay Sarah her ketubah. However, if Sarah admits her guilt, or acknowledges the truth of the testimony regarding her indecent conduct on the evening of Shabuot, or if she cannot satisfactorily explain why she denied her being pregnant in the month of Elul of the previous year, or answer all other questions regarding her conduct, she loses her right to her ketubah and is entitled only to whatever is left of the valuables she had brought with her upon her marriage.
SOURCES: L. 310; Tesh. Maim. to Nashim 25; Hag. Mord. to Yeb. 121; cf. Sinai vol. V (1941) p. 296; Asher Responsa 32, 11; Weil, Responsa 8; ibid. 88; Isserlein, Pesakim 22.