Bava Batra 63

ורשב"ג סבר ערער תרי והאמר רבי יוחנן דברי הכל אין ערער פחות משנים

that there must be two, then what of the statement of R. Johanan who said that according to all authorities no objection is valid unless it is raised by two challengers? We suppose therefore that the objection has been raised by two; and here we are dealing with a case where the father of this man is known to have been a priest, but a report has been spread that his mother was a divorced woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore he was disqualified, on the basis of Lev. XXI, 7. ');">¹</span>

אלא ערער תרי והכא במאי עסקינן כגון דמחזקינן ליה באבוה דהאי דכהן הוא ונפק עליה קלא דבן גרושה ובן חלוצה הוא ואחתיניה ואתא עד אחד ואמר דכהן הוא ואסקיניה

or a <i>haluzah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The Rabbis forbade a priest to marry a haluzah also. ');">²</span>

ואתו בי תרי ואמרי דבן גרושה וחלוצה הוא ואחתיניה ואתא עד אחד ואמר דכהן הוא ודכולי עלמא מצטרפין עדות

and we therefore deposed him, and then one witness came and testified that he was a genuine priest and we reinstated him, and then two came and testified that his mother was a divorced woman or a <i>haluzah</i> and we degraded him again, and then one more witness came and testified that he was a genuine priest. Now all authorities agree that the evidence [of the two witnesses who testify to his genuineness] is combined [although they did not testify in each other's presence], and the point at issue is whether or not we disregard any disrepute that may be brought upon the <i>Beth din</i> [for altering its decision]. R. Eliezer held that once we have deposed him we do not reinstate him, for fear of bringing disrepute on the <i>Beth din</i>, whereas Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says that just as we have deposed him so we can reinstate him, and we disregard any disrepute that may be brought thereby on the <i>Beth din</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And R. Nahman in his dictum was thus following R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. ');">³</span>

והכא במיחש לזילותא דבי דינא קא מיפלגי ר' אלעזר סבר כיון דאחתיניה לא מסקינן ליה חיישינן לזילותא דבי דינא ורשב"ג סבר אנן אחתיניה ואנן מסקינן ליה ולזילותא דבי דינא לא חיישינן

R. Ashi strongly disputed this explanation [saying]: If this is the case, why [should R. Eliezer refuse to reinstate him] if only one witness appears at the end? Why not even if two come together?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Eliezer is anxious to safeguard the dignity of the Beth din. ');">⁴</span>

מתקיף לה רב אשי אי הכי מאי איריא חד אפילו בתרי נמי אלא אמר רב אשי דכולי עלמא לא חיישינן לזילותא דבי דינא והכא בלצרף עדות קא מיפלגי ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי

No, said R. Ashi. All agree that we disregard any disrepute that may be brought on the <i>Beth din</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore R. Nahman had great authorities on his side. ');">⁵</span>

דתניא לעולם אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהן כאחד ר' יהושע בן קרחה אומר אפילו בזה אחר זה אין עדותן מתקיימת בבית דין עד שיעידו שניהם כאחד ר' נתן אומר שומעין דבריו של זה היום ולכשיבא חבירו למחר שומעין דבריו:

and the point at issue here is whether the evidence [of different witnesses] can be combined, a point on which we find a difference between Tannaim. For it has been taught: 'The evidence of the two witnesses is not combined, and does not carry weight unless they both [testify to] have seen at the same time. R. Joshua b. Korhah, however, says that the evidence is combined even if one [testifies that he] saw at one time and the other at another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., one testifies that he saw the claimant lend the defendant a certain sum on one day, while the other maintains that it was on the next day. This first clause of the Baraitha here quoted has nothing to do with the argument, and is only inserted to make the quotation complete. ');">⁶</span>

ההוא דאמר לחבריה מאי בעית בהאי ארעא א"ל מינך זבינתה והא שטרא

Nor is their evidence accepted in the <i>Beth Din</i> unless they testify together. R. Nathan, however, says that the evidence of one may be taken on one day and the evidence of the other when he comes on the next day.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus R. Gamaliel agrees with R. Nathan and R. Eliezer with the anonymous opinion. ');">⁷</span> A certain man said to another, 'What are you doing on this land?' He replied, 'I bought it from you, and here is the deed of sale.'