Sanhedrin 17
וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דרבי ישמעאל ורבנן דתנן מכות בשלשה משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו בעשרים ושלשה
Rabina said that [R. Meir and the Rabbis are dealing with a case] where one of the witnesses, [who testified to the woman's guilt,] was found afterwards to be a relative or otherwise disqualified. Their point of difference is the same as that in which R. Jose and Rabbi differ in applying the opinion of R. Akiba. For we learnt: R. Akiba says that the third witness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 15. Since the testimony of two suffices, the mention of the third seems superfluous. V. Mak. 5b. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
רבינא אמר כגון שנמצא אחד מן העדים קרוב או פסול וקמיפלגי בפלוגתא דרבי יוסי ורבי אליבא דר' עקיבא דתנן רבי עקיבא אומר לא בא שלישי אלא להחמיר עליו לעשות דינו כיוצא באלו
is mentioned in the Torah, [not for the purpose of making him less responsible], but, on the contrary, to increase his responsibility, by making his status equal to that of the other two, indicating, incidentally, that if Scripture punishes as sinners those who associate with sinners, much more will it reward those who associate with men who fulfil the commandments, as though they themselves had actually fulfilled them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as those who fulfil the commandments'. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
א"כ ענש הכתוב את הניטפל לעוברי עבירה כעוברי עבירה על אחת כמה וכמה שישלם שכר את הניטפל לעושה מצוה כעושה מצוה
And just as in the case of two witnesses, if one is found to be a near kinsman or otherwise disqualified<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By reason of status, crime, evil repute and infamous bearing. V. infra, fol. 24b. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ומה שנים נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול עדותן בטלה אף שלשה נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול עדותן בטלה ומניין שאפי' מאה ת"ל עדים
person, the whole testimony is rendered void, so in the case of three witnesses, the disqualification of one invalidates the whole evidence. And whence do we infer that this law would apply even if the number of witnesses reached a hundred? — We infer it from the repetition of the word witnesses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 15. V. Mak. 5b. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
א"ר יוסי בד"א בדיני נפשות אבל בדיני ממונות תתקיים עדות בשאר רבי אומר אחד דיני ממונות ואחד דיני נפשות ואימתי בזמן שהתרו בהן אבל בזמן שלא התרו בהן
R. Jose says: These aforementioned limitations apply only to witnesses in capital charges, whereas, in monetary cases, the evidence offered can be established by those remaining. Rabbi says it is one and the same rule; whether in monetary or capital cases the evidence becomes equally void, that is, provided the disqualified witnesses took part in the prerequisite warning. But if they were not among those who gave the warning, why should the evidence be affected by disqualified witnesses?