ל איתמר
30 provided, however, thatthey accept it publicly, but not if they accept it in private. And even ifpublicly [accepted], the law is applicable only if, when it was possiblefor them to obtain it privately they yet degraded themselves by open acceptance.But where [private receipt] is impossible, it [public acceptance] is vitallynecessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is a matter of life'. Cf. Yoma 82a, 'Nothing stands in the way of saving life'. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> R. Nahman said: One who is suspected of adultery is [nevertheless] eligibleas a witness. Said R. Shesheth: Answerme,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi. Jast.: 'Be slow', 'beg pardon'. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> Master; forty stripes on hisshoulders,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even though he is liable to flagellation. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> and yet [you say] heis eligible!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! Though by Biblical law punishment could not be imposed without evidence and warning, it was nevertheless meted out on the ground of strong suspicion. Cf. Kid. 81a where Rab said: We impose the punishment of lashes even on the ground of an evil report alone, as it is written, For it is no good report which I hear (I Sam. II, 24). ');"><sup>31</sup></span> Raba observed: EvenR. Nahman admits that he is incompetent to testify in matrimonial matters.Rabina — others state R. Papa — said: That is only where his evidence isto free her;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., when he testifies to the death of her husband or that she was divorced from him. His purpose is then quite obvious, and therefore his evidence is suspect. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> but if it is to bindher,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to bring her into' (the married state). ');"><sup>33</sup></span> there is no objection [to him].But is this not obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no selfish interests can animate him. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> — I mightthink that he would preferthis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to keep her in a forbidden state to him, for then her occasional company would be more pleasurable. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> even as it is written, Stolenwaters are sweet;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. IX, 17. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> therefore he teachesus that as long as she is in her present [unmarried] state, she is even morewithin his reach.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that this factor is bound to outweigh the other; therefore his evidence is admissible. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> R. Nahman said further: One who steals [produce from the fields] in Nisan,and [fruit from the orchards] inTishri<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its these months cereals and fruits ripen respectively. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> is not regarded as athief.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of bearing witness. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> But this is only in caseof a metayer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who works for a certain share in the produce. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> where the quantityis small and the produce isripe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its work is completed.' ');"><sup>41</sup></span> [and no longer needs tending]. One of R. Zebid's farm-labourers' stole a <i>kab</i> of barley, and another a clusterof unripe dates. So he disqualified them [from acting as witnesses]. Certain grave diggers buried a corpse on the first day festival'Azereth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] solemn assembly. The Talmudic name for the Feast of Weeks. (Cf. Lev. XXIII, 9 ff). Burial is forbidden on the first day of a Festival. Cf. Bez. 6a top. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> so R. Papa excommunicatedthem, and disqualified them aswitnesses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they violated the law for the sake of gain. It should be observed that this is the main test of eligibility. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> R. Huna the son of R.Joshua, however, removed their disqualification; whereupon R. Papa protested:'But surely, they are wicked men!' — 'They might have thought that theywere doing a good deed!' 'But did I not excommunicate them?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That should have indicated to them that their action was not right; yet they repeated their action. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> — They mighthave thought that the Rabbis thereby effected expiation forthem.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the desecration of the day, though their act in itself was meritorious. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> It has been stated: