יג וכי הדרי בהו מאי הוי כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד לא צריכא דאע"ג דקא יהבי טעמא למילתייהו (כי ההוא מעשה דבעיא מיכסא):
13 Buteven so, of what consequence is it? Once a witness testified — he cannottestify again!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Witnesses are not permitted to retract their first statement and make another, since they may have been prompted thereto out of pity for the accused. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> It is necessary [tostate this] even where they [the witnesses] give a reason for theiraction,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In withdrawing their previous statement. E.g., when they say that they have previously testified against him out of hatred. In this case, though the execution is carried out, the witnesses bear responsibility. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> as happened in the caseof Ba'ya<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Kohut 'Aruch Completum, vol II, p. 140, Ba'ya is derived from the Arabic, meaning an informer. In the case in question he had denounced the tax defaulters in the Government, an act which, of course, aroused the enmity of the people. According in Rashi, the subject matter of the text is connected with this name as follows: The funeral of the said collector coincided with that of a very pious man, but accidentally the coffins were exchanged, so that the honour intended for the Rabbi was paid to the other, and vice versa. An explanation of the happening was given by the Rabbi in a dream to one of his pupils who was disturbed at the occurrence, and he also informed him that severe punishment was in store for Simeon b. Shetah in the world to come for the neglect of his duty in tolerating eighty women in Ashkelon guilty of sorcery. Simeon, on being informed about it, took a serious view of the matter and had them executed. The relatives of these women, however, inflamed with a passion for revenge, plotted against his son, charging him with a capital crime, as a result of which he was sentenced to death. On his way to the place of execution the condemned man protested his innocence so vehemently that even the witnesses were moved to admit the falsity of their evidence, giving as ground for their former act their feelings of enmity against Simeon b. Shetah. Yet their latter statement was not accepted, according to the law expounded in the text, that a witness is not to be believed when be withdraws a former statement. The source for Rashi's story is found in J. Sanh. VI, 3; 6, and in J. Hag. II, 2, with slight variations. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>