Mishnah%20in%20talmud for Makkot 1:8

מַה שְּׁנַיִם נִמְצָא אַחַד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה, אַף שְׁלשָׁה נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. מִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, עֵדִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. אֲבָל בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, תִּתְקַיֵּם הָעֵדוּת בַּשְּׁאָר. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִתְרוּ בָהֶן, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא הִתְרוּ בָהֶן, מַה יַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁרָאוּ בְאֶחָד שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנָּפֶשׁ:

Just as with two (witnesses), if one of them were found to be kin or pasul (unfit to testify), their testimony is void, so with three; if one of them were found to be kin or pasul, their testimony is void. Whence is it derived (that this is so) even with a hundred? From "witnesses." R. Yossi said: When is this so? With capital cases, [it being written in that regard (Numbers 35:25): "And the congregation shall rescue, etc." They should seek to find something in his favor.], but in monetary cases, the testimony stands through the others (who are not kin or pasul). Rebbi says: Both in monetary cases and in capital cases [the testimony is void]. When [do we say in capital cases that the testimony is void?] When they warned them [i.e., when the kin or pasul joined (the others) originally to be one of the warners of the transgressors]; but if they did not warn them, [and they had no intent to be witnesses to the deed, the testimony of the others is not voided because of what they saw, for] what should two brothers do who saw one man kill another?

Explore mishnah%20in%20talmud for Makkot 1:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.