Talmud for Sanhedrin 5:2

כָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִבְדִיקוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח. מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָדַק בֶּן זַכַּאי בְּעֻקְצֵי תְאֵנִים. וּמַה בֵּין חֲקִירוֹת לִבְדִיקוֹת. חֲקִירוֹת, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. בְּדִיקוֹת, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין, עֵדוּתָן קַיָּמֶת. אֶחָד חֲקִירוֹת וְאֶחָד בְּדִיקוֹת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכְחִישִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה:

Whoever multiplies examinations (of the witnesses) is to be praised. Once, Ben Zakkai examined (someone) on the peduncles of figs. [("Ben Zakkai":) R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. He was a disciple judging before his master at that time, for which reason he was called "Ben Zakkai." ("on the peduncles of fruits":) They (the witnesses) testified that he was killed under a fig tree, and Ben Zakkai "examined": "Were the peduncles of the figs thin or thick?"] What is the difference between "inquiries" (chakiroth) and "examinations" (bedikoth)? With chakiroth, if one (of the witnesses) says: "I do not know," their testimony is invalidated. [For they are no longer subject to hazamah through that chakirah. And so long as it is impossible to satisfy hazamah with one of the witnesses, the entire testimony is invalidated, even if there are a hundred witnesses; for the witnesses cannot be rendered zomemin until all of them are so rendered.] With bedikoth, if one says: "I do not know," and even if two of them say: "We do not know," the testimony stands. [Even if all say: "We do not know," the mitzvah of hazamah obtains. For hazamah is contingent only upon chakirah, (leaving the witnesses open) to the claim: "You were with us at that time in a different place."] Both with chakiroth and with bedikoth, if they (the witnesses) contradict each other, their testimony is invalidated. [In all instances of "their testimony is invalidated" in the Gemara, he (the one testified against) and they (the witnesses) are exempt (from liability)].

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

¹¹⁵From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Nazir 3:7, Sanhedrin 5:2. There, we have stated¹¹⁶Mishnah Nazir 3:7.: “If two groups of witnesses testified about him, one group testifying that he vowed two periods of nezirut¹¹⁷The vow to abstain from grape products, from impurity of the dead, and from hair cutting, Num. 6:1–21. If the person making the vow does not indicate the duration of the vow, it is for a period of 30 days (Mishnah Nazir3:1)., the other group testifying that he vowed five periods of nezirut.¹¹⁸“The House of Shammai say, this is conflicting testimony, there is no nezirut, the House of Hillel say, two is included in a totality of five, he must be a nazir for two periods.”” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, that he has to be a nazir for two periods¹¹⁹What Rav calls detail, R. Joḥanan calls counting. Rav holds that the Houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree if one group of witnesses say that he vowed two periods and the other group say five periods. But if the first group testify that he vowed a first and a second time separate 30-day periods of nezirut, and the other group confirm this but add that he also vowed third, fourth, and fifth periods, then the testimony for the first two periods is concurrent and valid according to everybody. The Babli agrees, Nazir 20a/b, in the names of Rav and the Galileans.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut¹²⁰R. Joḥanan holds that the testimony of 5 contradicts the testimony of 2 and the House of Hillel will agree that both testimonies are invalid. He holds that the House of Hillel consider a testimony on (1,2) to be contained in the testimony about (1,2,3,4,5), but the House of Shammai see the testimonies as contradicting one another.. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir

MISHNAH: If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir two times, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split¹⁰⁸Following the rules of criminal procedure by which contradictory testimony has to be disregared. and there is no nezirut here. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two¹⁰⁹Following the rules of civil procedure. If one group testifies that A owes 500 while the other group testifies that he owes 200, he has to pay 200. An identical Mishnah is Idiut 4:11.; he should be a nazir twice.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Nazir

It was stated¹¹³An alternative text of the Mishnah. In Babylonian sources (Babli 20a, Tosephta 3:1): “R. Ismael, son of R. Joḥanan ben Baroqa, says, the Houses of Shammai and Hillel do not disagree about …” The text shows that this is the correct version.: “Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba do not disagree about a person about whom two groups of witnesses testify, that he should be nazir according to the minimal testimony. Where do they disagree? About two witnesses, where the House of Shammai say, the testimony is split¹⁰⁸Following the rules of criminal procedure by which contradictory testimony has to be disregared. and there is no nezirut, but the House of Hillel say, five contains two and he shall be a nazir twice.¹⁰⁹Following the rules of civil procedure. If one group testifies that A owes 500 while the other group testifies that he owes 200, he has to pay 200. An identical Mishnah is Idiut 4:11.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse