Mishnah
Mishnah

Talmud sur Sanhédrin 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:

Quiconque multiplie les interrogatoires (des témoins) doit être loué. Une fois, Ben Zakkai a examiné (quelqu'un) sur les pédoncules des figues. [("Ben Zakkai" :) R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. Il était un disciple jugeant devant son maître à l'époque, raison pour laquelle il s'appelait "Ben Zakkai". ("sur les pédoncules des fruits" :) Ils (les témoins) ont déclaré qu'il avait été tué sous un figuier, et Ben Zakkai "a examiné": "Les pédoncules des figues étaient-ils fins ou épais?"] Quelle est la différence entre «enquêtes» (chakiroth) et «examens» (bedikoth)? Avec chakiroth, si l'un (des témoins) dit: «Je ne sais pas», leur témoignage est invalidé. [Car ils ne sont plus soumis à la Hazamah par cette chakirah. Et tant qu'il est impossible de satisfaire Hazamah avec l'un des témoins, le témoignage entier est invalidé, même s'il y a cent témoins; car les témoins ne peuvent être rendus zomemin tant qu'ils ne le sont pas tous.] Avec bedikoth, si l'on dit: «Je ne sais pas», et même si deux d'entre eux disent: «Nous ne savons pas», le témoignage tient. [Même si tous disent: "Nous ne savons pas", la mitsva de Hazamah obtient. Car Hazamah dépend uniquement de la chakirah, (laissant les témoins ouverts) à l'affirmation: "Vous étiez avec nous à ce moment-là dans un endroit différent."] Tant avec chakiroth qu'avec bedikoth, s'ils (les témoins) se contredisent, leur témoignage est invalidé. [Dans tous les cas où "leur témoignage est invalidé" dans la Gemara, lui (celui qui a témoigné contre) et eux (les témoins) sont exonérés (de responsabilité)].

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
Verset précédentChapitre completVerset suivant