Talmud sur Tohorot 5:10

HALAKHAH: “If a person said to two nezirim,” etc. Not only if he said to one of them, “I saw one of you becoming impure but I do not know which one of you it was,¹³In this case it can really happen that the witness knew of a “tent” impurity unknown to the nezirim.” but even if he said, “I saw one of you vowing to be a nazir but I do not know which one of you it was,” both of them have to follow the rules of nazir because of his testimony. If they do not contradict him¹⁴In matters of ritual law, the uncontested testimony of a single witness is valid.. But if they contradict him, this does not apply¹⁵A contested testimony of a single witness is worthless, not even admissible as supporting evidence.. If both of them¹⁶It seems that the text, שניהם, is an error for שְׁנַיִם, “two [witnesses].” The concurrent testimony of two witnesses must be believed by biblical standards. contradict, it parallels the following: “If one witness says, he became impure, but he says, I did not become impure, he is pure. If two witnesses say, he became impure, but he says, I did not become impure, the two are believed more than he is, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, everybody is believed about himself.¹⁷Mishnah Ṭaharot 5:9.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: So is the Mishnah: Rebbi Meïr declares impure, Rebbi Jehudah and the Sages declare pure¹⁸In this matter of the standing of two witnesses, the Sages fully accept the position of R. Jehudah.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, so is the Mishnah: Rebbi Meïr declares impure, Rebbi Jehudah declares pure¹⁹But the Sages disagree with R. Jehudah; the Mishnah should have mentioned R. Jehudah and not the Sages. In his interpretation, the Sages follow R. Jehudah in accepting the statement of a person accused of a sin even against two witnesses but not in cases of impurity.. The rabbis’ words support Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Gurion said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Jehudah said this only about an old impurity, for he can say to them, I had been impure but I purified myself²⁰If at least one evening has passed since the possible impurity and the person in question denies that he was impure, we read from his disclaimer that he admits having incurred impurity but eliminated it quickly by immersion in a miqweh., and we have stated: The same holds for eating suet; the same holds for entering the Sanctuary²¹A single witness can force a person to bring a purification sacrifice for committing a sin. But since for an intentional sin, no purification sacrifice is possible, the person accused of committing the sin can always assert that he committed the sin intentionally and, therefore, cannot bring a sacrifice. Then he also must be believed if he asserts that he did not commit the sin (Babli Keritut 12a). (Talmudic law does not accept confessions since testimony of relatives is excluded and “everybody is related to himself.” Therefore, the person asserting that he intentionally committed the sin attributed to him by a single witness, cannot be prosecuted.). Should they not accept his position for impurity? Because of the impurity of a nazir²²The nazir brings a sacrifice for becoming impure by the impurity of the dead whether incurred willingly or involuntarily. The sacrifice is a public act; he cannot claim to have purified himself in private., could they not say, where is the sacrifice which you brought? Then should they not accept his position for heave²³If an unauthorized person is accused of eating heave, he can always claim to have done it intentionally; so he does not have to pay the 25% fine (Mishnah Terumot 7:1).? So far the questions of Rebbi Ḥanina.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah¹¹²Halakhah Ḥallah 1:3, on condition that the profane grain be more than the amount causing the dema‘. but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah¹¹³In the case of the two boxes, when we declare that there is no dema‘ but we require the grain to be eaten as if there were.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there¹¹⁴Mishnah Ṭahorot 5:5: “Two roads, one impure [it leads over a grave whose exact position is unknown] and one pure [and it is unknown which is which]. A person walked on one of them and prepared food in purity, another person walked on the other and prepared food in purity. Rebbi Jehudah says, if they ask together …”: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself¹¹⁵Since this is a doubt of impurity in the public domain, it has to be declared pure. and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together¹¹⁶While R. Yose must agree that singly their doubts must be resolved for purity, if there is a logical necessity (“in any way you look at it”) that one of them must be impure, that logical necessity overrides the rule about doubts.. And here it is as if both of them asked together¹¹⁷Even R. Jehudah must agree that in the case of the two boxes one cannot ask about one and then go away. R. Joḥanan wants to say that the baraita follows not only R. Yose but even R. Jehudah..