Proprio come con due (testimoni), se uno di loro fosse trovato parente o pasul (inadatto a testimoniare), la loro testimonianza sarebbe nulla, quindi con tre; se uno di loro fosse trovato parente o pasul, la loro testimonianza sarebbe nulla. Da dove deriva (che è così) anche con un centinaio? Da "testimoni". R. Yossi ha detto: Quando è così? Con casi maiuscoli, [essendo scritto a tale proposito (Numeri 35:25): "E la congregazione deve salvare, ecc." Dovrebbero cercare di trovare qualcosa a suo favore.], Ma in casi monetari, la testimonianza spicca tra gli altri (che non sono parenti o pasul). Rebbi dice: sia in casi monetari che in casi capitali [la testimonianza è nulla]. Quando [diciamo in casi capitali che la testimonianza è nulla?] Quando li avvertirono [cioè, quando i parenti o i pasul si unirono (gli altri) originariamente per essere uno dei guerrieri dei trasgressori]; ma se non li avvertissero [e non avessero intenzione di essere testimoni dell'atto, la testimonianza degli altri non sarebbe annullata a causa di ciò che vedevano, perché] cosa dovrebbero fare due fratelli che hanno visto un uomo uccidere un altro?
Bartenura on Mishnah Makkot
What case are we talking about? Capital cases. Since it is written (Numbers 35:25) "And the congregration shall save him.", and we return him to his vindicated status....
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot
Introduction
Mishnah Eight continues to expound upon the verse in Deuteronomy 17:6 which states that a person may be executed by the testimony of “two or three witnesses”.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Makkot
Whether monetary cases. The testimony is also nullified.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot
Just as in the case of two witnesses, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, their whole evidence is rendered void, so it is with three, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, the whole evidence is void. How do we know that this is the case even with a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. This section is a continuation of the previous mishnah’s discussion of the verse in Deuteronomy which stated “two or three witnesses”. Another reason why the Torah states “two or three” is to teach that if one witness is invalidated (for reasons why witnesses may be invalidated see Sanhedrin 3:4), the entire grouping of witnesses is invalid. This is obvious when there are two witnesses, for if one is invalidated, obviously the other one’s singular testimony will be invalidated due to its insufficiency. However, even if there are three or more witnesses, and only one’s testimony is invalidated, and their remain two or more valid witnesses, nevertheless all of their testimony is invalidated.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Makkot
At a time that they warned him. We're dealing with capital cases. This is to say, when do we say [the testimony] is nullified? When the close relative or invalid [witness] joins in at the beginning, becoming one of the warners against the transgressor. However, if they didn't warn them and they didn't intend to become a witness in the event, the testimony of the others is not nullified just because they saw it. The halacha is like Rebbi.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot
Rabbi Yose said: “When is this true? With regards to capital cases; but in monetary suits, the evidence may be established by the rest. Rabbis says: “It is one and the same rule, be it in monetary suits or capital cases.” Rabbi Yose limits this ruling to capital crimes. In civil/monetary suits if one witness’s testimony is invalidated the other witnesses’ testimony can still stand. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and claims that there is no difference between monetary and capital cases.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot
This is the rule when both [disqualified] witnesses warned the trasngressor, but when they did not warn him, what could two brothers do that saw someone killing a person? The mishnah now again limits the ruling in section one. In order to convict someone of a capital crime he must be warned before he commits the crime. If a person warns him before he commits the crime and then he commits it anyway, the person who warned him may testify against him. If a relative warned the person before he committed the crime, he will become one of the witnesses, thereby invalidating all of the testimony due to his being a relative or otherwise invalid. If, however, the witness did not warn the potential offender, he does not necessarily become a witness and he will therefore not invalidate the others’ testimony. The mishnah points out that if merely by witnessing a crime relatives can invalidate everyone’s testimony, neither of two brothers who saw a murder would be able to testify against the murderer. If two brothers and a third person saw a murder and the law was that relatives may not join together to testify, and just by seeing the crime they become witnesses, the murderer would not be able to be convicted. Rather, the mishnah teaches that the third person can join his testimony with one of the brothers and thereby convict the accused.
