rebbi

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore one does not judge [criminal matters] on Sabbath eve or holiday eve”? Hence, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for action.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore one does not judge [criminal matters] on Sabbath eve or holiday eve”? Hence, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for action.

Could one not judge him on Fridays, pass sentence on the Sabbath, and execute him after the Sabbath? If you say so, it turns out that his judgment is delayed. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, could he not be judged on the Sabbath, have his sentence passed on the Sabbath, and be executed on the Sabbath? Temple service, which supersedes Sabbath prohibitions, is pushed aside by obligatory executions, since it is said, from My altar take him to be executed. Therefore the Sabbath, which is pushed aside by Temple service, logically should be pushed aside by obligatory executions. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This implies that courts may not sit on the Sabbath; what is the reason? It is said here, in all your dwellings, and it is said there, these shall be for you legal procedures for your generations in all your dwellings. Since there the verse refers to courts, so also here the verse refers to courts.

Could one not judge him on Fridays, pass sentence on the Sabbath, and execute him after the Sabbath? If you say so, it turns out that his judgment is delayed. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, could he not be judged on the Sabbath, have his sentence passed on the Sabbath, and be executed on the Sabbath? Temple service, which supersedes Sabbath prohibitions, is pushed aside by obligatory executions, since it is said, from My altar take him to be executed. Therefore the Sabbath, which is pushed aside by Temple service, logically should be pushed aside by obligatory executions. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This implies that courts may not sit on the Sabbath; what is the reason? It is said here, in all your dwellings, and it is said there, these shall be for you legal procedures for your generations in all your dwellings. Since there the verse refers to courts, so also here the verse refers to courts.

Could one not judge him on Fridays, pass sentence on the Sabbath, and execute him after the Sabbath? If you say so, it turns out that his judgment is delayed. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, could he not be judged on the Sabbath, have his sentence passed on the Sabbath, and be executed on the Sabbath? Temple service, which supersedes Sabbath prohibitions, is pushed aside by obligatory executions, since it is said, from My altar take him to be executed. Therefore the Sabbath, which is pushed aside by Temple service, logically should be pushed aside by obligatory executions. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This implies that courts may not sit on the Sabbath; what is the reason? It is said here, in all your dwellings, and it is said there, these shall be for you legal procedures for your generations in all your dwellings. Since there the verse refers to courts, so also here the verse refers to courts.

HALAKHAH: “In cases of money matters, purity, and impurity,” etc. Rebbi says, do not argue about a quarrel. It is written against the greatest, that one does not argue after the greatest, only prior to the greatest. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, do not argue about a quarrel. It is written before the greatest, that one does not argue prior to the greatest, only after the greatest. Rav said, do not argue, even after a hundred, the words of Rebbi Phineas.

HALAKHAH: “In cases of money matters, purity, and impurity,” etc. Rebbi says, do not argue about a quarrel. It is written against the greatest, that one does not argue after the greatest, only prior to the greatest. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, do not argue about a quarrel. It is written before the greatest, that one does not argue prior to the greatest, only after the greatest. Rav said, do not argue, even after a hundred, the words of Rebbi Phineas.

HALAKHAH: “In cases of money matters, purity, and impurity,” etc. Rebbi says, do not argue about a quarrel. It is written against the greatest, that one does not argue after the greatest, only prior to the greatest. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, do not argue about a quarrel. It is written before the greatest, that one does not argue prior to the greatest, only after the greatest. Rav said, do not argue, even after a hundred, the words of Rebbi Phineas.

Rebbi Ḥilqiah in the name of Rebbi Simon: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, our procedures are like their procedures, and one said, our procedures are not like their procedures. He who said, our procedures are like their procedures, is understandable. He wo said, our procedures are not like their procedures, how does he understand Jehudah said, Memukhan said? They agreed with what Jehudah said, they agreed with what Memukhan said.

Rebbi Ḥilqiah in the name of Rebbi Simon: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, our procedures are like their procedures, and one said, our procedures are not like their procedures. He who said, our procedures are like their procedures, is understandable. He wo said, our procedures are not like their procedures, how does he understand Jehudah said, Memukhan said? They agreed with what Jehudah said, they agreed with what Memukhan said.

Rebbi Ḥilqiah in the name of Rebbi Simon: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, our procedures are like their procedures, and one said, our procedures are not like their procedures. He who said, our procedures are like their procedures, is understandable. He wo said, our procedures are not like their procedures, how does he understand Jehudah said, Memukhan said? They agreed with what Jehudah said, they agreed with what Memukhan said.

Rebbi Ḥilqiah in the name of Rebbi Simon: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, our procedures are like their procedures, and one said, our procedures are not like their procedures. He who said, our procedures are like their procedures, is understandable. He wo said, our procedures are not like their procedures, how does he understand Jehudah said, Memukhan said? They agreed with what Jehudah said, they agreed with what Memukhan said.

From where that in criminal trials the voting starts from the side? Samuel the Elder stated before Rebbi Aḥa: David told his men, each gird his sword, and after this, they were sitting in judgment about Nabal. Rebbi Thema bar Pappaias in the name of Rav Hoshaia: Also when disqualifying families one starts from the side.

From where that in criminal trials the voting starts from the side? Samuel the Elder stated before Rebbi Aḥa: David told his men, each gird his sword, and after this, they were sitting in judgment about Nabal. Rebbi Thema bar Pappaias in the name of Rav Hoshaia: Also when disqualifying families one starts from the side.

“Anybody is qualified to judge money matters.” Rebbi Jehudah says, even bastards. Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not investigate about libation wine.

“Anybody is qualified to judge money matters.” Rebbi Jehudah says, even bastards. Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not investigate about libation wine.

“The Synhedrion was like a semicircular threshing floor,” etc. It is written: Do not bend your destitute’s proceeding in his trial. In his trial you do not bend; you may bend in the ox’s trial. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only in those rules which are different for civil and criminal suits. How many are these? We have stated nine; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated eleven. Which rules are the last two? The castrate and one who never had children is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also one who is less than twenty years of age or who does not have two pubic hairs is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said thirteen. Which rules are the last two? One judges two civil suits on one day but one does not try two criminal suits on one day. Rebbi Abin said, even adulterer and adulteress.

“The Synhedrion was like a semicircular threshing floor,” etc. It is written: Do not bend your destitute’s proceeding in his trial. In his trial you do not bend; you may bend in the ox’s trial. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only in those rules which are different for civil and criminal suits. How many are these? We have stated nine; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated eleven. Which rules are the last two? The castrate and one who never had children is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also one who is less than twenty years of age or who does not have two pubic hairs is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said thirteen. Which rules are the last two? One judges two civil suits on one day but one does not try two criminal suits on one day. Rebbi Abin said, even adulterer and adulteress.

“The Synhedrion was like a semicircular threshing floor,” etc. It is written: Do not bend your destitute’s proceeding in his trial. In his trial you do not bend; you may bend in the ox’s trial. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only in those rules which are different for civil and criminal suits. How many are these? We have stated nine; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated eleven. Which rules are the last two? The castrate and one who never had children is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also one who is less than twenty years of age or who does not have two pubic hairs is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said thirteen. Which rules are the last two? One judges two civil suits on one day but one does not try two criminal suits on one day. Rebbi Abin said, even adulterer and adulteress.

“The Synhedrion was like a semicircular threshing floor,” etc. It is written: Do not bend your destitute’s proceeding in his trial. In his trial you do not bend; you may bend in the ox’s trial. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only in those rules which are different for civil and criminal suits. How many are these? We have stated nine; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated eleven. Which rules are the last two? The castrate and one who never had children is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also one who is less than twenty years of age or who does not have two pubic hairs is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said thirteen. Which rules are the last two? One judges two civil suits on one day but one does not try two criminal suits on one day. Rebbi Abin said, even adulterer and adulteress.

“The Synhedrion was like a semicircular threshing floor,” etc. It is written: Do not bend your destitute’s proceeding in his trial. In his trial you do not bend; you may bend in the ox’s trial. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only in those rules which are different for civil and criminal suits. How many are these? We have stated nine; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated eleven. Which rules are the last two? The castrate and one who never had children is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also one who is less than twenty years of age or who does not have two pubic hairs is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said thirteen. Which rules are the last two? One judges two civil suits on one day but one does not try two criminal suits on one day. Rebbi Abin said, even adulterer and adulteress.

“The Synhedrion was like a semicircular threshing floor,” etc. It is written: Do not bend your destitute’s proceeding in his trial. In his trial you do not bend; you may bend in the ox’s trial. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only in those rules which are different for civil and criminal suits. How many are these? We have stated nine; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated eleven. Which rules are the last two? The castrate and one who never had children is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also one who is less than twenty years of age or who does not have two pubic hairs is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said thirteen. Which rules are the last two? One judges two civil suits on one day but one does not try two criminal suits on one day. Rebbi Abin said, even adulterer and adulteress.

“The Synhedrion was like a semicircular threshing floor,” etc. It is written: Do not bend your destitute’s proceeding in his trial. In his trial you do not bend; you may bend in the ox’s trial. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But only in those rules which are different for civil and criminal suits. How many are these? We have stated nine; Rebbi Ḥiyya stated eleven. Which rules are the last two? The castrate and one who never had children is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also one who is less than twenty years of age or who does not have two pubic hairs is qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said thirteen. Which rules are the last two? One judges two civil suits on one day but one does not try two criminal suits on one day. Rebbi Abin said, even adulterer and adulteress.

MISHNAH: The Synhedrion was like a semicircular threshing floor, so that they could see one another. Two court reporters were standing before them, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the arguments of those who argued for acquittal and those who argued for conviction. Rebbi Jehudah says, there were three. One wrote the arguments for conviction, one wrote the arguments for acquittal, and one wrote the arguments for acquittal and for conviction. Three rows of students of the Sages were sitting before them; each one of them knew his place. If they needed to ordain, they ordained one from the first row. One of the second row came to sit in the first, and one of the third came to sit in the second. They chose a person from the general public and placed him in the third row; he did not sit in the place of the one promoted but in the place befitting him.

HALAKHAH: “Three rows of students of the Sages,” etc. Rebbi Abba (bar) [Rebbi] Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It says here congregation, and it says there congregation. Rav brought it from a Mishnah; the Mishnah says “be a tail of lions and not a head of jackals.” The parable says, be a head of jackals but not a tail of lions. But we have stated: “If they needed to ordain, they ordained one from the first row.”

HALAKHAH: “Three rows of students of the Sages,” etc. Rebbi Abba (bar) [Rebbi] Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It says here congregation, and it says there congregation. Rav brought it from a Mishnah; the Mishnah says “be a tail of lions and not a head of jackals.” The parable says, be a head of jackals but not a tail of lions. But we have stated: “If they needed to ordain, they ordained one from the first row.”

HALAKHAH: “Three rows of students of the Sages,” etc. Rebbi Abba (bar) [Rebbi] Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It says here congregation, and it says there congregation. Rav brought it from a Mishnah; the Mishnah says “be a tail of lions and not a head of jackals.” The parable says, be a head of jackals but not a tail of lions. But we have stated: “If they needed to ordain, they ordained one from the first row.”

“And to proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings, the Holy One, praise to Him,” etc. To proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings Who from one die coins all seals and no one is like the other, as it is said: The seal turns around like clay. Why did He change their looks? That no man should jump and go to another’s wife or another’s field. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Three things did the Holy One, praise to Him, diversify in humans: looks of the face, understanding, and voice. Looks and understanding because of the robbers, voice because of forbidden women. Rebbi Isaac said, even a fig tree or a wheat plant is not identical to any other. Man was created Sabbath Eve so from the start he should enter with a commandment. Another explanation: Why was he created last? A parable of a king who made a banquet. After he had ordered the meal, he invited the guests. So wisdom built her house, that is the Holy One, praise to Him, Who created the world in wisdom, as it is said, the Eternal in wisdom based the earth, etc. She quarried its seven pillars, these are the seven days of creation. She slaughtered her slaughtering, mixed her wine, these are seas and rivers and all the needs of the world. Any silly one shall come here, that is Adam and Eve.

“And to proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings, the Holy One, praise to Him,” etc. To proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings Who from one die coins all seals and no one is like the other, as it is said: The seal turns around like clay. Why did He change their looks? That no man should jump and go to another’s wife or another’s field. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Three things did the Holy One, praise to Him, diversify in humans: looks of the face, understanding, and voice. Looks and understanding because of the robbers, voice because of forbidden women. Rebbi Isaac said, even a fig tree or a wheat plant is not identical to any other. Man was created Sabbath Eve so from the start he should enter with a commandment. Another explanation: Why was he created last? A parable of a king who made a banquet. After he had ordered the meal, he invited the guests. So wisdom built her house, that is the Holy One, praise to Him, Who created the world in wisdom, as it is said, the Eternal in wisdom based the earth, etc. She quarried its seven pillars, these are the seven days of creation. She slaughtered her slaughtering, mixed her wine, these are seas and rivers and all the needs of the world. Any silly one shall come here, that is Adam and Eve.

MISHNAH: They were investigating him in seven ways: In which Sabbatical period, in which year, in which month, which day of the month, which day, which hour, at which place? Rebbi Yose said, which day, which hour, which place, do you recognize him, and did you warn him? If one worshipped idols, what did he worship and how did he worship?

HALAKHAH: “They were investigating him in seven ways,” etc. But we did not state, in which Jubilee period? For that is not current. It was found stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, also in which Jubilee period? We confirmed that in a year which started or concluded [a Jubilee period].

From where the seven investigations? Samuel the Elder stated before Rebbi Aḥa: You shall inquire, investigate, ask in depth, and behold, the matter is well founded. He told him, this verse does not work; but: you shall inquire, investigate, ask in depth; it will be told to you, you shall listen, ask in depth. In depth, in depth for an equal cut, to require in each case listening, asking, inquiry, and investigation. Rebbi Isaac asked about this: If they caught an armed robber in Tiberias and said, this is the murderer, this is the murdered; why does this need seven investigations? Issi said, any time that the witnesses could not be proven perjured, the murderer cannot be executed on that testimony.

From where the seven investigations? Samuel the Elder stated before Rebbi Aḥa: You shall inquire, investigate, ask in depth, and behold, the matter is well founded. He told him, this verse does not work; but: you shall inquire, investigate, ask in depth; it will be told to you, you shall listen, ask in depth. In depth, in depth for an equal cut, to require in each case listening, asking, inquiry, and investigation. Rebbi Isaac asked about this: If they caught an armed robber in Tiberias and said, this is the murderer, this is the murdered; why does this need seven investigations? Issi said, any time that the witnesses could not be proven perjured, the murderer cannot be executed on that testimony.

“Do you recognize him?” Who was he, a Gentile or an Israel? Let us hear from what Rebbi Joḥanan said: If he was slain between Tiberias and Sepphoris, it is prima facie evidence that he was an Israel.

“Did you warn him?” From where warning? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: A man who would take his sister …, it is ḥesed. Rebbi Bun said, Cain married his sister, Abel married his sister. It is charitable, I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; I said, the world was to be built on ḥesed.

“Did you warn him?” From where warning? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: A man who would take his sister …, it is ḥesed. Rebbi Bun said, Cain married his sister, Abel married his sister. It is charitable, I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; I said, the world was to be built on ḥesed.

“Did you warn him?” From where warning? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: A man who would take his sister …, it is ḥesed. Rebbi Bun said, Cain married his sister, Abel married his sister. It is charitable, I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; I said, the world was to be built on ḥesed.

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, by the mouth of two witnesses shall the dead die. Does he die when dead? But to tell him by which kind of death he will be executed. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Illai said, and if a man intentionally kill his neighbor knowingly; they shall inform him by which kind of death he will be executed.

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, by the mouth of two witnesses shall the dead die. Does he die when dead? But to tell him by which kind of death he will be executed. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Illai said, and if a man intentionally kill his neighbor knowingly; they shall inform him by which kind of death he will be executed.

It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, by the mouth of two witnesses shall the dead die. Does he die when dead? But to tell him by which kind of death he will be executed. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Illai said, and if a man intentionally kill his neighbor knowingly; they shall inform him by which kind of death he will be executed.

If his death should have been a severe one but they warned him about an easy one. He could say that had he known that his death was to be severe, he would not have committed that crime. If his death should have been an easy one but they warned him about a severe one; in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Illai they have to inform him by which kind of death he will be executed.

If his death should have been a severe one but they warned him about an easy one. He could say that had he known that his death was to be severe, he would not have committed that crime. If his death should have been an easy one but they warned him about a severe one; in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Illai they have to inform him by which kind of death he will be executed.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked: What was the gatherer’s guilt? Because of tearing off or because of reaping? Let us hear from the following: The Children of Israel were in the desert when they found … This teaches that he was tearing wood off the ground.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked: How was the gatherer put to death? By stoning. Let us hear from the following: “They knew that the gatherer should be executed but they did not know how he should be put to death.” It was found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Take the blasphemer outside the camp. How was he put to death? By stoning.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked: How was the gatherer put to death? By stoning. Let us hear from the following: “They knew that the gatherer should be executed but they did not know how he should be put to death.” It was found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Take the blasphemer outside the camp. How was he put to death? By stoning.

There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir twice, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut there. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that the testimony is split. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that five contains two. 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.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue.

MISHNAH: One says, on the second of the month, but the other says, on the third of the month, their testimony may be valid, since one knew about the addition to the month but the other did not know. One says on the third, the other says on the fifth, their testimony is invalid. One says, at two hours but the other said at three hours, their testimony is valid. One says at three but the other says at five, their testimony is invalid; Rebbi Jehudah says it is valid. One says at five but the other says at seven, their testimony is invalid since at five hours the sun is in the East but at seven in the West.

HALAKHAH: “One says, on the second of the month,” etc. Until when? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Up to the greater part of the month. Rebbi Yose said, e. g., those village dwellers. But the Sages say, it is nothing, and Rebbi Yasa said, for example I, who never in my life prayed musaf, since I do not know when the month starts.

HALAKHAH: “One says, on the second of the month,” etc. Until when? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Up to the greater part of the month. Rebbi Yose said, e. g., those village dwellers. But the Sages say, it is nothing, and Rebbi Yasa said, for example I, who never in my life prayed musaf, since I do not know when the month starts.

HALAKHAH: “One says, on the second of the month,” etc. Until when? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Up to the greater part of the month. Rebbi Yose said, e. g., those village dwellers. But the Sages say, it is nothing, and Rebbi Yasa said, for example I, who never in my life prayed musaf, since I do not know when the month starts.

HALAKHAH: “One says, on the second of the month,” etc. Until when? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Up to the greater part of the month. Rebbi Yose said, e. g., those village dwellers. But the Sages say, it is nothing, and Rebbi Yasa said, for example I, who never in my life prayed musaf, since I do not know when the month starts.

Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fifteenth. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only, to separate. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only, to separate. Half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, lest it be for leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared.

Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fifteenth. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only, to separate. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only, to separate. Half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, lest it be for leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared.

Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fifteenth. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only, to separate. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only, to separate. Half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, lest it be for leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared.

Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fifteenth. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only, to separate. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only, to separate. Half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, lest it be for leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared.

Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fifteenth. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only, to separate. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only, to separate. Half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, lest it be for leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared.

Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fifteenth. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only, to separate. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only, to separate. Half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, lest it be for leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared.

Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fifteenth. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only, to separate. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only, to separate. Half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, lest it be for leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared.

Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fifteenth. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only, to separate. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day, that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only, to separate. Half for leavened matter, half for mazzah. Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, lest it be for leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah said, do not eat leavened matter with it, while it is prepared.

Rebbi Jehudah has both a positive and a negative commandment concerning its eating, a positive and a negative commandment concerning its removal. A positive commandment concerning its eating, seven days you shall eat unleavened bread for it, not leavened. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of positive commandment. A negative commandment concerning its eating, do not eat leavened. A positive commandment concerning its removal, seven days … you shall remove sour dough from your houses. A negative commandment concerning its removal, for seven days sour dough shall not be found in your houses.

Now Rebbi Meïr says, after noontime it is forbidden because of their words. The (sixth) [seventh] hour it is forbidden because of a fence. Why the (fifth) [sixth]? Because of a fence. Is there a fence around a fence? But the (fifth) [sixth] may be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There, he says that the fifth cannot be confounded with the seventh. But here, he says that the fifth can be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Yose said, there the matter is given over to women who are lazy, here the matter is given over to the court who is careful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there it is a matter between the beginning of the fifth and the end of the seventh hour. Here it is between the end of the fifth and the start of the seventh. It also was stated thus: At the start of the fifth hour, the sun is in the East, and the end of the seventh the sun is in the West. The sun never starts setting before the end of the seventh hour.

Now Rebbi Meïr says, after noontime it is forbidden because of their words. The (sixth) [seventh] hour it is forbidden because of a fence. Why the (fifth) [sixth]? Because of a fence. Is there a fence around a fence? But the (fifth) [sixth] may be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There, he says that the fifth cannot be confounded with the seventh. But here, he says that the fifth can be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Yose said, there the matter is given over to women who are lazy, here the matter is given over to the court who is careful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there it is a matter between the beginning of the fifth and the end of the seventh hour. Here it is between the end of the fifth and the start of the seventh. It also was stated thus: At the start of the fifth hour, the sun is in the East, and the end of the seventh the sun is in the West. The sun never starts setting before the end of the seventh hour.

Now Rebbi Meïr says, after noontime it is forbidden because of their words. The (sixth) [seventh] hour it is forbidden because of a fence. Why the (fifth) [sixth]? Because of a fence. Is there a fence around a fence? But the (fifth) [sixth] may be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There, he says that the fifth cannot be confounded with the seventh. But here, he says that the fifth can be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Yose said, there the matter is given over to women who are lazy, here the matter is given over to the court who is careful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there it is a matter between the beginning of the fifth and the end of the seventh hour. Here it is between the end of the fifth and the start of the seventh. It also was stated thus: At the start of the fifth hour, the sun is in the East, and the end of the seventh the sun is in the West. The sun never starts setting before the end of the seventh hour.

Now Rebbi Meïr says, after noontime it is forbidden because of their words. The (sixth) [seventh] hour it is forbidden because of a fence. Why the (fifth) [sixth]? Because of a fence. Is there a fence around a fence? But the (fifth) [sixth] may be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There, he says that the fifth cannot be confounded with the seventh. But here, he says that the fifth can be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Yose said, there the matter is given over to women who are lazy, here the matter is given over to the court who is careful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there it is a matter between the beginning of the fifth and the end of the seventh hour. Here it is between the end of the fifth and the start of the seventh. It also was stated thus: At the start of the fifth hour, the sun is in the East, and the end of the seventh the sun is in the West. The sun never starts setting before the end of the seventh hour.

Now Rebbi Meïr says, after noontime it is forbidden because of their words. The (sixth) [seventh] hour it is forbidden because of a fence. Why the (fifth) [sixth]? Because of a fence. Is there a fence around a fence? But the (fifth) [sixth] may be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There, he says that the fifth cannot be confounded with the seventh. But here, he says that the fifth can be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Yose said, there the matter is given over to women who are lazy, here the matter is given over to the court who is careful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there it is a matter between the beginning of the fifth and the end of the seventh hour. Here it is between the end of the fifth and the start of the seventh. It also was stated thus: At the start of the fifth hour, the sun is in the East, and the end of the seventh the sun is in the West. The sun never starts setting before the end of the seventh hour.

Rabbi La said, why does one record the argument of him who argues for acquittal? Because of him who argues for conviction, maybe his memory will fail him. If he switches his argument, they could say to him, this you said, this you did not say. [Does this mean] that it needs two [groups of] witnesses? It would mean that the trial would be extended. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of him who argues for acquittal.

Rabbi La said, why does one record the argument of him who argues for acquittal? Because of him who argues for conviction, maybe his memory will fail him. If he switches his argument, they could say to him, this you said, this you did not say. [Does this mean] that it needs two [groups of] witnesses? It would mean that the trial would be extended. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of him who argues for acquittal.

HALAKHAH: “If they found him innocent, they free him,” etc. It was stated: If one of the witnesses said, I have an argument for his acquittal, and another came to support him, (and another came to support him,) whom do you co-opt? Let us hear from the following of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody was acquitted following his own pleading, one does not place him with the judges. Therefore, if he was acquitted following (his own) pleading, then one person would be simultaneously witness and judge. We do not find that anybody can be both witness and judge.

“Up to what number does one add,” etc. It was stated: Why does one add judges? For if there were two of the original judges voting affirmatively, together with one of the later ones judgment will be rendered by three. Rebbi La said, since the judgment can be rendered by four, one does not render it by three.

Rebbi Yose said, one understands from here: If three sat in judgment and one of them died, two sign and note: Even though we are two who sign, we were three in judging. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah implies this: “The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses.” Does one learn court documents from prozbol? It was found stated: This about court documents he inferred from the rules of prozbol.

Rebbi Yose said, one understands from here: If three sat in judgment and one of them died, two sign and note: Even though we are two who sign, we were three in judging. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah implies this: “The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses.” Does one learn court documents from prozbol? It was found stated: This about court documents he inferred from the rules of prozbol.

If nobody changes his opinion? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is acquitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is convicted. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is he not acquitted? Why do they have to continue to argue with one another? So the judgment should not be in question.

If nobody changes his opinion? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is acquitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is convicted. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is he not acquitted? Why do they have to continue to argue with one another? So the judgment should not be in question.

If nobody changes his opinion? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is acquitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is convicted. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is he not acquitted? Why do they have to continue to argue with one another? So the judgment should not be in question.

HALAKHAH: “If sentence was passed,” etc. The Mishnah either follows Rebbi or the rabbis in a Gentile city. As we have stated: Rebbi said, at your gates, at the gate they were found. You are saying so, or maybe at the gate they were judged? It is said here, at your gates, and it says there, if there be found in your midst, at one of your gates. Since gates mentioned there refers to the gate where he was found, gates mentioned here also refers to the gate where he was found. But the rabbis say, at your gates, at the gate where he was judged. You are saying so, or maybe at the gate were he was found? It is said here, at your gates, and it says there, take this man or this woman … to your gates. Since gates mentioned there refers to the gate where he was judged, gates mentioned here also refers to the gate where he was judged.

HALAKHAH: “If sentence was passed,” etc. The Mishnah either follows Rebbi or the rabbis in a Gentile city. As we have stated: Rebbi said, at your gates, at the gate they were found. You are saying so, or maybe at the gate they were judged? It is said here, at your gates, and it says there, if there be found in your midst, at one of your gates. Since gates mentioned there refers to the gate where he was found, gates mentioned here also refers to the gate where he was found. But the rabbis say, at your gates, at the gate where he was judged. You are saying so, or maybe at the gate were he was found? It is said here, at your gates, and it says there, take this man or this woman … to your gates. Since gates mentioned there refers to the gate where he was judged, gates mentioned here also refers to the gate where he was judged.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first time one listens to him whether or not his arguments are substantial. After that, if his arguments are substantial one listens to him, otherwise one does not listen to him. They said, only if his later arguments are substantial. Ḥizqiah asked: If he was led out to be executed when he became paralyzed, do we say that had he not become paralyzed, he would have argued for his acquittal? Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, this is a donkey’s question. But it must be: If he was led out to be executed and said, I have to argue for my acquittal: when he became paralyzed, do we say that had he not become paralyzed, he would have argued for his acquittal? He said, that is a statement.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first time one listens to him whether or not his arguments are substantial. After that, if his arguments are substantial one listens to him, otherwise one does not listen to him. They said, only if his later arguments are substantial. Ḥizqiah asked: If he was led out to be executed when he became paralyzed, do we say that had he not become paralyzed, he would have argued for his acquittal? Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, this is a donkey’s question. But it must be: If he was led out to be executed and said, I have to argue for my acquittal: when he became paralyzed, do we say that had he not become paralyzed, he would have argued for his acquittal? He said, that is a statement.

HALAKHAH: “If they found him innocent,” etc. It was stated: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was a false declaration of ownerlessness. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be stoned when his owner dedicated him to the Temple, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

HALAKHAH: “If they found him innocent,” etc. It was stated: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was a false declaration of ownerlessness. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be stoned when his owner dedicated him to the Temple, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

HALAKHAH: “If they found him innocent,” etc. It was stated: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was a false declaration of ownerlessness. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be stoned when his owner dedicated him to the Temple, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

HALAKHAH: “If they found him innocent,” etc. It was stated: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rebbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was a false declaration of ownerlessness. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be stoned when his owner dedicated him to the Temple, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.

MISHNAH: Ten cubits’ distance from the place of stoning one tells him: confess! So is the way of any dying person to confess, since anyone who confesses has part in the World to Come. For so we find about Achan towhom Joshua said, my son, honor the Eternal, the God of Israel, confess to Him, and tell me what you did, do not hide it from me. Achan answered Joshua and said, in fact I sinned against the Eternal, the God of Israel, and such and such I did. From where that his confession atoned for him? For it is said, Joshua said to him, how did you devastate us; may the Eternal devastate you on this day. This day you are devastated; you are not devastated in the Future World. If he does not know how to confess, one tells him, say: “My death shall be atonement for all my sins.” Rebbi Jehudah said, if he knows that he was the victim of perjurers, he says: “My death shall be atonement for all my sins except this one.” They told him, if so, everybody would say so to declare themselves innocent.

HALAKHAH: “Ten cubits’ distance from the place of stoning,” etc. You find that when Achan stole from the ban, Joshua started supplicating before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said: Master of the Universe, inform me who is the man. The Holy One, praise to Him, answered: I never publicize any creature. In addition, would I not be guilty of slander? But go and let Israel stand up by its tribes and throw lots, then immediately I shall draw him out. That is what is written: Joshua got up early in the morning and summoned Israel by its tribes. Achan ben Karmi ben Zeraḥ from the tribe of Jehudah was caught. Achan told him, how? Do you catch me by lots? There is nobody more pious in the present generation than you or Phineas. Let lots be thrown between you, certainly one of you will be caught. Not only this, but your teacher Moses died only 30 or 40 days ago. Did not our teacher Moses instruct us: By the testimony of two witnesses? You started erring. At that moment did Joshua have a vision by the holy spirit how he distributes the Land to Israel by lots. That is what is written: Joshua threw lots for them. This means, we are giving lots a bad name. Not only this, but if lots are confirmed now, all of Israel will say, since the lots were true in criminal matters, so much more in money matters. But if they are repudiated now, all of Israel will say, since the lots were repudiated in criminal matters, so much more in money matters. At that moment, Joshua started supplicating Achan, entreated him in the name of Israel’s God, and said to him: my son, honor the Eternal,the God of Israel, … Achan answered Joshua and said, in fact. What means אָמְנָה? Truth. I sinned against the Eternal, God of Israel. He told him, I asked you for one and you are answering me two? he answered, I stole from the ban of Midian and the ban of Jericho. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, he stole from four bans: The ban of the Phoenician, king of Arad, the ban of Siḥon and Og, the ban of Midian, the ban of Jericho. From where that his confession atoned for him? It is said, the sons of Zeraḥ: Zimri and Ethan, etc. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Zimri is Achan who behaved like Zimri. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Heman that is Achan, omna I sinned. Altogether five. Did I not know that they were five? But it teaches that Achan also has part in the World to Come.

HALAKHAH: “Ten cubits’ distance from the place of stoning,” etc. You find that when Achan stole from the ban, Joshua started supplicating before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said: Master of the Universe, inform me who is the man. The Holy One, praise to Him, answered: I never publicize any creature. In addition, would I not be guilty of slander? But go and let Israel stand up by its tribes and throw lots, then immediately I shall draw him out. That is what is written: Joshua got up early in the morning and summoned Israel by its tribes. Achan ben Karmi ben Zeraḥ from the tribe of Jehudah was caught. Achan told him, how? Do you catch me by lots? There is nobody more pious in the present generation than you or Phineas. Let lots be thrown between you, certainly one of you will be caught. Not only this, but your teacher Moses died only 30 or 40 days ago. Did not our teacher Moses instruct us: By the testimony of two witnesses? You started erring. At that moment did Joshua have a vision by the holy spirit how he distributes the Land to Israel by lots. That is what is written: Joshua threw lots for them. This means, we are giving lots a bad name. Not only this, but if lots are confirmed now, all of Israel will say, since the lots were true in criminal matters, so much more in money matters. But if they are repudiated now, all of Israel will say, since the lots were repudiated in criminal matters, so much more in money matters. At that moment, Joshua started supplicating Achan, entreated him in the name of Israel’s God, and said to him: my son, honor the Eternal,the God of Israel, … Achan answered Joshua and said, in fact. What means אָמְנָה? Truth. I sinned against the Eternal, God of Israel. He told him, I asked you for one and you are answering me two? he answered, I stole from the ban of Midian and the ban of Jericho. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, he stole from four bans: The ban of the Phoenician, king of Arad, the ban of Siḥon and Og, the ban of Midian, the ban of Jericho. From where that his confession atoned for him? It is said, the sons of Zeraḥ: Zimri and Ethan, etc. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Zimri is Achan who behaved like Zimri. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Heman that is Achan, omna I sinned. Altogether five. Did I not know that they were five? But it teaches that Achan also has part in the World to Come.

HALAKHAH: “Ten cubits’ distance from the place of stoning,” etc. You find that when Achan stole from the ban, Joshua started supplicating before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said: Master of the Universe, inform me who is the man. The Holy One, praise to Him, answered: I never publicize any creature. In addition, would I not be guilty of slander? But go and let Israel stand up by its tribes and throw lots, then immediately I shall draw him out. That is what is written: Joshua got up early in the morning and summoned Israel by its tribes. Achan ben Karmi ben Zeraḥ from the tribe of Jehudah was caught. Achan told him, how? Do you catch me by lots? There is nobody more pious in the present generation than you or Phineas. Let lots be thrown between you, certainly one of you will be caught. Not only this, but your teacher Moses died only 30 or 40 days ago. Did not our teacher Moses instruct us: By the testimony of two witnesses? You started erring. At that moment did Joshua have a vision by the holy spirit how he distributes the Land to Israel by lots. That is what is written: Joshua threw lots for them. This means, we are giving lots a bad name. Not only this, but if lots are confirmed now, all of Israel will say, since the lots were true in criminal matters, so much more in money matters. But if they are repudiated now, all of Israel will say, since the lots were repudiated in criminal matters, so much more in money matters. At that moment, Joshua started supplicating Achan, entreated him in the name of Israel’s God, and said to him: my son, honor the Eternal,the God of Israel, … Achan answered Joshua and said, in fact. What means אָמְנָה? Truth. I sinned against the Eternal, God of Israel. He told him, I asked you for one and you are answering me two? he answered, I stole from the ban of Midian and the ban of Jericho. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, he stole from four bans: The ban of the Phoenician, king of Arad, the ban of Siḥon and Og, the ban of Midian, the ban of Jericho. From where that his confession atoned for him? It is said, the sons of Zeraḥ: Zimri and Ethan, etc. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, Zimri is Achan who behaved like Zimri. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Heman that is Achan, omna I sinned. Altogether five. Did I not know that they were five? But it teaches that Achan also has part in the World to Come.

“At a distance of four cubits from the place of stoning,” etc. “Rebbi Jehudah ben Ṭabbai said, may I never see consolation if I did not execute a perjured witness, for they were saying, until he was executed, as it is said, a life for a life. Simeon ben Shetaḥ told him, may I never see consolation if it is not held against you that you spilled innocent blood. At that time, he took it upon himself not to teach except what he heard from Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ.”