Bava Batra 32a (לב.) — the Talmud in English

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds:

only when there are

two protestors [two witnesses who disqualify him from the kehunah] are they considered “protestors”; but when only one witness protests, the other witness who validates him is believed, and the kohen is elevated to the kehunah.

[two witnesses who disqualify him from the priesthood] is the term “objectors” appropriate. But when only one witness objected, the other witness who validates him is trusted, and the priest is elevated to priestly status.

This, however, cannot be said, for

did Rabbi Yohanan not say: Everyone agrees that there is no protest with fewer than two witnesses!

Rather,

according to everyone, there is never

a protest except by

except from

two witnesses,

and here, with what are we dealing [in what manner did they disagree]:

in the dispute?

For example, when we hold that the father of this person is a kohen,

and a rumor emerged concerning him that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a halutza, and we lowered him from the kehunah; then one witness came and said that he was a fully valid kohen, and we elevated him; then two witnesses came and said: He is the son of a divorcee or a halutza, and we lowered him from the kehunah,

and one witness came and said that he is a kohen

fully valid

he is.

For example, we held that this person’s father was a kohen, and then an ordinary rumor emerged challenging his fitness; therefore, we lowered him from the kehunah, since with regard to the kehunah it is an advantage to take an ordinary rumor into consideration. Then one witness came and contradicted the rumor, and we elevated the kohen to the kehunah on the basis of that witness, who is believed against the protest of an ordinary rumor. Then two witnesses came and testified that he was disqualified, and he was disqualified from the kehunah. Then another witness came to support the earlier witness, testifying that he was fit for the kehunah.

This is the case in which Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagreed: whether the testimony of the later single witness was effective in elevating him to the kehunah:

And

And the scholars of the academy initially thought:

that

for

that everyone—

both Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel—

holds that testimonies are joined; it is possible to combine two witnesses who testify to one matter without testifying in one another’s presence, and it follows that the first and last witnesses joined together as one group to contradict the two witnesses who disqualified him!

meaning that two witnesses who testify about one matter may be joined even if they did not testify in one another’s presence. Thus, the first and last witnesses joined together as one group to contradict the two witnesses who disqualified him!

And legally we ought to say: Since two sets of witnesses contradict one another, leave the kohen in his original presumptive status, as we had held that his father was a kohen; moreover, we had validated him on the basis of the first witness, when he had no contradicting witnesses at all, but only the contradiction of an ordinary rumor.

And here, with regard to “

concern for the humiliation of the court,”

which

is where they disagree,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain:

Rabbi Elazar holds: Once we lowered him [once we lowered him] from the kehunah, when two witnesses came to disqualify him,

again

we do not elevate him [we do not elevate him to the kehunah] when the second witness comes to validate him, and although we ought to place him in his original presumptive status, in which he was fit,

because

we are concerned about the humiliation

of the court.

And this is how Rabbi Elazar’s words are understood: When do we not elevate someone to the kehunah on the basis of a single witness who comes at the end, even though he joins earlier testimony that validated the kohen? When there are protestors against him, meaning two witnesses who initially disqualified him; because of the humiliation of the court, we do not elevate him to the kehunah.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds:

One elevates him to priestly status on the basis of the single witness who comes last and joins with the earlier testimony, because

we elevate him to the kehunah on the basis of the single witness who comes at the end and joins earlier testimony, because we lowered him

when the two witnesses came,

and we elevate him

when the second witness comes, because we place him in his original presumptive status, in which he was fit,

and we are not concerned about the humiliation of the court.

It follows that tannaim disagreed concerning this principle of whether we are concerned about the humiliation of the court, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri, who is concerned about the humiliation of the court. Therefore, Rav Naḥman ruled that one should not be concerned about the humiliation of the court, because his intention was to rule in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.

Rav Ashi raised an objection to this:

If so,

as you say, that according to Rabbi Elazar we are concerned about the humiliation of the court, then

why specifically one witness? Even with two witnesses, even if two witnesses were to come to validate him, we would not elevate him to the kehunah, since we had lowered him on the basis of the earlier witnesses, because of concern for the humiliation of the court. Yet the beraita clearly indicates that the issue is specifically that only one witness came to validate him, and not two!?

Even if two witnesses came to validate him, we would not elevate him to priestly status, since we had demoted him on the basis of the earlier witnesses because of concern for the dishonor of the court. Yet the beraita clearly indicates that the issue is specifically that only one witness came to validate him, and not two!

Rather, Rav Ashi said to explain the reason for the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel in a different manner:

to explain the reason for the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in a different way:

Indeed, this is the case in which they disagreed, but the basis of their disagreement is not the law concerning whether we are concerned about the humiliation of the court; rather, on the contrary,

everyone agrees that we are not concerned about the humiliation of the court!

And here—

in the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel—

they disagree about joining testimony

of two witnesses who did not testify together; that is what

of two witnesses who did not testify together!

That is to say: Their dispute is whether the first validating witness joins with the second validating witness, since these two witnesses did not testify together,

And

and Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel disagreed

in the dispute between these tannaim [that is, the second dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Natan in the beraita cited immediately below]

[namely, the second dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Natan in the beraita that is cited below]

as it was taught:

.

The testimony of two witnesses never

of two

joins

to constitute complete testimony of two witnesses,

unless both of them see

the act

together, but if two witnesses come to obligate someone monetarily on the basis of two separate observations—for example, one testifies that on a certain day Reuven lent Shimon one hundred zuz, while the second testifies about a different loan of one hundred zuz that Reuven lent Shimon on another day—their testimony cannot be joined to obligate Shimon to pay Reuven one hundred zuz.

But if two witnesses came to establish a monetary obligation on the basis of two separate observations—for example, one testified that on a certain day Reuven lent Shimon one hundred dinars, and the other testified about a different loan of one hundred dinars that Reuven lent Shimon on another day—their testimony cannot be joined to obligate Shimon to pay Reuven one hundred dinars.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha says:

we accept their testimony

even

when the two witnessed the matter

one after the other, for example, one testifies about a loan on Sunday and the other about a loan on Monday [“one loan after another”]; or one testifies about the loan, and the second testifies about Shimon’s admission to Reuven that he owed him one hundred zuz [“an admission after a loan”].

For example, one testifies about a loan on the first day, and the other about a loan on the second day—“one loan after another”; or one testifies about the loan, and the second testifies about Shimon’s admission to Reuven that he owed him one hundred dinars—“an admission after a loan.”

.

Their testimony is not established in the court

even if both of them saw the event together,

until both of them testify together

before the court.

Rabbi Natan says:

it is not necessary for the two to testify together; rather,

the court hears

the

words of this one today, and when his fellow comes tomorrow, it hears

the

words of the second witness.

This is the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel:

Rabbi Elazar holds: We do not join the testimony of the first witness with that of the second witness, in accordance with the view of the Sages who disagreed with Rabbi Natan; and this is what he said: We do not elevate someone to the kehunah on the basis of one witness.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds: We join the testimonies of the two witnesses who validate him, and when the second witness comes to validate him, we elevate him to the kehunah on his basis, because he joins the earlier witness; and because of the uncertainty, we place the kohen in his original presumptive status of fitness.

It follows, according to Rav Ashi’s view, that even Rabbi Elazar concedes that if the two witnesses had come together, we would elevate him to the kehunah [as Rav Ashi inferred precisely from the wording], and we are not concerned about the humiliation of the court. This is the reason Rav Naḥman was not concerned about the humiliation of the court: He ruled in accordance with the view of Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, against the words of Rabbi Menaḥem bar Rabbi Yosei.

There was an incident involving

There was an incident involving a certain

man

who said to his fellow,

who was sitting in his field: “

What are you doing in this field [What are you doing in my field]?!”

[what business do you have in my field]?”

He said to him,

the one sitting on the land said to the protestor: “

I purchased it from you, and here is the deed [I purchased it from you, and here I have a deed of sale]!”

[I bought it from you, and here I have a bill of sale]!”