Bava Batra 32a — the Talmud in English

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds:

only in

two challenges

[two witnesses who disqualify him for the priesthood] are considered “challengers”; but when only one witness challenged him, the other who validates him is trustworthy, and the koen is raised to the priesthood.

Thus it is impossible to say, for

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees that there is no challenge [valid] with fewer than two!

Rather

in fact, according to everyone there is no

challenge

except with

two,

and here, with what are we dealing

and in this manner they disagreed:

For example, we hold him on the basis of the fact that the father of this one is a koen,

and a rumor went out concerning him that he is the son of a divorced woman and the son of a woman released by ḥalitza, and we lowered him, and one witness came and said that he is a completely valid koen, and we raised him, and two witnesses came and said: He is the son of a divorced woman and of a woman released by ḥalitza, and we lowered him,

and one witness came and said that he is a koen

completely

valid.

For example, we held regarding the father of this one that he was a koen, and afterward a mere rumor came out challenging his fitness, and therefore we lowered him from the priesthood—for it is a stringency regarding the priesthood to take heed of a mere rumor; and afterward one witness came who contradicted the rumor, and we raised the koen to the priesthood on the basis of the witness, who is trustworthy against a challenge consisting merely of a rumor; and afterward two witnesses came and testified to his disqualification, and he was disqualified from the priesthood; and afterward an additional witness came to assist the earlier witness, that he is fit for the priesthood.

And in this manner Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagreed, whether the testimony of the latter one was effective to raise him to the priesthood:

And

the members of the academy initially thought

that

for

everyone—

both according to Rabbi Elazar and according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

testimony joins,

it is possible to join two witnesses who testify to one matter without one being in the presence of the other, and it turns out that the first witness and the last witness joined into one group to contradict the two witnesses who disqualify him!

And legally we should have said: Since two groups of witnesses contradict one another, leave the koen in his initial presumptive status, that we held regarding his father that he was a koen, and we also validated him on the basis of the first witness, when he had no contradictors at all, but only the contradiction of a mere rumor.

And here, in “

concern for degradation of the court”

it is that

they disagree,

as it proceeds to explain:

Rabbi Elazar holds: Since we lowered him,

since we lowered him] from the priesthood, when two witnesses came to disqualify him, again

we do not raise him

we do not raise him to the priesthood] when the second witness came to validate him, and although we have to leave him in his initial presumptive status, that he was fit, because

we are concerned about degradation

of the court.

And thus Rabbi Elazar’s words are interpreted: When do they not raise [him] to the priesthood on the basis of one witness who comes at the end, even though he joins with earlier testimony that validates the koen? When there are challengers against him, namely, two witnesses who initially disqualified him, because, on account of degradation of the court, we do not raise him to the priesthood.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds:

They raise [him] to the priesthood on the basis of one witness who comes at the end and joins with earlier testimony, because

we lowered him

when the two witnesses came,

and we raise him

when the second witness came, and because we place him in his initial presumptive status, that he was fit,

and we are not concerned about degradation of the court.

It follows that tannaim disagreed over this principle, that we are concerned about degradation of the court, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, who is concerned about degradation of the court; and therefore Rav Naḥman ruled not to be concerned about degradation of the court, because his view was to rule according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rav Ashi raised an objection against it:

If so,

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

why specifically one? Even with two as well,

for even if two witnesses were to come to validate him, we would not raise him to the priesthood, since we lowered him on the basis of the earlier witnesses, because of concern about degradation of the court; whereas from the beraita it appears explicitly that the issue is specifically because only one witness came to validate him, and not two !?

Rather, Rav Ashi said

to explain the reason for the disagreement between Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in a different manner, and it is this:

Indeed, it is in this manner that they disagreed, as you said, but the reason for their disagreement is not the law of whether we are concerned about degradation of the court; rather, on the contrary,

everyone is not concerned about degradation of the court!

And here—

in the disagreement between Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

it is concerning joining testimony

of two who did not testify together that

they disagree!

That is to say: Their disagreement is whether the first witness who validates joins with the second witness who validated, for these two witnesses did not testify together,

and

Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagreed

in the dispute of these tannaim

namely, the second disagreement in which the Sages and Rabbi Natan disagreed in the beraita brought immediately below

for it was taught:

1.

The testimony of two never

of two

joins

to become complete testimony of two witnesses,

until both see

the act

together,

but if two witnesses came to impose a monetary obligation on the basis of two sightings—for example, one testified that on a certain day Reuben lent Simeon one hundred zuz, and the second testified to another testimony concerning a loan of one hundred zuz that Reuben lent Simeon on another day—their testimony cannot be joined to obligate Simeon to pay Reuben one hundred zuz.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha says:

We accept their testimony

even

when the two saw the testimony

one after the other,

for example, this one testifies concerning a loan on the first day, and that one concerning a loan on the second day [“one loan after another loan”]; or this one testifies concerning the loan, and the second testifies concerning an admission that Simeon admitted to Reuben that he owed him one hundred zuz [“an admission after a loan”].

2.

Their testimony is not established in court

even if both saw the testimony together,

until both testify together

before the court.

Rabbi Natan says:

It is not necessary that both testify together; rather,

they hear

the court hears

the words of this one today, and when his fellow comes tomorrow, they hear

the court hears

his words.

And this is the explanation of the disagreement between Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel:

Rabbi Elazar holds: We do not join the testimony of the first witness with the testimony of the second, in accordance with the view of the Sages who disagreed with Rabbi Natan, and this is what he said: They do not raise [him] to the priesthood on the basis of one witness.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: We join the testimonies of the two who validate him, and when the second witness comes to validate him, they raise [him] to the priesthood on his basis, because he joins with the earlier witness, and because of the doubt we leave the koen in his initial presumptive status of fitness.

And according to Rav Ashi’s method, it follows that even Rabbi Elazar concedes that if the two witnesses had come together, they would have raised him to the priesthood [as Rav Ashi inferred precisely from the wording], and we are not concerned about degradation of the court; and this is the reason for Rav Naḥman’s not being concerned about degradation of the court, because he ruled according to the method of Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel against the words of Rabbi Menaḥem son of Rabbi Yosei.

An incident involving

a certain

man

who said to his fellow

who was sitting in his field: “

What are you doing in this land

[what is your business in my field]?!”

He said to him,

the one sitting on the land to the challenger: “

I bought it from you, and here is the deed

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