Sanhedrin 9a — the Talmud in English

for they warned her concerning lashes,

the witnesses warned the woman that she would become liable for the punishment of lashes,

but not

warned her

concerning execution,

that she would become liable for the punishment of death. Therefore, she is liable only for lashes. And Rabbi Meir holds that the punishment of lashes is judged by three, whereas the Sages hold that it is judged by twenty-three.

And they disagree

and they are disputing

in the dispute between Rabbi Ishmael and the Rabbis,

in that same dispute in which Rabbi Ishmael and the Sages disagreed.

As we learned

in our Mishna:

“Lashes are judged by three. In the name of Rabbi Ishmael they said”

his students: Lashes are judged

by twenty-three.

And.

Ravina said,

our Mishna is speaking of a case

in which one of the witnesses was found to be a relative or disqualified. And they disagree

Rabbi Meir and the Sages

in the dispute between Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei,

who disagreed

according to the view of Rabbi Akiva.

Ravina, as well, establishes our Mishna as speaking of a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages as to whether the woman is liable to death. And it is speaking of a case in which three or four witnesses testified concerning her that she had committed adultery, and one of the witnesses was found to be disqualified for testimony, either because he was a relative or because he belonged to those disqualified for testimony [whose law is explained in the chapter “This Is How They Investigate”].

Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the view of the one who says that when one of them is found to be a relative or disqualified, the entire testimony is nullified; therefore, they will not kill the woman, but will only exempt the husband from paying the amount of the ketuba. Therefore, the matter being judged is a case of monetary law, and three suffice for it. Whereas the Sages hold in accordance with the view of the one who says that the testimony of the other witnesses is valid, and they will kill the woman; therefore, twenty-three are required, as is the law with regard to capital cases.

As we learned,

we learned in the Mishna in tractate Makkot [5b]:

It is stated in the Torah: “By the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the dead man be put to death.” And the Sages expounded: If the testimony is established through two, why did the verse specify three for you? Rabbi Shimon says: To compare three to two: Just as two are not put to death until both of them are found to be conspiring witnesses, so too three are not put to death until all three of them are found to be conspiring witnesses. And from where [do we know this] even for one hundred? The verse says: “Witnesses.”

That is, if only part of the witnesses are refuted as conspiring witnesses, then although the testimony is nullified, nevertheless they are not punished with the punishment of “you shall do to him as he plotted to do to his brother.”

Rabbi Akiva says: The third did not come,

the verse that says “three” did not come to be lenient. That is, it does not need to teach us this law, for we would know it in any event, since all the witnesses are one group, and the Torah, which wrote concerning conspiring witnesses, “and behold, a false witness testified against his brother,” intended the entire group.

Rather,

this verse came

to be stringent with him,

with the third witness,

and to make his law like that of these.

Lest you say: Since the testimony would have been established even without him, they should not punish him when all of them are found to be conspiring witnesses. The verse therefore comes to teach you that he too is punished together with them with the punishment of conspiring witnesses, because he became subordinate to transgressors.

And Rabbi Akiva adds to teach us words of ethical instruction:

If so

if this is so

the verse punished one who attaches himself to transgressors,

so that he is punished

like transgressors—

all the more so, He will pay

the Holy One, blessed is He,

a reward to one who attaches himself to one who performs a mitzva, like one who performs a mitzva,

for the measure of goodness is greater than the measure of punishment.

And what law do we learn from what the Torah wrote, “by the mouth of two or three”? Concerning this Rabbi Akiva continued and said:

And what,

just as

two

witnesses, if

one of them is found to be a relative or disqualified, their testimony is nullified,

for there are not two witnesses here—

so too three,

if

one of them is found to be a relative or disqualified,

even though two valid witnesses remain, nevertheless

their testimony is nullified.

And from where [do we know] that even one hundred witnesses

when one of them is found to be a relative or disqualified, the testimony of all of them is nullified, although ninety-nine witnesses are valid?

The verse says “

witnesses.”

To teach us that with every number of witnesses, they are all considered one group of witnesses; therefore, if part of it is nullified, all of it is nullified.

And Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi disagreed in the interpretation of the exposition that Rabbi Akiva expounded:

Rabbi Yosei said: When are these words applicable,

that when one of them is found to be a relative or disqualified, their testimony is nullified—

in capital cases,

because in them we must investigate every possibility in order to acquit the accused and nullify the testimony, since the Torah said, “and the congregation shall save.”

But in monetary cases,

if three witnesses or more came, and one of them was found to be a relative or disqualified, the entire testimony is not nullified; rather

the testimony shall stand

through the remainder

of the witnesses.

Rabbi says: One is monetary cases and one is capital cases:

if one of them is found to be a relative or disqualified, the testimony of all of them is nullified.

And when,

in what manner did we say that in capital cases their testimony is nullified?

When they warned them,

that the relative or disqualified witness joined with the witnesses in warning the transgressors, and through this they revealed their intention that they were joining in order to become witnesses; therefore, the entire testimony is nullified.

But when they did not warn them,

if the disqualified ones did not warn the transgressors, but remained silent, and only the valid witnesses warned them, the disqualified ones do not join the testimony; therefore, if there are two valid witnesses apart from them, the testimony shall stand through them.