Sanhedrin 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

that they warned her of lashes,

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

but not

warned her

of execution,

that she would be liable for the death penalty. Therefore, she is liable only for lashes. And Rabbi Meir holds that a case involving the punishment of lashes is adjudicated by three judges, whereas the Rabbis hold that it requires twenty-three.

And they disagree

and are divided

over the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis,

the same dispute in which Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis disagreed.

As we learned

in our Mishna:

A case involving lashes is adjudicated by three. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said

his students: A case involving lashes is adjudicated

by twenty-three.

And

Ravina said:

Our Mishna is discussing a case

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

Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis

over the dispute between Rabbi and Rabbi Yosei,

who disagreed

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

Ravina likewise establishes that our Mishna is discussing a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis as to whether the woman is liable to death. It is referring to a case in which three or four witnesses testified that she had committed adultery, and one of the witnesses was found unfit to testify, either because he was a relative or because he belonged to those disqualified from testimony [whose status is explained in this chapter].

Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion that if one of the witnesses is found to be a relative or disqualified, the entire testimony is nullified. Therefore, the woman will not be executed; rather, the husband will merely be exempted from paying the value of the ketuba. Consequently, the case concerns monetary law, for which three judges suffice. The Rabbis, however, hold in accordance with the opinion that the testimony of the remaining witnesses is valid, and the woman will be executed. Therefore, twenty-three judges are required, as in a case involving capital law.

As we learned,

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

The Torah states: “By the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the one sentenced to death be put to death.” And the Sages expounded: If testimony is established through two witnesses, why does the verse specify three? Rabbi Shimon says: It comes to compare three witnesses to two: Just as two witnesses are not executed unless both of them become edim zomemim, so too three witnesses are not executed unless all three of them become edim zomemim. And from where is it derived that the same applies even to one hundred witnesses? The verse states: “Witnesses.”

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

Rabbi Akiva says: The third did not come,

the verse that mentions “three” did not come to be lenient. That is, it need not teach us this law, since we would have known it in any event: All the witnesses constitute one group, and when the Torah wrote, with regard to edim zomemim, “And behold, a false witness has testified against his brother,” it intended the entire group.

Rather,

this verse came

to impose stringency upon him,

the third witness,

and to make his law like that of these others.

One might have said: Since the testimony would have been established even without him, he should not be punished if all of them were refuted. The verse therefore comes to teach that he too is punished together with them with the punishment of edim zomemim, because he became ancillary to transgressors.

Rabbi Akiva adds a moral teaching:

If so [

if that is the case]

the Torah punishes one who joins transgressors,

so that he is punished

like transgressors—

all the more so, He will pay

the Holy One

a reward to one who joins a performer of a mitzva, like one who performs a mitzva,

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

And what law is learned from the Torah’s writing, “By the testimony of two or three”? Rabbi Akiva continued and said:

And just as

like

two

witnesses, if

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

since there are not two witnesses here—

so too three,

if

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

then, despite the fact that two fit witnesses remain,

their testimony is nullified.

And from where is it derived that even one hundred witnesses

among whom one is found to be a relative or disqualified have the testimony of all of them nullified, although ninety-nine of the witnesses are fit?

The verse states: “

Witnesses.”

This teaches us that whatever the number of witnesses, they are all considered one group of witnesses. Therefore, if part of it is nullified, the entire group is nullified.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi disagreed concerning the interpretation of Rabbi Akiva’s exposition:

Rabbi Yosei said: When is this statement applicable,

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

In capital cases,

because in such cases we must pursue every possibility in order to acquit the accused and invalidate the testimony, as the Torah states: “And the assembly shall save.”

But in monetary cases,

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

the testimony shall be established

through the remaining

witnesses.

Rabbi says: Monetary law and capital law are the same:

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

And when

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

When they warned them,

when the relative or disqualified witness joined the other witnesses in warning the transgressors, thereby demonstrating that he intended to join them in becoming a witness; consequently, the entire testimony is nullified.

But when they did not warn them,

if the disqualified witnesses did not warn the transgressors but remained silent, and only the fit witnesses warned them, the disqualified witnesses do not join the testimony. Therefore, if two fit witnesses remain apart from them, the testimony is established through those witnesses.