## Sanhedrin Daf 30a

###### Sanhedrin 30a:1
[Sanhedrin 30a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:1)

וְכֹל לִישָּׁנֵי דְּבֵי דִינָא, וְלָא הֲוָה כְּתִב בַּהּ ״בְּמוֹתַב תְּלָתָא הֲוֵינָא וְחַד לֵיתוֹהִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and all of the formulations** of an enactment **of the court** were written in it. But only two were signed on it, **and** the following statement **was not written in it: We were** convened **in a session of three** judges, **and one** of the judges **is no** longer here, as he died or left for another reason. There was therefore room for concern that perhaps there were only two witnesses, and they wrote the document of admission improperly.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:2
[Sanhedrin 30a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:2)

סְבַר רָבִינָא לְמֵימַר: הַיְינוּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נָתָן בַּר אַמֵּי: הָכִי אָמְרִינַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, כֹּל כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְבֵית דִּין טוֹעִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina thought to say** that **this is** a case in which the principle **of Reish Lakish,** that witnesses do not sign a document unless the action was performed appropriately, applies. **Rav Natan bar Ami said to him: This** is what **we say in the name of Rava:** In **any cases like this, we are concerned for** the possibility of **an erroneous court** that thinks that two constitute a court.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:3
[Sanhedrin 30a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:3)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אִי כְּתִב בַּהּ ״בֵּי דִינָא״, תּוּ לָא צְרִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: If it was written in** the document: We, the members of **the court,** convened, it is **unnecessary** for the deed to **further** state that one of the judges is no longer there, as a standard court consists of three judges.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:4
[Sanhedrin 30a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:4)

וְדִילְמָא בֵּית דִּין חָצוּף הוּא? דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁדָּנוּ, דִּינֵיהֶן דִּין, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ בֵּית דִּין חָצוּף. דִּכְתִב בַּיהּ: ״בֵּי דִינָא דְּרַבְנָא אָשֵׁי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But perhaps it was an impudent court, as Shmuel says:** With regard to **two** judges **who** convened a tribunal and **judged, their verdict is** a binding **verdict; but** because they contravened the rabbinic ordinance mandating that a court must be composed of three judges, **they are called an impudent court.** The Gemara answers: It was a document **in which it was written:** We, the members of **the court of Rabbana Ashi,** convened. Rav Ashi’s court presumably conformed to rabbinic protocol.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:5
[Sanhedrin 30a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:5)

וְדִילְמָא רַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רַב אָשֵׁי כִּשְׁמוּאֵל סְבִירָא לְהוּ? דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ: ״וַאֲמַרְנָא לֵיהּ לְרַבַּנָא אָשֵׁי״, ״וַאֲמַר לַן רַבַּנָא אָשֵׁי.״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But perhaps the Sages of the court of Rav Ashi hold like Shmuel,** that the verdict of two judges is binding, and they convened an impudent court. The Gemara answers: It is a document **in which it is written: And we said to Rabbana Ashi, and Rabbana Ashi said to us.** Rav Ashi himself certainly would not have participated in the discussions of an impudent court.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:6
[Sanhedrin 30a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:6)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, אָמַר לָהֶן אֶחָד: אֲנִי רָאִיתִי אֲבִיכֶם שֶׁהִטְמִין מָעוֹת בְּשִׁידָּה, תֵּיבָה, וּמִגְדָּל, וְאָמַר ״שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הֵן״, ״שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי הֵן״ – בַּבַּיִת לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, בַּשָּׂדֶה דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of when an admission is deemed credible. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: In a case where **one said to** the children of another: **I saw that your father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, saying:** This money **belongs to so-and-so,** or: This money **is second tithe,** and the money was found where he said, the *halakha* depends on the circumstances. If the chest, box, or cabinet was **in the house,** the witness has **said nothing.** His testimony about the status of the money is not accepted, as he is only one witness, and he could not have taken the money for himself had he wanted to. But if it was **in the field, his statement stands,** i.e., is accepted.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:7
[Sanhedrin 30a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:7)

כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: כֹּל שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ לִיטְּלָן – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין; אֵין בְּיָדוֹ לִיטְּלָן – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The principle of the matter** is as follows: In **any** case **where it is in** the **power of** the witness **to take** the money, **his statement stands;** if **it is not in his power to take** the money, **he has said nothing.**


###### Sanhedrin 30a:8
[Sanhedrin 30a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:8)

הֲרֵי שֶׁרָאוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁהִטְמִין מָעוֹת בְּשִׁידָּה תֵּיבָה וּמִגְדָּל, וְאָמַר: ״שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי הֵן״, ״שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי הֵן״ – אִם כְּמוֹסֵר, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין; אִם כְּמַעֲרִים, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case **where** the children themselves **saw that their father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, and** the father **said:** This money **belongs to so-and-so,** or: This money **is second tithe, if** he said so **as one who relays** information to his own children, **his statement stands.** But **if** he said so **as one who employs artifice,** i.e., he appears to have told them that the money was not his only so that they would not take it, **he has said nothing,** and they may spend the money.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:9
[Sanhedrin 30a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:9)

הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה מִצְטַעֵר עַל מָעוֹת שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לוֹ אָבִיו, וּבָא בַּעַל הַחֲלוֹם וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״כָּךְ וְכָךְ הֵן״, ״בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי הֵן״, ״שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי הֵן״. זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְאָמְרוּ: דִּבְרֵי חֲלוֹמוֹת לֹא מַעֲלִין וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case **where** one **was distressed about money that his father left him** as an inheritance, because he could not find it, **and the master of the dream,** i.e., someone in his dream, **came and said to him: It is such and such** an amount of money and **it is in such and such a place,** but the money **is second tithe,** and he found this amount in the place of which he dreamed; and **this was** an actual **incident** that was brought before the Sages, **and they said** that he can spend the money, as **matters** appearing in **dreams do not make a difference** in determining the practical *halakha*.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:10
[Sanhedrin 30a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:10)

שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים זַכַּאי כּוּ׳. מִיכְתָּב הֵיכִי כָּתְבִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if **two** judges **say** the defendant is **exempt** and one says he is liable, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: When there is a dispute between the judges, **how do they write** the verdict?


###### Sanhedrin 30a:11
[Sanhedrin 30a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:11)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״זַכַּאי״. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי מְזַכִּין, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי מְחַיְּיבִין״. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָמַר: ״מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן נִזְדַּכָּה פְּלוֹנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** They write that he is **exempt,** without mentioning the dispute. **Reish Lakish says** that they specify: **So-and-so and so-and-so deem** him **exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem** him **liable;** they must mention that there was a dispute. **Rabbi Eliezer says** that they do not specify the names of the judges, but rather they add the phrase: **From the statement of** the judges **so-and-so was deemed exempt,** to the wording of the verdict. This indicates that not all the judges agreed that he is exempt, but does not specify which judges came to which conclusion.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:12
[Sanhedrin 30a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:12)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי אִיהוּ מְנָתָא בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, דִּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״זַכַּאי״ – מְשַׁלֵּם, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי מְזַכִּין וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי מְחַיְּיבִין״ – לָא מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the difference **between** these opinions, besides the wording of the verdict? The Gemara answers: The practical difference **between them** is **with regard to** whether or not, in a case where it is discovered that the verdict was erroneous, the judge who was in the minority must **pay** his **portion** of restitution **along with** the judges of the majority. **As according to the one who says** that they write that he is **exempt,** the minority judge **pays** as well, **and according to the one who says** that they specify: **So-and-so and so-and-so deem** him **exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem** him **liable, he does not pay.**


###### Sanhedrin 30a:13
[Sanhedrin 30a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:13)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״זַכַּאי״, מְשַׁלֵּם?! לֵימָא לְהוּ: אִי לְדִידִי צָיְיתִיתוּן, אַתּוּן נָמֵי לָא מְשַׁלְּמִיתוּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to the one who says** that they write that he is **exempt,** why **does he pay? Let him say to** the other judges: **If you would have listened to me you would not have paid either.** Why should I have to pay for your mistake?


###### Sanhedrin 30a:14
[Sanhedrin 30a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:14)

אֶלָּא, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי אִינְהוּ מְנָתָא דִּידֵיהּ: לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״זַכַּאי״ – מְשַׁלְּמִי, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי מְזַכִּין וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי מְחַיְּיבִין״ – לָא מְשַׁלְּמִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** he does not pay, and the practical difference **between** the opinions is **with regard to** whether or not **those** other judges must **pay his portion** of the restitution. **According to the one who says** that they write that he is **exempt, they pay** the full sum, as they did not mention that there was a dispute over the matter. But **according to the one who says** that they specify: **So-and-so and so-and-so deem** him **exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem** him **liable, they do not pay** the portion of the overruled judge, and he does not pay it either.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:15
[Sanhedrin 30a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:15)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר זַכַּאי, מְשַׁלְּמִי? וְלֵימְרוּ לֵיהּ: אִי לָאו אַתְּ בַּהֲדַן, לָא הֲוָה סָלֵיק דִּינָא מִידֵּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to the one who says** that they write that he is **exempt,** why **do they pay** his portion? **Let them say to him: If you had not been with us the judgment would have had no verdict at all,** as two judges cannot issue a verdict. Therefore, you share the responsibility with us and should participate in the payment.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:16
[Sanhedrin 30a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:16)

אֶלָּא, אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ״. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״זַכַּאי״ – מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the difference **between** the opinions is only with regard to the wording of the verdict, and is **due to** the prohibition of: **“You shall not go as a talebearer among your people”** (Leviticus 19:16). **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that they write that he is **exempt due to** the prohibition of gossip, as derived from the verse: **“You shall not go as a talebearer.”**


###### Sanhedrin 30a:17
[Sanhedrin 30a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:17)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי מְזַכִּין, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי מְחַיְּיבִין״ – מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּשִׁיקְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish says** they specify: **So-and-so and so-and-so deem** him **exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem** him **liable, because** otherwise the document would **have the appearance of falsehood,** as not all the judges deemed him exempt.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:18
[Sanhedrin 30a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:18)

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אִית לֵיהּ דְּמָר, וְאִית לֵיהּ דְּמָר. הִלְכָּךְ, כָּתְבִי הָכִי: ״מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם נִזְדַּכָּה פְּלוֹנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Elazar accepts** the opinion **of** this **Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan, **and accepts** the opinion **of** that **Sage,** Reish Lakish. **Therefore, this** is what **they write: From the statement of** the judges, **so-and-so was deemed exempt.** This wording indicates that the ruling was not based on a consensus among the judges, so that it will not have the appearance of falsehood, but it also does not specify what each judge said, to avoid gossip.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:19
[Sanhedrin 30a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:19)

גָּמְרוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין כּוּ׳. לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא לְבַעֲלֵי דִינִין – הָתָם קָיְימִי! אֶלָּא לְעֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that after the judges **finished the matter** and reached a decision, **they would bring** them **in.** The Gemara asks: **Whom** would they bring in? **If we say** they would bring in **the litigants,** this cannot be, as **they were there** the whole time; they never left the room. **Rather,** they would bring in **the witnesses.**


###### Sanhedrin 30a:20
[Sanhedrin 30a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:20)

כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי נָתָן, דְּתַנְיָא: לְעוֹלָם אֵין עֵדוּתָן מִצְטָרֶפֶת עַד שֶׁיִּרְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, **in accordance with whose** opinion is the mishna? It is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Natan; as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **The testimonies of** individual witnesses **are never combined** into a testimony of two witnesses **unless the two of them saw** the incident transpire together **as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:** Their testimonies are combined **even in** a case where they saw the incident **one after the other.**


###### Sanhedrin 30a:21
[Sanhedrin 30a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:21)

וְאֵין עֵדוּתָן מִתְקַיֶּימֶת בְּבֵית דִּין עַד שֶׁיָּעִידוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאֶחָד. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹמְעִין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל זֶה הַיּוֹם, וּכְשֶׁיָּבֹא חֲבֵירוֹ לְמָחָר שׁוֹמְעִין אֶת דְּבָרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** furthermore, **their testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testify** together **as one. Rabbi Natan says:** They need not testify together. Rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges **hear the statement of this** witness **today, and when the other** witness **comes tomorrow** the judges **hear his statement.** The mishna, by contrast, indicates that the verdict must be given with the two witnesses present together.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:22
[Sanhedrin 30a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:22)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם לְבַעֲלֵי דִינִין. וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, כָּךְ הָיָה מִנְהָגָן שֶׁל נְקִיֵּי הַדַּעַת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם: מַכְנִיסִין לְבַעֲלֵי דִינִין וְשׁוֹמְעִין דִּבְרֵיהֶן, וּמַכְנִיסִין אֶת הָעֵדִים וְשׁוֹמְעִין דִּבְרֵיהֶם, וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן לַחוּץ וְנוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין בְּדָבָר. גָּמְרוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר, מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara reverses its interpretation of the mishna: **No, actually** it can be explained that the judges would bring in **the litigants; and it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥemya. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Neḥemya says: This was the custom of the scrupulous people of Jerusalem:** When they would judge, **they** would **bring in the litigants and hear their statements, and** then **they** would **bring in the witnesses and hear their statements** in the presence of the litigants, **and** then **they** would **take them** all **outside** of the courtroom **and discuss the matter** in their absence. Once **they finished the matter they** would **bring them,** i.e., the litigants, **in,** to hear their verdict.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:23
[Sanhedrin 30a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:23)

וְהָתַנְיָא: גָּמְרוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר, מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הָעֵדִים! הָהִיא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי נָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* explicitly: When **they finished the matter they** would **bring in the witnesses?** The Gemara answers: **That** *baraita* is certainly **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Natan.**


###### Sanhedrin 30a:24
[Sanhedrin 30a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:24)

גּוּפָא: לְעוֹלָם אֵין עֵדוּתָן מִצְטָרֶפֶת עַד שֶׁיִּרְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself: The testimonies of** individual witnesses **are never combined** into a testimony of two witnesses **unless the two of them saw** the incident transpire together **as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:** Their testimonies are combined **even in** a case where they saw the incident **one after the other.** The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do they disagree?** The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of **a verse, and if you wish, say** that they disagree with regard to **logical reasoning.**


###### Sanhedrin 30a:25
[Sanhedrin 30a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:25)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא: אַמָּנֶה דְּקָא מַסְהֵיד הַאי, לָא קָא מַסְהֵיד הַאי, וּמָנֶה דְּקָא מַסְהֵיד הַאי, לָא קָמַסְהֵיד הַאי. וְאִידַּךְ: אַמָּנֶה בְּעָלְמָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ קָמַסְהֲדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **If you wish, say** that they disagree with regard to **logical reasoning:** The first *tanna* holds that the witnesses must see the incident transpire together, as otherwise, **about the one hundred dinars** of debt **that this** one **is testifying, that** one **is not testifying, and** about **the one hundred dinars that that** one **is testifying, this one is not testifying.** There is only one witness of each incident, which is not sufficient. **And the other** *tanna*, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, holds that since **both** witnesses **are testifying about one hundred dinars in general,** the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff one hundred dinars.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:26
[Sanhedrin 30a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:26)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of **a verse, as it is written:** “And if anyone sins, hearing the voice of adjuration, **and he is a witness, whether he has seen or known,** if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1).


###### Sanhedrin 30a:27
[Sanhedrin 30a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:27)

וְתַנְיָא: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יָקוּם עֵד״ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא אֶחָד? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶחָד״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15); **by inference, from that** which **is stated** in the verse: **A witness shall not rise up** against a man, even without the word “one,” **do I not know that it is** referring to **one** witness? After all, the verse is written in the singular. Therefore, **what** is the meaning when **the verse states** explicitly: **“One** witness”?


###### Sanhedrin 30a:28
[Sanhedrin 30a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:28)

זֶה בָּנָה אָב: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עֵד״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁנַיִם, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב ״אֶחָד״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This established a paradigm,** a basis for the principle that in **every place** in the Torah **where** the word **“witness” is stated,** it means that **there are two** witnesses, **unless the verse specifies for you** that it is referring to only **one** witness.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:29
[Sanhedrin 30a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:29)

וְאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן חַד, לְמֵימַר: עַד דְּחָזוּ תַּרְוַויְיהוּ כְּחַד. וְאִידַּךְ, ״וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** according to the first *tanna*, **the Merciful One expresses it in the singular form,** i.e., “witness” and not “witnesses,” **to say** that they are not combined into a testimony of two witnesses **unless the two of them saw** the incident transpire together **as one. And the other** *tanna*, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, derives from the phrase: **“And he is a witness, whether he has seen or known,”** that **in any case** where one testifies about what he sees and knows, his testimony is valid.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:30
[Sanhedrin 30a:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:30)

וְאֵין עֵדוּתָן מִתְקַיֶּימֶת בְּבֵית דִּין עַד שֶׁיָּעִידוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאֶחָד. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹמְעִין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל זֶה הַיּוֹם, וּכְשֶׁיָּבֹא חֲבֵירוֹ לְמָחָר שׁוֹמְעִין דְּבָרָיו. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* cited above teaches: **And** furthermore, **their testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testify** together **as one. Rabbi Natan says:** They need not testify together; rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges **hear the statement of this** witness **today, and when the other** witness **comes tomorrow** the judges **hear his statement.** The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do they disagree?** The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say** that they disagree with regard to **logical reasoning,** and **if you wish, say** that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of **a verse.**


###### Sanhedrin 30a:31
[Sanhedrin 30a:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:31)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא סְבָרָא: מָר סָבַר, עֵד אֶחָד כִּי אָתֵי – לִשְׁבוּעָה אָתֵי, לְמָמוֹנָא לָא אָתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **If you wish, say** that they disagree with regard to **logical reasoning,** as one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that **when one witness comes** to testify, **he comes to** render the defendant liable to take **an oath.** This is the *halakha* when there is one witness against the defendant in a case of monetary law. **He does not come to** render the defendant liable to pay **money,** because for this two witnesses are necessary.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:32
[Sanhedrin 30a:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:32)

וְאִידַּךְ: אַטּוּ כִּי אָתוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, בְּחַד פּוּמָּא קָא מַסְהֲדִי? אֶלָּא מְצָרְפִינַן לְהוּ. הָכָא נָמֵי לִיצָרְפִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other** *tanna*, Rabbi Natan, responds: **Is that to say** that **when they come together,** they render the defendant financially liable because **they testify with one mouth?** Obviously they testify one after the other. **Rather,** clearly it is the judges who **combine** their two testimonies into one. **Here too,** when the witnesses come to court at different times, **let** the judges **combine** their testimonies.


###### Sanhedrin 30a:33
[Sanhedrin 30a:33](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/30a:33)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קְרָא: ״אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of **a verse: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity”** (Leviticus 5:1),