## Sanhedrin Daf 30b

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

וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא כְּרַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה, וְהָכָא בְּאַקּוֹשֵׁי הַגָּדָה לִרְאִיָּה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. מָר סָבַר: מַקְּשִׁינַן הַגָּדָה לִרְאִיָּה, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא מַקְּשִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and everyone,** both the first *tanna* and Rabbi Natan, holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa,** and derive from this verse that it is necessary that the witnesses see the incident together, i.e., they were both present and observed the incident at the same time. **And here,** with regard to whether or not the witnesses must testify in court together, **they disagree with regard to** whether or not the **statement** of the witnesses, i.e., their testimony in court, **is compared to** their **observation** of the incident. One **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that **we compare** their **statement to** their **observation.** Therefore, just as they must see the incident together, so too, they must testify together in court. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Natan, **holds** that **we do not compare** their statement to their observation.


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

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים הֲוָה מִשְׁתְּקִיד עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא לְמִסְמְכֵיהּ, וְלָא קָא מִיסְתַּיַּיע מִילְּתָא. יוֹמָא חַד הֲוָה יָתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim was striving to ordain Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, and was not successful** in his attempts. **One day,** Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim **was sitting before Rabbi Yoḥanan** among Rabbi Yoḥanan’s other students.


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

אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִי אִיכָּא דְּיָדַע הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה, אוֹ לָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים: דֵּין יָדַע. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֵימָא אֵיזוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִיסְמְכֵיהּ מָר בְּרֵישָׁא. סַמְכֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to** his students: **Is there** anyone **who knows** whether the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, or not? Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said to him: This** one, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, **knows.** Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: If so, let him say.** Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim **said to him: Let the Master ordain him first;** since we are all in need of his wisdom, he is fit for ordination. Rabbi Yoḥanan then **ordained** Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּנִי, אֱמוֹר לִי כֵּיצַד שָׁמַעְתָּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי, שֶׁמּוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה לְרַבִּי נָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: My son, tell me what you heard.** Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, **said to him: This is what I heard: That Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa concedes to** the opinion of **Rabbi Natan** that it is unnecessary for the witnesses to testify together.


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

אָמַר: לָזֶה הוּצְרַכְתִּי?! הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה עִיקַּר רְאִיָּה בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה ״לָא בָּעֵינַן״, הַגָּדָה מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan was disappointed, and **said: For this I needed** to ordain him? **Now** that with regard to the **main** element of testimony, i.e., **observing** the incident, **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says we do not need** both witnesses to see it **together,** with regard to their **statement** in court, **is** it **necessary** to explicate that there is no requirement that they testify together?


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוֹאִיל וְעָלִיתָ, לֹא תֵּרֵד. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, גַּבְרָא רַבָּה, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיסְתְּמִיךְ – אִיסְתְּמִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Although the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, was unnecessary, Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: Since you ascended,** i.e., you were ordained, **you will not descend,** even though it was in error. **Rabbi Zeira said: Conclude from it** that with regard to **a great man, once he is ordained,** even if it was due to mistaken judgment, **he is ordained.** The ordination is not canceled.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה, בֵּין בְּקַרְקָעוֹת בֵּין בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
As for the *halakha* in this matter, **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says** that **Rav says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa** that it is unnecessary for the two witnesses to observe the incident together, **both with regard to** cases of **land** and **with regard to** cases of **movable property.**


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

עוּלָּא אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה בְּקַרְקָעוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa with regard to land,** which is unmovable, and therefore both testimonies are certainly about the same piece of land; **but not with regard to movable property,** as there is a concern that they are not testifying about the same item.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הֲלָכָה, מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיגִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה בְּעֵדוּת קַרְקַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Ulla: If you say that the ***halakha*** is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa with regard to land, **by inference** you hold **that they disagree** with regard to this matter. **But doesn’t Rabbi Abba say** that **Rav Huna says** that **Rav says: The Rabbis concede to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa with regard to testimony** concerning **land?**


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

וְתָנֵי רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין בִּנְזִיקִין דְּבֵי קַרְנָא: מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה בְּעֵדוּת בְּכוֹר, וּבְעֵדוּת קַרְקַע, וּבְעֵדוּת חֲזָקָה, וְכֵן שֶׁבַּבֵּן וְשֶׁבַּבַּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Idi bar Avin teaches in** the *halakhot* of **damages** that were taught **at the school of** the Sage **Karna: The Rabbis concede to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa** that the witnesses do not need to see the incident together **with regard to testimony** concerning a blemish in a male **firstborn** kosher animal, which renders it permitted to derive benefit from it, **and with regard to testimony** concerning ownership of **land, and with regard to testimony** concerning **presumptive ownership** of land. Since it is clear that they are testifying about the same land, it is unnecessary for them to see it together. **And so** they concede with regard to testimony over the two pubic hairs **of a boy or of a girl,** which are a sign of adulthood.


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

גַּבְרָא אַגַּבְרָא קָא רָמֵית? מָר סָבַר פְּלִיגִי, וּמָר סָבַר לָא פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects Abaye’s question: **Are you setting** the statement of one **man against** the statement of another **man?** One **Sage,** Ulla, **holds** that the Rabbis **disagree** with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa even with regard to land, **and** one **Sage,** i.e., Rav and Rav Idi, **holds** that **they do not disagree.**


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

מַאי ״וְכֵן שֶׁבַּבֵּן וְשֶׁבַּבַּת״? אִילֵּימָא: אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אַחַת בְּגַבָּהּ, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אַחַת בִּכְרֵיסָהּ? הַאי חֲצִי דָבָר וַחֲצִי עֵדוּת הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks tangentially about the statement: **And so** they concede with regard to testimony over the two pubic hairs **of a boy or of a girl: What** is this referring to? **If we say** it is referring to testimony that a girl has reached majority, in which **one** witness **says** that he saw **one** hair **on** the **her** lower **back and one** witness **says** that he saw **one** hair **on her** lower **abdomen,** that is difficult. A girl is considered to have reached maturity when she has two pubic hairs. In this case, two witnesses separately testify that they have each seen one hair. In **this** case each testimony is obviously invalid, as it **is half a matter and** also **half a testimony.** Not only does each testimony refer to one hair, which is half a matter, it is submitted by one witness, which is half a testimony. Consequently, it is obvious that the girl is not considered to have reached majority in this case.


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

אֶלָּא, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: שְׁתַּיִם בְּגַבָּהּ, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר: שְׁתַּיִם בִּכְרֵיסָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be referring to a case where **one says** that he saw **two** hairs **on her** lower **back, and** the other **one says** he saw **two** hairs **on her** lower **abdomen.** Since they each testify that she has reached adulthood, it is unnecessary for them to see the same hairs.


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

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אֲנָא אָמֵינָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה, בֵּין בְּקַרְקָעוֹת בֵּין בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין. וְרַבָּנַן דְּאָתוּ מִמָּחוֹזָא אָמְרִי: אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת – אִין, אֲבָל לָא בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said: I say in the name of Ulla** that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa both with regard to land and with regard to movable property. But the Sages who came from Meḥoza say** that **Rabbi Zeira says in the name of Rav: With regard to land** the *halakha* **is** in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, **but not with regard to movable property.**


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

רַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב: הוֹדָאָה אַחַר הוֹדָאָה, הוֹדָאָה אַחַר הַלְוָאָה – מִצְטָרְפִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Rav** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning, as Rav says:** Testimonies of **an admission following an admission** are combined into one; if one witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant, and the other witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant in a separate incident, their testimonies are combined. Likewise, testimonies of **an admission following a loan are combined** into one; where one witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant, and the other one testifies that on a previous date the respondent borrowed money from the claimant in his presence, their testimonies are combined.


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

הַלְוָאָה אַחַר הַלְוָאָה, הַלְוָאָה אַחַר הוֹדָאָה – לָא מִצְטָרְפִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav continues: But testimonies of **a loan following a loan** are not combined. If one testifies that the claimant lent the respondent one hundred dinars in his presence, and the other testifies that he lent him one hundred dinars in a separate incident in his presence, their testimonies are not combined, as they are clearly testifying about two separate loans. Similarly, testimonies of **a loan following an admission are not combined.** If one testifies that the claimant lent money to the respondent, and the other one testifies that on an earlier date the respondent admitted to owing the claimant, their testimonies are not combined.


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

אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי שְׁנָא הַלְוָאָה אַחַר הַלְוָאָה דְּלָא? דְּמָנֶה דְּקָא חָזֵי הַאי, לָא קָא חָזֵי הַאי. הוֹדָאָה אַחַר הוֹדָאָה נָמֵי – אַמָּנֶה דְּקָא מוֹדֵי קַמֵּי הַאי, לָא מוֹדֵי קַמֵּי הַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak encountered Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. He said to him: What is different** about **a loan following a loan,** in **which** case the testimonies are **not** combined, **as the one hundred dinars that this** witness **saw, that** witness **did not see?** In the case of **an admission following an admission as well,** perhaps **the one hundred dinars about which** the respondent **admitted in the presence of this** witness, **he did not admit in the presence of that** witness. Perhaps his admissions were in reference to two separate loans, and therefore the testimonies should not be combined.


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

דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לְהַאי בָּתְרָא: בְּהַאי מָנֶה דְּאוֹדַיי לֵיהּ קַמָּךְ, אוֹדַיי לֵיהּ נָמֵי קַמֵּי פְּלוֹנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered him: The reference is to a case **where** the respondent **said to this last** witness: **With regard to the one hundred dinars that I admitted** to owing **in your presence, I admitted** to owing **them in the presence of so-and-so,** the first witness, **as well.**


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

אַכַּתִּי, בָּתְרָא יָדַע, קַמָּא לָא יָדַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak asked: **Still, the last** witness **knows** that he is testifying about the same loan as the first witness, but **the first** witness **does not know** this. Since only one witness testifies that it is the same loan, the testimonies still cannot be combined.


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

דַּהֲדַר אָזֵיל, אָמַר לֵיהּ לְקַמָּא: הַאי מָנֶה דְּאוֹדַיי לֵיהּ קַמָּךְ, אוֹדַיי לֵיהּ נָמֵי קַמֵּי פְּלוֹנִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תָּנוּחַ דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁהִתְנַחְתָּ אֶת דַּעְתִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered: It is a case **where,** after his admission to the second witness, the respondent **went back** and **said to the first** witness: With regard to **those one hundred dinars that I admitted** to owing **in your presence, I admitted** owing **them in the presence of so-and-so as well.** Therefore, both witnesses know that they are testifying about the same loan. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak **said to him: May your mind be settled, as you have settled my mind** and put it at ease by answering this question that was troubling me.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי נִיחוּתָא? דְּרָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, שְׁדָא בַּהּ נַרְגָּא – לָאו הַיְינוּ הוֹדָאָה אַחַר הַלְוָאָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, **said to him: What is settling** about this explanation? **As Rava, and some say Rav Sheshet, threw an ax at** my answer, i.e., he rejected my explanation, as follows: According to this interpretation of the case of an admission following an admission, **isn’t this** the same as **an admission following a loan?** The case of an admission following an admission is now rendered superfluous, as it adds no new insight on the matter.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַיְינוּ דִּשְׁמִיעַ לִי עֲלַיְיכוּ, דְּרָמֵיתוּ דִּיקְלֵי וְזָקְפִיתוּ לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak **said to him: This is what I heard about you** Sages of Meḥoza, **that you knock down palm trees and erect them,** i.e., you build and then destroy what you built. After you came up with such an excellent explanation, you ruined it yourselves.


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

נְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי: בֵּין הוֹדָאָה אַחַר הוֹדָאָה, בֵּין הוֹדָאָה אַחַר הַלְוָאָה, בֵּין הַלְוָאָה אַחַר הַלְוָאָה, בֵּין הַלְוָאָה אַחַר הוֹדָאָה – מִצְטָרְפוֹת. כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **of Neharde’a say: Whether** it is a case of **an admission following an admission, or an admission following a loan, or a loan following a loan, or a loan following an admission,** in all these cases the testimonies **are combined. In accordance with whose** opinion is this? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa,** who teaches that since both witnesses testify about a debt of one hundred dinars, it is considered like one testimony.


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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: עֵדוּת הַמַּכְחֶשֶׁת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ בִּבְדִיקוֹת, כְּשֵׁרָה בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda says: Testimony** of two witnesses **who contradict** the testimony of **each other in** response to the judges’ **examination** of the details of the story **is valid in** cases of **monetary law,** although a contradiction of this type disqualifies testimony in cases of capital law.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה בְּאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּאַרְנָקִי שְׁחוֹרָה״, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּאַרְנָקִי לְבָנָה״. אֲבָל אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״מָנֶה שָׁחוֹר״, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״מָנֶה לָבָן״ – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: The statement of Rav Yehuda is reasonable in** a case where **one** witness **says:** The money was **in a black purse [*be’arnaki*], and** the other **one says:** It was **in a white purse.** Since this is a secondary detail, they may not remember it accurately. **But** if **one says:** He lent him **a black coin,** i.e., the coin was dark, **and** the other **one says:** He lent him **a white coin,** the testimonies **are not combined.** Since they contradict each other with regard to a characteristic of the money itself, one is probably lying.


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

וְאַרְנָקִי שְׁחוֹרָה בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת לָא? וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּסַיִיף הֲרָגוֹ״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בַּאֲרִירָן הֲרָגוֹ״ – אֵין זֶה ״נָכוֹן״; אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״כֵּלָיו שְׁחוֹרִים״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״כֵּלָיו לְבָנִים״ – הֲרֵי זֶה ״נָכוֹן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling: **And** if witnesses contradict each other with regard to secondary details such as **a black purse in** cases of **capital law,** is it the case that their testimony is **not** accepted? **But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say:** In a case where **one** of the witnesses **says:** The murderer **killed** the victim **with a sword, and one** of the witnesses **says:** The murderer **killed** the victim **with an *ariran*,** another type of weapon, **this is not congruent** testimony, as this is a clear contradiction. But if **one** of the witnesses **says:** The murderer’s **garments** were **black, and one** of the witnesses **says:** The murderer’s **garments** were **white, this is congruent** testimony, as this is not a meaningful discrepancy.