## Sanhedrin Daf 9b

###### Sanhedrin 9b:1
[Sanhedrin 9b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/9b:1)

מָה יַעֲשׂוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִים וְאֶחָד, שֶׁרָאוּ בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If this were not to be so, **what** should **two brothers and one** other person **do,** if they **saw someone kill** another **person?** If the mere fact that they saw the event invalidates the testimony, then no one can ever be tried for a transgression committed in the presence of relatives. If one may decide whether or not he will be a witness, one of the brothers may join with the third person in warning the potential transgressor and, thereafter, constitute a pair of valid witnesses. Similarly, the mishna is understood as discussing a case in which a betrothed woman committed adultery, and of the three witnesses, two were brothers. If one of the brothers refrained from warning her, the remaining two witnesses may still testify against her, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. In this situation, the case must be tried by twenty-three judges. According to Rabbi Yosei the case may be tried by three judges, because with regard to capital law, the two brothers invalidate the testimony merely by seeing the event together.


###### Sanhedrin 9b:2
[Sanhedrin 9b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/9b:2)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִתְרוּ בָּהּ אֲחֵרִים, וְלֹא הִתְרוּ בָּהּ עֵדִים. וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבָּנַן, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ נֶהֱרָג עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדָיו מַתְרִין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: The mishna discusses a case **where others warned her, and** the **witnesses** themselves **did not warn her. And** Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis **disagree with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis. As we learned** in a mishna (*Makkot* 6b), **Rabbi Yosei says:** A defendant is **never executed unless the mouths of his two witnesses** are those who **warn him, as it is stated: “At the mouth of two witnesses,** or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death” (Deuteronomy 17:6). The verse’s emphasis on the phrase “at the mouth of” teaches that the witnesses must issue the warning themselves. Rabbi Meir may agree with Rabbi Yosei that the woman cannot be executed if others gave the warning. Therefore the trial of the defamer needs only three judges, whereas the Rabbis in the mishna agree with the Rabbis in *Makkot* who disagree with Rabbi Yosei. Since she may be tried for adultery, the case requires twenty-three judges.


###### Sanhedrin 9b:3
[Sanhedrin 9b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/9b:3)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כְּגוֹן דְּאִיתַּכְחוּשׁ בִּבְדִיקוֹת, וְלָא אִיתַּכְחוּשׁ בַּחֲקִירוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead a different explanation: The mishna discusses a case **where** the testimony about the adultery **was found to be contradictory with regard to** the **examinations** concerning minor details of the incident, **but** the testimony **was not found to be contradictory with regard to** the **interrogations** concerning the time and place of the incident, which is the primary substance of the testimony.


###### Sanhedrin 9b:4
[Sanhedrin 9b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/9b:4)

וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּבֶן זַכַּאי וְרַבָּנַן, דִּתְנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָדַק בֶּן זַכַּאי בְּעוּקְצֵי תְאֵנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis **disagree with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute between** Rabban Yoḥanan **ben Zakkai and the Rabbis. As we learned** in a mishna (40a): **An incident** occurred, **and** Rabban Yoḥanan **ben Zakkai examined** the witnesses **with regard to the stems of figs,** as to their color and shape, in order to expose a contradiction between the witnesses. When he found a discrepancy in their reports about the figs, he dismissed the testimony. Rabbi Meir adopts this opinion, and therefore a woman cannot be tried for adultery if the witnesses disagree about details like these. The Rabbis accept such testimony, and consequently, they require a court of twenty-three judges.


###### Sanhedrin 9b:5
[Sanhedrin 9b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/9b:5)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֵבִיא הַבַּעַל עֵדִים שֶׁזִּינְּתָה, וְהֵבִיא הָאָב עֵדִים וֶהֱזִימּוּם לְעֵדֵי הַבַּעַל, עֵדֵי הַבַּעַל נֶהֱרָגִין וְאֵין מְשַׁלְּמִין מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses scenarios concerning the testimony about a woman’s committing adultery and allegations that the husband is guilty of defamation. **Rav Yosef says:** If the **husband brought witnesses** who testified **that** his wife **committed adultery, and the** wife’s **father brought witnesses, and** they **testified that the husband’s witnesses were conspiring witnesses,** then **the husband’s witnesses are executed, but** they or their estates **do not pay money.** Although their testimony, if accepted, would also have lowered the value of her marriage contract, they do not incur liability, based on the principle that if someone commits a transgression that renders him liable to receive more than one punishment, he receives the greater punishment.


###### Sanhedrin 9b:6
[Sanhedrin 9b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/9b:6)

חָזַר וְהֵבִיא הַבַּעַל עֵדִים, וֶהֱזִימּוּם לְעֵדֵי הָאָב. עֵדֵי הָאָב נֶהֱרָגִין, וּמְשַׁלְּמִין מָמוֹן. מָמוֹן לָזֶה, וּנְפָשׁוֹת לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **the husband came back** before his witnesses were executed **and brought** new **witnesses, and** they **testified that the father’s witnesses were conspiring witnesses, the father’s witnesses are executed, and they** must also **pay money** to the husband, as they attempted to make him liable to pay the fine for defamation. They are not exempt from the payment because the **money** is **for this** victim, i.e., the husband, **and** their **lives** are **for that** set of witnesses, who would have been killed. Since their liability to receive the death penalty and their financial liability were caused by their offenses against different people, these are deemed separate transgressions, and consequently they receive both punishments.


###### Sanhedrin 9b:7
[Sanhedrin 9b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/9b:7)

וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: ״פְּלוֹנִי רְבָעוֹ לְאוֹנְסוֹ״ – הוּא וְאַחֵר מִצְטָרְפִין לְהׇרְגוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yosef** also **says,** with regard to distinguishing between the different aspects of a single testimony: If a man testifies that **so-and-so sodomized him against his will, he and another** witness may **combine** as a valid pair of witnesses **to kill** the defendant for the sin of homosexual sodomy (see Leviticus 18:22).


###### Sanhedrin 9b:8
[Sanhedrin 9b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/9b:8)

״לִרְצוֹנוֹ״ – רָשָׁע הוּא, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: ״אַל תָּשֶׁת רָשָׁע עֵד״. רָבָא אָמַר: אָדָם קָרוֹב אֵצֶל עַצְמוֹ, וְאֵין אָדָם מֵשִׂים עַצְמוֹ רָשָׁע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if the one who was sodomized testified that the accused sodomized him **with his consent,** he is testifying that **he** himself is **wicked,** having been complicit in the forbidden act, **and the Torah said: “Do not put** your hand with **a wicked** person to be an unrighteous **witness”** (Exodus 23:1). Therefore, the testimony is rejected. **Rava says: A person is his own relative and** therefore may not testify about himself. Therefore, **a person cannot render himself wicked** by his own testimony. As a result, he is deemed credible with regard to the sodomizer, but not with regard to himself. He remains a valid witness to convict the sodomizer in combination with another.


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

אָמַר רָבָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And similarly, **Rava says:**