Study Makkot folio 6A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אמר רבי יוסי: במה דברים אמורים – בדיני נפשות, אבל בדיני ממונות – תתקיים העדות בשאר. רבי אומר: אחד דיני ממונות ואחד דיני נפשות.
R' Yosei says: In what case is this statement, that if one of the 3 witnesses is disqualified the entire testimony is voided, said? It is said with regard to cases of capital law, which are adjudicated stringently. But with regard to cases of monetary law, which are adjudicated more leniently, even if one of the witnesses is disqualified, the testimony will be validated with the testimony of the rest of the witnesses, and if it is sufficient the case can be adjudicated on that basis. R' Yehuda HaNasi disagrees and says: If one of the 3 witnesses is disqualified the entire testimony is voided in both cases of monetary law and cases of capital law.
ואימתי – בזמן שהתרו בהן. אבל בזמן שלא התרו בהן, מה יעשו שני אחין שראו באחד שהרג את הנפש?!
And when does one disqualified witness void the entire testimony? Only when the witnesses forewarned them before they performed the transgression, thereby demonstrating their desire to fill the role of witnesses in that case. But when they did not forewarn them, what should two brothers do in a case where they, together with others, saw someone who killed a person? Will the murderer escape punishment because two relatives happened to be there at the time of the murder and their presence voids the entire testimony? No, the testimony is voided by the presence of relatives or disqualified witnesses only when their intent was to testify. If that was not their intent, they do not void the testimony.
גמ׳ אמר רבא: והוא שהעידו כולם בתוך כדי דיבור. אמר ליה רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא: מכדי תוך כדי דיבור היכי דמי – כדי שאילת תלמיד לרב. מאה טובא הוו!
Talmud: Apropos the statement in the Mishnah that the halakhic status of 100 witnesses equals that of two witnesses with regard to the halakha of conspiring witnesses among other halakhot, Rava says: And that is their status only in a case where all the witnesses testified within the time required for speaking a short phrase. If their testimony extended over a longer period, the testimony of the witnesses does not constitute one testimony. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Now, what are the circumstances of the period of time indicated by the words: Within the time required for speaking a short phrase? It is a period whose duration is equivalent to the duration of the greeting of a student to a rabbi: Shalom alekha, rabbi, which means: Greetings to you, my teacher. The duration of the testimony of 100 witnesses is always greater than the duration of that greeting. How, then, can 100 witnesses testify within the time required for speaking a short phrase?