(Mishnah): We bring in the second witness and interrogate him. If it is found that their testimonies match, the judges debate the matter:

If two decide Zakai (he is exempt) and one says Chayav, he is exempt. If two decide Chayav and one says Zakai, he is Chayav;

If one says Zakai and one says Chayav and one is undecided, we add more judges, and even if two decide Zakai or two decide Chayav and one is undecided, we add more judges.

(Gemara): "Se'irim'' must refer to at least two. Why does it say "Shnei [Se'irim'', regarding Yom Kipur]? Both of them must be equal (in appearance, height and price). "Kevasim'' must refer to at least two. Why does it say "Shnei [Kevasim'', regarding the Tamid]? Both of them must be equal.

"Tziparim'' must refer to at least two. Why does it say "Shnei'' [regarding Metzora]? Both of them must be equal.

"Chatzotzeros'' must refer to at least two. Why does it say "Shtei''? Both of them must be equal.

Question (R. Chagi, to R. Yosa): It says "v'Amdu Shnei ha'Anashim'' - based on [these Drashos,] you should say that Anashim must refer to at least two. Why does it say "Shnei''? Both of them must be equal!

[Surely, we do not say so,] for it says "Lo Sateh Mishpat Ger Yasom'' - this shows that a convert can be judged with one who is not a convert, and an orphan can be judged with one who is not an orphan.

If so, why does it say "Shnei''? It is free to make a Hekesh, and to learn a Gezeirah Shavah from it;

Answer #1: (If it need not teach about the litigants, we use it to teach about the witnesses - ZAHAV HA'ARETZ.) It says here Shnei, and it says there "va'Yish'aru Shnei Anashim'' - just like there, they were men, and not women or children, also here, men and not women or children. This teaches that a woman may not judge or testify (for we know that anyone Kosher to judge is Kosher to testify).

Answer #2 (R. Yosi bei R. Bun citing Rav Yosef): It says here Shnei, and it says there ["Al Pi Shenayim Edim Yakum Davar''] - just like there, it is according to two witnesses, also here [it teaches about witnesses].

Question: (The simple meaning of the verse here discusses litigants.) Why does it say Shnei? (We proved above that they need not be equal - one can be a convert or orphan, and not the other!)

Answer #1: This teaches that one [litigant] may not stand, and the other sits. One may not speak as much as he wants, and the other [the judge] tells him "shorten your words.''

(R. Yehudah): I heard that if the judge wants to seat both [litigants], he seats them.

Answer #2 (R. Yishmael): [If one is wearing more esteemed clothes than the other,] we tell him "dress like he is dressed, or dress him like you are dressed.''

(R. Ba citing Rav Huna): The witnesses must stand at the time when they testify, for it says v'Amdu Shnei ha'Anashim.''

(R. Yirmeyah citing R. Avahu): Also the litigants must stand at the time when they receive the Din, for it says "Asher Lahem ha'Riv.''

Question: It says "Lo Yumsu Avos Al Banim.'' It already says "Ish b'Chet'o Yumas''! Why does it say Lo Yumsu Avos Al Banim?

Answer: Fathers may not die through testimony of sons, and sons may not die through testimony of fathers. This teaches that witnesses may not be relatives of the litigants.

Question: What is the source that the witnesses may not be relatives of each other?

Answer: Exert yourself [and you will find the answer]! If one of them was Huzam, he is not killed unless his colleague was Huzam. If you say so (that relatives may testify together), he is killed through the other!

Question: What is the source that the witnesses may not be relatives of the judges?

Answer: Exert yourself [and you will find the answer]! If they were Huzam, they are killed through [the judges, who sentenced them]!

Question: What is the source that the judges may not be relatives of each other?

Answer: The Torah said to kill based on witnesses, and to kill based on judges. Just like witnesses may not be relatives of each other, also judges may not be relatives of each other.

Question: This teaches fathers and sons (they may not testify together). What is the source for other relatives?

Answer (Zeira): [The prefix Vov in] "u'Vanim'' includes other relatives.

Question: Until now we explained according to R. Akiva [who expounds Vov - Ridvaz]. According to R. Yishmael [who does not expound Vov], what is the source?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "V'Shaftu ha'Edah Bein ha'Makeh u'Vein Go'el ha'Dam'' - the Edah (congregation that judges) may not be relatives of the Makeh (one who struck), or of the victim;

R. Yosi says, if you would say so (that they may be relatives of the victim), it turns out that Beis Din are Go'alei ha'Dam! (They must judge between Go'el ha'Dam and the Makeh!) From here, the judges may not be relatives of the litigants. (It is unreasonable to say that they may be relatives of the Makeh, but not of the victim.)

Question: What is the source that the witnesses may not be relatives of each other?

Answer: Exert yourself [and you will find the answer]! If one of them was Huzam, he is not killed unless his colleague was Huzam. If you say so (that relatives may testify together), he is killed through the other!

Question: What is the source that the witnesses may not be relatives of the judges?

Answer: Exert yourself [and you will find the answer]! If they were Huzam, are they not killed through [the judges, who sentenced them]?!

[A Mishnah in Shevuos teaches that Shevu'as ha'Edus applies] to Kesherim, and not to Pesulim, for it says "Im Lo Yagid v'Nasa Avono'', i.e. one who tells [testimony] and it obligates one to pay. This excludes a Pasul, for even if he testifies, his friend does not pay money.

[Shevu'as ha'Edus applies] in Beis Din. This excludes [outside of Beis Din, and also] one witness [his testimony does not force one to pay].

Suggestion: When they said to him "we accept you like two'', he is liable [for Shevu'as ha'Edus, for his testimony would have forced him to pay]!

Rejection: "V'Hu Ra'ah Oh Yada Im Lo Yagid'' - one who is Kosher for testimony from the Torah. This excludes one witness, who is not Kosher to testify Torah testimony [to force one to pay].

Not in front of Beis Din [he is exempt. We learn from] "Im Lo Yagid v'Nasa Avono'' - this is one who testifies and it obligates one to pay. This excludes outside of Beis Din, for even if he testifies, his friend does not pay money.

What is the source that [one is liable only if there were] two witnesses? "V'Hu Ed'' - this is two [witnesses];

This is like R. Yishmael. R. Yishmael said, wherever the Torah wrote "Ed'' Stam, it refers to two witnesses, unless the verse informs that it is one witness.

Question: We find that R. Yishmael taught [that one is liable for Shevu'as ha'Edus only if there are] two witnesses. [If] one witness [swore to deny testimony], is he liable for Shevu'as Bituy?

Answer: It is possible to say [that he is liable]? Another witness is proper to join to him and obligate him Shevu'as ha'Edus, and you obligate him for Shevu'as Bituy?!

Question: [If] a relative [swore to deny testimony], is he liable for Shevu'as Bituy?

Answer #1: We learn from the following teaching of R. Ba bar Shmuel. If one swore that Ploni gave a Maneh to Almoni, and it turns out that he did not give, since he cannot swear about the future (that Ploni will give), he is not liable for the past.

Answer #2: Or, we learn from the following. If one said to [Ploni] "where is my ox?'', and he said "I don't know what you are talking about'' (he denied that he was a Shomer Chinam), and it died, was broken, captured or lost, and he said "I impose an oath on you'', and [Ploni] answered Amen, he is exempt. (In truth, he was exempt from paying);

(Rav): He is exempt from Shevu'as ha'Pikadon, but he is liable for Shevu'as Bituy;

(R. Yochanan): Since there is a Mitzvah to appease him [with an oath], he is not liable for Shevu'as Bituy. (He did not opt to swear on his own. Even R. Yochanan would obligate a relative who swore to deny testimony, since he had no Mitzvah to swear.)

Question: Does Rav not hold that there is a Mitzvah to appease him?

Answer: He should appease him with Emes, and not with Sheker.

Support (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "V'Nasa Avono'' - [he must bring] a Korban. (A relative does not bring for Shevu'as ha'Edus, so he brings for Shevu'as Bituy.)

Question: What is his source [that it is only if he swore in] Beis Din?

Answer: We learn from a Gezeirah Shavah "Hagadah-Hagadah.'' Just like Hagadah there (Zaken Mamrei - "v'Higidu Lecha Es Devar ha'Mishpat'' is in) Beis Din, also here (Shevu'as ha'Edus, it says "Im Lo Yagid'', is in) Beis Din.

Opinion #1: We accept witnesses only if they saw [the testimony] together.

Opinion #2 (R. Yehoshua ben Korchah): It is even if they saw one after the other.

(R. Yirmeyah citing Rav): Chachamim agree to R. Yehoshua ben Korchah about witnesses of Bechorah (a father said who is his Bechor) and witnesses of Chazakah (Ploni used a particular land for three years).

(R. Ba citing R. Yirmeyah): The same applies to witnesses of Simanim (hairs to establish adulthood).

The following is obvious. If this [witness] says "I saw two hairs on his back'', and this one says "I saw two hairs on his back'' [they join];

If one says "I saw one hair on his back'', and this one says "I saw one hair on his stomach'', it has no effect, and all the more so if both of them say "on his back'' (perhaps he has only one hair)!

If two say "we saw one hair on his back'', and two say "we saw one hair on his stomach'', Rav Yosi and Rav Hoshayah bar Rav Shamai argue about this - one of them says Pasul (they do not join), and one of them says Kosher;

The one who says Pasul, it is because he is like one who testifies about Chetzi Davar (one lone hair has no significance). The one who says Kosher, it is because I can say perhaps [when the latter pair saw, the first hair already] fell out (and the first pair saw before the second hair sprouted. Each pair saw everything possible to see at the time, so it is not called Chetzi Davar.)

If one says "[I saw] two hairs on his back'', and one says "two on his stomach'', R. Ba says that all (Rav Yosi and Rav Hoshayah) agree that it is Kosher, and R. Chagai says that all agree that it is Pasul, and R. Yosi says that they argue about this.

R. Yosi (to R. Chagai): R. Yudan says like me.

R. Chagai (to R. Yosi): I argue with [R. Yudan's] Rebbi (R. Ba - KORBAN HA'EDAH). All the more so I argue with him!

Support (R. Mana): R. Chagai said properly - if there are four signatures on a document, and this [witness] testified about two of them, and this testified about two of them, and there was a claim [that it is a forgery], does this [validation] help at all? Doesn't every signature need two witnesses about it?!

Here, every Siman needs two witnesses!

(R. Chinena): We learn from years of Chazakah - if one testified that he ate the first, second and third year, and one testified that he ate the fourth, fifth and sixth, does this help at all?

Doesn't every [year of] Chazakah need two witnesses? Here, every Siman needs two witnesses!

(Above, the first Tana and R. Yehoshua ben Korchah argue about whether or not the witnesses must see the testimony together.) This is like the following argument. We hear [testimony] from the witnesses only if they came together;

R. Nasan says, we hear the words of the first, and when the second comes, we hear his words.

R. Yonason was sitting in the Beis Midrash. He asked "perhaps there is someone here who heard whether or not the Halachah follows R. Nasan!'' R. Yosi bar Chanina said that there is R. Shimon ben Yakim. [R. Yonason] said "let him ascend (we will give to him Semichah, and ask him)!''

When he ascended (received Semichah), [R. Yonason] said to him "did you hear whether or not the Halachah follows R. Nasan?'' He said "I heard that R. Yehoshua ben Korchah agrees to R. Nasan.''

[R. Yonason] said to him "was there a need to say this?!'' (Testimony is primarily seeing, and R. Yehoshua does not require that they see together. All the more so he does not require that they testify together!)

They told [R. Yonason] that R. Yosi bar Chanina [who said that R. Shimon ben Yakim knows] intended only that R. Shimon ben Yakim receive Semichah, for he was a great man.

Question (Rav Chisda): May we accept witnesses not in front of the litigant?

Answer (R. Yosi citing R. Shabsi): We accept witnesses not in front of the litigant, and we make for him a final verdict. If he comes and protests, his protest is valid.

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): If Beis Din sent three times for someone to come and he did not come, we accept testimony not in front of the litigant, and we make for him a final verdict.

This is like the following episode. Kahana died, and he left heirs [and a debt] to R. Yoshiyah. R. Lazar accepted witnesses not in front of [the heirs, for they were not here, and it is as if he sent, and they did not come], and he ruled in favor of R. Yoshiyah. (KORBAN HA'EDAH)

And further, Kahana left over Seforim. R. Lazar wrote to the heirs [in Chutz la'Aretz] "Seforim that Eretz Yisrael merited, we do not send them to Chutz la'Aretz.''

(R. Nisi citing R. Lazar): If one wrote Seforim with intent to take them to Chutz la'Aretz, he may take them out.

Question (R. Chiyah bar Ba to R. Yosi): May one take Seforim out [to Chutz la'Aretz]?

R. Yosi asked whether he asks for a relevant case; he said no (he just wants to know the Halachah. R. Yosi did not answer.) R. Zeira was upset that he did not say that it was for a relevant case, in order to know what [R. Yosi] would say.

R. Yirmeyah had a Din with a man. They accepted witnesses not in front of R. Yirmeyah, and obligated R. Yirmeyah. He was pained by this - can it be that we accept witnesses not in front of the litigant?!

Rav Huna, R. Pinchas, and R. Chizkiyah Chukuk did not come to the Shi'ur that day. Rav Huna forcibly entered and found R. Yirmeyah pained. He said, it is possible that we accept witnesses not in front of the litigant, even when they are with him in the city?!

Rav Huna: Rabanan hold like this.