Yerushalmi Makkot 1:7 ירושלמי מכות א׳:ז׳

MISHNAH: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah⁶³In the Babli and most independent Mishnah mss: “R. Yose” (i. e., ben Halaphta). The reading of the Yerushalmi in Mishnah and Halakhah contradicts Mishnah 2:6. Since the statement of R. Yose ben R. Jehudah is not discussed in Halakhah 2:6, the correct attribution there cannot be determined. Since his statement is not accepted as practice in the Babli, it seems that “R. Yose ben R. Jehudah” is the correct attribution here. says, nobody can be executed unless his two witnesses warned him⁶⁴Warning by a single person is invalid, even if witnessed by two persons., as it is said: By the mouth of two witnesses⁵⁴The argument refers to all Mishnaiot 9–13. The requirement of “two witnesses or three witnesses” for criminal convictions is written in Deut. 17:6, 19:15. (In addition, rendering judgment in a criminal trial on the basis of a single testimony is forbidden in Num. 35:30.) While in both verses of Deut. the background clearly is that of criminal trials, the redundancy is taken as a sign that in civil trials (not on arbitration panels) the biblical rules of evidence of criminal trials have to be followed. The Babli disagrees in the name of Rav Nahman (6b).. Another explanation: By the mouth of two witnesses, that the court may not hear from the mouth of an interpreter⁶⁵Testimony and cross examinations are possible only if all judges understand the witnesses without translator. The Babli (6b) permits cross-examination using a translator if the witnesses’ answers are directly understood by the judges..

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says,” etc. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The following verse is said about two groups of witnesses. If an oppressive witness arises against a man, a plotting witness who answers to a man. Answering him, not his testimony⁶⁶While testimony may not stand up under cross-examination, the worst that can happen to a witness in that case is that the court does not believe him. A criminal conviction can only follow if the new group of witnesses answer him, the plotting witness, by showing that he could not have been present at the place of the alleged crime or transaction. This paragraph belongs to Mishnah 6.. Do plotting witnesses have to be warned? Rebbi Isaac bar Tevlai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Plotting witnesses do not have to accept warning⁶⁷In the Babli, Ketubot 32a, this is an anonymous statement accepted without discussion.. Rebbi Abbahu said, we do not take notice of this. Rebbi Jacob bar Dassai said, and there are very cunning people who even if they see their comrades being led out to be killed do not say anything⁶⁸It is not clear whether this statement supports R. Eleazar or R. Abbahu. In the first case, he argues that a special warning about penalties of plotting perjury is unnecessary since the bad guys automatically will stay away as far as possible from the court. In the second case he wants to point out that good people will not be kept away from being witnesses by being admonished by the court about penalties of plotting perjury, and it is a good thing that bad people will be frightened away..

“Whose sentence was passed,” etc. ⁶⁹This paragraph refers to Mishnah 12, not 16. It is also found in Ketubot 11:6, explained there in Notes 94–102, and Gittin1:1 (Notes 20–21). If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abun specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person⁵¹If one witness is disqualified by the rules of Mishnah Sanhedrin either 3:6 or 3:7, there is only one testimony, insufficient by biblical standards., the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says⁴²The repetition, two witnesses or three witnesses, when it could have been “two or three witnesses”, implies that any number of witnesses have the same status as do two., witnesses.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a single testimony and a single warning, and any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified⁷⁰Tosephta Bava qamma 6:23.. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and invalid for the other.