Jerusalem Talmud Nazir 3.7

משנה: מִי שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִּיתֵּי עֵדִים מְעִידוֹת אוֹתוֹ. אֵילּוּ מְעִידִין שֶׁנָּזַר שְׁתַּיִם וְאֵילּוּ מְעִידִין שֶׁנָּזַר חָמֵשׁ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים נֶחְלְקָה הָעֵדוּת וְאֵין כָּאן נְזִירוּת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים יֵשׁ בִּכְלָל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁיְּהֵא נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם.

MISHNAH: If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir two times, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut here. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.

הלכה: מִי שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִּיתֵּי עֵדִים וכו׳. רַב אָמַר. בְּכוֹלֵל נֶחְלְקוּ. אֲבָל בְּפוֹרֵט כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי. יֵּשׁ בִּכְלָל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁיְּהֵא נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּמוֹנֶה נֶחְלְקוּ. אֲבָל בְּכוֹלֵל כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי. נֶחְלְקָה הָעֵדוּת אֵין כָּאן נְזִירוּת. הֵיי דֵי נוֹ כוֹלֵל. הֵיי דֵי נוֹ מוֹנֶה. כּוֹלֵל. אָהֵן אוֹמֵר. תַּרְתֵּיי. וְאָהֵן דָּמַר. חָמֵשׁ. מוֹנֶה. אָהֵן אָמַר. חָדָא תַּרְתֵּיי. וְאָהֵן אָמַר. תְּלַת אַרְבַּע חָמֵשׁ. רַב אָמַר. הַכְחֵשׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת לֹא בָטְלָה עֵדוּת. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הַכְחֵשׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָּטְלָה עֵדוּת. דִבְרֵי הַכֹּל מַכְחִשׁ עֵדוּת לְאַחַר עֵדוּת לֹא בָטְלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דָּמַר רִבִּי בָּא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הוּחְזָק מְמּוֹנֶה. זֶה אוֹמֵר. מִן הַכִּיס מוֹנֶה. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. מִן הַצְּרוֹר מוֹנֶה. הַכְחֵשׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת אוֹף רַב מוֹדֶה שֶּׁבָּטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים. אֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. מִן הַכִּיס מָנָה. וְאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. מִן הַצְּרוֹר מָנָה. הַכְחֵשׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָּטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. וּכְרַב לֹא בָטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. זֶה אוֹמֵר. בַּמַּקֵל הֲרָגוֹ. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. בַּסַּיָיף הֲרָגוֹ. הַכְחֵשׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת אוֹף רַב מוֹדֶה שֶׁבָּטְלָה עֵדוּת. מַה פְלִיגִין. כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִיתּוֹת עֵדִים. אֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. בַּמַּקֵל הֲרָגוֹ. וְאֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. בַּסַּיָיף הֲרָגוֹ. הַכְחֵשׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָּטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. וּכְרַב לֹא בָטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. אֵילּוּ אוֹמְרִים. לַדָּרוֹם פָּנָה. וְאֵילוּ אוֹמְרִים. לַצָּפוֹן פָּנָה. כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדוּ. הַכְחֵשׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת לֹא בָטְלָה עֵדוּת. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרַב מִן הָדָא. רִבִּי יוּדָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִין. הוֹאִיל וְזוֹ וְזוֹ מוֹדוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ קַיָים הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ יִנָּשֵׂאוּ. וְלֹא שְׁמִיעַ דָּמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בְּעֵדִים. מַה בֵּין עֵדִים מַה בֵּין צָרָה. לא חָשְׁשׁוּ דְּבַר צָרָה אֵצֶל חֲבֵירָתָהּ כְּלוּם. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. אֶחָד חֲקִירוֹת וְאֶחָד בְּדִיקוֹת בִּזְמָן שֶׁהֵן מַכְחִישׁוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. פָּתַר לָהּ רַב עֵד בְּעֵד. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אֲפִילוּ תֵימַא כַּת בְּכַת. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא דִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּכְתִיב צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדוֹף.

HALAKHAH: “If two groups of witnesses,” etc. Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that five contains two, and that he has to be a nazir for two periods. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that the testimonies contradict one another and there is no nezirut. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four, five. Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony was contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in some aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent in what he said, since Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he counted from a wallet and the others say he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, these say he killed him with a mace and the others say, he killed him with a sword. That contradicts the essence of the testimony; the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. If these say, he ran away to the South and those say, he ran away to the North, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in some aspects that refer [to] the facts, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from the following: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can remarry.” He did nor hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Eliezer concedes in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to that of her companion. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and in cross examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is void.” Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain that as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: “Justice, justice you shall pursue”.

תַּנֵּי. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה עַל מִי שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים מְעִידוֹת אוֹתוֹ שֶׁיְּהֵא נָזִיר כַּקַּל שֶׁבָּהֶן. וְעַל מַה נֶחְלְקוּ. עַל שְׁנֵי עֵדִים. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. נֶחְלְקָה הָעֵדוּת וְאֵין נְזִירוּת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. יֵשׁ בִּכְלָל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם. שֶׁיְּהֵא נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם.

It was stated: “Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba do not disagree about a person about whom two groups of witnesses testify, that he should be nazir according to the minimal testimony. Where do they disagree? About two witnesses, where the House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut, but the House of Hillel say, five contains two and he shall be a nazir twice.”