I have a question that I have not seen discussed regarding whether an Eid Echad is mestaref...
The Braisa of Rav Nason simply says the beis din examined one witness on one day, and another on another day.
Any Kat of Eidim- whether its the levanah, yichud, chilul shabbos mamonos- Eidim are examined separately when they come together.
In the Braisa of Rav Nason there is no mention that they are two Eidim that DID NOT Come together to give Eidus.
The braisa is not comparable to the the Chazaka with an Eid Echad, then trei, then an Eid Echad- where it's clear they are being mistareif the testimony. How do I see that definitively from the Rab Nason's Braisa.
In order to address your question, let's first examine the Beraisa.
There is the first Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Karchah, in a case where the two Edim did not even see the same story. For example, if one Ed says he saw a loan, and the other Ed did not see the actual loan but can testify that Reuven was Modeh he owes money to Shimon, they can be Mitztaref and testify together.
Now, the Beraisa brings a second Machlokes, in which Rebbi Nasan says that they can come one after the other. If we can assume that the second case cannot be the same as the first, as Rashi explains, we need to say that in the case of Rebbi Nasan both Edim for sure saw the loan together, but still, something else can separate them. Even though they might be considered separated according to the Tana Kama, Rebbi Nasan still says they are Mitztaref. In what case can they be arguing about?
We can analyze what makes two Edim into one group.
a) Is it the fact they saw the story they are testifying about together?
b) Is it the fact that they came together to the court that makes them into one group of Edim?
c) Or is it the fact that they are telling the same story which connects them?
From the first case in the Beraisa, especially since we rule like Rebbi Yehoshua, we see that it is not option A that connects them in the case of Rebbi Nasan, since they can both tell a story that one of them saw, and the other heard a Hoda'ah (perhaps, if they come together to court). When we see that there is another Machlokes, it is impossible to assume that the Tana Kama and Rebbi Nasan can be arguing about option C. As you said, the only appropriate way to hear Edim is one after the other, in order to see if they tell the same story. So, we can understand this Machlokes only regarding option B, whether they both need to come together to court or not. So even if you think the Lashon of Rebbi Nasan does not imply this, we can eliminate the other options and say that the only one left is the case of them not coming together, and still Rebbi Nasan claims they can be Mitztaref.
Aharon Steiner
Tremendous Hakaras HaTov for additional mekoros, and sevaros going even into the machlokes by mamonos and whether Eid echad is mistareif..
1. My understanding is there are a few inyanim
A. What defines "Trei"?
B. What is the nature of combining? Is it on the same exact case Ploni A lent to Ploni B a 100 maneh or does Ploni B owing 100 maneh period (I assume that's Peh she'hitir where they are testifying it's their signature, and mdrabanan the signature is eidus in itself.
C. The machlokes is clarified beyond the scope of the issue (often required if Havanah of the Sugyah is to be attained.
You all who responded have my Hakaras HaTov for providing the information in terms of Rabbi Nasans Braisah
I'm just left with the inyan that continues in the Sugyas of eidus in the Perek...is eidus by mamonos different than Lav v'heter?
Even by mamonos is testifying as yechidim about their signatures the combining factor? Or is it that the signatures on the shtar chov, dated at the same time serve as the actual testimony? Then there is the machlokes if the signatures are limited to the fact that Ploni B owes 100 maneh...or to every detail in the shtar?
To go further I believe Halacha Lmaasei as seen by Hazamah that a Kat of Two is required. So if a second cat is mezameim only half the first set...there would be Hachrasha and not hazamah..and if Kat 3 is mezameim the other half of the initial Kat, that groups B and C do not apply or combine to carry out
ุๅ๒๙๚ ์ไํ ๋เ๙๘ ๆ๎ํ ์๒๙ๅ๚ ์เ็้ๅุ
If I recall my makos if the set of Eidim is 5, and 2/5 are Krovim the group becomes pasul.
So returning to our sugyah (which at worst would allow a challal to eat Terumah D'Rabanan).
I simply don't see from the basic lashon of Rav Nason a proof for or against combining an Eid Echad or not that the Gemara stops there and advances.
Is Kohanic Status simply mamonos... there is the older issue that's secondary if this Safeik challal can enter the Kahal or not...
At which point if I recall is dependent in essence if the eidus was heard in terms of a fond recollection or if it was presented formally.
Bottom line we can agree, that Eidim showing up together or not to testify on the same inyan, be it the Levanah, Nezek, Lav Sheyeish Bo Maasei, etc... are never cross examined by beis din simultaneously. Ergo the actual set of two in between the 2 Eidei Yechidim, would be questioned separately regarding how they know if Ploni son of Kohein Vadai is a Kohein Kasher or a Bein Grusha, Chalalah, Chalutzah, or ZONAH.
1. Reuvein plus chazakah says he's a Kohein Kasher
2. Shimon and Levi come say they were at his bris met the mother who's a gerusha...Shimon and Levi are questioned and present their eidus separately but they are Trei and undo that said by Reuvein.
4. Yehudah offers Eidus plus the chazakah.
Zilzul Beis Din isn't the concern... the concern is does Yehudah combine with Reuvein...I personally assume the question only exists because of the Chazakah exists by this Kohein father...meaning that without the Chazakah there would not be a machlokes at all!
5. Let's Say Shimon and Levi strengthen the chazakah...yes this guys Tate is a Kohen...he had 3 wives, one was a gerusha...and this is known as well! No where in our case is the possibility of Chalal in doubt. That's what two single Eidim are trying to clarify, and Reuvein and Shimon.
6. Before Reuvein and Shimon, and before Yehudah. One witness appears to be enough to be oleh the Kohein.
7. The lashon in Rav Nason in terms of our case simply doesn't show me clearly that he's a proof that Reuvein and Yehudah who can be over a year apart combine.
Again I want to strongly reiterate my Hakaras Ha'Tov
You helped expand my knowledge of the Machlokes tremendously and added to my basic knowledge
You brought up several points in your last questions, and I will write a few more points to try to help.
a) As far as Mamonos is concerned, we have the first Machlokes between Rebbi Yehoshua ben Karchah and the Chachamim, regarding whether the two witnesses combine in a case in which one witness says he saw Reuven lend 100 Zuz to Shimon, and the other witness says heard Shimon confess that he owes 100 Zuz to Reuven. The uniqueness of Dinei Mamonos is that in every other Edus, we need a testimony about the story. We need two people who actually saw something happen that they can tell over in court. They need to bring facts to Beis Din. In contrast, in Dinei Mamonos they need to testify about the Chiyuv of money, and we do not really need the facts about why this Chiyuv was created. If two Edim testify that someone told them he is Chayav money to his neighbor, there is no Machlokes whatsoever that he is Chayav. The only question is in a case in which one testifies about the Chiyuv through a story, and the other witness testifies about the same Chiyuv but with different facts or through a separate Machlokes.
b) As I wrote the first time, we do not see a proof in the Beraisa of Rebbi Nasan. It is just the only way to understand the Machlokes. There cannot be any Machlokes about whether two witnesses combine, when the two witnesses saw the event together and came to Beis Din together. The only reasonable way to read and understand the Beraisa is only if we say that they showed up on separate days in Beis Din.
c) I am not sure what you mean when you say the Chazakah is what makes a difference as far as the combination of the Edim into one group. I'd be happy if you can please explain what you mean a little more.
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Steiner