The Lashon of the Braissa makes no indication whether or not the two Eidim that "One comes today and the other comes tomorrow" if anything it indicates that they are one "kat" of two Eidim because of the Lashon of "Chaveiro"
1. The basic case is e.g. A witness from Har Nof plus a chazakah of his father being a Kohen overrides any rumors that he is a Challal. (There is no mention if the father had 1-4 wives one of whom may have been Asur Aval eino Motzi-ergo the possibility that the person is a the son of ben Gerusha/Chalutzah/Zonah/ Challalah.
2. A definite Set of witnesses come and testify that he is indeed the son of a woman that is an asur lav to the Father (who has a chezkas kehunah ergo this person in a Chalal and is like a regular yisrael)
3. A witness from Bnei Brak comes and says his mother was one of the Kasher wives.
In the end the Machlokes is whether an Eid Echad is combined with another.
MY QUESTION:
in Providing testimony- be it mammon, the levanah, chilul Shabbos, Nisterah, and lav that is chaya's makos- The Beis Din always questions to two witnesses that came together separately to make sure that they did indeed witness the same event- ergo they are a valid set of "Trei" and the same if another set comes to contradict- or to testify on the first set. A Set of witnesses whether 2 or a group of 100 if they are one set- Beis Din questions each member of the set separately.
The Braisa of Rav Nason simply says one person testifies today and then HIS FRIEND testifies tomorrow- as a proof that a Single Witnesses can be combined- How do I know the Braisa is talking specifically of 1+1 as opposed to a set of two one questioned on Yom Sheini- his Friend questioned on yom Shlishi?
I have not seen an adequate explanation to how the Baraissa is a proof to the shitah that an Single Witness plus the strength of Chazakah can combine with a single witness he knows nothing about. (I only mention Chazakah- because without it- even if they combine- it would be a case of Hachsharah- and we would not know whether or not this person is or isn't a Kohein.
Avrahom Keveksib, Brooklyn, NY
I believe the answer to this question can be found in what we wrote in another response, which we repeat here:
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.
I hope this helps,
Aharon Steiner