(Ravina): If an Odisah did not mention testimony, rather, it used expressions of judges (e.g. 'Zichron Devarim'), but it (had only two signatures, and it) did not say 'we sat like three judges, and one of us died', Reish Lakish's Chazakah applies.

Rejection (Rav Nasan bar Ami): Rava taught that in such a case we are concerned lest Beis Din erred (i.e. two people thought that they suffice for a Beis Din).

(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): If it says 'Beis Din', we are not concerned (that they erred).

Question: Perhaps it was an impudent Beis Din!

(Shmuel): If two judged a monetary case, the verdict stands, just it is called an impudent Beis Din.

Answer: He means, if it says 'the Beis Din of our Rebbi, Rav Ashi.'

Question: Perhaps Rav Ashi's Talmidim hold like Shmuel!

Answer: It says 'Rav Ashi told us...'

(Beraisa): If Reuven told Shimon's orphans 'I saw Shimon hide money in a chest. He said that it was Ploni's or Ma'aser Sheni':

If the chest is in their house, we ignore his words (one witness is not believed);

If the chest is in the field, he is believed;

The general rule is, he is believed only if he could have taken the money himself.

If they saw their father hide money in a chest and he said that it was Ploni's or Ma'aser Sheni':

If this was like a command what do with the money, we fulfill his words;

If he said this cunningly (so they will not take the money or think that he is rich), we ignore his words.

A case occurred: Levi was pained that he did not know where his father left his money, and he was told in a dream 'the amount is such and such, they are in such and such place, they are Ma'aser Sheni - Chachamim ruled that dreams have no bearing (the money is Chulin).

(Mishnah): If two decide that he is exempt...

Question: How do we write the verdict?

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): We write 'he is exempt.'

Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): We write 'David and Moshe are Mezakeh, and Yehudah is Mechayev.'

Answer #3 (R. Elazar): We write 'from the judges' words, Ploni is exempt.'

Question: What is the difference between these answers?

Answer #1: They argue about which judges pay if they erred:

According to R. Yochanan (we do not know if a judge dissented), so all pay;

According to Reish Lakish, the dissenting judge does not pay. (Perhaps the Gemara did not discuss according to R. Elazar in the first two answers, for they are rejected, and it is not so clear what he would hold.)

Rejection: All should agree that the dissenting judge is exempt. His colleagues erred by not heeding him!

Answer #2: Rather, they argue about whether or not the erring judges pay the share of the third.

According to R. Yochanan they pay his share;

According to Reish Lakish, they do not.

Rejection: All should agree that the erring judges do not pay his share. They could not have judged the case without him!

Answer #3: Rather, they argue about "Lo Selech Rachil b'Amecha":

R. Yochanan says that we do not say who dissented, due to "Lo Selech Rachil";

Reish Lakish says that we say what each judge said, lest it look like Sheker;

R. Elazar is concerned for both, therefore the verdict suggests that one dissented without mentioning which.

(Mishnah): When they finish deciding, they bring them in...

Question: Whom do they bring in?

Answer #1: They bring in the litigants.

Rejection: They are there the entire time!

Answer #2: Rather, they bring in the witnesses.

Suggestion: Our Mishnah is unlike R. Nasan.

(Beraisa): Witnesses can testify together only if they saw the testimony together;

R. Yehoshua ben Korchah says, we can join their testimony even if they saw it one after the other;

Also, their testimony is invalid unless they testify together in Beis Din;

R. Nasan says, we can accept the testimony of one of them today, and the other will testify when he comes to Beis Din tomorrow. (However, our Mishnah requires returning the witnesses, so they will be together!)

Defense of Answer #1: Really, they bring in the litigants. The Mishnah is R. Nechemyah;

(Beraisa - R. Nechemyah): Nekiyei ha'Da'as of Yerushalayim used to bring in the litigants and hear their claims, bring in the witnesses and hear their testimony, and tell them to leave while they judged.

Question (Beraisa): When they decided, they would bring in the witnesses.

Answer: That is not like R. Nasan.

(Beraisa): Witnesses cannot testify together unless they saw the testimony together;

R. Yehoshua ben Korchah says, we can join their testimony even if they saw it one after the other.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answers: The argument is based on reasoning, or a verse.

Answer #1: The argument is based on reasoning. The first Tana says, if they did not see the testimony together, perhaps they testify about different loans;

R. Yehoshua ben Korchah says, in any case, both agree that he owes the money!

Answer #2: They argue about a verse, "v'Hu Ed Oh Ra'ah Oh Yada";

(Beraisa) Question: "Lo Yakum Ed" already implies 'one.' Why did the Torah have to say "Echad"?

Answer: This teaches that "Ed" always connotes two, unless specified otherwise.

The Torah uses the singular to discuss two witnesses who saw testimony, to teach that they must see like one (at the same time);

R. Yehoshua ben Korchah holds that "v'Hu Ed Oh Ra'ah Oh Yada" includes any way they know testimony (even if they did not see together).

(Beraisa): Also, their testimony is invalid unless they testify together in Beis Din;

R. Nasan says, we can accept the testimony of one of them today, and the other will testify when he comes to Beis Din tomorrow.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answers: The argument is based on reasoning, or on a verse:

Answer #1: The argument is based on reasoning. The first Tana says that one witness comes only to obligate an oath (therefore, he cannot be joined to a witness to obligate paying);

R. Nasan says, in any case (even when they come to Beis Din together), they do not testify at the same moment, yet the Torah obligates money according to two witnesses.

Answer #2: They argue about a verse "(Oh Ra'ah...) Im Lo Yagid v'Nosa Avono."

All hold like Chachamim who argue with R. Yehoshua ben Korchah (they must see the testimony together).

They argue about whether or not we equate testifying (Yagid) to seeing (Ra'ah) the testimony: the first Tana equates them, R. Nasan does not.

R. Shimon ben Elyakim strove to give Semichah to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina. He was not able.

R. Yochanan: Does anyone know whether or not the Halachah follows R. Yehoshua ben Korchah?

R. Shimon ben Elyakim: He (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina) knows.

R. Yochanan: Let him tell us!

R. Shimon ben Elyakim: First give to him Semichah.

R. Yochanan gave to him Semichah.

R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina: I heard that R. Yehoshua ben Korchah holds like R. Nasan.

R. Yochanan: This is obvious! The essence of testimony is seeing it. R. Yehoshua does not require them to see it together, all the more so, they need not say it together!

In any case, since you received Semichah, you keep it.

(R. Zeira): This teaches that once someone receives Semichah, he keeps it.

(R. Chiya bar Avin citing Rav): The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua ben Korchah, both for (testimony about) land and Metaltelim.

(Ula): The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua ben Korchah regarding land, but not regarding Metaltelim.

Question (Abaye): This implies that there is an argument about land. However, R. Aba taught that Chachamim agree with R. Yehoshua ben Korchah about land!

(Rav Idi bar Avin): Chachamim agree with R. Yehoshua ben Korchah about testimony about a Bechor, land, Chazakah, and similarly in a boy or girl (this will be explained).

Answer: They are Amora'im. R. Chiya bar Aba and Ula argue with them (and say that Chachamim argue about land)!

Question: What does it mean 'similarly in a boy or girl'?

Suggestion: One witness says that he saw one hair (of adulthood) on the front, and one witness says that he saw one on the back.

Rejection: Each witness testifies only about half of what is required!

Answer: Rather, one witness says that he saw two hairs on the front, and one witness says that he saw two on the back.

(Rav Yosef citing Ula): The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua ben Korchah, both regarding land and Metaltelim;

(R. Zeira citing Rav): The Halachah follows R. Yehoshua ben Korchah regarding land, but not regarding Metaltelim.

This is like Rav taught elsewhere.

(Rav): (Testimony of) different admissions join (Reuven admitted to Shimon 'I owe you' in front of Ploni, and later admitted in front of Almoni);

(Testimony of) an admission joins (testimony of one witness who saw) a loan before the admission;

(Testimony of) different loans do not join, nor does an admission join a loan after the admission.

Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): What is the difference between different loans and different admissions?

Different loans do not join, for they do not testify about the same money. Likewise, different admissions should not join, for (perhaps) they are not about the same money!

Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): The case is, when Reuven admitted in front of Almoni, he said 'I already admitted about this debt in front of Ploni.'

Question: Still, Ploni does not know that he testifies about the same money as Almoni does!

Answer: The case is, Reuven later told Ploni 'I admitted in front of Almoni about the debt I admitted to in front of you.'

Rav Nachman was grateful for the answer. Rav Huna told him that a great difficulty remains.

Question (Rava): If so (Reuven must tell each witness that the other witness also knows about this loan), this is just like an admission after a loan! (Also there Reuven must tell the witness on the loan that he later admitted to Almoni. If so, why did Rav consider these to be separate cases?!)

Rav Nachman: I heard that people of this city give great explanations, then destroy them!

(Chachamim of Neharde'a): We join (testimony of) two admissions, two loans, or one of each (in either order).

This is like R. Yehoshua ben Korchah.

(Rav Yehudah): If the witnesses contradicted each other about Bedikos (matters not essential to the testimony), the testimony is valid for monetary cases.

(Rava): Presumably, Rav Yehudah refers only to a contradiction such as the color of the wallet, but if they argue about the color of the coins, the testimony is invalid.

Question: This implies that a contradiction about the color of the wallet disqualifies testimony for capital cases;

However, Rav Chisda taught that if one witness said that Reuven killed with a sword, and the other said that he used an axe, they do not join;

If one said that his clothes were black, the other said that they were white, the testimonies join.

Answer: Rav Yehudah and Rav Chisda are Amora'im. They argue with each other.