Study Arakhin folio 18A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
and afterward his wife, who was the daughter of the father-in-law, died, which means that the witness is no longer related to the party involved; or when he was able to hear, and then became a deaf-mute, and again became able to hear; or when he could see, and subsequently became blind, and afterw
The Talmud explains: The halakha is different there, with regard to testimony, as the verse states: “He is a witness, whether he has seen…if he does not utter” (Leviticus 5:1). This formulation indicates that God renders the matter of testimony dependent on seeing and recounting the content of his
The Talmud answers: The limiting clause is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: If someone saw a crowd of people standing, and his witnesses were among them, and he said: I hereby administer an oath to you, if you know any testimony relating to me, that you will come and testify for me,
The baraita continues: One might have thought that even if this individual said to the crowd: I adjure whoever knows testimony relating to me that he will come and testify for me, that even in the case of this more specific address the witnesses are likewise exempt from the offering of an oath of te
§ The Mishnah teaches: But with regard to the offerings of a metzora that is not so. If the metzora is destitute, even if his father died and left him 10,000 dinars, the Temple treasury has no share in it. The Talmud raises a difficulty: If his father already died and left him 10,000 dinars, he is