Study Bava Batra folio 32A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
and Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel holds that an effective challenge requires two witnesses, one could then ask: But doesn’t R' Yoḥanan say: Everyone agrees that there is no effective challenge with fewer than two witnesses?
Rather, the challenge was established by two witnesses. And with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where we presume with regard to the father of that man that he is a priest, and a rumor emerged about the son that he is the son of a priest and a divorced woman, or the son of a p
The Talmud continues the case: And then two witnesses came and said that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza, and we downgraded him from the priesthood based on their testimony. Then one witness came and said that he is a priest of unflawed lineage, resulting in two witnesses t
The Talmud explains the dispute: And here it is with regard to concern about contempt of court that they disagree. R' Elazar holds: Once we downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood based on the testimony of two witnesses, we do not then elevate him, as we are concerned about contemp
Rav Ashi objects to the analysis that they disagree with regard to concern about contempt of court: If so, why specifically is it necessary to establish the dispute in a case where first one witness testified as to his unflawed lineage, and then another testified later? The same would hold true even