Study Rosh Hashanah folio 22B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
but is one witness deemed credible? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident in which one potential witness came to testify, and his witnesses were with him, as they came to testify about him? The use of the plural indicates that two witnesses are required to establish someone as a vali
The Talmud comments: This too stands to reason, for if you do not say so, then the opening statement of the Mishnah: If the members of the Great Sanhedrin are not familiar with that one, is problematic. What is the meaning of the term: That one? If we say it is referring to that one witness, is one
The Talmud asks: And is one witness not deemed credible to testify about the eyewitness who saw the new moon? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving R' Nehorai, who went with the witness to testify about him on Shabbat in Usha? Apparently, R' Nehorai offered his testimony alo
The rabbis say in explanation of this incident: In fact, two witnesses are necessary, and in the case of R' Nehorai there was another witness with him. And the fact that he was not mentioned is due to the honor of R' Nehorai, so as not to indicate that the other was his equal. Rav Ashi said: In th
The Talmud asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating this incident at all? The Talmud answers: Lest you say that in a case of uncertainty one does not desecrate Shabbat, i.e., perhaps the witness in Usha would not be present that day, which would mean that R' Nehorai desecrated Shabbat for no rea