אִיקְלַע רַבְנַאי אֲחוּהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לְמִזְבַּן שׁוּמְשְׁמֵי, וַאֲמַר: הָכִי אֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עֵד וְדַיָּין מִצְטָרְפִין. אֲמַר אֲמֵימָר: כַּמָּה מַעַלְיָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַשִׁי לַאֲמֵימָר: מִשּׁוּם דְּקַלְּסָה אֲבוּהּ דְּאִמָּךְ אַתְּ נַמִי מְקַלְּסַת לָהּ? כְּבָר פְּרָכָהּ רָבָא.

The Gemara relates: Ravnai, brother of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, happened to come and sell sesame, and he said that this is what Shmuel said: A witness and a judge join together to testify. Ameimar said: How excellent is this halakha . Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Due to the fact that Rami bar Ḥama, father of your mother, praised it, you also praise [ mekallesat ] it? Rava already refuted that statement and proved it incorrect.

אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁיָּשְׁבוּ לְקַיֵּים אֶת הַשְּׁטָר, שְׁנַיִם מַכִּירִין חֲתִימוֹת יְדֵי עֵדִים וְאֶחָד אֵינוֹ מַכִּיר, עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָתְמוּ – מְעִידִין בְּפָנָיו וְחוֹתֵם, מִשֶּׁחָתְמוּ – אֵין מְעִידִין בְּפָנָיו וְחוֹתֵם.

§ Rav Safra said that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yitzhak bar Shmuel bar Marta said that Rav Huna said; and some say that Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to three judges who convened to ratify a document, and two of them recognize the signatures of the witnesses on the document, and one does not recognize them; as long as the two judges did not yet sign to ratify the document, they testify and authenticate the signatures before the third judge, and based on that testimony, the third judge signs the document of ratification together with the first two judges. However, once the two judges signed the ratification, they may not testify before him and have him sign the ratification. The formula of the ratification is: We verified and ratified this document in a forum of three. Since when the first two judges signed the ratification, they were not a forum of three, the ratification is invalid.

וּמִי כָּתְבִינַן? וְהָאֲמַר רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הַאי אַשַּׁרְתָּא דְּדַיָּינֵי דְּנִיכְתַּב מִקַּמֵּיהּ דְּנִיחֲווּ סָהֲדֵי אַחֲתִימַת יְדַיְיהוּ – פְּסוּלָה, דְּמִתְחֲזִי כְּשִׁקְרָא. הָכָא נַמִי מִתְחֲזִי כְּשִׁקְרָא!

The Gemara asks: And do we write the ratification of a document before all of the judges verify the signatures of the witnesses? But didn’t Rav Pappi say in the name of Rava: This ratification of judges that was written before the witnesses related testimony about their signatures is invalid, even if the witnesses later authenticate their signatures, as it seems like a lie, since when they drafted the ratification they were not yet aware that they would be able to ratify the document? Here too, when the judges drafted the ratification before the third judge can verify the signatures, it seems like a lie.

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: עַד שֶׁלֹּא כָּתְבוּ – מְעִידִין בְּפָנָיו וְחוֹתֵם, מִשֶּׁכָּתְבוּ – אֵין מְעִידִין בְּפָנָיו וְחוֹתֵם.

The Gemara answers: Rather, emend the statement and say: As long as the two judges did not yet write the ratification of the document, they testify and authenticate the signatures before the third judge, and based on that testimony, the third judge signs the ratification together with the first two judges. However, once the two judges have written the ratification, they may not testify before him and have him sign the ratification.

שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ תְּלַת; שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: עֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין. וּשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: דַּיָּינִין הַמַּכִּירִין חֲתִימוֹת יְדֵי עֵדִים אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְהָעִיד בִּפְנֵיהֶם. וּשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: דַּיָּינִין שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין חֲתִימוֹת יְדֵי עֵדִים – צְרִיכִין לְהָעִיד בִּפְנֵי כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.

The Gemara notes: Conclude from the statement of Rav Huna three halakhot : Conclude from it that a witness can become a judge, as the two judges who testified to authenticate the signatures signed the ratification as judges and were not disqualified due to a conflict of interest. And conclude from it that judges who recognize the signatures of the witnesses do not require other witnesses to testify before them. And conclude from it that in cases involving judges who do not recognize the signatures of the witnesses, witnesses are required to testify before each and every one of them, and no judge may issue a ruling based on testimony brought before the other judges.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב אַשִׁי: בִּשְׁלָמָא, עֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין – שָׁמְעִינַן מִינָּהּ. אֶלָּא דַּיָּינִין הַמַּכִּירִין חֲתִימוֹת יְדֵי עֵדִים אֵין צְרִיכִין לְהָעִיד בִּפְנֵיהֶם, דִּלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: צְרִיכִין, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּקָא מִקַּיְּימָא הַגָּדָה בְּחַד!

Rav Ashi strongly objects to the conclusions drawn by the Gemara. Granted, the fact that a witness can become a judge we can conclude from the statement of Rav Huna. However, the fact that judges who recognize the signatures of witnesses do not require other witnesses to testify before them cannot be concluded from the statement of Rav Huna. Perhaps, I will say to you that actually judges require witnesses to testify before them; and here, in this case, it is different, as the requirement of the statement of testimony is fulfilled with the testimony of the two judges before the one judge

וְדַיָּינִין שֶׁאֵין מַכִּירִין חֲתִימוֹת יְדֵי עֵדִים צְרִיכִין לְהָעִיד בִּפְנֵי כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, דִּלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: אֵין צְרִיכִין, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא – דְּלָא קָא מִקַּיְּימָא הַגָּדָה כְּלָל!

And furthermore, with regard to the conclusion that in cases of judges who do not recognize the signatures of the witnesses, witnesses are required to testify before each and every one of them, perhaps, I will say to you that actually, in general, witnesses are not required to testify before each and every judge; and here, in this case, it is different, as were it not for the testimony of the two judges before the third judge, the requirement of the statement of testimony would not be fulfilled at all. In a case where there is other testimony, perhaps one may rely on the knowledge of others in order to ratify the document.

יְתֵיב רַבִּי אַבָּא וְקָאָמַר לָהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא דְּעֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְרַבִּי אַבָּא: רָאוּהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה וְהֵן בֵּית דִּין – יַעַמְדוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיוֹשִׁיבוּ מֵחַבְרֵיהֶם אֵצֶל הַיָּחִיד, וְיָעִידוּ בִּפְנֵיהֶם, וְיֹאמְרוּ ״מְקוּדָּשׁ הַחֹדֶשׁ, מְקוּדָּשׁ״, שֶׁאֵין הַיָּחִיד נֶאֱמָן עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דְּעֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַּיָּין – לָמָּה לִי כּוּלֵּי הַאי? לֵיתְבוּ בְּדוּכְתַּיְיהוּ וְלִיקַדְּשִׁי!

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abba sat and stated this halakha that a witness can become a judge. Rav Safra raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Abba from a mishna ( Rosh HaShana 25b): If three people saw the new moon and they constitute a court, two of them should stand and seat two of their colleagues to sit near the remaining individual judge. And the two should testify before the three judges, and they should then recite the standard formula for sanctifying the month: Sanctified is the month, sanctified. Two others must join the original judge to form a tribunal of three judges, as an individual judge is not deemed credible to sanctify the month by himself. And if it enters your mind to say that a witness can become a judge, why do I need all this? Let the three judges remain seated in their place and sanctify the month,

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף לְדִידִי קַשְׁיָא לִי, וּשְׁאִילְתֵּיהּ לְרַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא, וְרַב יִצְחָק לְרַב הוּנָא, וְרַב הוּנָא לְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב, וְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב לְרַב, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: הַנַּח לְעֵדוּת הַחֹדֶשׁ דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא, וְקִיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּרַבָּנַן.

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Safra: That mishna was difficult for me to understand as well, and I asked Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta about it, and Rav Yitzḥak asked Rav Huna, and Rav Huna asked Ḥiyya bar Rav, and Ḥiyya bar Rav asked Rav, and Rav said to them: Leave the case of testimony to sanctify the month, as it is mandated by Torah law, and the requirement of ratification of documents is mandated by rabbinic law,

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁיָּשְׁבוּ לְקַיֵּים אֶת הַשְּׁטָר, וְקָרָא עַרְעָר עַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן, עַד שֶׁלֹּא חָתְמוּ – מְעִידִין עָלָיו וְחוֹתֵם, מִשֶּׁחָתְמוּ אֵין מְעִידִין עָלָיו וְחוֹתֵם.

§ Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: In the case of three judges who convened as a tribunal to ratify a document, and a person raised a challenge with regard to the fitness of one of them to serve as a judge, as long as they did not yet sign the ratification, the other two judges may testify about the acceptability of the judge whose fitness was challenged, and he then signs the ratification. However, once they signed the ratification, they may no longer testify about his fitness and thereby enable him to sign the ratification. Once they sign, their testimony is no longer impartial because there is a conflict of interest as they seek to avoid being associated with a tribunal tainted by an unfit judge.

עַרְעָר דְּמַאי? אִי עַרְעָר דְּגַזְלָנוּתָא

The Gemara elaborates: With regard to a challenge of what sort was this halakha stated? If it was a challenge based on an allegation of theft,