(Devarim 19:14) "You shall not move back (into his own land, thus broadening your own), the boundary marker of your neighbor." Is it not already written (Vayikra 19:13) "You shall not rob"? What, then, is the intent of the above? We are hereby taught that one who removes his neighbor's boundary marker transgresses two negative commandments.
I might think (that the same holds true) also outside of Eretz Yisrael; it is, therefore, written "in your inheritance that you shall inherit in the land." In Eretz Yisrael one transgresses two negative commandments. Outside of it he transgresses only one.
Whence is it derived that if one removes the bounds of the tribes he transgresses a negative commandment? From (Proverbs 22:28) "Do not remove the long-standing boundary marker (which your forefathers have established.") Whence is it derived that if one confuses the words of R. Eliezer with those of R. Yehoshua, and vice versa, pronouncing clean, unclean, or unclean, clean — that he transgresses a negative commandment? From "You shall not move back the boundary marker of your neighbor." Whence is it derived that one who sells the burial plot of his fathers transgresses a negative commandment? From "You shall not move back the boundary marker of your neighbor." I might think that this were so even if no one were ever buried there; it is, therefore, written "in your inheritance that you shall inherit"
(Ibid. 15) "One witness shall not arise against a man": This tells me only of capital offenses. Whence do I derive (the same for) the administration of stripes? From "for every transgression."
This tells me only of testimony concerning a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) testimony concerning women and slaves? From "in every" "and in every." If in the end we include a woman, why is it written "a man"? He (a single witness) does arise for a woman (to testify that her husband has died) to (enable her) to wed (another). These are the words of R. Yehoshua.
R. Yossi says: He (a single witness) does not arise for a transgression, but he does arise for an oath (i.e., If one denies a debt to which there is a single witness, he must take an oath against the claim of the witness.) R. Yossi says: Kal vachomer (a fortiori): If in a situation where one's mouth (i.e., admission) does not combine with a single witness for death (i.e., If a single witness testifies that a man had killed, and the man himself admits that he had killed, the two do not combine [like two witnesses] to make him liable to the death penalty) — If (in such a situation) he does swear by his own admission [i.e., If a single witness testifies that a man owes another a hundred, and he admits to fifty, he must take an oath on the rest] — then, in a situation where one's admission does combine (to make him liable) for money (i.e., If a single witness testifies that a man owes another a hundred, and he himself admits to it, his admission does combine with that of the witness to make him liable for money), then how much more so is he liable for an oath on the testimony of a single witness, (and why is a verse needed to tell us this?) — No, (the kal vachomer can be refuted, viz.:) Why is it that he swears by his own admission? Because he pays by his own admission. Should he then swear by (the testimony of) a single witness, when he does not pay by the testimony of a single witness! The verse is needed, then, to tell us that a single witness does not arise for a transgression, but he does arise for an oath.
(Ibid. 15) "By word of two witnesses, or by word of three witnesses, shall a thing be established": not through their script or through their interpreter. "shall a thing be established": From here it was stated: R. Eliezer says: He forewarns her (a suspected wife) in the presence of two witnesses (not to secrete herself with the suspect), and causes her to drink (the bitter waters of the sotah) by the word of one witness (that she secreted herself).
R. Yehoshua says: He forewarns her in the presence of two and causes her to drink by the word of two. For it would follow: If the latter testimony (that she had secreted herself), which forbids her universally (i.e., even to her husband), were by one witness, how much more so would the former testimony (to her forewarning), which does not forbid her universally (i.e., she is permitted to her husband) — how much more so should it be acceptable with one witness. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 24:1) "for he has found in her a thing of nakedness." And it is written here "By word of two witnesses … will a thing be established" — Just as here, two (are required), so, there, two. How much more so (are two required for) the latter testimony (that she had secreted herself.) For if the first testimony, which does not forbid her universally (i.e., to her husband) is not valid with fewer than two, then the latter testimony, which does forbid her to her husband, how much more so is it invalid with fewer than two. This is the intent of (Bamidbar 5:13) "and there be no witness in her" (see there).
(דברים יט יד) לֹא תַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֲךָ, וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יט יג) ״לֹא תִגְזֹל״, וּמַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא תַסִּיג? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּל הָעוֹקֵר תְּחוּמוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִים.
(Devarim 19:14) "You shall not move back (into his own land, thus broadening your own), the boundary marker of your neighbor." Is it not already written (Vayikra 19:13) "You shall not rob"? What, then, is the intent of the above? We are hereby taught that one who removes his neighbor's boundary marker transgresses two negative commandments.
יָכוֹל בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּנַחֲלָתְךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּנְחַל. בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִים, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם לָאו אֶחָד בִּלְבַד.
I might think (that the same holds true) also outside of Eretz Yisrael; it is, therefore, written "in your inheritance that you shall inherit in the land." In Eretz Yisrael one transgresses two negative commandments. Outside of it he transgresses only one.
מִנַּיִן לָעוֹקֵר תְּחוּמִים שֶׁל שְׁבָטִים שֶׁעוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לֹא תַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֲךָ. מִנַּיִן לְמַחֲלִיף דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְלָאוֹמֵר עַל טָמֵא טָהוֹר וְעַל טָהוֹר טָמֵא – שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לֹא תַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֲךָ. מִנַּיִן לְמוֹכֵר קֶבֶר אֲבוֹתָיו שֶׁעוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לֹא תַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֲךָ. יָכוֹל אֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִקְבַּר בּוֹ אָדָם מֵעוֹלָם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּנַחֲלָתְךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּנְחַל, הָא אִם קָבַר בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ נֵפֶל אֶחָד בִּרְשׁוּת – עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
Whence is it derived that if one removes the bounds of the tribes he transgresses a negative commandment? From (Proverbs 22:28) "Do not remove the long-standing boundary marker (which your forefathers have established.") Whence is it derived that if one confuses the words of R. Eliezer with those of R. Yehoshua, and vice versa, pronouncing clean, unclean, or unclean, clean — that he transgresses a negative commandment? From "You shall not move back the boundary marker of your neighbor." Whence is it derived that one who sells the burial plot of his fathers transgresses a negative commandment? From "You shall not move back the boundary marker of your neighbor." I might think that this were so even if no one were ever buried there; it is, therefore, written "in your inheritance that you shall inherit"
(דברים יט טו) לֹא יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בָּאִישׁ, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, לְדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לְכָל עָוֹן,
(Ibid. 15) "One witness shall not arise against a man": This tells me only of capital offenses. Whence do I derive (the same for) the administration of stripes? From "for every transgression."
לְקָרְבָּנוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וּלְכָל חַטָּאת.
Whence do I derive (the same for cases involving) sacrifices? From "for every sin (-offering)."
לְמַכּוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּכָל חֵטְא אֲשֶׁר יֶחֱטָא.
Whence do I derive (the same for) confirming one as a Cohein or disqualifying him from the priesthood? From "in every fault."
לְהַעֲלוֹת לִכְהוּנָּה וּלְהוֹרִיד מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לְכָל עָוֹן וּלְכָל חַטָּאת.
Whence do I derive (the same for) monetary litigations? From "wherein he is amiss."
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא לְעֵדוּת אִישׁ, לְעֵדוּת אִשָּׁה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לְכָל עָוֹן וּלְכָל חַטָּאת בְּכָל חֵטְא אֲשֶׁר יֶחֱטָא. אִם סוֹפֵנוּ לְרַבּוֹת אִשָּׁה, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אִישׁ? לְעָוֹן אֵינוֹ קָם, קָם הוּא בָּאִשָּׁה לְהַשִּׂיאָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
This tells me only of testimony concerning a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) testimony concerning women and slaves? From "in every" "and in every." If in the end we include a woman, why is it written "a man"? He (a single witness) does arise for a woman (to testify that her husband has died) to (enable her) to wed (another). These are the words of R. Yehoshua.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לְעָוֹן אֵינוֹ קָם, קָם הוּא לִשְׁבוּעָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: קַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים – וּמָה אִם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין פִּיו מִצְטָרֵף עִם פִּי עֵד אֶחָד לְמִיתָה, הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. מָקוֹם שֶׁפִּיו מִצְטָרֵף עִם פִּי עֵד אֶחָד לְמָמוֹן, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא נִשְׁבָּע עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ? לָאו! מָה לְנִשְׁבָּע עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁכֵּן מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ. יִשָּׁבַע עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לְכָל עָוֹן, לְעָוֹן אֵינוֹ קָם, קָם הוּא לִשְׁבוּעָה!
R. Yossi says: He (a single witness) does not arise for a transgression, but he does arise for an oath (i.e., If one denies a debt to which there is a single witness, he must take an oath against the claim of the witness.) R. Yossi says: Kal vachomer (a fortiori): If in a situation where one's mouth (i.e., admission) does not combine with a single witness for death (i.e., If a single witness testifies that a man had killed, and the man himself admits that he had killed, the two do not combine [like two witnesses] to make him liable to the death penalty) — If (in such a situation) he does swear by his own admission [i.e., If a single witness testifies that a man owes another a hundred, and he admits to fifty, he must take an oath on the rest] — then, in a situation where one's admission does combine (to make him liable) for money (i.e., If a single witness testifies that a man owes another a hundred, and he himself admits to it, his admission does combine with that of the witness to make him liable for money), then how much more so is he liable for an oath on the testimony of a single witness, (and why is a verse needed to tell us this?) — No, (the kal vachomer can be refuted, viz.:) Why is it that he swears by his own admission? Because he pays by his own admission. Should he then swear by (the testimony of) a single witness, when he does not pay by the testimony of a single witness! The verse is needed, then, to tell us that a single witness does not arise for a transgression, but he does arise for an oath.
עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר, לֹא עַל פִּי כְתָבָם וְלֹא עַל פִּי תוּרְגְּמָן.
(Ibid. 15) "By word of two witnesses, or by word of three witnesses, shall a thing be established": not through their script or through their interpreter. "shall a thing be established": From here it was stated: R. Eliezer says: He forewarns her (a suspected wife) in the presence of two witnesses (not to secrete herself with the suspect), and causes her to drink (the bitter waters of the sotah) by the word of one witness (that she secreted herself).
עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: הַמְקַנֵּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מְקַנֵּא עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם וּמַשְׁקָהּ עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין: מָה אִם עֵדוּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ אוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִיסּוּר עוֹלָם – אֵין מִתְקַיֶּמֶת פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם, עֵדוּת הָאַחֲרוֹנָה, שֶׁאוֹסַרְתָּהּ אִסּוּר עוֹלָם – אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא תִתְקַיֵּם בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ״, כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה.
R. Yehoshua says: He forewarns her in the presence of two and causes her to drink by the word of two. For it would follow: If the latter testimony (that she had secreted herself), which forbids her universally (i.e., even to her husband), were by one witness, how much more so would the former testimony (to her forewarning), which does not forbid her universally (i.e., she is permitted to her husband) — how much more so should it be acceptable with one witness. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 24:1) "for he has found in her a thing of nakedness." And it is written here "By word of two witnesses … will a thing be established" — Just as here, two (are required), so, there, two. How much more so (are two required for) the latter testimony (that she had secreted herself.) For if the first testimony, which does not forbid her universally (i.e., to her husband) is not valid with fewer than two, then the latter testimony, which does forbid her to her husband, how much more so is it invalid with fewer than two. This is the intent of (Bamidbar 5:13) "and there be no witness in her" (see there).