When the Testimony of Two Witnesses Joins as One

It was taught: their testimony does not combine unless the two of them saw the event together. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha says: even one after the other. In what do they differ? You may say it is a matter of reasoning, or you may say it is a matter of Scripture. As reasoning: one master holds that the sum to which this one testifies is not the sum to which that one testifies; the other holds that both testify about the sum in general. As Scripture: "and he is a witness, whether he has seen or known" - and it was taught, from the implication of "a witness shall not stand up" (Deuteronomy 19:15), do I not know that he is one? What does "one" teach? It is a governing principle: wherever "witness" is said, two are meant, unless Scripture specifies one for you. So the Merciful One expressed it in the singular to say they must see as one. The other reads "and he is a witness, whether he has seen or known" as applying in any case. And their testimony does not combine unless both testify as one. Rabbi Natan says: we hear the words of this one today, and when his fellow comes tomorrow we hear his words. In what do they differ? As reasoning: one master holds that a single witness comes only to impose an oath, not to obligate money. The other holds: when two come together, do they really testify with one mouth? Rather we combine them; here too we combine them. As Scripture: "if he does not tell, he shall bear his iniquity" - and here the dispute is whether we liken the telling to the seeing: one master holds we do, the other holds we do not.