MACCOTH (Fol. 3b) Samuel said to R. Mathna: "You shall not sit down until you have explained to me the sources upon which is based the Halacha of the Rabbis which says that if one lends money to his neighbor he shall not demand the loan before the expiration of thirty days, no matter whether it was a verbal or written loan." Whereupon he answered: "From the following passage (Deut. 15, 9) The seventh year, the year of release, etc. Is it not self-evident that the seventh year is the year of release? Why then the apposition? To show that there is another release similar to this one, and that is a loan without a term which cannot be demanded before thirty days, as the master said that thirty days of a year count for an entire year."
(Fol. 5b) MISHNAH: (Deut. 17, 6) Upon the evidence of two or of three witnesses, shall he that is to die, etc. If the evidence of two persons is sufficient, why does the Scripture mention three? To compare the evidence of two to that of three. Just as three are capable of making the [first] two witnesses guilty of collusion, so also are two in a position to make the [first] three witnesses guilty of collusion. And whence do we know that, even if they (the first) were a hundred persons, the evidence of two persons is sufficient? The passage says, Witnesses [without a number]. R. Simon, adds and says that just as in the case of two [witnesses], they cannot be put to death, until both of them are found guilty of collusion, so also does it apply in the case of three, that they cannot be put to death until all three are found guilty of collusion. And whence do we infer that such is the law even if their number reaches one hundred. The passage reads, Witnesses [without a number]. R. Akiba, however, maintains that the third witness mentioned in the Scripture was not for the purpose of making the punishment more lenient for him, but, on the contrary, for the purpose of making it more rigorous — [viz., lest one say since the testimony of two witnesses suffices, the evidence of the third is superfluous, and therefore, he ought not be punished at all. The Scripture mentions the third one in order] to make him equal with the former two. If the verse provides punishment for one who conjoins himself with transgressors, as if he were an accomplice himself, how much the more will this be applied to one who conjoins himself to those who are engaged in meritorious acts, that he will be rewarded as if he himself actually accomplished the same.
(Fol. 7) The Sanhedrin which executes a person once in seven years, is considered pernicious. R. Elazar b. Azaria said: "Even one that does so once in seventy years [is considered such]." Both R. Tarphon and R. Akiba say: "If we were among the Sanhedrin, a death sentence would never occur." To which R. Simon b. Gamaliel said: "Such scholars would only increase bloodshed in Israel."