[א] "הודע אליו" – ולא שיודיעוהו אחרים (נ"א ולא שאמרו לו אחרים). אין לי אלא שאמרה לו שפחה; מנין אפילו אמרה לו אשה? – אוציא את שאמרה לו אשה, שאין אשה כשרה לעדות; מנין אפילו אמרו לו קרובים? – אוציא את שאמרו לו קרובים שאין כשרים להעיד בו; מנין אפילו אמר לו עד אחד? – אוציא את שאמר לו עד אחד שאין מחייבו אלא שבועה; מנין אפילו אמרו לו שנים? תלמוד לומר "הודע אליו" – ולא שיודיעהו אחרים.
1) (Vayikra 4:23) ("If his sin becomes known to him wherein he has sinned in it"): "becomes known" — and not that others tell him. If not for this clause I would say (that he does not bring a sin-offering) only if his bondswoman, (who is "not fit to enter the congregation") informs him (that he has sinned). Whence would I derive (the same) even for his wife informing him? I would exclude his wife (even without the clause), for a woman is not kasher to testify. Whence would I derive (the same) even for relatives informing him? I would exclude relatives, who are not kasher to testify. Whence would I derive (the same) even for a single witness? I would exclude a single witness, who can only make one liable for an oath. Whence would I exclude even two witnesses? It is, therefore, written, (because I would not exclude them otherwise): "becomes known to him" — and not that others tell him.
[א] "הודע אליו" – ולא שיודיעוהו אחרים (נ"א ולא שאמרו לו אחרים). אין לי אלא שאמרה לו שפחה; מנין אפילו אמרה לו אשה? – אוציא את שאמרה לו אשה, שאין אשה כשרה לעדות; מנין אפילו אמרו לו קרובים? – אוציא את שאמרו לו קרובים שאין כשרים להעיד בו; מנין אפילו אמר לו עד אחד? – אוציא את שאמר לו עד אחד שאין מחייבו אלא שבועה; מנין אפילו אמרו לו שנים? תלמוד לומר "הודע אליו" – ולא שיודיעהו אחרים.
1) (Vayikra 4:23) ("If his sin becomes known to him wherein he has sinned in it"): "becomes known" — and not that others tell him. If not for this clause I would say (that he does not bring a sin-offering) only if his bondswoman, (who is "not fit to enter the congregation") informs him (that he has sinned). Whence would I derive (the same) even for his wife informing him? I would exclude his wife (even without the clause), for a woman is not kasher to testify. Whence would I derive (the same) even for relatives informing him? I would exclude relatives, who are not kasher to testify. Whence would I derive (the same) even for a single witness? I would exclude a single witness, who can only make one liable for an oath. Whence would I exclude even two witnesses? It is, therefore, written, (because I would not exclude them otherwise): "becomes known to him" — and not that others tell him.