The sugya is Sanhedrin 9b–10a and is in the form of a discussion around legal statements of the fourth-century Babylonian Amoraím R. Joseph and Rava. The term palginan be-dibbura means literally: ‘we (i.e. the Court or the Rabbis) divide up the word (e.g. of a witness's testimony)’. According to the Rabbinic interpretation of Deuteronomy 24: 16, the testimony of a man against his own near relative, his karov, is unacceptable, i.e., if a father testifies that his son has committed a crime that testimony is rejected. Again, according to the Rabbinic interpretation of: ‘put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness’ (Exodus 23: 1), a ‘wicked’ person, i.e. one who has committed a crime, cannot serve as a witness. Now it is held that a man is a karov (a ‘near relative’) to himself and consequently a man's confession that he has committed a crime is also rejected. If, therefore, a man testified in Court together with another (two witnesses being required in a criminal charge) that he has committed a crime, his own testimony against himself is rejected so that only one witness remains and he cannot be convicted. Supposing, now, A and B testify that C has committed sodomy with A and with A's consent so that A's testimony is, in fact, that he himself is ‘wicked’. Obviously, as above, A cannot be convicted on his own testimony, but can his testimony together with that of B serve to convict C? Since his testimony against himself is rejected he is not ‘wicked’ and, therefore, his testimony that C has committed sodomy is accepted.