Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin Chapter 5

הָיוּ בוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁבוּעַ בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁנָה בְּאֵי זֶה חֹדֶשׁ בְּכַמָּה בַחֹדֶשׁ בְּאֵי זֶה יוֹם בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁעָה בְּאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בְּאֵי זֶה יוֹם בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁעָה בְּאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם מַכִּירִין אַתֶּם אוֹתוֹ וְהִתְרֵיתֶם בּוֹ. הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֶת מֶה עָבַד וּבַמֶּה עָבַד: הָיוּ בוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת כול׳. וְלֹא תַנִּינָן. בְּאֵי זֶה יוֹבֵל. שֶׁאֵין הַדָּבָר מָצוּי. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוּחַי אוֹמֵר. אַף בְּאֵי זֶה יוֹבֵל. וְקַיְימוּנָהּ בָּהוּא דְעָאַל וּבָהוּא דִנְפַק. מְנַיִין לְשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת. תַּנָּא שְׁמוּאֵל הַזָּקֵן קוּמֵי רִבִּי אָחָא. וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְחָקַרְתָּ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ הֵיטֵב וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לָא תְהֵא קְרָא וַאֲזִיל אֶלָּא וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְחָקַרְתָּ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ הֵיטֵב וְהוּגַּד לְךָ וְשָׁמָעְתָּ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ הֵיטֵב. הֵיטֵב הֵיטֵב לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. לִיתֵּן [לְ]כָל אַחַת וְאַחַת שְׁמוּעָה שְׁאֵלָה דְּרִישָׁה וַחֲקִירָה. רִבִּי יִצְחָק מַקְשֵׁי לָהּ. הֲווֹן תְּפִיסִין בְּחַד לֵיסְטֵיס דְּטִיבֵּרִיָּא אָמְרִין. כְּדוֹן קְטוֹל כְּדוֹן קְטַל. וּמְנַיִין לָזֶה שֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת. אִיסִּי אָמַר. כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאִילּוּ הָעֵדִים יְכוֹלִין לְהִזְדַּמֵּם עַל אוֹתָהּ עֵדוּת אֵין הַהוֹרֵג נֶהֱרָג. מַכִּירִין אַתֶּם אוֹתוֹ. מֶה הָיָה. גּוֹי הָיָה אוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נֶהֱרַג מִטִּיבֵּרִיָּא לְצִיפּוֹרִי חֲזָקָה שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה. הִתְרֵיתֶם בּוֹ. מְנַיִין לְהַתְרָיָיה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ. חֶסֶד הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן. קַיִן נָשָׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ. הֶבֶל נָשָׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ. חֶסֶד עָשִׂיתִי עִם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁיִיבָּנֶה עוֹלָם מֵהֶן. כִּי אָמַרְתִּי עוֹלָם חֶסֶד יִבָּנֶה. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר. עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת. [וְכִי] הַמֵּת מֵת. אֶלָּא לְהוֹדִיעוֹ בְּאֵי זוֹ מִיתָה מֵת. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוּדָה בֵירִבִּי אִלְעַאי אוֹמֵר. וְכִי יָזִיד אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ לְהוֹרְגוֹ בְעָרְמָה. שֶׁיַּעֲרִימוּהוּ בְּאֵי זוֹ מִיתָה מֵת. הָיְתָה מִיתָתוֹ בַחֲמוּרָה וְהִתְרוּ בוֹ בַּקַּלָּה. יְכִיל מֵימַר. אִילּוּ הֲוָה יְדַע שֶׁמִּיתָתוֹ בַחֲמוּרָה לָא הֲוָה עֲבַד הָדָא מִילְּתָא. הָיָה מִיתָתוֹ בַקַּלָּה וְהִתְרוּהוּ בַּחֲמוּרָה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן בֵירִבִּי אִילְעַאי שֶׁיַּעֲרִימוּהוּ בְּאֵי זוֹ מִיתָה מֵת. הָיוּ מַתְרִין בּוֹ וְשׁוֹתֵק. מַתְרִין בּוֹ וּמַרְכִין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאוֹמֵר יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי. פָּטוּר. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר. עַל מְנָת כֵּן אֲנִי עוֹשֶׂה. רָאוּהוּ שׁוֹפֵךְ דָּם. אָ‍מְרוּ לוֹ. הֲוֵי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבֶּן בְּרִית הוּא וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה שׁוֹפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר. יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי. פָּטוּר עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר. עַל מְנָת כֵּן אֲנִי עוֹשֶׂה. רָאוּהוּ מְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ. הֲוֵי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא שַׁבָּת וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר. יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי. פָּטוּר. עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר. עַל מְנָת כֵּן אֲנִי עוֹשֶׂה. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר גַּמְדָּא שָׁאַל. מְקוֹשֵׁשׁ מִשּׁוּם מַאי מִיחַיֵיב. מִשּׁוּם תּוֹלֵשׁ אוֹ מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיִּמְצְאוּ. מְלַמֵּד שֶּׁמְצָאוּהוּ תוֹלֵשׁ עֵצִים מִן הַקַּרְקַע. רִבִּי חִיָיה בַּר גַּמְדָּא שָׁאַל. מְקוֹשֵׁשׁ בַּמֶּה הִיא מִיתָתוֹ. בִּסְקִילָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. יוֹדְעִין הָיוּ שֶׁמְקוֹשֵׁשׁ חַיָיב מִיתָה וְלֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין בַּמֶּה הָיְתָה מִיתָתוֹ. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵי רִבִּי חִיָיה. הוֹצֵא אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה. בַּמֶּה הָיְתָה מִיתָתוֹ. בִּסְקִילָה. אֶת מֶה עָבַד. לִפְעוֹר אוֹ לְמֶרְקוּלִיס. בַּמֶּה עָבְדָהּ. בַּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ עָבְדָהּ אוֹ בַעֲבוֹדַת גָּבוֹהַּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ. רָאִינוּ זֶה עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין פְּעוֹר הָיָה אוֹ מֶרְקוּלִיס הָיָה. דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ בִשְׁתֵּיהֶן וּבְאֵי זוֹ מִזְדַּכֶּה פוֹטְרִין אוֹתוֹ.

MISHNAH: 47 (1977) 29–90, 321–329, compared to the Leiden text. Additions from this text will be denoted G. They were investigating him in seven ways “Who? What? Where? By means of what? For what purpose? How? When?” But questions 4,5,6 are reserved for cross-examination, not investigation (cf. Chapter 4, Note 1 ) (E. G.). : In which Sabbatical period, in which year, in which month, which day of the month, which day, which hour, at which place? Rebbi Yose said, which day, which hour, which place, do you recognize him, and did you warn him? If one worshipped idols, what did he worship and how did he worship? HALAKHAH: “They were investigating him in seven ways,” etc. But we did not state, in which Jubilee period? For that is not current 1:1 Note 7 , Qiddušin 1:2 Notes 190–191 ) except possibly for the determination of Sabbatical periods, one cannot assume that the witnesses were able to determine the year by its position in a Jubilee period. . It was found stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, also in which Jubilee period? We confirmed that in a year which started or concluded [a Jubilee period]. From where the seven investigations? Samuel the Elder stated before Rebbi Aḥa: You shall inquire, investigate, ask in depth, and behold, the matter is well founded . 13:15 . The judicial inquiry is described by seven words. . He told him, this verse does not work; but: you shall inquire, investigate, ask in depth; it will be told to you, you shall listen, ask in depth . 17:4 . . In depth, in depth for an equal cut, to require in each case listening, asking, inquiry, and investigation. 93. . Rebbi Isaac asked about this: If they caught an armed robber in Tiberias and said, this is the murderer, this is the murdered; why does this need seven investigations? Issi said, any time that the witnesses could not be proven perjured, the murderer cannot be executed on that testimony. “Do you recognize him?” Who was he, a Gentile or an Israel? Let us hear from what Rebbi Joḥanan said: If he was slain between Tiberias and Sepphoris, it is prima facie evidence that he was an Israel ( Nazir 7:1 ). . “Did you warn him?” From where warning? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: . 20:17 . In a slightly different setting, this paragraph also is in Yebamot 11:1, Notes 25–26 . Incest with one’s sister is criminal (although by the earthly court only punishable by flogging) while it was permitted to earlier generations. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that everybody knows it to be prohibited. People found engaged in incestuous acts cannot be prosecuted unless before the act informed of its criminality. A man who would take his sister …, it is ḥesed. Rebbi Bun said, Cain married his sister, Abel married his sister. It is charitable , I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; I said, the world was to be built on ḥesed. 89:3 . . It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, by the mouth of two witnesses shall the dead die . 17:6 . In the Babli, this is an Amoraic argument. The verse is read as: by the mouth of two witnesses shall the dead kill himself , i. e., in the presence of two witnesses he accepts to be killed. . Does he die when dead? But to tell him by which kind of death he will be executed. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Illai said, and if a man intentionally kill his neighbor knowingly . 21:14 , Babli 41a . Babli and Mekhiltot read the verse as freeing the mentally disabled from prosecution. ; they shall inform him by which kind of death he will be executed. If his death should have been a severe one but they warned him about an easy one. He could say that had he known that his death was to be severe, he would not have committed that crime. If his death should have been an easy one but they warned him about a severe one; in the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Illai they have to inform him by which kind of death he will be executed. “If they warned him and he remained silent, they warned him and he nodded his head, even if he said, I know, he cannot be prosecuted unless he say: for that purpose I am doing it.” “If they saw him spilling blood; they told him, know that he is a son of the Covenant and the Torah said, he who spills a man’s blood, by man his blood shall be spilled . 9:6 . The quote seems to be slightly out of place since it is directed at Gentile criminal courts which are not under the severe restrictions imposed at Torah courts. , even if he said, I know, he cannot be prosecuted unless he say: for that purpose I am doing it.” “If they saw him desecrating the Sabbath; they told him, know that today is Sabbath and the Torah said, its desecrators shall be put to death . 31:14 . , even if he said, I know, he cannot be prosecuted unless he say: for that purpose I am doing it.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked. 15:32–36 ) shows that the Tosephta was correct in requiring only a general warning. : What was the gatherer’s guilt? Because of tearing off or because of reaping 7:2–4) only reaping is mentioned, which means cutting off the produce from its root. All forms of harvesting are forbidden as derivatives of reaping. The question remains whether a warning about tearing off from the ground would also cover reaping; a warning about reaping certainly covers all forms of harvesting. ? Let us hear from the following: The Children of Israel were in the desert when they found … This teaches that he was tearing wood off the ground. 113. . Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked: How was the gatherer put to death? By stoning. Let us hear from the following 14(5 ). : “They knew that the gatherer should be executed but they did not know how he should be put to death.” It was found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Take the blasphemer outside the camp . 24:14 . This proves that from the pentateuchal stories nothing can be inferred for the rules of procedure required at later times. While it was known that a Sabbath infraction was punishable by death ( Note 28 ), nothing was known about the penalty for blasphemy. Therefore, the first time these crimes occurred after the epiphany on Sinai, the law was only being formed; it was not yet consolidated ( Babli 78b ). . How was he put to death? By stoning. “What did he worship?” Peor or Mercury was by defecating in front of his statue; the worship of Mercurius , the Greek Hermes , was by throwing an additional stone on the heap surrounding the Hermes , the pillar representing the divinity. Both forms of worship would be an insult if performed for any other idol and, therefore, not punishable. ? “And how did he worship?” In its proper worship or the worship of Heaven? Let us hear from the following: It happened that two [witnesses] came and said, we saw that this one was worshipping idols, but we do not know whether it was Peor or Mercury. One judges him for both and for the one in which he was found innocent one lets him go.

כָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִבְדִּיקוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּבָּח. מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָדַק בֶּן זַכַּאי בְּעוּקְצֵי תְאֵנִים. וּמַה בֵּין חֲקִירוֹת לִבְדִיקוֹת. אֶלָּא שֶׁבַּחֲקִירוֹת אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. בְּדִיקוֹת אָמַר אֶחָד אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין עֵדוּתָן קַיֶימֶת. אֶחָד חֲקִירוֹת וְאֶחָד בְּדִיקוֹת בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מַכְחִישִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה: כָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִבְדִּיקוֹת כול׳. בַּמֶּה לִקְטָן. בְּעוּקְצֵיהֶן לִקְטָן. בַּמֶּה אֲכָלָן. בְּגַלְעִינֵיהֶן. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. מִי שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים מְעִידִין. אֵילּוּ מְעִידִין שֶׁנָּזַר שְׁתַּיִם וְאֵילּוּ מְעִידִין שֶׁנָּזַר חָמֵשׁ. בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. נֶחְלְקָה עֵדוּתָן. אֵין כָּאן נְזִירוּת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. יֵשׁ בִּכְלָל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם. וִיהֵא נָזִיר שְׁתַּיִם. רַב אָמַר. בִּכְלָל נֶחְלְקוּ. אֲבָל בִּפְרָט כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדוּ נֶחְלְקָה הָעֵדוּתָ. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּמוֹנֶה נֶחְלְקוּ. אֲבָל בְּכוֹלֵל כָּל עַמָּא מוֹדוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בִּכְלָל חָמֵשׁ שְׁתַּיִם. הֵידֵינוֹ כוֹלֵל וְהֵידֵינוֹ מוֹנֶה. כּוֹלֵל. אָהֵן אוֹמֵר תַּרְתֵּי וְאָהֵן אָמַר חָמֵשׁ. מוֹנֶה. אָהֵן אָמַר חָדָא תַרְתֵּי. וְאָהֵן אָמַר תְּלַת אַרְבָּעֵי. רַב אָמַר. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת לֹא בָטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָּטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת לְאַחַר עֵדוּת לֹא בָטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. חֵיילֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵהָדָא. דָּמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הוּחְזַק הַמּוֹנֶה. זֶה אוֹמֵר. מִן הַכִּיס מָנָה. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר. מִן הַצְּרוֹר מָנָה. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת אוֹף רַב מוֹדֶה שֶׁבָּטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים. אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. מִן הַכִּיס מָנָה. וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. מִצְּרוֹר מָנָה. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָּטְלָה עֵדוּת. וּכְרַב לֹא בָטְלָה עֵדוּת. אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. לְתוֹךְ חֵיקוֹ מָנָה. וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. לְתוֹךְ פּוּנְדָּתוֹ מָנָה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת לֹא בָטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בַּסַּיִיף הֲרָגוֹ. וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר. בַּמַּקֵּל הֲרָגוֹ. הַכְחֵשׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת אוֹף רַב מוֹדֶה שֶׁבָּטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי כִיתֵּי עֵדִים. אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. בַּסַּיִיף. וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. בַּמַּקֵּל. הַכְחֵשׁ עֵדוּת בְּתוֹךְ עֵדוּת בָּטְלָה עֵדוּת. וּכְרַב לֹא בָטְלָה עֵדוּת. אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. לַצָּפוֹן נָטָה. וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת. לַדָּרוֹם פָּנָה. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּת לְאַחַר עֵדוּת לֹא בָטְלָה הָעֵדוּת. חֵיְילֵיהּ דְּרַב מֵהָדָא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. רִבִּי יוּדָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִין. הוֹאִיל וְזוֹ וָזוֹ מוֹדוֹת שֶׁאֵינוֹ קַיָים יִנָּשֵׂאוּ. וְלֹא שְׁמִיעַ דָּמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּעֵדִים. מַה בֵין עֵדִים וּמַה בֵין צָרָה. לֹא עָשׂוּ דִּבְרֵי צָרָה בַחֲבֵירָתָהּ כְּלוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִין אָמְרָהּ רִבִּי לָעְזָר מִינִּי שְׁמָעָהּ וַאֲמָרָהּ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רַב. אֶחָד חֲקִירוֹת וְאֶחָד בְּדִיקוֹת בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכְחִישִׁין זֶה לָזֶה עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. מָה עֲבַד לָהּ רַב. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. פָּתַר לָהּ רָב עֵד בְּעֵד. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. אֲפִילוּ יִפְתָּר כַּת בְּכַת שַׁנְיָיא הִיא לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּכְתִיב צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדּוֹף.

MISHNAH: Anybody who adds inquiries is praiseworthy. It happened that Ben Zakkai cross-examined about fig stalks. What is the difference between investigations and cross-examinations? In investigations, if one said “I do not know”, their testimony is worthless. In cross-examinations, if one said “I do not know”, or even two say “we do not know,” their testimony remains valid. Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless. HALAKHAH: “Anybody who adds inquiries,” etc. How did he pluck them? He plucked them with their stalks. How did he eat them? With their pits. 15:5 (Notes 115–134 ) and Nazir 3:7 (Notes 110–112 ). There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group say that he vowed nazir twice, the others say that he vowed nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut there. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that the testimony is split. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that five contains two. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four. Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one [witness] said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one [witness] said, he killed him with a sword, the other [witness] said, he killed him with a mace, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony be void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a mace. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rebbi Eleazar said, Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if Rebbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rebbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rebbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: Justice, justice you shall pursue .

אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁנַיִם בַּחֹדֶשׁ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁלשָׁה בַחֹדֶשׁ עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּמֶת שֶׁזֶּה יוֹדֵעַ בְּעִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל חֹדֶשׁ וְזֶה לֹא יָדַע. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁלשָׁה וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁתֵּי שָׁעוֹת וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּשָׁלשׁ שָׁעוֹת עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּמֶת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּשָׁלשׁ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּחָמֵשׁ עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר קַיֶימֶת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּחָמֵשׁ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּשֶׁבַע עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה שֶׁבְּחָמֵשׁ חַמָּה בַמִּזְרָח וּבְשֶׁבַע בַּמַּעֲרָב: אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁנַיִם בַּחוֹדֶשׁ כול׳. עַד הֵיכָא. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עַד רוֹב הַחוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כְּגוֹן הָעִירֹנִין הַלָּלוּ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֵינָן כְּלוּם. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא. כְּגוּן אֲנָא דְמִן יוֹמוֹי לָא צְלִית מוּסָפָא מִן דְלָא יְדַע אֵימַת יַרְחָא. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָן מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָה דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן. זֶה חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר. יָכוֹל מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשָׁךְ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אַךְ חִלֵּק. הָא כֵיצַד. תֶּן לוֹ שָׁעָה אַחַת קוֹדֶם שְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. אַךְ בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן. זֶה אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר. יָכוֹל כָּל הַיּוֹם. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אַךְ חִלֵּק. חֶצְיוֹ לְחָמֵץ וְחֶצְיוֹ לְמַצָּה. מִחְלֶפֶת שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי מֵאִיר. תַּמָּן אָמַר. אַךְ לְרַבּוֹת. וָכָא אָמַר. אַךְ לָמָעֵט. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבוּדַּמֵי. מִיעֲטוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵחָמֵץ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ. עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ. עַל עֲשִׂיָיתוֹ. רִבִּי יוּדָן אִית לֵיהּ עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ. עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל בִּיעוּרוֹ. עֲשֵׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ. שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת. לֹא חָמֵץ. כָּל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּא מִכֹּחַ עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה הוּא. וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ. לֹא תֹאכַל חָמֵץ. עֲשֵׂה עַל בִּיעוּרוֹ. שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּשְׁבִּיתוּ שְׂאוֹר מִבָּתֵּיכֶם. לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל בִּיעוּרוֹ. שִׁבְעַת יָמִים שְׂאוֹר לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְּבָתֵּיכֶם. הָא רִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. שִׁשִּׁית אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם גָּדֵר. חֲמִישִּׁית לָמָּה. מִשּׁוּם גָּדֵר. וְיֵשׁ גָּדֵר לְגָדֵר. אֶלָּא חֲמִישִּׁית מִתְחַלֶּפֶת בַשְּׁבִיעִית. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּת רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. תַּמָּן אָמַר. אֵין חֲמִישִּׁית מִתְחַלֶּפֶת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. וָכָא אָמַר. חֲמִישִּׁית מִתְחַלֶּפֶת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּמָּן הַדָּבָר מָסוּר לַנָּשִׁים וְהֵן עֲצֵילוֹת. הָכָא הַדָּבָר מָסוּר לְבֵית דִּין וְהֵן זְרִיזִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תַּמָּן תְּחִילַּת חֲמִישִּׁית סוֹף שְׁבִיעִית. הָכָא סוֹף חֲמִישִּׁית תְּחִילַּת שְׁבִיעִית. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. תְּחִילַּת חָמֵשׁ חַמָּה בַמִּזְרָח וְסוֹף שֶׁבַע חַמָּה בַמַּעֲרָב. לְעוֹלָם אֵין חַמָּה נוֹטָה לְמַעֲרָב אֶלָּא בְסוֹף שֶׁבַע.

MISHNAH: One says, on the second of the month, but the other says, on the third of the month, their testimony may be valid, since one knew about the addition to the month but the other did not know 8b–10a ) admitted up to four variable months. It is up to the court to determine whether the witnesses intended to testify about one and the same day. . One says on the third, the other says on the fifth, their testimony is invalid. One says, at two hours but the other said at three hours, their testimony is valid. One says at three but the other says at five, their testimony is invalid; Rebbi Jehudah says it is valid. One says at five but the other says at seven, their testimony is invalid since at five hours the sun is in the East but at seven in the West. HALAKHAH: “One says, on the second of the month,” etc. Until when? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Up to the greater part of the month. Rebbi Yose said, e. g., those village dwellers. But the Sages say, it is nothing, and Rebbi Yasa said, for example I, who never in my life prayed musaf , since I do not know when the month starts. 1:4 . The scribe of the Leiden ms., after the text translated here in the first 5 paragraphs, wrote: “one continues in Sanhedrin until ˋthe sun never starts setting’.” The corrector who prepared the ms. for the Venice printer added the omitted portion; his text differs from the one given here by both an addition and a lacuna. It is impossible to decide whether the corrector’s Pesahim text is copied from a different ms. or represents the corrector’s emendations of the Sanhedrin text. In neither text is the use of references “here” and “there” (either Pesaḥim or Sanhedrin ) completely consistent. Rebbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rebbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical 1:4 , R. Meïr states that “one eats [leavened bread] during all of the fifth hour (between 10 and 11 am local time) and burns the remainder at the start of the sixth hour (shortly after 11 am). R. Jehudah says, one eats during the entire fourth hour (9 to 10 am local time), one suspends leavened matter during the fifth hour and burns the remainder at the start of the sixth. (“Suspending” means that eating leavened matter is forbidden but usufruct is permitted.) The anonymous majority in Sanhedrin 5:3 is presumed to represent R. Meïr’s opinion. The question now remains whether the disagreement between R. Meïr and R. Jehudah in Sanhedrin is the same as in Pesahim or not. . What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? Only on the first day . 12:15 : Seven days you shall eat mazzot ; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”. , that is the fifteenth. 12:14 states: This day shall be a remembrance for you ; you shall keep it as a holiday of pilgrimage for the Eternal … Num. 28:15–16 require that the 14 of Nisan be pesah for the Eternal; starting from the 15 for seven days it is the holiday of mazzot. Since pesaḥ (i. e., the day of the slaughter of the pesah sacrifice) is connected inextricably with the holiday of mazzot , the reference in v. 14 to the “first day” is intrinsically ambiguous, whether it refer to pesaḥ or to the holiday. . I could think at nightfall; the verse says only , to separate 4b , Mekhilta dR . Ismael (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 28), Mekhilta dR . Simeon b . Ioḥai (ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 17). . How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Only on the first day . 12:15 : Seven days you shall eat mazzot ; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”. , that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only , to separate. Half for leavened matter, half for mazzah . Rebbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. 12:16 : … no work shall be done [ on the holidays ], only what may be eaten by any soul , it alone may be made by you. Everybody agrees that food may be prepared on a holiday. According to R. Meïr (i. e., the anonymous opinion in Mishnah Megillah 1:8 ) only food may be prepared, not preparations necessary for the preparation of food. According to R. Jehudah ( Megillah 1:8 ), anything that in the end leads to preparation of food is permitted on a holiday. R. Meïr reads only as a restriction in v. 16 and as an addition in v. 15! . Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, lest it be for text בחמץ instead of מחמץ. The extension of a prohibition parallels the restriction of a permission. leavened matter. Rebbi Meïr said, do not eat leavened matter with it . 16:3 , referring to the pesah sacrifice which is slaughtered on the afternoon of the 14 and eaten in the night of the 15. , while it is eaten. Rebbi Jehudah said, do not eat leavened matter with it , while it is prepared. 130. . Rebbi Jehudah has both a positive and a negative commandment concerning its eating. , a positive and a negative commandment concerning its removal. A positive commandment concerning its eating, seven days you shall eat unleavened bread for it . 16:3 , referring to the pesah sacrifice which is slaughtered on the afternoon of the 14 and eaten in the night of the 15. , not leavened. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of positive commandment 1:5, Note 103 . If a positive commandment is in conflict with a negative one (a prohibition), the positive is stronger. But an obligation which is both positive and negative is stronger than anything else. . A negative commandment concerning its eating, do not eat leavened . 16:3 ; the word עָלָיו is missing here, supplied in Pesahim . . A positive commandment concerning its removal, seven days … you shall remove sour dough from your houses . 12:15 : Seven days you shall eat mazzot ; only on the first day you shall eliminate sour dough from your houses … אַךְ might also be translated as “certainly”. . A negative commandment concerning its removal, for seven days sour dough shall not be found in your houses . 12:19 . . Now Rebbi Meïr says, after noontime it is forbidden because of their words. The ; those in brackets are the corrected ones from Pesaḥim . For R. Meïr, the biblical prohibition of leavened matter starts at the 11 hour (5 pm local time). The earlier afternoon hours, including the 7th, are rabbinically forbidden as a “fence around the law”. Then it is difficult to understand why leavened matter has to be burned at the start of the 6, extending the rabbinic prohibition for another hour as a fence around the fence, a practice generally rejected. (sixth) [seventh] hour it is forbidden because of a fence. Why the (fifth) [sixth]? Because of a fence. Is there a fence around a fence? But the (fifth) [sixth] may be confounded with the seventh 5:3 . In a society without watches the difference between 11am and 12am is not generally recognized; a prohibition enforced after noontime must practically be enforced starting from 11am. . Rebbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There. R. Jehudah agrees that while without watches people cannot distinguish between two morning or two afternoon hours, he explicitly agrees that people distinguish between fifth (10–11am) and seventh (12am–1pm). , he says that the fifth cannot be confounded with the seventh. But here he requires one to stop eating leavened matter two hours before the start of the seventh hour when the biblical prohibition begins. , he says that the fifth can be confounded with the seventh. Rebbi Yose said, there one speaks of household chores. the matter is given over to women who are lazy, here the Mishnah does not require the court to accept any testimonies where the witnesses differ widely in fixing the time of a crime; R. Jehudah admonishes the court under certain circumstances to investigate whether the witnesses do not in reality testify about the same time; Babli Pesaḥim 12b . the matter is given over to the court who is careful. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, there the Mishnah does not require the court to accept any testimonies where the witnesses differ widely in fixing the time of a crime; R. Jehudah admonishes the court under certain circumstances to investigate whether the witnesses do not in reality testify about the same time; Babli Pesaḥim 12b . it is a matter between the beginning of the fifth and the end of the seventh hour. Here he requires one to stop eating leavened matter two hours before the start of the seventh hour when the biblical prohibition begins. it is between the end of the fifth and the start of the seventh the period of doubt is little more than 60 min., in Sanhedrin close to 180 min. The apparent inconsistency is due to the informal use of “hour.” . It also was stated thus is in Pesahim 12b . : At the start of the fifth hour, the sun is in the East, and the end of the seventh the sun is in the West. The sun never starts setting before the end of the seventh hour.

הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶן מְכֻוָּנִין פּוֹתְחִין בִּזְכוּת. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו חוֹבָה מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֵשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת מַעֲלִין וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בֵּינֵיהֶן וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד מִשָּׁם כָּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ. אִם יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר הוּא יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו: הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁינִי כול׳. תַּנֵּי. אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת פְּטָרוּהוּ וְאִם לָאו מַעֲבִירִין דִּינוֹ וּמִזְדַּוְּוגִין זוּגוֹת וּמְמַעֲטִין בְּמַאֲכָל וְלֹא הָיוּ שׁוֹתִין יַיִן וְנוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין כָּל הַלַּיְלָה. וּלְמָחָר מַשְׁכִּימִין וּבָאִין. וַחֲזָנֵי כְנֵיסִיּוֹת מְחַזְּרִין אַחֲרֵיהֶן וְאוֹמְרִין. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי [בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלֹנִי. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר. בִּמְקוֹמִי אֲנִי.] מְחַיֵיב הָיִיתִי וּמְחַיֵיב אֲנִי. מְזַכֶּה הָיִיתִי וּמְזַכֶּה אֲנִי. מְחַיֵיב הָיִיתִי וּמְזַכֶּה אֲנִי. שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. מְזַכֶּה הָיִיתִי וּמְחַיֵיב אֲנִי. לַמֵּד תְּחִילָּה. תַּנֵּי. טָעָה אֶחָד מִן הַדַּיָינִין. אִם הָיָה מְזַכֶּה סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָינִין מַזְכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם הָיָה מְחַיֵיב אוֹמְרִין לוֹ. לַמֵּד תְּחִילָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. מִפְּנֵי מַה כוֹתְבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכֶּה. מִפְּנֵי הַמְחַיֵיב. שֶׁמָּא תִיטָּרֵף דַּעְתּוֹ. וְאִין חֲלִיף מִילָּא יֵימְרוּן לֵיהּ. הָדָא אָמְרָת הָדָא לָא אָמְרָת. [הָדָה אָמְרָה]. צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי [כִיתֵּי] עֵדִים. נִמְצָא דִינוֹ מִשְׁתַּקֵּעַ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי הַמְזַכֶּה.

MISHNAH: They brought in the second [witness] and examined him. If their testimonies were coherent, one starts with arguing for acquittal. If one of the witnesses said, I have an argument for his acquittal, or one of the students said, I have an argument for his conviction, one forces them to be silent. If one of the students said, I have an argument for his acquittal, one brings him up and lets him sit among them. He was not demoted from there the entire day; if his argument has substance, one listens to him. Even if he said, I have to argue for my acquittal, one listens to him if there is substance to his words. HALAKHAH: They brought in the second,” etc. It was stated: “If they found him innocent, they freed him; otherwise they hold his case over, split into groups of two, eat little and refrain from wine, and discuss during the entire night. The next morning they start early, the beadles of the synagogues come for them. They ask, Mr. X [ben Mr. Y. He says, present.] I was for conviction and I still am for conviction; or I was for acquittal and I still am for acquittal; I was for conviction and now I am for acquittal; one accepts his vote. I was for acquittal and now I am for conviction; argue as before.” It was stated: If one of the judges erred, the clerks of court remind him. If he was for conviction, they tell him, argue as before. Rabbi La said, why does one record the argument of him who argues for acquittal? Because of him who argues for conviction, maybe his memory will fail him. If he switches his argument, they could say to him, this you said, this you did not say. [Does this mean] that it needs two [groups of] witnesses? It would mean that the trial would be extended. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of him who argues for acquittal.

אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת פְּטָרוּהוּ. וְאִם לָאו מַעֲבִירִין דִּינוֹ לְמָחָר. וּמִזְדַּוְּוגִין זוּגוֹת זוּגוֹת מְמַעֲטִין בְּמַאֲכָל וְלֹא הָיוּ שׁוֹתִין יַיִן כָּל הַיּוֹם וְנוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין בַּדָּבָר כָּל הַלַּיְלָה וְלַמָּחֳרָת מַשְׁכִּימִין וּבָאִין הַמְזַכֶּה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי הוּא הַמְזַכֶּה וּמְזַכֶּה אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי. וְהַמְחַיֵיב אוֹמֵר אֲנִי הוּא הַמְחַיֵיב וּמְחַיֵיב אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי. הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת. אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. וְאִם טָעוּ בַדָּבָר שְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּנִין מַזְכִּירִין אוֹתָן. וְאִם לָאו עוֹמְדִים לַמִּנְיָין. שְׁנֵי עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאַחַר עָשָׂר מְחַיְיבִין זַכַּאי. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְחַיְיבִין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וַאֲפִילּוּ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ מְחַיְיבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ יוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָינִים. עַד כַּמָּה מוֹסִיפִין שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם עַד שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. שְׁלשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְזַכִּין וּשְׁלשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְחַיְיבִין זַכַּאי. שְׁלשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְחַיְיבִין וּשְׁלשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְזַכִּין דָּנִין אֵילּוּ כְּנֶגֶד אֵילּוּ עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אֶחָד הַמְחַיְיבִין אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין: אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת פְּטָרוהוּ כול׳. תַּנֵּי. אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים שֶׁאָמַר. יֵשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת. וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וְסִיְיעוֹ וּבָא חֲבֵירוֹ וְסִיְיעוֹ. אֶת מִי מְמַנִּין. לָרִאשׁוֹן לַשֵּׁינִי לִשְׁנֵיהֶן. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְהוּא שֶׁנִּזְדַּכֶּה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ אֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ דַיָין. הֲרֵי שֶׂנִּזְדַּכֶּה מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ וְנִמְצָא עֵד וְדַיָין לֹא מָצִינוּ עֵד נַעֲשֶׂה דַיָין. אוֹמְרִים בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת. נִזְדַּקֲּן הַדִּין. [וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת נִזְדַּקֲּן הַדִּין.] וְהַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבַּדַּיָינִין אוֹמֵר. נִזְדַּקֲּן הַדִּין. עַד כַּמָּה מוֹסִיפִין כול׳. תַּנֵּי. לָמָּה מוֹסִיפִין דַּיָינִין. שֶׁאִם הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מְזַכִּין וְאֶחָד מִן הָאַחֲרוֹנִים לִיגָּמֵר הַדִּין בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּרְאֶה דִינוֹ לִיגָּמֵר בְּאַרְבָּעָה אֵין גּוֹמְרִין אוֹתוֹ בִשְׁלֹשָׁה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְתִשְׁמַע מִינָהּ. שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁדָּנוּ וּמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן. חוֹתְמִין בִּשְׁנַיִם וְכוֹתְבִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָתַמְנוּ בִשְׁנַיִם בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דָנַנּוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. הַדַּיָינִין חוֹתְמִין בּוֹ מִלְּמַטָּה אוֹ הָעֵדִים. וּלְמֵידִין מִידַּת הַדִּין מִפְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי. הוּא לָמַד מִידַּת הַדִּין מִפְּרוֹזְבּוֹל. לֹא רָאָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. זַכַּאי. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר. חַיָיב. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַהֲלֹא זַכַּאי הוּא. וְלָמָּה דָנִין אֵילּוּ כְנֶגֶד אֵילּוּ. שֶׁלֹּא יֵירָאֶה דִין זֶה יוצֵא מְעֻמְעָם.

MISHNAH: If they found him innocent, they free him. Otherwise they hold his case over to the next day, split into groups of two, eat little and refrain from wine the entire day, and discuss during the entire night. The next morning they start early. One who voted for acquittal says, I am for acquittal and I remain for acquittal. One who voted for conviction says, I am for conviction and I remain for conviction. He who voted for conviction may vote for acquittal; but he who voted for acquittal may not change and vote for conviction. If they erred in the matter, the two clerks of court will remind them. If they found him innocent, they free him; otherwise they tally the vote. If twelve are for acquittal and eleven for conviction, he is found innocent. If twelve are for conviction and eleven for acquittal, or even twenty-two are for acquittal or conviction and one says, I do not know, they shall add judges. Up to what number does one add? [One adds] two and two up to 71. If 36 vote for acquittal and 35 for conviction, he is found innocent. If 36 vote for conviction and 35 for acquittal, they have to continue to argue with one another until one of the voters for conviction is convinced by the arguments of those in favor of acquittal. HALAKHAH: “If they found him innocent, they free him,” etc. It was stated: If one of the witnesses said, I have an argument for his acquittal, and another came to support him, (and another came to support him,) whom do you co-opt? Let us hear from the following of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody was acquitted following his own pleading, one does not place him with the judges. Therefore, if he was acquitted following (his own) pleading, then one person would be simultaneously witness and judge. We do not find that anybody can be both witness and judge. In civil suits one declares the judgment as definitive [but in criminal suits one does not declare the judgment as definitive.] The greatest among the judges declares the judgment as definitive . “Up to what number does one add,” etc. It was stated: Why does one add judges? For if there were two of the original judges voting affirmatively, together with one of the later ones judgment will be rendered by three. Rebbi La said, since the judgment can be rendered by four, one does not render it by three. Rebbi Yose said, one understands from here: ˋ it 10:3, Note 91 where prozbol is explained. The text there and in the Babli, Ketubot 22a , is in the name of the earlier Amora R. Abba. If three sat in judgment and one of them died, two sign and note: Even though we are two who sign, we were three in judging. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah implies this: “The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses.” Does one learn court documents from prozbol ? It was found stated: This about court documents he inferred from the rules of prozbol . If nobody changes his opinion? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is acquitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is convicted. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is he not acquitted? Why do they have to continue to argue with one another? So the judgment should not be in question.