Sanhedrin 5

הָיוּ בוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת, בְּאֵיזֶה שָׁבוּעַ, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁנָה, בְּאֵיזֶה חֹדֶשׁ, בְּכַמָּה בַחֹדֶשׁ, בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁעָה, בְּאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם, בְּאֵיזוֹ שָׁעָה, בְּאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם. מַכִּירִין אַתֶּם אוֹתוֹ. הִתְרֵיתֶם בּוֹ. הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֶת מִי עָבַד, וּבַמֶּה עָבָד:

They would examine them with seven inquiries. [After they intimidated them, they examined them with seven inquiries corresponding to seven expressions in Scripture relating to those liable to judicial death penalty, viz. (Deuteronomy 13:15): "And you shall inquire, and you shall search out, and you shall ask well" (three inquiries). "And you shall ask" (by itself, without "well") is not counted. And elsewhere it is written (Ibid. 17:4): "And it be told to you, and you hear, and you search it out well" (another two, making five). And elsewhere (Ibid. 19:18): "And the judges shall search out well" (another two, making seven)]: Which seven year period [of the Jubilee]? Which year [of that seven year period]? Which month? On which date of the month? Which day [of the week]? Which hour [of the day?] In which place? [For all of these seven inquiries can lead to hazamah (having them declared "scheming witnesses"), and it may be that there are no witnesses who can do so for (the period of) the entire day, but who may be able to do so for that hour.] R. Yossi says: [Only three inquiries are needed:] Which day? Which hour" In which place? [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi. But even if the witnesses said: "They killed yesterday," they are examined with seven inquiries in order to "unnerve" them into admission if their testimony is unfounded.] (In murder cases they are asked:) Do you recognize him [the victim? Perhaps he is a gentile. This is not one of the inquiries towards hazamah, but one of the general questions intended to catch the witnesses in a mutual contradiction, in which instance he (the accused) and they (the witnesses) are exempt (form punishment)]. (If they testify) that one served idolatry, (they are asked:) Which (idolatry) did he serve? [e.g., Pe'or or Mercurius], and: How did he serve it? [e.g., by sacrificing or by bowing].

כָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִבְדִיקוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח. מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָדַק בֶּן זַכַּאי בְּעֻקְצֵי תְאֵנִים. וּמַה בֵּין חֲקִירוֹת לִבְדִיקוֹת. חֲקִירוֹת, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. בְּדִיקוֹת, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין, עֵדוּתָן קַיָּמֶת. אֶחָד חֲקִירוֹת וְאֶחָד בְּדִיקוֹת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכְחִישִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה:

Whoever multiplies examinations (of the witnesses) is to be praised. Once, Ben Zakkai examined (someone) on the peduncles of figs. [("Ben Zakkai":) R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. He was a disciple judging before his master at that time, for which reason he was called "Ben Zakkai." ("on the peduncles of fruits":) They (the witnesses) testified that he was killed under a fig tree, and Ben Zakkai "examined": "Were the peduncles of the figs thin or thick?"] What is the difference between "inquiries" (chakiroth) and "examinations" (bedikoth)? With chakiroth, if one (of the witnesses) says: "I do not know," their testimony is invalidated. [For they are no longer subject to hazamah through that chakirah. And so long as it is impossible to satisfy hazamah with one of the witnesses, the entire testimony is invalidated, even if there are a hundred witnesses; for the witnesses cannot be rendered zomemin until all of them are so rendered.] With bedikoth, if one says: "I do not know," and even if two of them say: "We do not know," the testimony stands. [Even if all say: "We do not know," the mitzvah of hazamah obtains. For hazamah is contingent only upon chakirah, (leaving the witnesses open) to the claim: "You were with us at that time in a different place."] Both with chakiroth and with bedikoth, if they (the witnesses) contradict each other, their testimony is invalidated. [In all instances of "their testimony is invalidated" in the Gemara, he (the one testified against) and they (the witnesses) are exempt (from liability)].

אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁנַיִם בַּחֹדֶשׁ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה בַחֹדֶשׁ, עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּמֶת, שֶׁזֶּה יוֹדֵעַ בְּעִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל חֹדֶשׁ וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּעִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁל חֹדֶשׁ. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בַּחֲמִשָּׁה, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁתֵּי שָׁעוֹת וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁעוֹת, עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּמֶת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּשָׁלֹשׁ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּחָמֵשׁ, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, קַיָּמֶת. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּחָמֵשׁ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּשֶׁבַע, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה, שֶׁבְּחָמֵשׁ חַמָּה בַמִּזְרָח וּבְשֶׁבַע חַמָּה בַמַּעֲרָב:

If one (witness) says: (The event took place) "on the second day of the month," and the other says: "on the third day of the month," their testimony stands. For (we presume that) this one [the one who said "on the second day"] knows of the intercalation of the month [i.e., He knows that the month that passed was full and that the first day of the new) month, the thirtieth day, appertained to the month that passed. This, only until half of the month (has passed). But from half of the month on, their testimony is invalidated. For it is presumed that by the time half a month has passed, everyone knows when beth-din sanctified the New Moon.], and (we presume that) the other (the one who said "on the third day") does not know of the intercalation of the month. If one says: "on the third," and the other says: "on the fifth," their testimony is invalidated. If one says: "in the second hour," and the other says: "in the third," their testimony stands. If one says: "in the third," and the other says: "in the fifth," their testimony is invalidated. R. Yehudah says: It stands, [for one might err by this amount.] If one says: "in the fifth," and the other says: "in the seventh," their testimony is invalidated. For in the fifth, the sun is in the east, and in the seventh, the sun is in the west. [From the place of the rising of the sun until the middle of the sky is called "the east," and from the middle of the sky until the place of the setting of the sun is called "the west."]

וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם 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 יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בֵינֵיהֶן, וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד מִשָּׁם כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ. אִם יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו:

And then the second one is brought in and he is examined. If their words coincide, [so that they must now deliberate on the matter] they (beth-din) open with "merit." ["If you did not transgress, do not fear."] If one of the witnesses says: "I have something to say in his favor," or one of the disciples: "I have something to say against him," he is silenced. [("I have something to say in his favor":) even in his favor, and, it goes without saying that he is silenced if he (a witness) says: "I have something to say against him," viz. (Numbers 35:30): "And one witness shall not testify" — both for acquittal or for conviction. ("one of the disciples":) sitting before the judges. (If he says:) "I have something to say against him," he is silenced, it being written (Ibid.): "One shall not testify in a man to kill him" — "to kill him he does not testify," but he does testify in his favor.] If one of the disciples said: "I have something to say in his favor, he is brought up (to the judges) and placed among them, and he does not descend thence the entire day, [even if there is no substance to his words; but if there is substance to his words, he never descends thence.] If there is substance to his words, he is heeded. And even if he [the accused] says: "I have something to say in my favor," he is heeded, so long as there be substance to his words.

אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ. וְאִם לָאו, מַעֲבִירִין דִּינוֹ לְמָחָר. הָיוּ מִזְדַּוְּגִין זוּגוֹת זוּגוֹת, וּמְמַעֲטִין בְּמַאֲכָל, וְלֹא הָיוּ שׁוֹתִין יַיִן כָּל הַיּוֹם, וְנוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין כָּל הַלַּיְלָה, וְלַמָּחֳרָת מַשְׁכִּימִין וּבָאִין לְבֵית דִּין. הַמְזַכֶּה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְזַכֶּה וּמְזַכֶּה אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי, וְהַמְחַיֵּב אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְחַיֵּב וּמְחַיֵּב אֲנִי בִמְקוֹמִי. הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. טָעוּ בְדָּבָר, שְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּנִין מַזְכִּירִין אוֹתָן. אִם מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, פְּטָרוּהוּ. וְאִם לָאו, עוֹמְדִים לְמִנְיָן. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין, זַכַּאי. שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין, וַאֲפִלּוּ אַחַד עָשָׂר מְזַכִּין וְאַחַד עָשָׂר מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, וַאֲפִלּוּ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, יוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָּנִין. עַד כַּמָּה מוֹסִיפִין, שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם עַד שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְזַכִּין וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְחַיְּבִין, זַכַּאי. שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה מְחַיְּבִין וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְזַכִּין, דָּנִין אֵלּוּ כְּנֶגֶד אֵלּוּ עַד שֶׁיִּרְאֶה אֶחָד מִן הַמְחַיְּבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין:

If they found in his favor, they acquitted him. And if not, they moved his judgment to the next day [so as not to judge at night]. They would pair off and minimize eating, and they would not drink wine all the day, and they would deliberate all the night. The next day, they would arise early and come to beth-din. The acquitter says: "I acquitted (yesterday), and my acquittal stands." The indicter says: "I indicted (yesterday), and my indictment stands." The indicter may (change his mind and) acquit; but the acquitter may not retract and indict. If they (the judges) erred in something, the two judicial scribes remind them (of what they said the preceding day). If they find in his favor, they acquit him. If not, they stand for a count. If twelve acquit and twelve indict, he is acquitted. If twelve indict and eleven acquit, ["inclining for ill" not obtaining with one, they add judges]; and even if eleven acquit and eleven indict, and one says: "I do not know"; and even if twenty-two acquit or indict, and one says: "I do not know," they add judges. [For the one who says "I do not know" is accounted as not being there, and capital cases, whether for acquittal or for indictment, are not adjudicated with fewer than twenty-three.] Until what number are additional twos added [if the two (most recently) added "split," one here (for acquittal); the other there (for indictment), so that there is still no inclining, neither for good by one, nor for evil by two]? Until seventy-one. If thirty-six acquit and thirty-five indict, he is acquitted. If thirty-six indict and thirty-five acquit, they debate the matter until one of the indicters accepts the words of the acquitters [so that there is inclining for good by one. The same applies if one of the acquitters accepts the words of the indicters. For the ruling is that at the time of the conclusion of the judgment even one who held for acquittal may reverse himself for indictment. As to its not being taught "until one of the acquitters accepts the words of the indicters," the tanna "pursues acquittal."]