## Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin Chapter 5

###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:1:1)

**משנה:** 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:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** ⁰ 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 ways¹ “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 year², in which month, which day of the month, which day, which hour, at which place³? Rebbi Yose said, which day, which hour, which place⁴, do you recognize him, and did you warn him⁵? If one worshipped idols, what did he worship and how did he worship⁶?

footnotes:
⁰ For this Chapter and the next, there exists a Genizah text, published by M. Assis in Tarbiz
¹ The number seven may be taken from Roman law, formulated in Quintilian’s hexameter which enumerates the questions to be answered in a trial: Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando?
² In the Sabbatical period. It is clear from this Mishnah that for capital crimes there is no statute of limitations.
³ The Mishnah is a direct continuation of the preceding Chapter. Testimony is acceptable in court only if given under the possible penalties of perjury. But the only way the biblical penalties can be imposed is that the witnesses are proven not to have been at the indicated place of the crime at the time indicated. Therefore, exact determination of time and place are prerequisites to the trial.
⁴ He has only three questions before the actual crime is investigated.
⁵ A conviction in biblical law is possible only if criminal intent is proven. This is provable only by two witnesses who testify that they saw the defendant intent on committing a crime and informed him that his intended action was prohibited and that he exposed himself to such and such penalties.
⁶ Actions which imitate worship of Heaven or are specific for a certain deity are capital crimes; any other actions are punishable only by whipping or not at all (Mishnah 7:12).


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:1:2)

**הלכה:** 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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** “They were investigating him in seven ways,” etc. But we did not state, in which Jubilee period? For that is not current⁷ 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 period⁸? We confirmed that in a year which started or concluded [a Jubilee period]⁹.

footnotes:
⁷ Since the Jubilee was not observed during Second Temple times (cf Ševiˋit
⁸ Cf. Babli 40b.
⁹ At least during the existence of the Temple, close to the beginning or the end of a Jubilee period everybody can be assumed to be alerted to the change in computation of Sabbatical periods induced by the (not observed) Jubilee. Everybody agrees that after the destruction of the Temple, the determination of the Jubilee period was meaningless. Therefore, the Mishnaiot dealing with procedures in criminal trials are attempts of reconstruction of Hasmonean or even earlier procedures.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:1:3)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
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*¹⁰. 13:15. The judicial inquiry is described by seven words.. He told him, this verse does not work¹¹; but: *you shall inquire, investigate, ask in depth; it will be told to you, you shall listen, ask in depth*¹². 17:4.. In depth, in depth for an equal cut, to require in each case listening, asking, inquiry, and investigation¹³. 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 investigations¹⁴? Issi said, any time that the witnesses could not be proven perjured, the murderer cannot be executed on that testimony¹⁵.

footnotes:
¹⁰ Deut
¹¹ At least another word has to be added to reach the next dividing accent; stopping at נָכוֹן is unjustified. On the other hand, the two words דָּרַשׁתָּ הֵיטֵב represent a single notion.
¹² Deut
¹³ Both verses 13:15 and 17:4 mention five notions each of inquiry; eliminating the words appearing twice one is left with seven different words. Babli 40a, Sifry Deut
¹⁴ Is the situation not obvious?
¹⁵ Since perjured witnesses in a capital case can be executed if it was shown that they could not have seen the act since at the pretended time they were at another place, a criminal trial can proceed only if the witnesses can be made to testify about the exact time and place where the observed criminal act took place.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:1:4)

מַכִּירִין אַתֶּם אוֹתוֹ. מֶה הָיָה. גּוֹי הָיָה אוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מֵהָדָא דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נֶהֱרַג מִטִּיבֵּרִיָּא לְצִיפּוֹרִי חֲזָקָה שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
“Do you recognize him?” Who was he, a Gentile¹⁶ 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 Israel¹⁷ (*Nazir* 7:1)..

footnotes:
¹⁶ Then it would be a case for the king’s court, not the Sanhedrin.
¹⁷ In order to remove the case to a police court, the defendant would have to prove that the slain person was a Gentile. As a practical matter, an unknown corpse found on the road between Tiberias and Sepphoris is a corpse of obligation


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:1:5)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
“Did you warn him?” From where warning? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: ¹⁸. 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* ḥesed¹⁹. 89:3..

footnotes:
¹⁸ Lev
¹⁹ Ps


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:1:6)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, *by the mouth of two witnesses* *shall the dead die*²⁰. 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. 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.

footnotes:
²⁰ Deut
²¹ Ex


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:1:7)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
If his death should have been a severe one²² 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 executed²³.

footnotes:
²² Mishnah 7:1, Note 1.
²³ R. Jehudah finds the warning deficient, preventing the imposition of a death sentence. By contrast, in the Babli, 80b, it is stated as commonly accepted that a warning about a painful death implies the same of an easy one.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:1:8)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
“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.²⁴” “If they saw him spilling blood; they told him, know that he is a son of the Covenant²⁵ and the Torah said, *he who spills a man’s blood, by man his blood shall be spilled*²⁶. 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 it²⁷.” “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*²⁸. 31:14., even if he said, I know, he cannot be prosecuted unless he say: for that purpose I am doing it²⁹.”

footnotes:
²⁴ Tosephta 11:2. Cf. also Note 20.
²⁵ A Jew.
²⁶ Gen
²⁷ Tosephta 11:4.
²⁸ Ex
²⁹ Tosephta 11:3.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:1:9)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked³⁰. 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 reaping³¹ 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 ground³². 113..

footnotes:
³⁰ His question is about the degree of specificity required in the warning delivered to a person ready to commit a crime punishable by death. Is it sufficient to deliver a general warning as described in the preceding paragraph (Note 27) or does one have to specify the exact paragraph of the law being violated? In the case of the Sabbath, is it enough to warn a person not to do any work or does he have to be warned about which of the 39 prohibited types of work he is going to perform? The biblical evidence about the gatherer (Num
³¹ In the list of the forbidden categories of work (Mishnah Šabbat
³² Sifry Num


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:1:10)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked: How was the gatherer put to death³³? By stoning. Let us hear from the following³⁴ 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*³⁵. 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.

footnotes:
³³ According to R. Jehudah, he could not be put to death if the specific way of execution was not known even though the fact that violating the Sabbath was known to be a capital crime.
³⁴ Sifra Emor Parashah
³⁵ Lev


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:1:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:1:11)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
“What did he worship?” *Peor* or Mercury³⁶ 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 Heaven³⁷? 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 Mercury³⁸. One judges him for both and for the one in which he was found innocent one lets him go³⁹.

footnotes:
³⁶ As explained in Mishnah 7:12, the worship of Baˋal Peˋor
³⁷ Any imitation of Temple worship for an idol is a capital crime. Any other sort of worship is punishable only if ordinarily it was performed for that idol.
³⁸ Clearly, this is inadmissible testimony.
³⁹ Since the accused must be found innocent of one of two mutually exclusive allegations, one may accept the witnesses by basing a trial on their testimony even if a not-guilty verdict is a foregone conclusion.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:2:1)

**משנה:** 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:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** Anybody who adds inquiries⁴⁰ is praiseworthy. It happened that Ben Zakkai⁴¹ 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 worthless⁴². In cross-examinations, if one said “I do not know”, or even two say “we do not know,” their testimony remains valid⁴³. Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless⁴⁴.

footnotes:
⁴⁰ About the details of the crime which are investigated after time and place have been established.
⁴¹ According to the Babli, 41a/b, it is possible that he is Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai. During the time that capital jurisdiction was still in the hands of a Jewish court, not yet in that of the Roman governor, he was not yet the head of the Synhedrion and, therefore, had no title.
⁴² As testimony which cannot be shown to be perjured.
⁴³ The credibility of the witnesses may be impaired. This is a matter to be decided by the judges, not an absolute obstacle.
⁴⁴ A conviction requires testimony by two witnesses. If there are conflicting testimonies and the judges believe one of them, no conviction could result since it would be based on the word of one witness alone.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:2:2)

**הלכה:** כָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִבְדִּיקוֹת כול׳. בַּמֶּה לִקְטָן. בְּעוּקְצֵיהֶן לִקְטָן. בַּמֶּה אֲכָלָן. בְּגַלְעִינֵיהֶן.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Anybody who adds inquiries,” etc. How did he pluck them⁴⁵? He plucked them with their stalks. How did he eat them? With their pits⁴⁶.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ An example of Ben Zakkai’s inquiry; cf. Babli 41a.
⁴⁶ Referring to olives.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:2:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:2:3)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
⁴⁷ 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.

footnotes:
⁴⁷ Parallel texts to this and the following paragraphs are in Yebamot


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:2:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:2:4)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
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 bar⁴⁸ 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*.

footnotes:
⁴⁸ Read with the parallel sources: R. Abba, R. Hiyya.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:3:1)

**משנה:** 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:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** One says, on the second of the month, but the other says, on the third of the month⁴⁹, their testimony may be valid, since one knew about the addition to the month but the other did not know⁵⁰ 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 invalid⁵¹. One says, at two hours⁵² but the other said at three hours, their testimony is valid⁵³. 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 West⁵⁴.

footnotes:
⁴⁹ In the investigation of the date on which the alleged crime was committed.
⁵⁰ In the absence of a published calendar, one cannot assume that everybody knew when a thirtieth day was added to a month. In the published calendar used today, only the eighth and ninth months are variable but the Mishnaic calendar (Babli Arakhin
⁵¹ Two days’ difference cannot be explained away.
⁵² The time between sunrise and sunset is divided into 12 hours. At all calendar dates, 6 hours is about noontime. At the equinoxes, 2 hours is 8 am, 3 hours 9 am, 5 hours 11 am, 7 hours 1 pm.
⁵³ From people who have no watches.
⁵⁴ The last statement is needed only for R. Jehudah. R. Jehudah does not accept testimony that differs by two hours in all cases; he notes that daylight between 9 am and 11 am is not very different; but the shadows are quite different between am and pm hours.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:3:2)

**הלכה:** 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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One says, on the second of the month,” etc. Until when⁵⁵? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Up to the greater part of the month⁵⁶. Rebbi Yose said, e. g., those village dwellers⁵⁷. But the Sages say, it is nothing⁵⁸, and Rebbi Yasa said, for example I, who never in my life prayed *musaf*⁵⁹, since I do not know when the month starts⁶⁰.

footnotes:
⁵⁵ May one assume that people do not know which day of the month a given day is.
⁵⁶ After the 16th, everybody knows how the month was determined.
⁵⁷ They have a need to know the day of the week, but not of the month.
⁵⁸ It is unclear whether the Sages object to the Mishnah or to R. Johanan’s statement. From R. Yasa it seems that they object to R. Johanan.
⁵⁹ The additional prayer which distinguishes the morning service of the New Moon from the weekday services.
⁶⁰ He and his colleague Immi (Ammi) never were part of the Academy of Tiberias; it seems that they never were invited to the meetings at which the calendar was determined. This was his way of protesting.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:3:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:3:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:3:3)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
⁶¹ 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 biblical⁶² 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*⁶³. 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 fifteenth⁶⁴. 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 separate⁶⁵ 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 sundown⁶⁶. What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? *Only on the first day*⁶³. 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 diminish⁶⁷. 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 for⁶⁸ 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*⁶⁹. 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 prepared⁷⁰. 130..

footnotes:
⁶¹ Most of this text belongs to Pesahim
⁶² The main topic of the following section is the prohibition of leavened matter on Passover. It is agreed by everybody that leavened matter must be disposed of by noontime (the end of the sixth hour) of the 14th of Nisan. In Mishnah Pesahim
⁶³ Ex
⁶⁴ Ex
⁶⁵ A similar argument is in the Babli, Pesaḥim
⁶⁶ I. e., the only biblical requirement is that all leavened matter be completely disposed of before the holiday at sundown.
⁶³ Ex
⁶⁷ It seems that this refers to Ex
⁶⁸ Read with the Pesahim
⁶⁹ Deut
⁷⁰ In the afternoon of the 14th. This supports R. Jehudah’s contention that leavened matter is biblically forbidden in the afternoon of the 14th; Sifry Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:3:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:3:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:3:4)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
Rebbi Jehudah has both a positive and a negative commandment concerning its eating⁷¹., a positive and a negative commandment concerning its⁷² removal. A positive commandment concerning its eating, *seven days you shall eat unleavened bread for it*⁶⁹. 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 commandment⁷³ 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*⁷⁴. 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*⁶³. 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*⁷⁵. 12:19..

footnotes:
⁷¹ “It” here refers to mazzah
⁷² “It” here refers to leavened matter.
⁶⁹ Deut
⁷³ It is not an indictable offense; cf. Bikkurim
⁷⁴ Deut
⁶³ Ex
⁷⁵ Ex


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:3:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:3:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:3:5)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
Now Rebbi Meïr says, after noontime it is forbidden because of their words. The ⁷⁶; 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 seventh⁷⁷ 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. There⁷⁸. 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 here⁷⁹ 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, there⁸⁰ one speaks of household chores. the matter is given over to women who are lazy, here⁸¹ 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, there⁸¹ 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. Here⁷⁹ 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 seventh⁸² 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 thus⁸³ 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.

footnotes:
⁷⁶ The numerals in parentheses are from Sanhedrin
⁷⁷ It is not a fence around a fence but consistent with the opinion of the Sages (R. Meïr) in Sanhedrin
⁷⁸ This is here, in the Mishnah Sanhedrin
⁷⁹ In Pesahim
⁸⁰ In Pesaḥim
⁸¹ In Sanhedrin
⁸¹ In Sanhedrin
⁷⁹ In Pesahim
⁸² In Pesahim
⁸³ A similar baraita


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:4:1)

**משנה:** 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:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**MISHNAH:** They brought in the second [witness] and examined him. If their testimonies were coherent, one starts with arguing for acquittal⁸⁴. If one of the witnesses said, I have an argument for his acquittal⁸⁵, 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 them⁸⁶. He was not demoted from there the entire day; if his argument has substance, one listens to him. Even if he⁸⁷ said, I have to argue for my acquittal, one listens to him if there is substance to his words.

footnotes:
⁸⁴ Mishnah 4:1.
⁸⁵ A witness for the prosecution who argues for acquittal undermines his own testimony. Anyhow, no witness can become judge in the same case (Halakhah 5).
⁸⁶ The judges.
⁸⁷ The accused.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:4:2)

**הלכה:** 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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**HALAKHAH:** They brought in the second,” etc. It was stated⁸⁹: “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.]⁹⁰ 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.⁹¹” 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.

footnotes:
⁸⁹ Tosephta 9:1.
⁹⁰ Addition from the Genizah text (Note 0); not absolutely necessary for the understanding of the text and not in the Tosephta.
⁹¹ In the Tosephta: "They tell him, consider your earlier argument." This is understood here .


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:4:3)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
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] witnesses⁹²? It would mean that the trial would be extended. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because of him who argues for acquittal⁹³.

footnotes:
⁹² The text in brackets is from the Genizah; it is not a better text. The Leiden text seems to follow R. Jehudah (Mishnah 4:9) who requires that the arguments of each judge be recorded by two scribes, i. e., two witnesses who may prevent him from changing his mind. The Genizah text asks whether if an acquitting judge now wants to vote for conviction one has to start the entire proceedings anew. This would preclude pronouncing sentence on that day and would amount to forbidden procrastination in administering justice.
⁹³ Mishnah 5 alone is justification enough.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:5:1)

**משנה:** 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:

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**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 night⁸⁸. 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 acquittal⁹⁴, or even twenty-two are for acquittal or conviction and one says, I do not know⁹⁵, they shall add judges.
Up to what number does one add? [One adds] two and two up to 71¹⁰². If 36 vote for acquittal and 35 for conviction, he is found innocent. If 36 vote for conviction and 35 for acquittal¹⁰², 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.

footnotes:
⁸⁸ The topic of discussion is not mentioned; it seems to be the case under consideration. In the Tosephta, the judges are required to review the legal background, if a murder case the laws of murder, if an incest case the laws of incest.
⁹⁴ A criminal conviction needs a qualified majority of at last two (Mishnah 4:2). Since there was no majority for acquittal, the accused is neither acquitted nor convicted; this is a case of a hung court.
⁹⁵ A judge who abstains in the final vote is counted not present. Then the court is no longer composed of 23 members; there is a mistrial.
¹⁰² The size of the Supreme Court is the upper limit for the size of any court.
¹⁰² The size of the Supreme Court is the upper limit for the size of any court.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:5:2)

**הלכה:** 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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
**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,)⁹⁶ whom do you co-opt⁹⁷? 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)⁹⁸ pleading, then one person would be simultaneously witness and judge. We do not find that anybody can be both witness and judge.

footnotes:
⁹⁶ Corrector’s addition, to be deleted.
⁹⁷ Following Mishnah 4 which, however, speaks of law students, not of witnesses. Only R. Yose ben R. Jehudah admits pleading by a witness (Tosephta 9:4).
⁹⁸ This must read: “the witness”.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:5:3)

אוֹמְרִים בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת. נִזְדַּקֲּן הַדִּין. [וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת נִזְדַּקֲּן הַדִּין.] וְהַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבַּדַּיָינִין אוֹמֵר. נִזְדַּקֲּן הַדִּין.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
In civil suits one declares the judgment as definitive⁹⁹ [but in criminal suits one does not declare the judgment as definitive.]¹⁰⁰ The greatest among the judges declares the judgment as definitive ¹⁰¹.

footnotes:
⁹⁹ A strictly literal translation would be: “the judgment became old.” The interpretation of this otherwise unknown expression follows Rav Ashi in the Babli, 42a. The case can neither be appealed nor retried.
¹⁰⁰ Addition also found in the Babli, implied by the preceding sentence. As long as a criminal sentence was not executed, the trial may be re-opened at any time if a new argument for acquittal can be presented.
¹⁰¹ Babli 42a.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:5:4)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
“Up to what number does one add,” etc. ¹⁰⁴ It was stated: Why does one add judges? For if there were two of the original judges voting affirmatively¹⁰⁵, 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 three¹⁰⁶.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁴ This and the next paragraph refer to Halakhah 3:3; the subject is civil suits.
¹⁰⁵ Even if two judges vote for the claimant but the third abstains, no judgment can be rendered by a court of two.
¹⁰⁶ Although only one additional judge is needed, one always adds two. If only one judge were added, he would be unable to change the outcome; he is not really a judge of equal standing with the others. But two judges could force the addition of another two by voting for the defendant.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:5:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:5:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:5:5)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
Rebbi Yose said, one understands from here: ¹⁰⁷ˋ*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*.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁷ This is from Ševi


###### Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:5:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 5:5:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Sanhedrin/r/5:5:6)

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.

**Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]:**
If nobody changes his opinion¹⁰⁸? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is acquitted¹⁰⁹. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is convicted¹¹⁰. Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, is he not acquitted¹¹¹? Why do they have to continue to argue with one another? So the judgment should not be in question¹¹².

footnotes:
¹⁰⁸ This refers to the Mishnah. If no one voting for conviction changes his mind, at the end of the day judgment must be rendered. What is the practical consequence of 36 votes for conviction, 35 for acquittal?
¹⁰⁹ Since the votes for conviction fall short of the majority required, it is an automatic acquittal (Babli 42a).
¹¹⁰ Since there is a majority for conviction, there can be no acquittal. R. Simeon ben Laqish will agree that if it is a capital case, the accused cannot be executed except the missionary for idolatry (Tosephta 10:12).
¹¹¹ Mishnah 4:2.
¹¹² To discourage any attempt at a retrial.