## Sanhedrin Daf 41b

###### Sanhedrin 41b:1
[Sanhedrin 41b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/41b:1)

וְקַבְעוּהָ בִּשְׁמֵיהּ. כִּי הֲוָה לָמַד, ״בֶּן זַכַּאי״ הֲוָה קָרֵי לֵיהּ, כְּתַלְמִיד הַיּוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ. כִּי הֲוָה לִימֵּד, הֲוָה קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי״. כִּי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״בֶּן זַכַּאי״ – עַל שֵׁם דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא, וְכִי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי״ – עַל שֵׁם דְּהַשְׁתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **established it** in the mishna **in his name. When he was studying, they called him ben Zakkai, in the manner** that they would call **a student sitting before his teacher,** and **when he was teaching** others **they called him Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai.** In terms of the *baraita* and the mishna, **when they called him ben Zakkai** in the Mishna, that was **based on the name that** he was called **initially. And when they called him Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai** in the other *baraita*, that was **based on the name that** he was called **now.**


###### Sanhedrin 41b:2
[Sanhedrin 41b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/41b:2)

מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָדַק כּוּ׳. מָה בֵּין חֲקִירוֹת כּוּ׳. מַאי ״אֲפִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים״? פְּשִׁיטָא! כִּי אָמַר אֶחָד ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת, כִּי אָמְרִי בֵּי תְרֵי נָמֵי עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **An incident** occurred, **and** ben Zakkai **examined** the witnesses about the stems of figs. **What** is the difference **between interrogations** and examinations? In the case of interrogations, if one of the witnesses says: I do not know the answer, their testimony is void immediately. In the case of examinations, if one says: I do not know the answer, and even if two witnesses say: We do not know the answer, their testimony still stands. The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of: **Even** if **two say?** Isn’t it **obvious?** The mishna already stated that **when one** witness **says: I do not know, their testimony stands,** indicating that knowledge of the answers to these types of questions is not required. Accordingly, **when two** witnesses **say** that they do not know, **their testimony stands as well.** What is the novelty of this ruling?


###### Sanhedrin 41b:3
[Sanhedrin 41b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/41b:3)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: בַּחֲקִירוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״יָדַעְנוּ״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּמַקֵּישׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה לִשְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said:** This clause is **referring to the first clause** of the mishna, **and this** is what it **is saying: With regard to the interrogations, even** if **two** witnesses **say: We know, and one** additional witness **says: I do not know, their testimony is void. In accordance with whose** opinion is this mishna written? **In accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who compares** in all court proceedings **three** witnesses **to two,** holding that just as two witnesses must testify a fully valid testimony, so it is with three. Therefore, if the third witness does not know the answer to an interrogation, the testimony of all three is void.


###### Sanhedrin 41b:4
[Sanhedrin 41b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/41b:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: וְהָא ״עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת״ קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בַּחֲקִירוֹת, שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״יָדַעְנוּ״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת. כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: But** the mishna **teaches: Their testimony stands,** not: Their testimony is void. **Rather, Rava said: This** is what the mishna **is saying: Even with regard to the interrogations,** if **two** witnesses **say: We know, and one** witness **says: I do not know, their testimony stands,** as the court accepts the testimony of the two. **In accordance with whose** opinion is this mishna written? **Not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Sanhedrin 41b:5
[Sanhedrin 41b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/41b:5)

רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב סָפְרָא תָּנוּ סַנְהֶדְרִין בֵּי רַבָּה. פְּגַע בְּהוּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: מַאי אָמְרִיתוּ בַּהּ בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין דְּבֵי רַבָּה? אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: וּמַאי אָמְרִינַן בַּהּ בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין גְּרֵידְתָּא? וּמַאי קַשְׁיָא לָךְ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Kahana and Rav Safra studied** tractate ***Sanhedrin*** in **the school of Rabba. Rami bar Ḥama encountered them.** Rami bar Ḥama **said to them: What do you say concerning** tractate ***Sanhedrin*** that you learned **in the school of Rabba?** Rav Kahana and Rav Safra **said to him: And what do we say concerning the regular** tractate ***Sanhedrin*? And what is difficult for you?** Do you have a specific difficulty you would like answered?


###### Sanhedrin 41b:6
[Sanhedrin 41b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/41b:6)

אֲמַר לְהוּ, מֵהָא דְּקָתָנֵי: מָה בֵּין חֲקִירוֹת לִבְדִיקוֹת? חֲקִירוֹת – אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה, בְּדִיקוֹת – אָמַר אֶחָד ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים ״אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים״, עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת. מִכְּדֵי, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא, מַאי שְׁנָא חֲקִירוֹת וּמַאי שְׁנָא בְּדִיקוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rami bar Ḥama **said to them:** I have a difficulty **from that which is taught** in the mishna: **What** is the difference **between interrogations and examinations?** In the case of **interrogations,** if **one** of the witnesses **says: I do not know** the answer, **their testimony is void** immediately. In the case of **examinations,** if **one says: I do not know** the answer, **and even** if **two say: We do not know** the answer, **their testimony** still **stands.** Rami bar Ḥama asks: **After all, this** type of question **and that** type of question **are** required **by Torah law; what is different** about **interrogations and what is different** about **examinations?** Why is there a difference in *halakha* between the two?


###### Sanhedrin 41b:7
[Sanhedrin 41b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/41b:7)

אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? בַּחֲקִירוֹת, אָמַר אֶחָד ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה, דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ עֵדוּת שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִימָּהּ. בְּדִיקוֹת, אָמַר אֶחָד מֵהֶן ״אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ״ – עֵדוּתָן קַיֶּימֶת, עֵדוּת שֶׁאַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִימָּהּ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Kahana and Rav Safra **said to him: How can** these cases **be compared? With regard to the interrogations,** if **one** witness **says: I do not know, their testimony is void, as it is testimony that you cannot render conspiratory** testimony. If the witnesses do not state a specific time and place, there is no way for other witnesses to claim that the first witnesses had been with them elsewhere at the time they claim the event occurred. By contrast, with regard to the **examinations,** if **one of the** witnesses **says: I do not know, their testimony stands,** as **it is testimony that you can render conspiratory** testimony.


###### Sanhedrin 41b:8
[Sanhedrin 41b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/41b:8)

אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי הָכִי אָמְרִיתוּ בַּהּ, טוּבָא אָמְרִיתוּ בַּהּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: מִטֵּיבוּתֵיהּ דְּמָר אָמְרִינַן בַּהּ טוּבָא, מִנְּזִיהוּתֵיהּ דְּמָר לָא אָמְרִינַן בַּהּ וְלָא חֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rami bar Ḥama **said to them: If you said** an incisive statement **like this about** this tractate, **you said much about it.** Rav Kahana and Rav Safra **said to him: Due to the Master’s goodness,** that is, due to your good will and desire to accept our answer to your question, **we said much about it.** But **with the Master’s rebuke** and challenge **we would not say** even **one** answer **about it,** i.e., if you had wished to criticize this answer you could have refuted it, and it would be as if we did not say any answer.


###### Sanhedrin 41b:9
[Sanhedrin 41b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/41b:9)

אֶחָד אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַד רוּבּוֹ שֶׁל חוֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if **one** witness **says** the event occurred on the second of the month and one witness says that the event occurred on the third of the month, their testimony stands, since it is possible to say that one witness knows of the addition of a day to the previous month, while the other witness does not know of it. Their testimony is considered congruent. The Gemara asks: **Until how many** days into the month does the court assume that one of the witnesses does not know when the month began? **Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says** that **Rabbi Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Until the majority of the month** has passed.


###### Sanhedrin 41b:10
[Sanhedrin 41b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/41b:10)

אָמַר רָבָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה״ וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בַּחֲמִשָּׁה״ – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא שֶׁזֶּה יוֹדֵעַ בִּשְׁנֵי עִיבּוּרִין וְזֶה אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בִּשְׁנֵי עִיבּוּרִין? אֶלָּא לָאו, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְרוּבָּה יָדַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: We learn** this in the mishna **as well,** as it teaches: If **one** witness **says** the event occurred **on the third** of the month **and one** witness **says** the event occurred **on the fifth** of the month, **their testimony is void. But why** is it void? **Let us say** that it not a contradiction, **as this** witness **knows of two additions,** i.e., that a day was added to the two previous months, **and that** witness **does not know of the two additions. Rather,** is it **not** void **because once the majority** of the month passed a witness **knows** what day it is, so that an error of two days cannot occur?


###### Sanhedrin 41b:11
[Sanhedrin 41b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/41b:11)

לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: בְּרוּבָּה נָמֵי לָא יָדַע, וּבְשִׁיפּוּרָא יָדַע. בְּחַד שִׁיפּוּרָא אָמַר דְּטָעֵי, בִּתְרֵי שִׁיפּוּרֵי לָא אָמַר דְּטָעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **Actually, I** could **say to you** that a witness may **not know** the day **even once the majority** of the month has passed. The reason for the ruling of the mishna is that he **knows about the *shofar* [*ubeshipura*],** which the court would blow at the New Moon. It is possible that **with regard to one** blast of the ***shofar*** it could be **said that he erred** and was not aware of it. **With regard to two** blasts of the ***shofar*** it **cannot** be **said that he erred.** By contrast, in the case of the mishna here, perhaps as long as the witnesses are testifying about two consecutive days within one month, the error of one of them persisted throughout the month.


###### Sanhedrin 41b:12
[Sanhedrin 41b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/41b:12)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַד כַּמָּה מְבָרְכִין עַל הַחֹדֶשׁ? עַד שֶׁתִּתְמַלֵּא פְּגִימָתָהּ. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: עַד שִׁבְעָה. נְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי: עַד שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Having cited a statement of Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina, citing Rabbi Asi, citing Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Gemara cites another statement in his name: **Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says** that **Rav Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Until how many** days into a new month may **one recite a blessing on the month,** i.e., *Birkat HaLevana*? **Until the flaw of the** moon **is filled,** when it no longer appears deficient. **And** until **how many** days is that? **Rav Ya’akov bar Idi says** that **Rav Yehuda says: Until seven** days of the month have passed. The Sages **of Neharde’a say: Until sixteen** days of the month have passed.