Question: In that case, if one of the witnesses says 'in three hours', and the other, 'in five ... ', why is their testimony invalid? Why do we not say that it took place in the fourth hour?

Answer: Rava maintains that we do not attribute the error to both witnesses.

Question: The question remains however, that where one says 'three hours' and the other, 'five', if one were to examine their testimonies, perhaps the one who said 'three' meant at the end of three hours?

Answer: We do not examine their testimony in order uphold it where it means being strict with the defendant.

Question: Seeing as they have already given the date, why do we then ask them which day? Even if they err with regard to the day, they will be considered as having retracted, which they cannot do after 'K'dei Dibur'?

Answer #1: Since we learn the seven questions from Pesukim (in Perek Hayu Bodkim (Sanhedrin 40.), they are not permitted to contradict either each other or themselves.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the difference will manifest itself where one of the witnesses says two hours and the other, three, as Tosfos explained (on 11. DH 'Zeh').

Question: The Riva asks why we do not attribute the error to the Mazimin, who called it the fourth hour, when really it took place in the fifth, in which case the witnesses will not be Zom'min ...

Question (cont.); Granted, their testimony is contradictory, but Eidim Zom'min they are not?

Answer: The Ri replied that one does not attribute the error to both witnesses, as Tosfos wrote earlier.

Clarification: Not Davka the entire sixth hour ...

Reason: Since one needs to burn the Chametz during the sixth hour.

Clarification: The Gemara could have asked even if people would err by two hours why one cannot eat it until the end of the fifth hour?

Reason: Since in the fifth hour, the sun is in the east and in the seventh hour it is in the west.

Question: The Riva asks that, according to Abaye, who maintains that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, a person will err by up to half an hour, and that we do ascribe the error to both witnesses, where one witness says that it occurred in the fifth hour and one says in the seventh, why is their testimony disqualified ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as there is no big distinction between the beginning of the sixth hour and the seventh, why do we not say that the first witness meant at the end of the fifth hour, the second witness meant at the beginning of the seventh hour, and that it actually took place at in the middle of the sixth hour?,

Answer #1: Because, when the Gemara says that in the sixth hour, the sun is in the middle of the sky and people tend to err between the beginning of the sixth hour and the seventh, that with reference to Chametz, which affects everybody ...

Answer #1 (cont.): But not to testimony, which is in the hands of people who are careful.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Abaye does not concur with the answer 'The sun is in the middle of the sky'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'she'Lo be'Sha'as Bi'uro' to mean in the sixth hour, and 'be'Sha'as Bi'uro', after that.

Explanation #1 (cont.): And the Gemara's Kashya is that 'Since during Sha'as Bi'uro, Chametz is destroyed in any way that one pleases, why not wait until the seventh hour before burning it'?'

Question #1: Rabeinu Tam asks on this - how one can possibly wait until the seventh hour before burning it? Did we not conclude above (Daf 10:) that Rebbi Yehudah forbade searching for Chametz once it becomes Asur, in case one comes to eat it?

Question #2: Moreover, 'Sha'as Bi'uro' in the Mishnah refers to the sixth hour (not the seventh)?

Question #3: Furthermore, it is from Nosar that R. Yehudah learns that Chametz must be burned, and Nosar is burned after it becomes Asur, in which case, so must Chametz?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that 'she'Lo be'Sha'as Bi'uro' refers to after the sixth hour, since most people destroy their Chametz during the sixth hour, as the Chachamim instituted. And their reason is because they learned from Nosar, which is intrinsically after it becomes Asur.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas 'be'Sha'as Bi'uro' - (the sixth hour), it may be destroyed in any manner that one chooses, seeing as the Mitzvah to burn it then is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

Conclusion: And this is also how the Yerushalmi explains it in Perek Kol Sha'ah

Clarification: This reason is confined to eating; it does not apply to testimony.