(Mishnah): If one [witness] says 'it was the second of the month', and the other says 'it was the third', their testimony stands. We assume that this (the first) heard that the month was Me'ubar, and this one did not (therefore, he thought that it was the third).

If one says 'it was the third', and one says 'it was the fifth', their testimony is Batel.

If one says 'it was in the second hour of the day', and one says 'it was in the third', their testimony stands. If one says 'in the third', and one says 'in the fifth', their testimony is Batel;

R. Yehudah says, it stands.

If one says 'it was the fifth hour of the day', and the other says 'it was the seventh', [R. Yehudah agrees that] their testimony is Batel, for in the fifth hour the sun is in the east, and in the seventh it is in the west.

(Gemara) Question: Until when [do we accept witnesses who argue about one day, and attribute that one of them erred about whether the month was Me'ubar]?

Answer (R. Yosa citing R. Yochanan): It is until the majority of the month.

(R. Yochanan): This refers to people in villages or medium cities. If Chachamim say [testimony and erred about the day], it has no effect [it is invalid]. (TZAFNAS PANE'ACH)

R. Yosa: [A Chacham] is someone like me. I never prayed Musaf on Rosh Chodesh before I knew which day was fixed to be Rosh Chodesh. (In R. Yochanan's day, the calendar was not yet fixed. Others relied on the calculation of when Rosh Chodesh should be, but it was not always correct - ALEI TAMAR.)

R. Meir says, [one may not eat or benefit from Chametz on Erev Pesach] after six hours of the day, mid'Rabanan.

R. Yehudah says, after six hours it is forbidden mid'Oraisa! (Mid'Rabanan, we forbid eating an hour before this.)

What is R. Meir's reason? "Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon [you must destroy Chametz]'' refers to the 15th. Perhaps [it is forbidden only] from dark! It says "Ach'' [to unlike this, and] to divide. How is this? Shortly before sundown [destroy it. Even though one may not own Chametz at the time of Shechitas Korban Pesach, the Torah allows Shechitah until this time.]

What is R. Yehudah's reason? "Ach ba'Yom ha'Rishon'' refers to the 14th. Perhaps the entire day [Chametz is forbidden! It says "Ach'' to divide. Half is for Chametz (one may even eat it), and half is [only] for Matzah.

Question: R. Meir contradicts himself! There [regarding the Isur of Chametz] he says that "Ach'' includes, and here [regarding Machshirei Ochel Nefesh, on Yom Tov] he says that Ach excludes (forbids)!

Answer (R. Shmuel bar Avodimi): [Also there, "Ach''] excludes [the 14th, that the entire day] is not [forbidden] Chametz.

R. Meir says "Lo Sochal Alav Chametz'' - (do not eat Chametz from the time) of eating [Korban Pesach, i.e. the night];

R. Yehudah says, "Lo Sochal Alav Chametz'' - (from the time) of doing [offering Korban Pesach, i.e. after midday on the 14th];

R. Yehudah holds that there is an Aseh and Lo Sa'aseh against eating [Chametz], and an Aseh and Lo Sa'aseh about destroying it;

The Aseh about eating is "Shiv'as Yamim Tochal Alav Matzos'', and not Chametz. Every Lo Sa'aseh that comes from the strength of an Aseh is an Aseh. The Lav about eating is "Lo Sochal Alav Chametz.''

The Aseh about destroying it is "Shiv'as Yamim Tashbisu Se'or mi'Bateichem.'' The Lav of destroying it is "Shiv'as Yamim Se'or Lo Yimatzei b'Vateichem.''

Question: R. Meir holds that after six hours of the day is forbidden mid'Rabanan. The seventh hour is forbidden due to a fence. Why is the sixth hour [forbidden]? It is due to a fence. Is there a fence for a fence?!

Answer: The sixth hour [is forbidden because it] can be confused with the seventh.

Question: R. Yehudah contradicts himself! There [regarding testimony] he says that the fifth is not confused with the seventh. Here [regarding Chametz] he says that the fifth is confused with the seventh!

Answer #1 (R. Yosi): There (Chametz), the matter is handed over to [everyone, including] women, and they are lazy [and prone to err]. Here (testimony) the matter is handed over to Beis Din, and [witnesses know that they will be investigated, so] they are zealous.

Answer #2 (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): There (testimony, he disqualifies when they refer to) the beginning of the fifth and the end of the seventh hours. (People would not confuse them.) Here (Chametz, we forbid the fifth hour, for one can confuse [the end of the fifth with the beginning of the seventh].

Support (Beraisa): In the beginning of the fifth, the sun is in the east. At the end of the seventh, it is in the west. Always, the sun leans to the west only at the end of the seventh (i.e. but not at the beginning of the seventh).

(Mishnah): [After interrogating the first witness], we bring in the second and interrogate him. If their words are found to match, we begin with a reason for Zechus.

If one of the witnesses gives a reason for Zechus, or one of the Talmidim gives a reason for Chiyuv, we silence him;

If a Talmid says "I have a reason for Zechus'', we raise him and seat him with [the judges], and he does not descend the entire day. If he has a proper reason, we heed him;

Even if [the accused] himself gives a proper reason for Zechus, we heed him, as long as there is substance in his words.

(Gemara - Beraisa): If they found Zechus, they exempted him. If not, they leave his Din for overnight, and separate into pairs. They minimize eating and do not drink wine, and debate the entire night.

The next day they rise early and come, and Gabayim of the Beis Din (ALEI TAMAR) pursue them. If Ploni says "I was Mechayev and I am [still] Mechayev'' [or] "I was Mezakeh and I am Mezakeh}, [or] "I was Mechayev and I am Mezakeh'', we heed him. "I was Mezakeh and I am Mechayev'', we do not heed him. "I was Mechayev and [also] now I am Mechayev, they tell him 'learn (consider the matter) from the beginning.'

(Beraisa): If one of the judges erred, if he was Mezakeh [yesterday, and thinks that he was Mechayev], the scribes remind him. If he was Mechayev [yesterday, the scribes do not remind him. Rather, they say to him 'learn yous words like from the beginning.' (If he will continue to be Mezakeh, this is fine.)

Question (R. La): Why do they write the words of the Mezakeh? (It should suffice to write 'Ploni was Mezakeh'!)

Answer #1: It is because [we must write the words] of the Mechayev. (Therefore, we write also the Mezakeh's words);

[We must write the Mechayev's words] lest he forget.

Question: (We need not write his words!) If he says differently, [the other judges] will say to him 'this you said, this you did not say'!

Answer: [If his words were not written] he will require two witnesses [before he relies on what they say], and it turns out that [the defendant's] Din is delayed.

Answer #2 (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): It is due to the Mezakeh [lest he think that he was Mezakeh due to a blatant mistake, and he can retract. We explained the Sugya according to KORBAN HA'EDAH.]

(Mishnah): If we find a reason for Zechus, we exempt him. If not, we postpone the verdict until tomorrow. We pair up the judges to discuss the case with each other. They eat a minimal amount and do not drink wine the entire day. Every judge ponders the case overnight.

The next day, they rise early. A Mezakeh says 'I was Mezakeh, and I still am.' A Mechayev says 'I was Mechayev, and I still am';

One who gave a reason for Chiyuv can give a reason for Zechus, but one who gave a reason for Zechus cannot retract to give a reason for Chiyuv.

If they err about what they said yesterday, the scribes remind them. If they [all] found Zechus for him, they exempt him. If not, they vote.

If 12 are Mezakeh and 11 are Mechayev, he is exempt. If 12 are Mechayev and 11 are Mezakeh, or even if 11 are on each side and one is unsure, or even if 22 are Mezakeh or [22 are] Mechayev one is unsure, we add more judges.

How many do we add? We add two at a time, until we reach 71.

If 36 are Mezakeh and 35 are Mechayev, he is exempt. If 36 are Mechayev and 35 are Mezakeh, they debate the matter until one of the Mechayvim agrees with the words of the Mezakim.

(Gemara - Beraisa): If one of the witnesses said 'I have a reason for Zechus', and his colleague supported him, and his colleague supported him... [Rabanan say, we do not heed witnesses' reasons. R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah says, we do.]

Question: [According to R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah, are witnesses like Talmidim, that if they give a good reason, we seat them with the judges]? Whom do we appoint [with the judges] - the first, or the second, or both?

Answer: We learn from what R. Yochanan said "if [the Nidon] was acquitted through his own mouth (reason), we do not appoint him to be a judge'';

If he was acquitted through his witness, [if we would make him a judge,] it is found that a witness become a judge. We do not find that a witness may become a judge! (TZAFNAS PANE'ACH)

In monetary cases, we say "Nizdaken ha'Din'' (this is a difficult case, and we must add judges - KORBAN HA'EDAH). The greatest judge says Nizdaken ha'Din.

Question: Why does [the Tosefta 6:3] say that we add judges (and if one of the two added cannot decide, we add two more)? If two of the first [three] were Mezakeh, and one of the last [two added, if he decides either way], we can finish the Din with three!

Answer (R. La): Since it was proper to finish the Din with four (if both added judges will decide), we do not finish it with three. (We explained the question and answer like ZAHAV HA'ARETZ.)

Inference (R. Yosi): We learn from this that if three judged and one of them died, the two [remaining] sign [on the verdict] and write "even though two of us signed, we judged with three.'' (Since it was proper to finish with three, the final verdict must involve three judges.)

Support (R. Chagai - Mishnah): [The text of Pruzbul says "I hand over to you judges...'',] and below the judges or witnesses sign. (Witnesses do not apply to Pruzbul! Rather, if they began with three judges and one died, since only two remain, they are called witnesses. The Pruzbul must mention judges, i.e. that they began with three. We explained R. Yosi and R. Chagai like HAGAHOS R. DINAR.)

Question: Do we learns monetary cases from Pruzbul?!

Answer: We find a Tana who learns monetary cases from Pruzbul

(Our Mishnah said that if 36 are Mechayev and 35 are Mezakeh, they debate until one of the Mechayvim agrees with the words of the Mezakim.) If he did not agree, [the defendant] is Zakai; Reish Lakish says, he is liable.

R. Yochanan: He is Zakai! Why do they debate with each other [to see if one of the Mechayvim will agree with the Mezakim?] It is lest the Din come out unclear (it looks like Beis Din could not decide).