The Mishnah teaches that if two witnesses provide conflicting testimony regarding the date of an event, specifically differing by one day—one stating the second of the month and the other the third—their testimony is still accepted. This is because it is presumed that one witness might have been unaware that the preceding month was a "full" month (a 30-day month) rather than a "deficient" one (a 29-day month). Consequently, they might have miscounted, leading to a one-day discrepancy. The Gemara then asks: how far into the month can this assumption hold? How long can witnesses reasonably remain unaware of the previous month's length?
Abba bar Hanina, in the name of Abba Yochanan, states that this leniency applies only until the majority of the month has passed. Once the fifteenth of the month arrives, it is assumed that everyone would have already learned the correct length of the previous month. Therefore, if a discrepancy of even one day occurs after this point, their testimony is invalidated. For example, if they differ on the fifth and sixth of the month, their testimony is still valid. But once the majority of the month has passed, and they differ even by one day, their testimony is void.
Rava bar Hanina supports this concept by citing a Baraita which states: "If one witness says the third and another says the fifth, their testimony is void." This is considered a two-day discrepancy. The Gemara questions why this two-day difference invalidates the testimony. Why can't we assume that one witness made a mistake regarding the length of two preceding months, similar to how a one-day mistake is attributed to an error about one preceding month?
The Gemara responds that by the time the majority of the month has passed, it is impossible to assume a mistake regarding two months. This reinforces the idea that after the majority of the month, people are expected to know the correct dates. However, Rava offers an alternative explanation: it is indeed possible that even after the majority of the month, one might not know the exact length of the previous month. The reason a two-day discrepancy is not accepted, while a one-day discrepancy is, relates to the blowing of the shofar for Rosh Chodesh. It is conceivable that someone might miss hearing the shofar for one Rosh Chodesh, leading to a one-day error. But to miss two such shofar blowings, resulting in a two-day error, is considered far-fetched.
The discussion then shifts to the laws of Birkat HaLevanah, the blessing on the moon. The Gemara asks: until when can one recite this blessing? The general principle is "until the deficiency of the moon is filled." How much is this?
Rav Yaakov, in the name of Rav Yehudah, states that the blessing can be recited until the seventh of the month. After the seventh, the moon is considered to have reached its peak and is no longer perceived as "new." However, Nahar de Amar Ad Shasha'asat (others say until the sixteenth) suggests that the blessing can be made until the sixteenth of the month, which is when the moon reaches its full state. The Gemara explains that both opinions agree that the blessing is recited when the moon's "deficiency is filled." The disagreement lies in defining what constitutes "filled." One opinion holds that it is "like the string of a bow"—a half-circle—which occurs around the seventh day. The other opinion believes it is "like a sieve," a complete circle, which occurs around the sixteenth day.
The Gemara then raises a question: if the blessing is not recited after the seventh day because the moon is considered "old" and no longer "new," why is it permitted to recite the blessing until the sixteenth day, when the moon is clearly growing bigger? This implies a positive aspect. The Gemara asks: if we recite a blessing for the moon when it is growing, should we not also recite a blessing of "Dayan Emet" (Blessed is the True Judge) when it begins to wane, and a blessing of "HaTov VeHaMeitiv" (He Who is Good and Bestows Good) when it is growing? The Gemara answers that the waxing and waning of the moon is a natural cycle, a "nature of the world." It is not considered a specific "good" or "bad" event for which a special blessing is recited, unlike a unique event such as a death in a family. This monthly cycle is a regular occurrence, like the daily cycle of the sun.
The Gemara emphasizes the profound significance of Birkat HaLevanah. It states that if the Jewish people had merited only this one mitzvah—the ability to greet the Shechina (Divine Presence) every month when reciting Birkat HaLevanah—it would have been sufficient. This mitzvah alone is considered so great that it would have been enough for them. This is why the blessing is recited standing, as if greeting the Shechina. It is customary to recite it on Saturday night (Motzei Shabbat) while dressed in nice clothes and using fragrant spices (besamim) to further enhance the sense of greeting the Shechina.
The Gemara relates that two specific rabbis would lean on each other's shoulders to stand during Birkat HaLevanah because they were old and found it difficult to stand alone. This is seen as the source for the custom of dancing during this blessing. The Gemara then discusses the text of the blessing. In the West (referring to Israel), they would recite a very simple blessing. When asked about this, they replied, "That's a blessing even ladies can make." This was a sarcastic remark, implying that such a short blessing was too simple, not that women should actually recite Birkat HaLevanah. They were suggesting that a blessing like "Be Hadesh HaChodesh" (May the month be renewed) was too brief. Rabbi Yehudah, however, would recite a more elaborate text: "Blessed is He who spoke and created the heavens, and with the spirit of His mouth created all the legions, galaxies, planets, and stars. God gave the planets and stars a certain time and rule, and they should not change from their purpose or mission. They are happy to fulfill the will of their Master. And when it comes to the moon, God tells the moon that every month it should be renewed. This renewal signifies that those born from the womb (referring to the Jewish people, God's firstborn) will also be renewed like the moon, and they will give praise to their Creator." The moon thus serves as a signal for the Jewish people, symbolizing that just as the moon renews itself, so too will the Jewish people be renewed and emerge from exile.
The Gemara then discusses a verse that speaks of waging war with strategies. It applies this to the "war of Torah," meaning the intellectual struggle to understand Torah. It asks: who is truly engaged in the war of Torah, possessing deep understanding? It is one who knows bundles and bundles of Mishnah, who can give correct rulings and stand on solid ground with clarity. This is contrasted with someone who has a good brain and can offer clever logical arguments (sevarot) but lacks foundational knowledge. Without learning the Mishnah—the source law—one cannot know the roots of halakha. If one is unclear about a halakha, they can bring a different Mishnah to shed light on it, understanding whether it represents a different opinion (shita) or a consistent view. Therefore, the study of Mishnayot provides a person with a comprehensive understanding of all halakhot.
The Gemara states that Rav Yosef used to say about himself, "Based on the strength of the ox, that's how much wheat he's able to carry." He was referring to himself, meaning that one who possesses a vast amount of halakhot is like one carrying much wheat—everyone needs him. Rav Yosef was called "the ox" in the Torah (referring to Yosef in the Torah, who was compared to an ox), and he applied this metaphor to his own extensive knowledge of halakha.
Returning to the Mishnah, it discusses discrepancies in witness testimony regarding time. If two witnesses differ by one hour—one saying two hours, the other three hours—their testimony is accepted. This is because a one-hour mistake is considered permissible. However, if one says "before sunrise" and the other says "after sunrise," this is a significant discrepancy and their testimony is not accepted. The Gemara clarifies that even "before sunrise" versus "during sunrise" is a substantial difference. One might think that a person in an open field could see the rays of the sun before actual sunrise and mistake it for "during sunrise," thus allowing for a mistake. However, this is not the case; such a discrepancy is too great. In such situations, the other witness is brought in and interrogated further.
The Mishnah further states that if a student (talmid) sitting among the audience declares, "I have a reason to exonerate the accused," he is brought up to the bench of the Sages (hachamim). He presents his reasoning, and if his logic is sound, he remains seated with the court (beit din) permanently, receiving an honorary spot. He is not sent back down. If his reasoning is not good, he is allowed to remain on the bench for the rest of that day to avoid embarrassing him, but he does not stay permanently. The phrase "that day and no more" refers to the case where his logic was not good. If his logic was good, he remains there forever.
The Gemara discusses the rule that judges cannot drink wine on the day they are judging. It states that those "involved in the secrets of the word" (referring to judges who reveal the secrets of the law) are not allowed to be drunk.
The discussion then moves to capital cases and the procedure for a Sanhedrin (court of 23 judges). If the vote is 12-11 for exoneration, the accused is acquitted, as a majority of one is sufficient for acquittal. However, if the vote is 12-11 for conviction, the case is considered a hung jury because a conviction requires a majority of two. In such a situation, judges are added to the court in pairs until the court reaches 71 judges. If, even with 71 judges, the vote remains 36-35 for conviction, the case is still hung. At this point, the judges must engage in further deliberation and discussion among themselves until one of the opinions changes, either resulting in a 37-35 conviction (a two-vote majority) or a change to acquittal. The Gemara asks: why is this extra stage of deliberation necessary? Once the 71 judges have voted 36-35 for conviction, and they couldn't reach a conclusion, why not simply acquit the accused immediately? Why force them to talk it out further?
The Gemara answers that this is done "in order not to leave the court without a ruling." To avoid embarrassing the court by not reaching a conclusive verdict, they are made to deliberate further, even after the initial vote, to ensure a definitive outcome. Some have a different version of this conversation, asking: why even add judges in the first place? If the initial 23-judge court votes 12-11 for conviction, why not acquit the accused then and there? Why add more judges? The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yosef holds this opinion, that judges are not added to a court of 23; if it's 12-11 for conviction, the accused is acquitted. This is a valid halachic opinion.
A Baraita states that in monetary law (dinei mamonot), a judge can declare, "This law is very difficult; we need to deliberate." But in capital punishment cases (dinei nefashot), this statement is not made. The Gemara questions this. It seems counterintuitive; capital cases should be more difficult and require more deliberation than monetary cases. The Gemara clarifies that the statement "This law is very difficult" is indeed made in capital cases, but not in monetary cases. The Baraita should be read as: in monetary cases, one does not say "Nizdaken Hadin" (the judgment is clear/settled), but in capital cases, one does say it. What is "Nizdaken Hadin"? It means the judge declares that the ruling is clear and without doubt, and no one needs to change their opinion. In capital cases, once a verdict is reached, it is final. However, in monetary cases, even after a ruling, a judge is allowed to change their opinion, potentially altering the judgment. Therefore, in monetary cases, the judgment is never declared "Nizdaken Hadin."
The Gemara then asks: who makes the statement "Nizdaken Hadin"? Rav Shechet Gavra says it is the greatest of the judges (gadol shebedayanim) who makes this declaration at the end of the proceedings. If "Nizdaken Hadin" means "the judgment is clear," then it makes sense for the greatest judge to pronounce the verdict. But if "Nizdaken Hadin" means "the judgment is difficult and we lack clarity," why would the greatest judge make such an embarrassing statement? Why would we allow the most prominent judge to admit uncertainty?
The Gemara responds: it is better for the greatest judge to embarrass himself by admitting difficulty than for someone else to say it, which would be an embarrassment to the entire court. However, some interpret the statement "Nizdaken Hadin" as "the judgment is correct" or "the judgment is sound." In this case, why would the greatest judge praise himself? This goes against the principle that "let others praise you, not your own mouth." The Gemara answers that the proceedings of a Bet Din are different. The law and the verdict of the Bet Din are dependent on the greatest of the judges. When the case is finalized, the litigants are brought in, and the greatest judge declares, "So-and-so, you are innocent," or "So-and-so, you are guilty." Since the verdict is dependent on him, he must make the declaration.
We now begin the sixth chapter, which discusses the stages after a guilty verdict, specifically focusing on capital punishment. For example, if the verdict is "guilty of stoning" (hayav sekilah), the accused is taken out to the place of stoning (beit hasekila), which is outside and far away from the Bet Din. This distance is maintained because the Torah states regarding one who blasphemes God, "Take him out," meaning remove him from the confines of the Bet Din for punishment.
A system is in place to allow for last-minute exoneration. One person stands at the gate of the Bet Din holding a handkerchief, and another person on horseback is positioned far away, near the Beit HaSekilah, but close enough to see the signal. If new evidence emerges to exonerate the accused, the person at the gate waves the handkerchief. The horseman sees the signal, rides to the Beit HaSekilah, and halts the execution. This system ensures that until the moment of death, there is a way to recall the accused if new evidence arises. Even if the accused himself claims to have new reasons for exoneration, even multiple times, if his claims have substance, the process is halted. The Gemara asks: how do we know if his claims have substance? The Bet Din determines this.
The Gemara questions the statement that the Beit HaSekilah is "right outside" the Bet Din, implying proximity. It states that sources indicate the Beit HaSekilah is actually far away. A Baraita teaches that the Beit HaSekilah was "outside of three camps" (chutz leshalosh machanot) in the desert. These three camps were: Machane Shechina (the Mishkan), Machane Leviyah (around the Mishkan, where Moshe and the Levites were), and Machane Yisrael (around Machane Leviyah). Similarly, in Jerusalem, the Har HaBayit (Temple Mount) is Machane Shechina, the Azara (Temple courtyard) is Machane Leviyah, and the area within the walls of Jerusalem is Machane Yisrael. According to this, the Beit HaSekilah must be outside the walls of Jerusalem, far from the Bet Din, which itself might be within the walls. The Gemara clarifies that even if the Bet Din is already outside the three camps, the Beit HaSekilah must still be further away. This distance is maintained for two reasons: first, to prevent the Bet Din from witnessing the execution, as a court that issues a guilty verdict, even rarely, is considered a "murderous court," bringing shame upon it. Second, the distance provides time for a reprieve if new evidence emerges, as discussed earlier.
The Gemara then asks: how do we know that the Beit HaSekilah must be "outside of three camps"? A Baraita explains that the verse regarding the blasphemer (mekalel) states, "Take him outside the camps." The Gemara asks: who told you this means three camps? Perhaps it means only one camp. The Gemara answers by drawing an analogy (gezerah shavah). The phrase "outside the camp" (michutz lamachaneh) is used here regarding the blasphemer, and it is also used regarding the "burnt bulls" (parim hanisrafim). These are specific offerings (korbanot) that the Kohen does not eat but are burned outside the camp. Just as the burning of the "burnt bulls" is "outside of three camps," so too the blasphemer is taken "outside of three camps."
The Gemara then asks: how do we know that the "burnt bulls" are burned "outside of three camps"? This refers to the bull brought by an anointed Kohen (Par Kohen Mashiach) who made a halachic error, and the bull brought by the Sanhedrin (Par HaEdah) for a halachic error. These are burned outside the camp. The Gemara asks: who says it's three camps, and not just one? The Gemara cites another verse about the Sanhedrin's bull, which says, "You shall burn it outside the camp, just as you burned the first bull." This implies a similarity to the Kohen Mashiach's bull. The fact that the verse for the Sanhedrin's bull explicitly states "outside the camp" again, even though it already said "like the first bull," comes to add a second camp. Furthermore, a verse regarding the ashes (deshen) of the altar states that they are taken "outside the camp." The Kohen Mashiach's bull is burned in the place where the ashes are taken. The fact that the verse for the Kohen Mashiach's bull says "outside the camp" again, even though it already referred to the place of the ashes, comes to add a third camp. Thus, through these derivations, we learn that the place of execution for the blasphemer, and the burning of these specific korbanot, must be "outside of three camps."