Or we could have a discussion. And this Mishnah will talk about how witnesses were questioned and investigated to make sure they were telling the truth. The Mishnah says that in both cases—those dealing with money and those dealing with capital punishment, meaning the death penalty—the witnesses are both investigated and questioned. And investigated, a chakira, is where they would talk to the person in question and make sure they had all the details about the case: how much money was lent, for example, when it was lent, where it was lent, and all the different details that come with a particular loan. They would make sure everything was investigated. They would speak to the witnesses to get all the details. Bedika, the second understanding, is that they would give investigation and then regular questioning. In the questioning, they would ask questions not about the actual case, but about side details. For example, what color were the lender’s clothes? Were they standing or sitting when they gave the loan? They would ask all different types of questions just to make sure they had the case clear and knew what was happening.
Like the Pasuk (verse) says, “there should be one law for you.” We learn from this Pasuk that when it says you have to investigate and question in cases of a murder trial, you have to do the same in monetary cases. We connect the two. Just as you have to investigate and question in cases involving capital punishment, or murder, you likewise have to question in monetary cases. The rabbis commented on this and said that, of course, when it comes to money cases, we have to make sure we do our due diligence. We question the witnesses and make sure everything is in line. But we are careful not to go overboard. We don’t want to question the witnesses in such detail beyond the necessary facts we need for the case. The rabbis were concerned that people wouldn’t lend money if they knew their witnesses would end up facing such an interrogation afterward. So we are careful not to overdo it when it comes to the witnesses.
Now we’re going to list 10 different ways in this Mishnah and in the next Mishnah. In this Mishnah, we’re going to list 10 different ways the two types of court cases are different: capital punishment, the death penalty, and money cases. Number one: What are the differences between monetary cases and murder trials? For money cases, we try the case with three judges. There are only three judges on the Beit Din (court), but murder cases have 23 judges.
In cases dealing with money, we could start the discussion with an idea or an argument that benefits the person on trial, who is defending himself, or with one that harms him by arguing that he is guilty. But in murder cases, they start the trial with a statement that would benefit the person on trial, saying that he is innocent. They do not begin with anything that could harm him. That is how we treat murder cases. We always want to put the favor in the defendant’s hands. God forbid, we don’t want there to be any possibility that we try him wrongly and make him more guilty than he is, because then he is going to be put to death.
We decide money cases by a majority of one vote, whether the decision benefits or harms the defendant. So if you have a trial that is two to one in favor of the person on trial, we say he is innocent. If it is two to one against him, then we say he is guilty. A simple majority of one is enough to say that he is guilty. But in cases where someone is on trial to be put to death, a person could be declared innocent with a majority of just one vote, but to be declared guilty, he would need two plus two on the Beit Din to say that he is guilty. For example, let’s say the Beit Din has 23 judges, and 12 of those judges say he is guilty while 11 say he is innocent. Then we cannot find him guilty because he has only a majority of one saying that he is guilty. So in this case, they would add more and more judges to the trial until they either reach a majority of two saying that he is guilty or have a majority of one saying that he is acquitted. We keep adding until we have one of those two outcomes. To say he is guilty, you need a majority of two. To say he is innocent, you need only a majority of one.
We reverse the verdict, the conclusion of the court, in money cases, whether the decision benefits or harms the person on trial. If we have new evidence, even if the judges decided one way, the new evidence could overturn their decision, whether it helps or harms the person on trial. But we reverse a case where someone is going to be put to death only if the reversal would help the person on trial, not harm him. So if we have new evidence that shows he is really guilty after we gave the verdict and concluded that he was innocent, we won’t overturn that. But if we concluded that he was guilty and were going to put him to death, and then new evidence comes to light, we would overturn that and declare him innocent.
With money cases, anybody who is at the trial—the judges or the students who would sit in front of them—would have their Talmidim, their students, join them in the court, as we’ll explain in Mishnah Dalet. Anybody who was there would be able to argue for the benefit or harm of the person on trial, anybody in the crowd. But in cases that would put a person to death, anybody is allowed to argue to help the person on trial and declare him innocent, but not everybody can argue to cause him harm and find him guilty. Only the judges are allowed to do that.
Number six. In money cases, if somebody argued that the defendant, the person on trial, is guilty, he is later allowed to say, “Oh, I think he is also innocent,” and give an argument in his favor. Somebody who argued to help the person on trial is also later allowed to say, “Oh, maybe he is guilty,” and give evidence or an argument the other way. So you can go either way. You can change your argument in money cases. But in capital cases, where we are going to put somebody to death, somebody who argued to harm the person is allowed afterward to say that they wanted to help him and give an argument in his favor. But if you gave an argument for the benefit of the person on trial, you are not allowed to change your mind and try to say that he was guilty. Once you gave your side and tried to say that he was innocent, you are not allowed to change it and say he was guilty. So we are a little more lenient in these cases involving people who may be put to death.
Number seven. In money cases, you are allowed to start the trial during the daytime and finish during the nighttime. Cases where you can put somebody to death have to be discussed during the daytime and also concluded during the daytime. You are not allowed to finish at night. In money cases, you finish on the same day you began. It doesn’t matter whether the conclusion is that the person on trial is innocent or guilty. In cases where someone is going to be put to death, you are allowed to finish the trial on that same day only if the conclusion, the verdict, is that the person on trial is innocent. If you want to find the person guilty, you have to wait until the next day and conclude the trial then; you can’t conclude it that same day.
Therefore, we do not judge these types of cases on a Friday, which is before Shabbat, or the day before Yom Tov (holiday), because if we decide that the person on trial is guilty, the halacha (Jewish law) is that we put him to death on that same day. We don’t want him to agonize. The mental torture of waiting when he knows he is going to die is quite difficult for a person. So we don’t want to torture him. Therefore, the halacha is that you put him to death immediately. We don’t want to have to wait for this person. If we start a trial on Friday, we know we won’t be able to conclude it the next day, on Shabbat, because you are not allowed to put somebody to death on Shabbat or Yom Tov, even if the Beit Din tells you to do so. So we don’t start the trial at the end of Shabbat or at the end of Yom Tov because we know we won’t be able to conclude it the next day. We put it off and wait until we have two free days, one day to start the trial and one day to end it.