We listed all the different types of questions in the last Mishnah that the judges ask the witnesses. They then proceed to ask them about all sorts of details that don't have to do with the actual crime or testimony: What was the weather like? What color clothing were the people wearing? They ask these questions to the witnesses separately, just to make sure that they're both telling the truth. If the answers are different, then we reject the testimony.
The Mishnah says, “Any judge who asks a lot of test questions is praised.” We think it's a very good thing. The more he asks, the more likely it is that he'll find a contradiction between the two people. So therefore, we suggest and encourage the judge to keep asking, to make sure that they're both telling the truth. We want to spare the person on trial from being put to death if he really is innocent.
There was once a case where Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was testing the witnesses and making sure that they were telling the truth. He asked them about the fig tree, about the stems of the fig tree, whether they were thin or thick. And they gave two different...
We listed the seven questions in the last Mishnah that we ask a person in order to make sure that he's telling the truth: the date, the day of the week, the month, etc. All those seven questions. There's a difference between those questions and the questions of Bedikot that we're talking about, which is what was going on in that situation, but nothing directly about the case.
The Mishnah asks, “What's the difference between the standard questions and the test questions that they're given?” The standard questions are those seven that we mentioned about what was going on at the time of the crime. The Bedikot are questions about what color shirts people were wearing, the weather, and all that.
So we say the difference between them is this: when talking about the regular seven questions, if one of the witnesses says that he doesn't know, then we say that his testimony is not good. We dismiss him and his testimony. We mentioned the idea that all edut, all testimony, has to have the ability to have somebody contradict it. For example, let's say he said, “Oh, I saw this crime on Tuesday afternoon in Yerushalayim.” You have to have the ability to give that, so someone else can arise and say, “No, you weren't there in Yerushalayim. I saw you in Netanya. I saw you on that date.” So you have to have the ability for someone else to undo it. If he says he doesn't know, you're not giving anybody else the chance to uproot your testimony by claiming that it was a lie. This is called a type of testimony that can't be contradicted by other people. So therefore, if someone says that he doesn't know the answer to one of the questions he was asked by the Beit Din (court), the whole testimony is bad.
But, but when talking about Bedikot, for example, what was the weather like? What was going on at the time of the crime? The Mishnah says here: when it comes to those questions, if one of the witnesses, or even two of the witnesses, say that they don't know, their testimony still stands. It's not a detail that has to really be covered, because these questions are side details. They're not about the core of the case. But, but when talking about both types of questions, if the witnesses contradict each other—not when they both say, “I don't know”; that's okay—but if they give opposite testimonies that don't fit with each other, different answers to the same question, then the testimony is thrown out, because a contradiction, even in something small, shows that the testimonies are inconsistent.