We just said in the last Mishnah that if there are two contradictory answers to Bedikot—two opposite answers about what the judges ask a person regarding a side detail of the case he witnessed—we throw out the testimony and say that it is invalid. Here, the Mishnah is going to say that there are exceptions to that rule. If the witnesses give certain answers that may seem not to fit with each other, we may assume that they both meant the same thing. We’ll explain.
The Mishnah says that if one witness says the crime happened on the second of the month, and the second witness says it happened on the third of the month, the testimony stands because we assume they made a simple mistake. The Jewish calendar has either 29 or 30 days in each month, depending on when the witnesses came to announce that they saw the new moon. If they came late—if they missed getting to the Bet Din (Jewish court) to declare Rosh Chodesh (new month)—then the rabbis would add an extra day to the month.
So, in this case, where one witness said it was on the second of the month and the other said it was on the third, the first witness knew that the previous month had 30 days. Therefore, he said that the crime happened on the second of the month, two days later. The second witness, who testified that it happened on the third of the month, did not know that an extra day had been added to the previous month. He thought the previous month was only 29 days long. So, when he saw that the case had happened, he assumed it was three days after the 29th, and therefore on the third of the month. They were really both talking about the same date. They were both in agreement, and they made a very common mistake. Their different answers do not mean that there was a conspiracy. We can resolve the contradiction and say that their testimony is valid, correct, and genuine, and therefore it stands.
But if one witness says the crime happened on the third of the month and the other says it happened on the fifth of the month, then the testimony is void. A two-day difference is impossible to reconcile. There is no way to say that they were really in agreement. We have to say that they are talking about two different days and contradicting each other, and therefore we throw out their testimony.
If one witness says the crime happened during the second hour of the day and the second witness says it happened during the third hour, we say the testimony stands. We accept that they are both talking about the same thing, and that sometimes people make an honest mistake. They didn’t have watches in those days. A person could make an honest mistake about the time between the second and third hour, so we don’t throw out their testimony.
But if one witness says the crime happened during the third hour of the day and the second witness says, “No, it happened during the fifth hour,” then they are in direct contradiction, and the testimony is void. That type of mistake is not manageable. We can’t say they were talking about the same thing. One of them must not be telling the truth. Rabbi Yehuda says, “No, we do keep the testimony, because people have the ability to confuse the third hour and the fifth hour. It’s not so far off.” Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda allows the testimony to stand. But in this case, everybody would agree that the testimony is not accepted, even Rabbi Yehuda.
If one witness says the crime happened during the fifth hour of the day and the second witness says it happened during the seventh hour of the day, if we pause here, we might think it is the same as before: Rabbi Yehuda would say that the testimony stands. It is only a two-hour difference, and when we were talking about the third and fifth hours, Rabbi Yehuda said we accept the testimony. So maybe it is the same here. But we say no: the testimony is not accepted, even according to Rabbi Yehuda. During the fifth hour, the sun is in the east, and during the seventh hour, the sun is in the west. It is very easy to tell the difference between these two hours. People would not confuse them with each other. Therefore, they must be talking about two very different times, and they contradict each other. Their accounts do not fit, and their testimony is thrown out.