Parallel
פסחים 12
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
and one of them erred in just over an hour. R. Huna the son of R. Judah went and reported this discussion before Raba. Said he: now what if we carefully examined these witnesses [and found] that the one who testified [that it took place] in the third [hour] meant at the beginning of the third hour, while he who testified [that it took place] in the fifth [meant] at the end of the fifth, so that it would be a confuted testimony and we would not execute [the accused]; shall we then arise and execute him through a doubt, whereas the Merciful One has ordered, then the congregation shall judge . . . and the congregation shall deliver? Rather said Raba: on R. Meir's ruling a man may err in two hours less a trifle, while on R. Judah's ruling a man may err in three hours less a trifle. On R. Meir's ruling a man may err in two hours less a trifle: the incident happened either at the beginning of the second or at the end of the third [hour], and one of them erred in two hours less a trifle. On R. Judah's ruling a man may err in three hours less a trifle: the incident occurred either at the beginning of the third or at the end of the fifth [hour], and one of them erred in three hours less a trifle. We learned: They were examined with seven hakiroth: In which septennate [was the crime committed], in which year, in which month, on what day of the month, on what day [of the week]. at which hour and in which place? And ‘ye [further] learned: What is the difference between hakiroth and bedikoth? In hakiroth, if one of them [the witnesses] replied. ‘I do not know’, their testimony is null; in bedikoth, even if both declare, ‘We do not know’, their testimony is valid. Now we questioned this: Wherein this difference between hakiroth and bedikoth? And we answered: In hakiroth, if one declares, ‘I do not know’, their testimony is null, because it is a testimony which cannot be rebutted; whereas with respect to bedikoth it is [still] a testimony which can be rebutted. Now if you say that a man may err in so much, then the hakiroth of which hour also [leaves] testimony which cannot be rebutted, for they can assert, ‘We did indeed err’? — We allow them [the benefit of] the whole of their [possible] error: according to R. Meir we allow them from the beginning of the first hour until the end of the fifth; and logically we should give them even more at the beginning, but that people do not err between day and night. While according to R. Judah we allow them from the beginning of the first hour until the end of the sixth; and logically we should give them more at the beginning,
—
but that people do not err between day and night; and logically we should give them more at the end, but that in the fifth hour the sun is in the east while in the seventh the sun is in the west. We learned: R. MEIR SAID: ONE MAY EAT [LEAVEN] THE WHOLE OF THE FIVE [HOURS] AND MUST BURN [IT] AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SIXTH. R. JUDAH SAID: ONE MAY EAT THE WHOLE OF THE FOUR [HOURS]. KEEP [IT] IN SUSPENSE THE WHOLE OF THE FIFTH, AND MUST BURN [IT] AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SIXTH. Now according to Abaye who maintains that on R. Meir's view a man does not err at all, let us eat [leaven] for the whole of the six [hours]? And even on the version which asserts [that] a man may err slightly, let us eat until the end of the sixth hour? And according to Abaye on R. Judah's view, who maintains [that] a man may err in half an hour, let us eat [leaven] until half of the sixth hour; and even on the version in which you say. A man may err in an hour and a trifle, let us eat until the end of the fifth hour? — Said Abaye: Testimony is committed to careful men, [whereas] leaven is committed to all. Now according to Raba who maintains [that] on R. Meir's view a man may err in two hours less a trifle, let us not eat [leaven] from the beginning of the fifth [hour]? — In the fifth [hour] the sun is in the east, while in the seventh the sun is in the west. If so, let us eat during the sixth [hour] too? — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: In the sixth the sun stands in the meridian. And according to Raba who maintains on R. Judah's view [that] a man may err in three hours less a trifle, let us not eat from the beginning of the fourth [hour]? — In the fifth [hour] the sun is in the east, while in the seventh it is in the west, and all the more so in the fourth. If so, let us also eat in the fifth [hour]? — Abaye answered this on Raba's view: Testimony is committed to men of care, [whereas] leaven is committed to all. But Raba said: Now this is R. Judah's reason, but R. Judah follows his opinion. for he maintains, There is no removal of leaven save by burning; the Rabbis therefore gave him one hour in which to collect fuel. Rabina raised an objection to Raba: R. Judah said: When is this? before the time of removal; but at the time of removal its ‘putting away’ is with anything. Rather said Raba: It is a preventive measure on account of a cloudy day. If so, let us not eat even during the four hours? — Said R. Papa: The fourth [hour] is the general mealtime. Our Rabbis taught: The first hour [of the day] is the mealtime for gladiators; the second is the mealtime for robbers; the third is the mealtime for heirs; the fourth is the mealtime for labourers; the fifth is the mealtime for scholars; the sixth is the general mealtime. But R. Papa said: The fourth [hour] is the general mealtime? — Rather reverse it: The fourth is the general mealtime; the fifth is for labourers; and the sixth is for scholars. After that it is like throwing a stone into a barrel. Abaye said: That was said only if nothing at all is eaten in the morning; but if something was eaten in the morning. we have nought against it. R. Ashi said: As there is a controversy in respect of testimony. so is there a controversy in respect of leaven. But it is obvious? That is precisely what we have said! This is what he informs us: the answers which we gave are [correct] answers, and you need not say that it is dependent on Tannaim. R. Simi b. Ashi said: They learned this only in respect of hours; but if one testified [that the crime was committed] before sunrise and the others testified, after sunrise, their testimony is void. That is obvious? — Rather [say] if one testified [that it was] during sunrise, their testimony is void. That too is obvious? You might say, Both testified to the same thing, while he who said [that it was]
—