Sanhedrin

Rabina explained it  thus: E.g he [the plaintiff] had a pledge [from the defendant] and he [the judge] had taken it from him:  He declared the clean, 'unclean', means that he brought it into contact with a reptile;  he declared the unclean,'clean', by mixing it with his [the questioner's] own fruit. IN CAPITAL CHARGES etc. Our Rabbis taught: Whence [do we infer] that if the accused leaves the Beth din guilty, and someone says: 'I have a statement to make in his favour,' he is to be brought back?  — Scripture reads: The guiltless  slay thou not.  And whence [do we infer] that if he leaves the Beth din not guilty, and someone says: 'I have something to state against him,'he may not be brought back? — From the verse, And the righteous,  slay thou not. R. Shimi b. Ashi said: It is the reverse in the case of a Mesith, for it is written: Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him.  R. Kahana derived it  from the words: But thou shalt surely kill him. R. Zera asked of R. Shesheth: What of those condemned to exile?  — Identical law is inferred from the use of rozeah in both cases.  What of those liable to flagellation? Identical law is derived from the use of rasha' [guilty] in both cases,  it has been taught likewise: Whence [do we infer the same procedure] for those liable to exile? — Identify of law is derived from the use of 'murderer' in both places. And in the case of those liable to flogging? — From the fact that 'guilty' is used in both places. BUT NOT FOR CONDEMNATION. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: Proving that he erred in a matter which the Sadducees  do not admit.  But if he erred in a matter which even they admit,  let him go back to school and learn it. R. Hiyya b. Abba asked R. Johanan: What if he erred in a law regarding an adulterer or an adulteress?  — He answered: While thy fire is burning, go, cut thy pumpkin and roast it.  It has been stated likewise: R. Ammi said in R. Johanan's name: If he erred in the case of an adulterer, the decision must be reversed. Then in what cases are decisions not reversed?  — R. Abbahu said in R. Johanan's name: E.g., If he erred in respect to unnatural intercourse. IN MONETARY CASES, ALL etc. 'ALL' [implies] even the witnesses. Shall we say that our Mishnah represents the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah, and not that of our Rabbis? For it has been taught: 'But one witness shall not testify against any person  — both for acquittal and condemnation.  R. Jose son of R. Judah said: He may testify for acquittal, but not for condemnation'? — Said R. Papa: ['ALL'] refers to [even] a single one of the disciples, and thus it agrees with all.