Sanhedrin

R. Aha of Difti  said to Rabina:  Yet should not one utter the benediction,  'Blessed … who art good and dispensest good'!  — He replied: But when it is waning, do we say, 'Blessed be the true judge.'  that we should say: 'Blessed … who art good and dispensest good?'  But why should not both be recited?  Since it is a regular phenomenon, no benediction at all is required. R. Aha b. Hanina also said in the name of R. Assi in R. Johanan's name: Whoever pronounces the benediction over the new moon in its due time welcomes, as it were, the presence of the Shechinah: for one passage states, This month;  whilst elsewhere it is said, This is my God, and I will giorify Him. In the school of Rabbi Ishmael it was taught: Had Israel inherited no other privilege  than to greet the presence of their Heavenly Father once a month,  it were sufficient. Abaye said: Therefore  we must recite it standing. But Meremar and Mar Zutra allowed themselves to be carried on the shoulders  when they pronounced the blessing. R. Aha said to R. Ashi: In 'the West,' they pronounce the following benediction: 'Blessed be He who reneweth the moons.' Whereupon he retorted: Such a blessing even our women folk pronounce!  But [one should rather use the following], in accordance with Rab Judah, who gives it thus: Praised etc.  who created the Heavens with His word, and all their hosts with the breath of His mouth. He appointed unto them fixed laws and times, that they should not change their ordinance. They rejoice and are glad to do the will of their Creator. They work  truthfully, for their action is truth. The moon He ordered that she should renew herself as a crown of beauty for those whom He sustains from the womb,  and who will, like it, be renewed in the future, and magnify their Maker in the name of the glory of His kingdom. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who renewest the moons. For with wise advice  thou shalt make thy war.  R. Aha b. Hanina [further] said in the name of R. Assi in R. Johanan's name: In whom do you find [skill to conquer in] the battle of the Torah?  — Only in him who possesses bundles of Mishnah [teaching]. R. Joseph applied to himself [the verse]: Much increase [of grain] is by the strength of the ox. SIMILARLY, IF ONE TESTIFIED, 'DURING THE SECOND HOUR' etc. R. Shimi b. Ash said: They taught this only of hours.  But if one testifies, 'It was before sunrise,' and the other says, 'After sunrise, their evidence is invalid.  This is obvious  — But [put it thus:] if one testifies, 'Before sunrise,' and the other, 'During sunrise.'  But this too is obvious! I might, however, think that he [the witness] was standing in the glow [before sunrise] and what he saw was but a gleam:  He therefore informs us otherwise. AFTER THIS, THE SECOND WITNESS IS ADMITTED etc. [AND HE DOES NOT DESCEND FROM THERE ALL THAT DAY.] Only THAT DAY,  and no longer? But has it not been taught: 'If there is substance in his statement, he does not go down from there at all;  but if there is no substance therein, he does not descend thence all that day, that his rise be not his fall'?  — Abaye said: Interpret it [sc. the Mishnah] as applying [to a case] where no substance was found in his statement. IF THEY FIND HIM NOT GUILTY etc. [AND DRINK NO WINE]. Why drink no wine? — R. Aha b. Hanina said: Scripture states, It is not for princes  to say, Where is strong drink?  [i.e.,] those who are engaged in [unravelling] the secrets of the world  must not become drunk. THE TWO SIDES DEBATE THE CASE TOGETHER UNTIL ONE OF THOSE WHO CONDEMN AGREES WITH etc. But what if they do not agree? R. Aha ruled: He is discharged. R. Johanan said likewise: He is discharged. R. Papa said to Abaye: Then he should be set free in the first place!  He answered: Thus did R. Johanan say: It is in order that they may not leave the Court in confusion.  Some say that R. Papa said to Abaye: Why add, Let him be discharged by the first court?  To which he replied: R. Jose is in agreement with you. For it has been taught: R. Jose said: Just as a court of seventy-one is not increased, so may a court of twenty-three not be increased. Our Rabbis taught: In civil suits, a declaration is made, The judgement nizdakan;  but not in capital charges.  What does (for note 9 see p. 274) nizdakan mean? Shall we say, The case is difficult:  surely, the reverse should have been taught!  R. Huna b. Manoah said in the name of R. Aha the son of R. Ika: We should reverse (the instances). R. Ashi said: In truth, you need not reverse it: what is meant by 'The judgment nizdakan'? — The case is wisely [established]. An objection is raised: The presiding judge declares, 'The judgment nizdakan.' Now, should you agree that it means, 'The case is wisely established,' it is correct, hence the presiding judge makes the declaration. But if you maintain that it means, The case is difficult;' is it not better that the presiding judge should not say it? Surely in doing so he actually disgraces himself! — There is no comparison between declaring one's own disgrace and having another declare it.  Others state: Should you agree that it means, The case is difficult,' it is correct, for there is no comparison between declaring ones own disgrace and having another declare it. But if you maintain that it means, 'The case is wisely established:' does not the president [of the court] thereby praise himself? Whereas it is written, Let another praise thee and not thine own mouth?  — It is different in judicial matters, since the president is charged with the duty,  as we learnt: When a decision has been arrived at, they are admitted, and the presiding judge declares, 'So and so, thou art not liable,' or, 'So and so, thou art liable.'