[If] one says [it happened] on the second of the month and one says [it happened] on the third of the month, their testimony is upheld, because this one is aware of the intercalation of the month and this one is not aware of the intercalation of the month. [If] one says [it happened] on the third and one says [it happened] on the fifth, their testimony is null. [If] one says [it happened] in the second hour [of the day] and one says [it happened] in the third hour [of the day], their testimony is up-held. [If] one says [it happened] in the third [hour] and one says in the fifth, their testimony is null. R’ Yehudah says: It is up-held. [But if] one says [it happened] in the fifth [hour] and one says in the seventh, their testimony is null, because in the fifth [hour] the sun is to the east while in the seventh [hour] it is to the west.

After this, they admit the second [witness] and examine him. [If] their words concur, they open with [the consideration of] acquittal. [If] one of the witnesses says, “I can pre- sent grounds for his acquittal,” or one of the disciples [says,] “I can pre-sent grounds for his conviction,” they silence him. [If] one of the disciples says, “I can present grounds for his acquittal,” they elevate and seat him among them, and he does not descend from there the entire day. If there is substance to his words, they listen to him. Even if he says, “I can present grounds for my own acquittal,” they listen to him, as long as there is substance to his words.

If they find a reason to acquit him, they acquit him; if not, they postpone his verdict until the next day. They then pair off —- limiting their [consumption of] food and abstaining from wine the entire day —- and analyze the matter through the night. On the following morning they arise early and come to court. The one who argued for acquittal declares, “I argued for ac-quittal and I maintain my position in favor of acquittal.” The one who argued for conviction says, “I argued for conviction and I maintain my position in favor of conviction.” One who argued for conviction may argue for acquittal, but one who argued for acquittal may not re- verse [himself] and argue for conviction. [If] they erred, the two judicial scribes remind them. If they find an argument to acquit him, they acquit him; if not, they take a vote. [If] twelve vote for acquittal and eleven for convic-tion, he is acquitted. [If] twelve vote for conviction and eleven for acquittal, or even eleven vote for acquittal and eleven for conviction, and one says, “I do not know,” or even twenty-two vote for acquittal or conviction, and one says, “I do not know” —- they add judges. Up to how many do they add? Two by two until [they reach] seventy-one. [If] thirty-six vote for acquittal and thirty-five for conviction, he is acquitted. [If] thirty-six vote for conviction and thirty-five for acquittal, they debate each other until one of those voting for conviction agrees with the opinion of those voting for acquittal.

Once the case has been decided, they take him out to stone him. The stoning place was outside the court [area], as it is stat-ed: Take out the blasphemer. One [man] stands at the courthouse door with flags in his hand, and [another] man sits astride a horse at a distance from him within his sight. [If] someone says, “I have grounds for his acquittal,” that one waves the flags and the horse runs and halts him. Even if he says, “I have grounds for my own acquittal,” they return him, even four or five times, as long as there is substance to his words. [If] they found an argument for his acquittal, they acquit him; if not, he goes out to be stoned. A proclamation goes out before him: So-and-so the son of so-and-so is going out to be stoned be-cause he transgressed such-and-such a prohibition, and so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Whoever knows any grounds for his acquittal should come forward and present them.