Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SHARING THE PAYMENT

(a) (Mishnah): Edim Zomemim divide among themselves the payment of money they tried to make the Nidon pay, they do not divide lashes:

1. If they testified that Ploni must pay 200 Zuz, all together the witnesses pay 200;
2. If they testified that Ploni must receive 40 lashes, each receives 40 lashes.

(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer #1 (Abaye): We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Rasha-Rasha" from Chayavei Misos:

1. Just as half-Misah is not (possible to be) given, half-sets of lashes are not given.

(d) Answer #2 (Rava): If the lashes would be divided, this is not "Ka'asher Zamam La'asos l'Achiv".
(e) Question: If so, also when money is divided, this is not "Ka'asher Zamam"!
(f) Answer: Money joins (Ploni receives what they sought to make him lose), lashes do not join.

(a) (Mishnah): Edim only become Zomemim if the Mezimim (the latter witnesses) contradict what the first ones implicitly said about themselves (i.e. that they were at the scene of what they testified about).

1. If two witnesses testified that Ploni killed Shimon, and other witnesses (David and Moshe) say 'That is impossible - that day, Ploni (or Shimon) was with us somewhere else!', the first witnesses are not Zomemim;
2. But if David and Moshe say 'How can you testify about this? That day, you were with us in a different place', the first witnesses are Zomemim, they are killed based on the testimony of David and Moshe.

(b) If more witnesses testified about Ploni, and David and Moshe were Mezim them, and again, all the Zomemim witnesses are killed;
(c) R. Yehudah says, this is a conspiracy to Mezim anyone who will testify about Ploni, only the first witnesses are killed (this will be explained).
(d) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of the first law of the MIshnah?
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Ada): "V'Hinei Ed Sheker ha'Ed Sheker Anah" - they must establish the witnesses themselves to be false (i.e. what they implicitly said about themselves).
(f) Answer #2 (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "La'anos Bo *Sarah*" - the witnesses themselves must be Husru (removed, i.e. we learn that they were not there).
(g) (Rava): If two witnesses said 'Ploni killed someone to the east of the building', and others said '(At that time,) you were with us to the west of the building', we check:

1. If someone to the west can see what is happening to the east, they are not Zomemim; if not, they are Zomemim.

(h) Question: This is obvious!
(i) Answer: One might have thought that we suspect that the witnesses have better eyesight than normal people - the Mishnah teaches, this is not so.
(j) (Rava): If two witnesses said 'Sunday morning in Sura, Ploni killed someone', and others said 'Sunday afternoon, you were with us in Neharda'a', we check:

1. If someone can travel from Sura to Neharda'a in that amount of time, they are not Zomemim; if not, they are Zomemim.

(k) Question: This is obvious!
(l) Answer: One might have thought that we suspect that the witnesses found camels that run much faster than normal - the Mishnah teaches, this is not so.
(m) (Rava): If two witnesses said 'On Sunday, Ploni killed someone (in a certain place)', and others said 'On Sunday, you were with us elsewhere; on Monday, he killed someone', the first two (and Ploni) are killed;

1. Even if they said that Ploni had killed on Erev Shabbos, the first witnesses are killed, because at the time they testified about Ploni, he was not yet sentenced to die.

(n) Question: We already learn this from a Mishnah!

1. (Mishnah): Therefore (when they are considered two Kitos (sets of witnesses), if one Kat was Huzam, they and the murderer are killed, the other Kat is exempt.

(o) Answer: Indeed, Rava's Chidush was the continuation of his words, which we do not learn from the Mishnah,
(p) (Rava): The law is different regarding the final verdict:

1. (Rava): If two witnesses said (on Tuesday) 'On Sunday, Ploni was sentenced to die (in a certain Beis Din)', and others said 'On Sunday, you were with us elsewhere; on Erev Shabbos he was sentenced', the first two are exempt;
2. Even if they said that Ploni was sentenced on Monday, the first witnesses are exempt, because at the time they testified, Ploni was already sentenced to die, he was (according to Halachah) dead.

(q) The same applies to paying a Kenas:

1. If two witnesses said 'On Sunday, Ploni stole (flock or cattle) and slaughtered or sold (for which he pays a Kenas of three or four times the value (in addition to the principal (the value of the stolen animal, which is not a Kenas))', and others said 'On Sunday, you were with us elsewhere; on Monday, he stole and slaughtered or sold', the first two pay the fine (to Ploni, and he pays the full four or five);
2. Even if they said that Ploni had stolen and slaughtered or sold on Erev Shabbos, the first witnesses pay the fine, because at the time the testified about Ploni, he was not yet obligated to pay the fine (perhaps he would have admitted, and been exempt).
3. If two witnesses said (on Tuesday) 'On Sunday, a certain Beis Din obligated Ploni to pay Kenas (four or five, because he stole and slaughtered or sold)', and others said 'On Sunday, you were with us elsewhere; on Erev Shabbos, Beis Din obligated him to pay Kenas', the first two are exempt;
4. Even if they said that Beis Din obligated Ploni on Monday, the first witnesses are exempt, because at the time they testified about Ploni, he was already obligated to pay the Kenas.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): This is a conspiracy...

(b) Question: If it is a conspiracy, also the first witnesses should not be killed!
(c) Answer #1 (R. Avahu): The case is, the first witnesses were already killed.
(d) Question: If so (the Mishnah does not teach that they *should* be killed,) why does it mention that they were killed?
(e) Answer #2 (Rava): The Mishnah teaches, if there was only one Kat (that testified and was Huzam), the Kat is killed; if there are more than one Kat, they are not killed.
(f) Question: But it says, *only* the first Kat is killed!
(g) This is left difficult
(h) A woman brought witnesses; they were found to be liars. She brought more witnesses, they were found to be liars; she brought more witnesses, they were not found to be liars.

1. Reish Lakish: She is Muchzekes to bring false witnesses!
2. R. Elazar: Even if she is Muchzekes to bring false witnesses, Yisraelim are not Muchzakim to agree to lie.

(i) A similar case occurred when R. Yochanan was there; Reish Lakish said as he did above, R. Yochanan said as R. Elazar had said.

1. Reish Lakish was angry at R. Elazar - 'You heard the law from R. Yochanan, why didn't you say it in his name?!'

(j) Suggestion: Reish Lakish holds like R. Yehudah, R. Yochanan holds like Chachamim.
(k) Rejection #1: Reish Lakish can even hold like Chachamim:

1. Chachamim believe the Mezimim because we do not see someone bringing them to Beis Din to Mezim the witnesses, but here she is bringing false witnesses!

(l) Rejection #2: R. Yochanan can even hold like R. Yehudah:

1. R. Yehudah does not believe the Mezimim because it is unreasonable that everyone who comes to testify was with them - but here, perhaps the first witnesses did not see the testimony, but the latter ones did!

(a) (Mishnah): Edim Zomemim are not killed unless there was a final verdict to kill the defendant;
(b) The Tzedukim say, they are not killed unless the Nidon was killed, for it says "Nefesh Tachas Nafesh";

1. Chachamim: But it says "Va'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam La'asos *l'Achiv*", implying that the Nidon is still alive!
2. Question: Why does it say "Nefesh Tachas Nafesh"
3. Answer: One might have thought that Edim Zomemim are liable once they testified - "Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" teaches, they cannot be killed unless there was a final verdict.

(c) (Gemara - Beraisa - Beribi (a Tana)): If they did not kill, they are killed; if they killed, they are not killed.

1. Beribi's father: If when they did not kill they are killed; all the more so if they killed they should be killed!
2. Beribi: You taught us, we do not punish based on a Kal va'Chomer!

i. (Beraisa) Suggestion: "V'Ish Asher Yikach Es Achoso Bas Aviv O Vas Imo" - perhaps one is only liable for a paternal or maternal sister, but not a sister from both parents!
ii. Rejection: "Ervas Achoso Gilah".
iii. Question: Since one is liable for a half sister, all the more so he should be liable for a full sister - why is the verse needed?
iv. Answer: This teaches that we do not punish based on a Kal va'Chomer.

(d) Question: What is the source that a Lav cannot be derived from a Kal va'Chomer?
(e) Answer: "Ervas Achoscha Bas Avicha O Vas Imecha (Lo Segaleh)";

1. Question: What is the Lav forbidden relations with a full sister?
2. Answer: "Ervas Bas Eshes Avicha Moledes Avicha Achoscha Hi (Lo Segaleh Ervasah)";
3. Question: Since a half sister is forbidden, all the more a full sister - why is the verse needed?
4. Answer: This teaches that we do not derive a Lav from a Kal va'Chomer.

(f) Question: What is the source regarding lashes (that Edim Zomemim who tried to Mechayev lashes are not punished unless there was a final verdict)?
(g) Answer: We learn a Gezerah Shavah "Rasha-Rasha" from Chayavei Misos.
(h) Question: What is the source regarding Galus?
(i) Answer: We learn a Gezerah Shavah "Rotze'ach-Rotze'ach" from Chayavei Misos.
(j) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Tabai): I swear, I killed an Ed Zomem to refute the Tzedukim, who say that Edim Zomemim are not killed unless the Nidon was killed.

1. Shimon ben Shetach: I swear, you killed improperly! We do not kill or lash witnesses are unless both are Huzmu!
2. R. Yehudah ben Tabai immediately resolved that he would only give rulings in front of Shimon ben Shetach. The rest of his days, he prostrated in front of the grave of the man he killed; people heard a voice, they assumed it was the victim's.
3. R. Yehudah ben Tabai: No, it is my voice - you will see, after I die, you will not hear it!

(k) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): Perhaps it was the victim's voice - it ceased after R. Yehudah ben Tabai died, because he had a judgment with his victim, or appeased him!

(a) (Mishnah) Question: "Al Pi Shnayim Edim O Sheloshah Edim Yumas ha'Mes" - if the testimony of two witnesses is valid, all the more so testimony of three witnesses!
(b) Answer #1: The Torah equates the testimony of two witnesses with that of three witnesses:

1. Just as three witnesses can Mezim two, also two witnesses can Mezim three.
2. Question: What is the source that two can Mezim even 100?
3. Answer: "Edim". (This is extra, to teach that two can Mezim four - since they can Mezim two pairs of witnesses, they can Mezim even 100.)

(c) Answer #2 (R. Shimon): Just as two witnesses are not killed unless both are Huzmu, also three are not killed unless all are Huzmu.

1. Question: What is the source that this applies even to 100?
2. Answer: "Edim".

(d) Answer #3 (R. Akiva): The Torah did not mention a third witness to teach a leniency, rather, to be stringent, to equate his law to the first two (he is also killed):

1. (Even though the testimony of the first two sufficed to kill the Nidon without him,) he is punished for joining the wicked like the wicked themselves;
2. All the more so, the Torah will reward those who join people doing a Mitzvah like those who did the Mitzvah (because Hash-m's Midah to reward is much greater than His Midah to punish).