Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) FROM WHEN ARE ZOMEMIM WITNESSES DISQUALIFIED?

(a) (Abaye): Shimon testified and was Huzam - all testimony he gave or will give after his fabricated testimony are invalid;
(b) (Rava): Only testimony he gives after he was Huzam is invalid.

1. Abaye says he is disqualified retroactively - from when he testified, he is evil - "Do not put...an evil one (to be a) witness";
2. [Version #1: Rava says he is disqualified from now and onwards - because the law of Edim Zomemim is a Chidush:

i. Why should we believe the latter witnesses (Mezimim), who say that the first pair are Zomemim - perhaps the latter pair are lying!
ii. The Torah's Chidush is that in this trial (and surely, for future testimonies) we say that the first pair are liars - we have no source to consider them liars before this!]

3. [Version #2: Rava agrees that the Torah disqualifies him retroactively;

i. Chachamim enacted that he is only disqualified from now and onwards to prevent a loss to buyers (who signed these witnesses on their documents or purchase).]

4. Question: Practically, what is the difference between the 2 versions?
5. Answer #1: Each witness was Huzam by a different pair of witnesses (so it is no Chidush to believe the Mezimim, each pair of Mezimim is contradicted by only 1 witness).
6. Answer #2: The witnesses that testified were not Huzmu, rather other witnesses said that these witnesses stole (and are therefore invalid witnesses) before they testified.

i. According to both answers, it is no Chidush to believe the latter witnesses - according to Version #1, the first witnesses are disqualified retroactively;
ii. According to Version #2, they are not disqualified retroactively, because of the loss to buyers.

(c) (R. Yirmeyah mi'Difti): Rav Papa ruled a case as Rava.
(d) (Rav Ashi): The law is as Abaye.
(e) The law is as Abaye against Rava in 6 places, whose acronym is YA'AL K'GAM:

1. Yud - despair without knowledge;
2. Ayin - Edim Zomemim are disqualified retroactively;
3. Lamed - (Rashi - a post (to permit carrying in an alley); Tosfos - days of childbirth on which blood is not seen; or, inevitable, undesired benefit from forbidden things);
4. Kuf - Kidushin in which the man (Tosfos - becomes) forbidden to have relations with the woman;
5. Gimel - showing desire to nullify a Get;
6. Mem - a wanton sinner who sins to fulfill his desires.

(f) (Mishnah): Two witnesses testified that Reuven stole and slaughtered; they were found to be Zomemim - they pay the full fine.

1. Suggestion: The case is, first they testified about the theft, then about the slaughter; they were Huzmu (found to be Zomemim) regarding the (testimony on the) theft, then Huzmu on the slaughter.
2. Question (against Abaye): If Zomemim witnesses are disqualified retroactively - since they were Huzmu on the theft, it turns out that they were disqualified when they testified on the slaughter, they should not pay that part of the fine!
3. Answer #1: The case is, they were Huzmu on the slaughter first.
4. Objection: Still, when they are Huzmu on the theft, we see retroactively that they were disqualified when they testified on the slaughter!
5. Answer #2: The case is, they testified on the theft and slaughter at the same time.

(g) Suggestion: Tana'im argue as Abaye and Rava.
(h) (Beraisa): Two witnesses testified that Reuven stole, and also that he slaughtered; they were Huzmu regarding the theft - testimony which is partially nullified is totally nullified;

1. If they were Huzmu regarding the slaughter - Reuven pays double, the witnesses pay (2 or) 3;
2. R. Yosi says, this is the law by 2 testimonies - but by 1 testimony, testimony which is partially nullified is totally nullified (Reuven is exempt).

(i) Question: What does he mean by 1 or 2 testimonies?

1. Suggestion: Two testimonies is when a different pair testified about the slaughter, 1 testimony is when the same pair of witnesses testified at 2 different times.
2. Rejection: If so, by 1 testimony, why should Hazamah on the slaughter (nullify the testimony on the theft) as if they were also Huzmu on the theft?!

(j) Answer: Rather, 2 testimonies means 1 pair that testified as 2 testimonies, one after the other; 1 testimony is when they testified about the theft and slaughter together.

1. Both Tana'im hold that anything done Toch Kedei Dibur (within the time needed to greet someone) is considered as a continuation of the previous matter.
2. Suggestion: Chachamim hold that Zomemim witnesses are disqualified from the time they are contradicted and onwards - therefore, they are only Huzmu on the slaughter;
3. R. Yosi holds that Zomemim witnesses are disqualified retroactively from when they testified falsely - since their testimony on the slaughter is as a continuation of their testimony on the theft, they are Huzmu on both.
4. Rejection: All hold that Zomemim witnesses are disqualified retroactively; they argue whether Toch Kedei Dibur is considered as a continuation of the previous matter.

i. Chachamim say it is not as a continuation of the previous matter, R. Yosi says it is.

2) TOCH KEDEI DIBUR

(a) Question: Does R. Yosi really hold that Toch Kedei Dibur is considered as a continuation of the previous matter?

1. (Mishnah - R. Meir): A man said 'This is a Temurah of a burnt-offering, Temurah of a Shelamim' - it is the Temurah of a burnt-offering;
2. R. Yosi says, if he intended from the beginning to make a Temurah of both, it works;

i. Since he cannot say both simultaneously, he said them 1 after the other.

3. If he said 'This is a Temurah of a burnt-offering', then reconsidered and said 'Temurah of a Shelamim' - it is the Temurah of a burnt-offering.
4. Question: This is obvious!
5. Answer (Rav Papa): He reconsidered Toch Kedei Dibur.

(b) Answer: There are 2 measures of Toch Kedei Dibur: a Talmid greeting his Rebbi, and a Rebbi greeting his Talmid;

1. A Talmid greets his Rebbi 'Shal-m to you, my Rebbi and teacher' (in Hebrew, 4 words) - R. Yosi says, within this time is not as a continuation;
2. A Rebbi greets his Talimd 'Shal-m to you' (in Hebrew, 2 words) - R. Yosi says, within this time is as a continuation.

(a) (Rava): Witnesses (on a capital case) were contradicted; later, they were Huzmu - they are killed - contradiction is the beginning of Hazamah (if we would not say this, they would not be killed, for their testimony was already disqualified before they were Huzmu), but the Hazamah is not yet complete - we learn this from a Beraisa.

1. (Beraisa): 'We testify that Ploni blinded his slave's eye and knocked out his tooth, behold Ploni says so'; they were Huzmu - they pay to the slave the value of his eye.
2. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: No other witnesses testified that Ploni hurt his slave.
ii. Rejection #1: They made the slave go free - why should they pay him?!
iii. Rejection #2: They should pay the master for depriving him of his slave!
iv. Rejection #3: Why does it say 'behold Ploni says so' - their testimony hurts Ploni!

3. Answer: Rather, 2 witnesses testified that Ploni knocked out his slave's tooth, then blinded his eye - this obligates Ploni to (free the slave and) pay the value of his eye;

i. 2 other witnesses testified that Ploni blinded his slave's eye, then knocked out his tooth - this obligates Ploni to (free the slave and) pay the value of the tooth;
ii. This contradicts the first witnesses; the master supports the latter witnesses, for they obligate him to pay less.

4. The Beraisa concludes: They were Huzmu - they pay the slave the value of his eye;

i. This shows that contradiction is the beginning of Hazamah.

(b) Rejection ((Tosfos - on behalf of) Abaye): No - the case is, the second pair of witnesses testified that Ploni blinded the eye, then knocked out his tooth and also Hazimu the first pair. (They said, your testimony was fabricated; at the time you claim to have witnessed the blows, you were with us elsewhere. Really, he hit his slave at a different time!)
(c) Question: Why does Abaye explain this way?
(d) Answer: Since the end of the Beraisa is when the second pair switched the order of events and Hazimu the first pair, also the beginning of the Beraisa.

1. (Beraisa): 'We testify that Ploni knocked out his slave's tooth, then blinded his eye - behold, the slave says so' - they were Huzmu - they pay the value of his eye to Ploni.
2. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: The latter witnesses (the Mezimim) do not testify that Ploni hurt his slave.
ii. Rejection: The first witnesses tried to improperly make the slave go free, they should pay the master his full value!

3. Answer: Rather, the Mezimim admit that Ploni (at a different time) knocked out his slave's tooth and blinded his eye, but in the reverse order.
4. Question: (In both cases of the Beraisa), do the Mezimim say that Ploni struck the slave before or after the first witnesses testified?

i. If they say that it was later - still, the first witnesses tried to make the slave go free without reason, they should pay Ploni his full value!

5. Answer: Rather, they say that he hit him before the first pair testified.
6. Question: Still - if the first pair testified before Beis Din ruled that the slave goes free, they should pay Ploni his full value, for Ploni was not obligated to free him (he could have admitted in Beis Din that he struck his slave)!
7. Answer: The case is, the first pair testified after (other witnesses testified in a Beis Din that) ruled that the slave goes free.