Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava qualifies the Din in our Mishnah that renders a hundred witnesses like two, by establishing it - when they testified 'Toch k'Dei Dibur', otherwise, each pair is considered a separate entity.

(b) 'Toch K'dei Dibur' constitutes - the time it takes to say 'Shalom Aleichem Rebbi u'Mori'.

(c) Rav Acha from Difti asked Ravina how a hundred witnesses can possibly testify within such a short space of time. He answered - that what Rava meant was that each witness must begin his testimony 'Toch k'Dei Dibur' of the testimony of the previous witness.

(a) Rav Papa asked Abaye that according to our Mishnah, why does the murdered man not save the murderer from the death-sentence. He is asking - on Rebbi Yossi, in whose opinion even a witness who does not intend to testify, invalidates the testimony.

(b) Abaye answered ...

1. ... Rav Papa - that when the Torah declares a murderer Chayav Misah, it is speaking when he murdered him from behind, and the victim saw nothing.
2. ... him, when he asked him why a man who has been raped does not save the rapist from the death-sentence - that there too, the Torah is speaking when he raped him from behind, so that the victim saw nothing.

(c) The murderer and the rapist would otherwise be Patur - because they are related to themselves, and are therefore Pasul to testify, in which case they will automatically invalidate all the other witnesses too, according to Rebbi Yossi (see also Tosfos DH 'Nirva Yatzil').

(a) Abaye was stymied however, when Rav Papa asked him why the murderer and the rapist do not save themselves from the death-sentence - for the same reason as the victim (because they are related to themselves).

(b) Rava answered this Kashya (as well as the previous Kashyos) - by quoting the Pasuk "al-Pi Shenayim Eidim O Sheloshah Eidim *Yakum* Davar", which indicates that the comparison between two and three witnesses (the basis of the current discussion) is confined to potential witnesses ('Mekaymei Davar'), but does not extend to the litigants.

(c) According to Rebbi, Pasul witnesses only negate the testimony if they are party to the warning. Beis-Din know whether they are or are not - by asking them before they begin to testify whether they originally arrived on the scene intending to testify or just to watch.

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah. Rav Nachman rules - like Rebbi.

4)

(a) In a case where one pair of Eidim witness a murder from one window, another pair witness it from another window, and a fifth person warns the murderer in the middle, the two pairs combine to form one testimony - on condition that some of them see each other (i.e. the two pairs of witnesses see the person who is warning, even though they cannot see each other, see Tosfos Yom-Tov and Tiferes Yisrael).

(b) The ramifications of this ruling, assuming that ...

1. ... both pairs can see the person who is warning are - that a. if only one pair becomes Zomemin, the Din of Zomemin will not apply (and the other pair remains Kasher), and b. if one of the witnesses turns out to be a relation to one of the litigants or Pasul, all four witnesses are disqualified.
2. ... they cannot see each other are - that each pair is considered a separate entity.

(c) Rebbi Yossi disagrees. He learns from the Pasuk "al-Pi Shenayim Eidim ... " - that the witnesses themselves must issue the warning.

(d) The Chachamim learn from this Pasuk - that the Sanhedrin must hear the testimony directly from the mouths of the witnesses (i.e. and not from their written notes ["mi'Pihem", 've'Lo mi'Pi K'savam'], nor from someone who heard it from the witnesses ['Eid mi'Pi Eid]).

(a) Rav Zutra bar Tuvya learns from the continuation of the previous Pasuk "Lo Yumas al-Pi Eid Echad" that Eidus Meyuchedes is Pasul. 'Eidus Meyuchedes' is - where two witnesses who saw a murder from two different windows, are unable to see each other.

(b) We cannot take the Pasuk literally to mean that one witness is not believed - because that we already know from the Reisha, which requires two witnesses.

(a) The Beraisa adds to the case of Eidus Meyuchedes one where - two individual witnesses (whose testimony is also Pasul) witnessed the act from the same window, but one after the other.

(b) Rav Papa asks Abaye that the Tana need not have mentioned that case - because if Eidus Meyuchedes is Pasul where the two witnesses see the whole act, how much more so if they see only half!

(c) To answer the Kashya, Abaye establishes the Beraisa - where the witnesses saw an act of adultery, in which case each witness sees an entire sin (albeit not the same part of the act), which we might have thought is acceptable.

(a) Rava presents a case where Eidus Meyuchedes is Kasher - namely, where the two witnesses are able to see the person who is in the middle warning, and he is able to see them.

(b) He also validates a warning that is issued by the victim himself - or where it is issued by a demon.

(c) Rav Nachman validates Eidus Meyuchedes by Dinei Mamonos, and he derives his ruling from the Pasuk "Lo Yumas al-Pi Eid Echad" - which implies that Eidus Meyuchedes is confined to Dinei Misah, but not to Dinei Mamonos.

(d) Rav Zutra asks on this from our Mishnah 'Lefichach ... Hu ve'Hein Neheragin' - because, based on the Pasuk "ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah", any kind of Eidus that is Kasher by Dinei Mamonos, should certainly be Kasher by Dinei Nefashos, if it is to save the defendant or the witnesses from death (bearing in mind that the basic term 'Eidus Meyuchedes' applies not only to two individual witnesses, but to two pairs of witnesses, too). In that case, the Tana ought to have combined the two pairs of witnesses (even if they could not see the person warning in the middle), to disqualify the testimony and save the lives of all those concerned.

(e) This Kashya remains unanswered?

(a) The problem with Rava using an interpreter when a case involving foreign witnesses came before him - was 'Eid mi'Pi Eid', which we disqualified in our Mishnah.

(b) And we resolve it - by pointing out that Rava understood the witnesses, only he was unable to reply in their language.

(c) When Ila'a and Tuvya, relations of the guarantor, testified in a case involving a loan, Rav Papa initially thought - that it didn't matter, seeing as they were not related to the creditor and the borrower.

(d) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua objected however, on the grounds that in the event that the borrower would be unable to pay, the creditor would go to them (rendering the guarantors an intrinsic part of the case).