Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) IS A MUMAR DISQUALIFIED?

(a) (Abaye): A Zomem witness is disqualified retroactively (all testimony he gave or will give after his fabricated testimony is invalid);
(b) (Rava): He is only disqualified from the time he was Huzam.

1. Abaye says he is disqualified retroactively - from when he testified, he is evil - "Al Tashes Yadcha Im Rasha Lihyos Ed Chamas";
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). (End of Version #2)

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. (The 'Ayin' refers to Zomemim witnesses.)
(f) All agree that if a Mumar eats Neveilos for enjoyment, he is disqualified;
(g) (Abaye): If he eats to anger (Hash-m) he is disqualified.
(h) (Rava): He is Kosher.

1. Abaye: He is disqualified, for he is a Rasha - "Al Tesht Rasha Ed".
2. Rava: The Torah only disqualified Rasha'im of Chamas (they transgress for monetary gain).

(i) Question (against Rava - Beraisa): "Al Tesht Rasha Ed" - do not accept a witness that transgresses Chamas, e.g. a thief or one who transgresses *oaths*.

1. Suggestion: He is disqualified for a false or vain oath, even non-monetary oaths!

(j) Answer: No, it only refers to monetary oaths;

1. The plural (oaths) alludes to different kinds of monetary oaths (alternatively - *people* (plural) are disqualified on account of false monetary oaths (one oath disqualifies a person)).

(k) Question (against Abaye - Beraisa): "Al Tesht Rasha Ed" - do not accept a witness that transgresses Chamas, e.g. a thief or one who lends on Ribis.
(l) This refutes Abaye.
(m) Suggestion: Tana'im argue as Abaye and Rava argue.

1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): An Ed Zomem is disqualified for all testimonies.
2. R. Yosi says, this is only if he was Huzam in a capital case; if he was Huzam in a monetary case, he is Kosher for capital cases.
3. Suggestion: Abaye holds like R. Meir, Rava holds like R. Yosi:

i. Abaye holds like R. Meir - one who transgressed something light is suspected for more severe matters;
ii. Rava holds like R. Yosi - he is not suspected for things more severe than what he transgressed.

(n) Rejection: Granted, Abaye cannot hold like R. Yosi, but Rava could hold even like R. Meir;

1. R. Meir only disqualified a monetary Ed Zomem from all testimony, for he is evil with respect to people and Hash-m;
2. A Mumar to eat Neveilos (to anger Hash-m) is only evil towards Hash-m.

(a) The Halachah follows Abaye.
(b) Question: But he was refuted!
(c) Answer: R. Yosi taught the Beraisa that refuted him (and we know that R. Yosi holds like Rava).
(d) Question: Even so, the Halachah follows R. Yosi when he argues with R. Meir!
(e) Answer: That applies in general, but here an unauthored Mishnah is like R. Meir.
(f) Question: Which unauthored Mishnah is like R. Meir?
(g) Answer: A case occurred, Bar Chama killed someone; the Reish Galusa asked Rav Acha bar Yakov to investigate: if he surely killed, gouge out his eyes (some explain - give his money to the victim's heirs, or excommunicate him).

1. Ploni and Almoni testified that he killed; Bar Chama brought two witnesses, one said 'I saw Ploni steal a Kav of peeled barley', the other said 'I saw him steal the handle of a spear'.

2. Rav Acha bar Yakov: The Halachah follows R. Yosi against R. Meir, a thief is Kosher for capital cases!
3. Rav Papi: That applies in general, but here an unauthored Mishnah is like R. Meir!
4. Question: Which unauthored Mishnah is like R. Meir?
5. Answer #1 (Mishnah): Anyone fit to judge capital cases is fit to judge monetary cases.

i. This is not like R. Yosi - he says that a monetary Ed Zomem is disqualified for monetary cases but Kosher for capital cases - rather, it is like R. Meir.

6. Rejection: Perhaps the Mishnah discusses lineages disqualified from judging.

i. Support (end of the Mishnah): One can be qualified for monetary cases but disqualified for capital cases.
ii. We cannot say that he was Huzam in a capital case, all agree that he is totally disqualified!
iii. Rather, we must say that his lineage disqualified him from capital cases - also the beginning of the Mishnah refers to lineages qualified to judge!

7. Answer #2 (Mishnah): The following are disqualified: diceplayers, those who lend on Ribis, Mafrichei Yonim, Socharei Shemitah, and slaves;

i. The general rule is: anything a woman cannot testify about, they cannot testify about. (This is a Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah - our Mishnah (24B) omits slaves and this last clause.)

8. Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?

i. It cannot be R. Yosi - he says that a monetary Ed Zomem can testify about money, even though a woman cannot!

9. Answer: It is R. Meir.

(h) Bar Chama kissed the feet of Rav Papi, and paid Rav Papi's his head-tax for the rest of his life.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Akiva): The following relatives are disqualified from testifying: a brother, a paternal or maternal uncle, his sister's husband, the husband of his paternal or maternal aunt, his step-father, his father-in-law, his Gis (his wife's sister's husband):

1. Also, their sons (i.e. of these relatives) and their Chasanim (son-in-laws) are disqualified;
2. A step-son is disqualified (but not his sons or sons-in-law).

(b) The first version of the Mishnah only disqualified an uncle, cousin, anyone fitting to inherit (i.e. paternal relatives), and anyone who was related at the time (that he saw testimony or comes to testify);

1. If he was related beforehand but was unrelated when he saw the testimony, he is Kosher

(c) R. Yehudah says, if Reuven has children from Leah he is considered a relative of her father even after she dies.
(d) A close friend or enemy cannot testify.

1. A close friend - this refers to a Shushbin (one who brought gifts to a Chasan);
2. An enemy - this is one who did not speak to him for three days on account of hatred.

(e) Chachamim: Yisraelim are not suspected to testify falsely on account of love or hatred.
(f) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?
(g) Answer (Beraisa): Question: "Lo Yumesu Avos Al Banim" - what does this teach?

1. If to teach that fathers will not die for the sins of the sons or vice-versa - it already says "Ish b'Chet'o Yumasu"!
2. Answer: Rather, it teaches that fathers will not die through testimony of their sons or vice-versa.
3. Question: Is it really true that sons will not die for the sins of the fathers?!

i. But it says "Poked Avon Avos Al Banim".

4. Answer: This is when they continue in the sins of the fathers.

i. "V'Af ba'Avonos Avosam Itam Yimaku" - this is when they continue in the sins of the fathers.
ii. Suggestion: Perhaps it is even if they do not!
iii. Rejection: "Ish b'Chet'o Yumasu".
iv. Question: "V'Choshelu Ish b'Achiv" - a man will be punished for his brother's sin - this teaches that Yisraelim are responsible for each other.
v. Answer: This is when he could have protested and did not.