Bekiut Summary Daf Hey

Gemara: Continuation of topic on previous Daf about the disagreement between R’ Meir and the Rabbis about the reciprocal punishment of lashes for Eidim Zommemin. [R’ Yirmiyah provides a Pasuk that, according to R’ Meir, serves as a warning to Eidim Zommemin. Question: how do the Rabbis explain the use of this Pasuk (since they derive the warning from a Pasuk that R’ Meir uses for punishment of the witnesses)?] Answer: the Rabbis use this Pasuk for the idea of proclamation--that after Eidim Zommemin are executed, the court must proclaim that this should serve as a warning to other Eidim Zommemin. Question: from where does R’ Meir derive the idea of proclamation? Answer: He derives it from the second half of the Pasuk he uses as a source for the warning to Eidim Zommemin. First half serves as a warning, second half serves as a proclamation.

Mishnah: Eidim Zommemin divide the punishment in the case of a monetary punishment, but not in the case of a punishment of Malkus. Example—two Eidim testified that a person owes someone two hundred zuz. They are found to be Zommemin, and they split the punishment (the two hundred zuz) among themselves. But, if they testified about the person that he did something that receives a punishment of forty lashes, and they are found to be Zommemin, they do not divide the punishment and both get forty lashes.

Gemara: Question: What is the source for the rule that each Eid Zommem receives the full amount of lashes? Answer 1: Abaye: he word “Rasha” appears in the discussions of cases where the punishment is malkus and in a case where the punishment is execution. Just like in the case of execution, where the punishment is not divided (execution can’t be divided), so too in the case of malkus, the punishment is not divided. Answer 2: Rava:“Ka’asher Zammam” is not fulfilled if the Eidim Zommemin only get half of the lashes they intended to give. Question: then in the case of a monetary punishment we should make each Eid Zommem pay the full amount! Answer: when two people pay, the money joins together to form one reciprocal punishment. But with lashes, they do not join to form one punishment, because each set of lashes are not connected at all.

Mishnah: Eidim do not become Zommemin until they themselves are falsified. How so? If the Eidim say, we saw _____ kill _____, and other Eidim come and say we were with ______ or ______when you claimed that happenedàthey are not Zommemin. BUT, if the other Eidim come and say we were with YOU when you claimed that happenedàthey are Zommemin and they are executed.

If a third set of Eidim come and testify the same as the first set, and the second set falsifies them too, and if a fourth set comes and the second set falsifies them too, and if a hundred sets come and the same thing happens, they are all executed as Eidim Zommemin. R’ Yehudah says—this is a conspiracy, and only the first set of Eidim are executed.

Gemara: Question: What is the source for the rule that the Eidim Zommemin themselves must be falsified (vs. their testimony)? Answer1: Rav Adda: the Pasuk says “behold the witness is a false witness”—not false testimony. Shows that the ‘body’ of the witness must be falsified. Answer 2: Baraisa of the school of R’ Yishmael: the Pasuk says “to testify against him”—to remove the body of the witnesses from the scene.

Rava: Two Eidim testified that they saw _____ kill someone on the East Wing of a palace. Two more Eidim testified that those two Eidim were with them on the West Wing at the time. We must check—if you can see from the West Wing to the East Wing, then the first Eidim are not Zommemin. BUT, if you can’t see, then they are Zommemin. Attack: This is obvious! (That if you can see, then they aren’t Zommemin and if you can’t, then they are Zommemin.) Answer: You might have thought that even if you can’t see, we might take into consideration that they might have super strong eyesight. Rava comes to teach us that we don’t take it into consideration.

Rava: Two Eidim testified they saw _____ kill someone in Sura on Sunday morning. Two more Eidim testified that those two Eidim were with them in Nehardea on Sunday afternoon. We must check—if you can travel from Sura to Nehardea within the morning until the afternoon, then they are not Zommemin. BUT, if you can’t travel it, then they are Zommemin. Attack: This is obvious! Answer: You might have thought that even if you can’t travel it, we might take into consideration that they might have had super fast camels. Rava comes to teach us that we don’t take it into consideration.

Rava: Two Eidim testified that on Sunday, _____ killed someone. Two more Eidim testified that they were with them on Sunday, but on Monday, _____ killed someone. Even if they said that on Friday, ______ killed someone (so that ____ was already guilty by the time the first set testified), the first set are still executed as Eidim Zommemin. Reason: at the time the first set of Eidim testified, _____ was not liable to execution yet/didn’t have the status of one liable to execution yet. Question/Attack: What is Rava teaching us here? We already learned this in a Mishnah: If there are two groups of Eidim, and one is Zommemin,  the murderer is executed, and the Eidim Zommemin are executed. This already shows us a case where Eidim Zommemin are executed even though the accused is guilty! Answer: The second part of Rava’s statement is what he needs to teach something different than what that Mishnah teaches. The second part is a different case, where Eidim testify about a verdict. Two Eidim testified that on Sunday a verdict was made and ______ was sentenced to death. Two Eidim testified that they were with them on Sunday, but on Friday, ______ was sentenced to death. Even if they said on Monday, ______ was sentenced to death, (when ____ was not even sentenced to death yet by the time the first set testified), the first set are not executed. Reason: at the time the first set of Eidim testified, _____ was already sentenced to death/already had the status of one liable to execution. (This is the point that Rava is teaching—the change in status of the person that is accused is what matters in determining whether the Eidim Zommemin are executed or not.)

This can be said also with regard to monetary cases.  Two Eidim testified that on Sunday _____ stole cattle and slaughtered/sold it. Two more Eidim testified that they were with them on Sunday but on Monday, _____ stole cattle and slaughtered/sold it. Even if they said that on Friday, ______ stole cattle and slaughtered/sold it (so that ____ was already guilty by the time the first set testified), the first set pays the fine of the slaughtered/sold cattle. Reason: at the time the first set of Eidim testified, _____ was not liable to payment yet/didn’t have the status of one liable to payment yet. A different type of case: Two Eidim testified that on Sunday a verdict was made and ______ was sentenced to pay a fine for stealing cattle and slaughtering/selling it. Two Eidim testified that they were with them on Sunday, but on Friday, ______ was sentenced to pay the fine. Even if they said on Sunday, ______ stole cattle and slaughtered/sold it and was sentenced to pay on Monday, (when ____ was not even sentenced to pay yet by the time the first set testified), the first set do not pay the fine. Reason: at the time the first set of Eidim testified, _____ was already sentenced to payment/already had the status of one liable to payment yet.

**Amud Bet**

Quotation of Mishnah: “R’ Yehudah says—this is a conspiracy, and only the first set of Eidim are executed.” Question: If these sets of Eidim are considered to be plotting a conspiracy, then shouldn’t the first set of Eidim also not be executed? Answer: R’ Abahu: This is a case where the first set was already executed. Question: Then why is it mentioned that only the first set is executed if they were executed already? Answer: Rava: This is what R’ Yehudah means to say—if there is only one set that is Zommemin, then they are executed, but if there is more than one set that is Zommemin, this seems suspicious, and none of the sets are executed. Question: but R’ Yehudah says “only the first set of Eidim ALONE is executed”, implying that there is another set that is Zommemin that should be executed. Answer: this is a difficulty.

There was a woman who brought two Eidim to testify for her, but they were discredited because of contradictions during interrogation. She brought another set of Eidim, but they were discredited in the same way. She brought a third set of Eidim, and they were not discredited. Reish Lakish: This woman has been established as someone who brings false Eidim, so we do not accept the testimony of the third set. Attack: R’ Elazar: If she has been established as one who brings false Eidim, then the whole nation has been established as a nation that brings false Eidim! Another point: One time they were sitting before R’ Yochanan and this case came up. Reish Lakish said: this woman has been established to be disreputable. R’ Yochanan said to him: If she has been established to be disreputable, then the whole nation has been established to be disreputable! Reish Lakish said to R’ Elazar sternly: You heard R’ Yochanan say these words, and you did not quote them to me in his name!

Question: Can we say that Reish Lakish sides with R’ Yehudah in the Mishnah (both reject testimony based on a suspicious pattern) and R’ Yochanan sides with the Rabbis in the Mishnah (both accept testimony regardless of a suspicious pattern)? Rejection: Reish Lakish could say to you that he sides even with the Rabbis: in the Mishnah, no one is finding false Eidim—they just come on their own. So therefore he might say that he accepts that testimony, but not here, because it is more suspicious that someone is bringing the false Eidim. It would make sense that Reish Lakish rejects the testimony here, but maybe not in the case of the Mishnah. And R’ Yochanan could say to you that he sides even with R’ Yehudah: in this Mishnah, it seems very suspicious that the second set of Eidim (the ones that discredit all of the others) was with all of the other sets at the same time at the same place. So therefore, R’ Yochanan might not accept the testimony there, and side with R’ Yehudah. But here, it is not as suspicious because it is possible that the first two sets of Eidim did not know the testimony, while the third set did know the testimony. It would make sense that R’ Yochanan accepts the testimony here but maybe not in the case of the Mishnah.

Mishnah: Eidim Zommemin are not executed until the verdict against the accused has been handed down. The Sadducees: Eidim Zommemin are not executed unless the accused has been executed, as it says: “a life for a life”. The Chachamim: But it has already been stated “and you should do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, and brother implies that he is still alive! If this is the case (that they are executed only if the verdict has not been carried out), then why is it stated “a life for a life”? You might think that from the moment they are established as Eidim Zommemin they can be executed. Therefore, it is stated “a life for a life”, which shows us that the Eidim can only be executed once a verdict is decided. (“A life for a life” shows us that the accused needs to be dead or as if he is dead—has the status of a dead person. This occurs when the verdict has been decided, but before it is carried out.)

Gemara: A Baraisa taught: Beribi: If the Eidim Zommemin have not yet killed the accused when they are found to be Zommemin, they are executed. If they have already killed him when they are found to be Zommemin, then they are not executed. Question: Beribi’s father: Is it not a Kal Vachomer? If Eidim Zommemin are executed for just attempting to get someone killed, shouldn’t they also be executed if they did actually get someone killed! Answer: Beribi: You have taught us that we do not punish based on logic/Kal Vachomer. Even though it makes sense that the Eidim Zommemin are killed when they do get someone killed, we cannot accept that rule if it is based on a Kal Vachomer.

Another point: For we learned in a Baraisa: “If a man shall take his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother (…they shall be cut off in the sight of the members of their people).” We learn from the Pasuk that one receives Kares for an incestuous relationship with his sister, the daughter of his father, and his sister, the daughter of his mother, but from where do we learn that he will get Kares is he takes his sister, the daughter of both his father and his mother? The Torah states, at the end of that Pasuk, “he has uncovered the nakedness of his sister” (shows that rule applies to a full sister also). Question: Why is that last part of the Pasuk necessary? We can learn that one with his full sister will also get Kares from a Kal Vachomer—if his sister, the daughter of his father, and his sister, the daughter of his mother, are forbidden to him and he will get Kares, then for sure his sister, the daughter of his father and mother are forbidden to him and he will get Kares! Answer: The fact that we need the last part of the Pasuk teaches us that we can’t punish based on a Kal Vachomer.

Continuation of Baraisa: we learned that you can’t derive a punishment based on logic/Kal Vachomer, but how do we know that we can’t derive a prohibition based on logic/Kal Vachomer? The Torah states: “The nakedness of your sister, daughter of your father or daughter of your mother (born in the house or born outside the house, you shall not uncover their nakedness).” We learn from this Pasuk that it is prohibited for one to take his sister, the daughter of his father, and his sister, the daughter of his mother, but from where do we learn that it is prohibited for one to take his sister, the daughter of his father and mother? The Torah states, “the nakedness of the daughter of your father’s wife, born of your father, she is your sister, you shall not uncover her nakedness.” Question: Why is that extra prohibition necessary? We can learn that one is prohibited from taking his full sister from a Kal Vachomer—if his sister, the daughter of his father, and his sister, the daughter of his mother, are forbidden to him, then for sure his sister, the daughter of his father and mother are forbidden to him! Answer: The fact that we need the extra prohibition teaches us that we can’t prohibit based on a Kal Vachomer.

Question: From where do we know that this rule (that we only punish the Eidim Zommemin if they were found out after the verdict has been decided) applies also in a case of malkus? Answer: we learn it through a Gezeira Shava—the word “Rasha” appears in descriptions of cases involving both execution and malkus; this Gezeira Shava connects all the laws of Hazamah from execution cases to malkus cases. Question: From where do we know that this rule applies to a case of galut? Answer: we learn it through a Gezeira Shava—the word “Rotze’ach” appears in the description of both the murderer and the accidental killer. This Gezeirah Shava connects all the laws of Hazamah from execution cases to galut cases.

Baraisa: R’ Yehudah ben Tabbai: I must be comforted if I didn’t execute an Eid Zommem when only he is false and not his fellow Eid. This is to counter the opinion of the Sadducees, who say that Eidim Zommemin are not executed unless the accused has been executed. Shimon ben Shetach responds: I must be comforted if you spilled innocent blood—if you killed this Eid Zommem, because the Chachamim say, you do not execute an Eid Zommem or give him lashes until both the Eidim in this group are falsified. R’ Yehudah ben Tabbai took it upon himself to only make a ruling in front of Shimon ben Shetach, and he visited the grave of that Eid every single day of his life and his voice was heard by the people around him. They thought it was the voice of the Eid, but R’ Yehudah told them it was his voice, and that they will know because when he dies, the voice will stop. Rav Acha the son of Rava said to Rav Ashi: The voice could stop and still have been the Eid’s because maybe he was comforted by the death of the person that killed him, or maybe R’ Yehudah ben Tabbai appeased him and he is now silent.

Mishnah: “By the word of two Eidim or three Eidim shall the one who is to die be put to death.” If it is stated that the testimony upholds with two Eidim, why is it necessary to state that it is upheld with three Eidim? The purpose is to draw an analogy: just like three Eidim can falsify two Eidim, so too, two Eidim can falsify three Eidim. From where do we know that two Eidim can falsify even a hundred Eidim? The Torah states: “Eidim”. R’ Shimon: just like with two Eidim, you can only punish them if both of them are found to be Zommemin, so too with three Eidim, you can only punish them if all three are found to be Zommemin. From where do we know that with a hundred Eidim, you can only punish them if all of them are found to be Zommemin? The Torah states: “Eidim”.

R’ Akiva says: the mention of the third Eid is to teach us that we must act more stringently, not more leniently. We treat him the same as we treat the other two Eidim. And if this is how we treat an accomplice of transgressors—we punish him like the transgressors, how much more so will HaShem treat an accomplice of performers of a mitzvah and reward him like the performers of a mitzvah.

Just as with two Eidim, if one of the Eidim is disqualified, the testimony is invalidated, so too with three Eidim, if one of the Eidim is disqualified, the testimony is invalidated (even though it can still technically stand with three Eidim). From where do we know that with a hundred Eidim, if one of the Eidim is disqualified, the testimony is invalidated? The Torah states: “Eidim”. [Mishnah continues on next Daf].

-------------------------------

Question: This Daf discusses a situation in which witnesses testify falsely about someone who did actually commit the crime. Rava says that these witnesses are punished if they change the status of the accused to a Bar Ketala, one who is liable to execution; but if they do not change the status, and he is already a Bar Ketala by the time they testify, then they are not punished.

Why do we care so much about the change in status of an actual murderer? If he is a murderer, shouldn’t it not matter when he was established as one liable to execution?  Why are we so harsh on these witnesses when they testified about a real killer?