Bekiut Summary of Daf Vav

Mishna: The Mishna continues with the discussion that the entire group of eidim is disqualified if one eid is disqualified. R’ Yose says that this rule applies in capital cases, but in monetary cases the testimony can still stand with the rest of the witnesses. Rebbi says that in both cases (capital and monetary) one invalid witness disqualifies the entire group of witnesses. He says that this is only true when the disqualified witness warned the criminal because by doing this, he joined the entire group of witnesses. When the disqualified witness does not warn the criminal, he is not automatically joining the group so he does not invalidate the entire group. Otherwise, what would happen if two brothers witnessed someone murdering a person?

Gemara: Rava comments on the Mishna’s statement that 100 witnesses are treated the same way as a group of 2 witnesses. He says that this is only true when they testified within the required time of a testimony (if people testify after this time, they are considered a new group of witnesses).

Rav Achi asks Ravina what is the required time for a testimony to be told (for the witnesses to be considered a group)? Ravina answers that it is the time required for a student to greet his teacher. But 100 witnesses are too many to testify in this amount of time! Ravina answers that each one has to testify within this time.

Quote from the Mishna: R’ Akiva says if one witness is disqualified the entire testimony is invalidated, so too with three witnesses.

Rav Pappa questions this: says to Abaye If this is true, let the presence of the victim save the murderer by invalidating the testimony of the others (since he witnesses his own murder and is not valid to testify, he should invalidate the testimony of the other witnesses and make it impossible to convict the murderer). Abaye answers: it is possible for the murderer to be convicted when he kills the victim from behind (the victim does not witness his own murder so he does not invalidate the testimony of the other witnesses).

Rav Pappa asks Abaye again: let the presence of a sodomized man (victim of sexual involvement with another man) save the sodomizer (the man who commits the sodomy is liable for execution) from being convicted. Abaye answers that the sodomizer can be convicted when he sodomized the other man from behind (so that the sodomized could not see him—not a witness to the action).

Rav Pappa asks: the presence of the murderer or the sodomizer save themselves from being convicted (since they witnessed their own actions and cannot testify themselves, they should disqualify the testimony of the other witnesses). Abaya was silent (had no answer). Rava replies (Rav Pappa asked him the same question) saying, “יקום דבר”, a matter is established, signifying that the witnesses are those that establish a matter, and not referring to participants in the matter (the victim or the criminal). Therefore, the presence of the murderer or his victim are considered witnesses and they do not invalidate the testimony of the witnesses.

Quote from the Mishna: R’ Yose says when is this true (according to Rebbi the rule of disqualifying the entire group when one witnesses is invalid is in both capital and monetary cases)? This is true when they warned them, but if they did not warn them what would two brothers do?

The Gemara asks: What does the court say to the disqualified witnesses to determine whether they had the intention to be witnesses when the saw the incident? (Rebbi says that those who witness an event must intend to serve as witnesses from the beginning in order to be in the group with the other witnesses and disqualify them)

Rava says this is what we say: Did you come to the scene of the crime to see or to be able to testify? If they say to testify, they join the group of the other witnesses and if one is found invalid, their testimony is disqualified. If they say they only came to see, the testimony of the others is still valid because if this were not true, what would two brothers who witnessed a crime do?

The halacha: Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel, the halacha is according to R’ Yose. Rav Nachman says the halacha is according to Rebbi.

Mishna: If there are two witnesses who saw from one window and two witnesses who see from another window and one person standing in between warning the murderer that he was about to commit a crime that is punishable by death. The law is that if some of them saw the others they are considered one set of witnesses. If they do not see each other, they are considered to be two sets of witnesses. In the second case, if one of the sets is zomemin then the group of eidim zomemin and the murderer are executed, and the second set of witnesses are not punished. R’ Yose says they are never executed unless the two witnesses warn him ("על פי שנים עדים"). Since in this case the defendant was not warned by the two witnesses, rather he was warned by a third party (the individual in the middle), he cannot be killed. A different interpretation of "על פי שנים עדים", the Sanhedrin cannot hear the testimony of the witnesses through an interpreter, they need to understand the language spoken by the witnesses.

Gemara: Rav Zutra bar Toviya says in the name of Rav, from where do we know that an isolated set of witnesses is invalid? "לא יומת על פי עד אחד"—what does it mean by one witness? Not literally one witness (we could have known this from "על פי שנים עדים". Rather, one witness means witnesses who see a crime one by one (even though there are two witnesses to the crime, they cannot sentence a person to death because they do not combine to be a set of witnesses).

We also learn this is a Baraisa, that if two witnesses see him committing a crime, one from one window, and one from another, and they do not see each other, their testimonies do not combine (not acceptable testimony). Even more, if the two witnesses see the crime one after another from the same window, they do not combine since they did not see at the same time.

Rav Pappa says to Abaye, in the first case in the Baraisa they both witness the entire incident, but we say that they don’t combine. In the case where they both see from the same window and they each only see half, does the Tanna have to teach that they do not combine to be a set of witnesses?

Abaye answers. This case is necessary for the case of a person who lives with a woman forbidden to him (in this case each of the witnesses can see only part of the crime and still testify, therefore the Baraisa needs to teach that they do not combine to form a set of witnesses that can have him executed).

Rava says if the witnesses in different windows saw the person giving the warning or the person giving the warning sees them, they combine to be a set.

Rava says that the person giving the warning can even be the victim and even a demon (the warning does not need to come from the witnesses).

Rav Nachman says a set of isolated witnesses is valid in monetary cases (even though it does require the testimony of two witnesses) because of the passuk "לא יומת על פי עד אחד". We learn that for capital cases the isolated witnesses cannot work but in monetary cases they are valid.

Rav Zutra challenges this saying, if this is true (that isolated witnesses are valid in non-capital cases), then they should combine to save the defendant in capital cases (we are more lenient in capital cases more than in monetary cases—if we allow the combination of witnesses in monetary cases,, this should also be allowed in capital cases in order to spare the defendant). Why then does the Mishna teach that if two witnesses see from one window and two witnesses from another, and they do not see each other, the group found to be zomemin, he and the witnesses are executed because the witnesses do not combine? The Gemara answers that this is a difficulty.

Quote from the Mishna: R’ Yose says that no one can be executed unless the witnesses both warn him (the warning is the legal requirement in order to give the death sentence).

The Gemara challenges: Rav Pappa says to Abaye, is this really R’ Yose’s view? We learned in another Mishna that R’ Yose says an enemy is executed for killing his foe, even if he was not warned beforehand, because he is considered forewarned (à R’ Yose does not require a warning as a legal requirement for a death sentence).

Abaye says that the R’ Yose in that Mishna is R’ Yose bar Yehuda, not the Tanna that we generally call R’ Yose. We learn in a Baraisa that R’ Yose bar Yehudah says that a scholar does not need a warning because a warning is only needed to differentiate between an unintentional offender of an intentional one (we see that R’ Yose bar Yehuda has the opinion that a warning is not required in order to give the death sentenceà he is the Tanna of the Mishna that says that an enemy is executed for killing his foe. The Tanna of our Mishna is R’ Yose and he does consider a warning to be a legal condition in order to give the death penalty).

Quote from the Mishna: the Sanhedrin should not listen to the testimony through an interpreter.

There were people who only spoke a foreign language and came before Rava in court. Rava appointed someone as an interpreter between them. How could Rava do this (we learn in our Mishna that there cannot be an interpreter)? Rava was able to understand what they were saying but he did not know how to respond to them in their language (the use of an interpreter to say the judge’s comments is allowed).

In the Gemara, Rav Pappa challenges the Mishna saying that the murderer or the victim can invalidate the testimony of the witnesses since they are invalid to testify but witness the event. If this case is so unlikely, why would Rav Pappa bring it up? What can we learn from its use as a challenge?