Discussions for this daf
1. Bava Basra 031: Tosfos DH Amar 2. Rav Chisda's reason 3. Chazakah without a Ta'anah
DAF DISCUSSIONS - BAVA BASRA 31

BENICHOU asked:

Kvod harabanim, yech li cheela, aval, ein li hatirouts. bekol hazama,yech hakh'acha, nah'on? Az, lefi rava, oulefi mane deamar michoum h'idouch, bichlama behazama, (kche edim mezimim al tvih'a oumeh'ira,aval lo al gneiva,), psoulim rak mikane oulehaba, aval mitsad hakh'acha,chehi betoh' hahazama, lama hem lo psoulim lemafreah? (ayen baba batra, daf 31 amoud alef, tosfot dibour hamath'il amar lei rava) Bevakacha, tetartsou li hah'i maher. toda raba.

[Translation:]

In every Hazamah, there is Hakchashah, correct? If so, then according to Rava, and according to the Man d'Amar that it is Mishum Chidush, then it makes sense that with regard to the Hazamah (when the Edim are proven to be Zomemin on their testimony abnout the Tevichah u'Mechirah, but not on their testimony abnoiut the Geneivah) they are Pesulim only from now on, mi'Kan uleha'Ba. But with regard to the element of Hakchashah, which exists in every case of Hazamah, why are they not Pasul even retroactively, l'Mafre'a? (See Tosfos in Bava Basra 31a, DH Amar Lei Rava.)

The Kollel replies:

Tosfos says that according to the Man d'Amar that Edim Zomemin is a Chidush, they actually do become Pasul from the time of the Hakchashah. According to Rav Huna, they are still Kosher for other Edus, but according to Rav Chisda they are not. However, according to the Man d'Amar that "Peseida d'Lekuchos," they only become Pasul from now on, mi'Kan uleha'Ba.

[Tosfos omrim che'lefi ha'man d'amar che'Edim Zomemin Khidush Hu, hem nifsalim l'mafre'a, mizman ha'hakhachah. Lefi Rav Huna, hem adayin kecherim l'edus akher, aval lefi Rav Khisda, hem lo kecherim l'edus akher. Amnam, lefi ha'man d'amar d'peseida d'lekukhos, hem pesulim rak mi'kan ule'ha'ba.]

BENICHOU asks:

Kodem kol, toda raba latchevouva, aval, im kol hakavod, lo h?van'ti hatirouts..

hacheela cheli hayta al dougma chel hagmara, betsoura chel hazama: chne edim meidim che raou tvih'a oumeh'ira.. ah'ar kah', baou edim, vehizmou otam al hatvih'a, velo al hazama. lefi rava, hem nifsalim rak mikan oulehaba. naguid lefi man deamar h'idouch hou. aval, kche hizmou et haedim, hem gam paslou otam lo rak michoum azama, ela gam michoum hakah'acha. oulh'en hakh'acha hazot poselet et haedim lemafrea, mizman hahakh'acha. im ken, (im hayou psoulim mizman hahakh'acha,) haedim haelou tsrih'im lihyot psoulim lo rak al tvih'a ela gam al meh'ira, ki ah'chav chehem nifsalim michoum hahakh'acha, ein choum h'idouch (kmo behazama..)

[Translation:]

... My question was on the example of the Gemara, in the form of Hazamah: two witnesses testify that they saw Tevichah u'Mechirah. Afterwards, other witnesses came and were Mazim the first set with regard to their testimony on the Tevichah, but not on [the Mechirah]. According to Rava, they are Pasul only from now onward, mi'Kan uleha'Ba. Let us assume that this is according to the Man d'Amar that Edim Zomemim is a Chidush. However, when the second set are Mazim the first set, they are Pasul not only because of Hazamah, but also become of Hakchashah. Therefore, the Hakchashah makes them Pasul even l'Mafre'a, retroactively from the time of the Hakchashah. If so -- if they are Pasul from the time of the Hakchashah -- then these witnesses should be Pasul *not only* with regard to the Tevichah, but also with regard to the Mechirah, because now that they are Pasul because of the Hakchashah, there is no longer any Chidush (of Hazamah)!

The Kollel replies:

According to Rav Huna, even after the Hakchashah, the witnesses are valid for another testimony, for each set can come by themselves and testify. Tosfos says on Amud Beis that according to Rav Chisda, they are actually Pasul after the Edus of the Geneivah without a Chidush.

[Lefi Rav Huna, afilu l'akhar ha'hak'khachah, ha'edim kecherim l'edut acheret, mishum che'kol kat v'kat yachol la'vo bilvad u'me'id. Tosfot, b'amud Beis, omrim che'lefi Rav Khisda, b'emet hem Pesulim l'achar ha'edut chel ha'geneivah bli ha'khiduch.]

D. Zupnik