More Discussions for this daf
1. Dibur is not a Ma'aseh 2. Pshat in Rashi 3. Which Mesichta comes before Makos?
4. Keitzad Ein HaEdim Neasim Zomemim 5. Edut Sh'eino Yachol L'haziman 6. Question on the second Kal Vachomer.
7. Rebbi Yochanan's Kal v'Chomer 8. Eidim Zomemim 9. Rebbi Yochanan's Kal v'Chomer
10. Does the Gerushah become a Chalalah? 11. Damages 12. Iy Atah Yachol Lehazimah, and Kim Lei...
13. 40 lashes 14. Minah Hani Mili 15. Edus she'I Efshar l'Hazimah
16. Malkus for Edim Zomemim in a case of Ben Gerushah, Tosfos 17. Question on Suggestion of First Tosfos 18. First Tosfos on Daf 2a
19. Mitzri Sheni 20. Lo Sa'aneh Without an Action 21. Mitzri Sheni
22. Ben Gerushah And Ben Chalutzah 23. Chalutzah 24. Galus
25. Chalalah 26. R Yochanons Kal v'Chomer- Insights 27. Killing b'Shogeg or b'Meizid
28. Ma'aseh or not? 29. v'Lo Ka'asher Asah 30. Tosfos on "Mah ha'Sokel"
31. Tosfos and Maharsha 2b 32. R. Yochanan's Kal v'Chomer 33. Question on the Ritva from Shifchah Charufah (in Insights)
34. מכות בגימטריא הרהורים 35. מכות בגימטריא הרהורים 36. תוספות ד"ה מעידין
37. אין עושין בהן דין הזמה כל עיקר 38. והצדיקו את הצדיק 39. בגניבתו ולא בזממו
DAF DISCUSSIONS - MAKOS 2

yitzy asks:

..In that case, why does the Gemara in Sanhedrin rule, that in a case where witnesses testify against a Na'arah ha'Merasah (a betrothed girl), she is not put to death, because the witnesses, who can say that they only came to forbid her on the Chasan, are not put to death either ('Eidus she'I Atah Yachol Lehazimah'), seeing as there too, the witnesses are subject to Malkos?-- if it is 'Eidus she'I Atah Yachol Lehazimah why can they testify to begin with?

yitzy, jerusalem israel

The Kollel replies:

If I understand you correctly, you are not asking on Tosfos' question. Tosfos establishes that the Malkus that Edum Zomemim receive is in the place of the punishment that the accused was supposed to get and is considered Edus she'Atah Yachol l'Hazimah.

Tosfos then questions this premise: Why does the Gemara in Sanhedrin consider the testimony against Na'arah ha'Me'urasah to be Edus she'Iy Atah Yachol l'Hazimah since the witnesses in that case do receive Malkus?

Rather, what bothers you is why does the Gemara say that Na'arah ha'Me'urasah is not put to death becuase it is Edus she'Iy Atah Yachol l'Hazimah? The wording of the Gemara implies that they testify but Beis Din does not accept what they say. It seems that Edim of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah cannot give any testimony at all!

I think that the answer is as follows. The Gemara there says that the Edim are not put to death only when they did not warn her that she will be put to death if she goes through with her intentions. However, if they warned her that she will be Chayav Sekilah, then it is Edus she'Atah Yachol l'Hazimah.

Accordingly, it is understandable why they do come to Beis Din and testify. After their testimony, Beis Din asks them questions concerning exactly what happened. At the point when the Edim tell Beis Din that they did not warn her that she will be Chayav Sekilah, Beis Din does not accept their Edus.

In short: You asked, why does Beis Din let the Edim of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah come to Beis Din at all? The answer is that since there is a possiblility that Beis Din will accept their testimony, they come forth to testify.

I hope that this clarifies things for you.

Shevach Pepper