How does tosfos know that the Mitzri Sheini does not KA'ASHER ZAMAM so mayby they do get KA'ASHER ZAMAM how does he know?
Myer, Monsey
Baruch she'Kivanta! This is a very good question on Tosfos 2a, DH Ba'inan, and is asked by the Maharsha who asks why we do not say that indeed he is made Pasul as a Mitzri Sheni!
Perhaps the question of the Maharsha may be answered by the words of the Me'iri, who writes that when one makes somebody a Mitzri Sheni this does not only mean that he is making him into a Mitzri but that he is also making his father into a Mitzri. Therefore, it follows that just as there is a Derashah of "to him and not to his seed," there is a Derashah of "to him and not to his father." Consequently, it is not possible that when A falsely testifies about B that he is a Mitzri Sheni, that A should himself become a Mitzri Sheni, because if so A's father would also become a Mitzri.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
So how does that explain Tosfos question? Now we have two answers to Tosfos' question, Tosfos and the Meiri - but what is the question in the first place?
Myer, Monsey, NY
Point accepted. Yasher Ko'ach!
I am going to try a slightly different answer to the Maharsha's question, but it is still based partially on the Me'iri. The Chidush that one learns from the Me'iri is that to be considered Edim Zomemim they must invalidate "Lo Levado": they must invalidate only the person they falsely testified against. If their testimony automatically invalidates someone else, then this is not included in the Parsha of Edim Zomemim.
I assert that Tosfos also agrees that it has to be Lo Levado. Tosfos knew already in his question that the testimony against the Mitzri Sheni would have repercussions on other people. However, the difference between the answer of Tosfos and the Me'iri is: on whom do we care that it not have repercussions? According to the answer of Tosfos, it must not affect his wife, while according to the Me'iri it must not affect his father.
The question of Tosfos was: when the witnesses do not invalidate the descendants of the person they are speaking against, what is the source that they are not considered Edim Zomemim? Tosfos already knew in his question that Edim Zomemim must only invalidate the person they speak against, but Tosfos did not yet know the source for this.
Thank you for your insightful comments.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom