[27a - 48 lines; 27b - 52 lines]


(a)If two witnesses testify to a crime or an event and a later set of witnesses contradict their testimony by saying that the crime or event did not take place exactly as the first set of witnesses testified, all of the witnesses are termed Edim Mukchashim (contradictory witnesses), and Beis Din cannot use either testimony.

(b)If, however, two witnesses testify to a crime or an event and a later set of witnesses *disqualify* that testimony by saying that the first set of witnesses were with them in a different place at the time that the first set of witnesses claim that the act took place, the first witnesses are termed Edim Zomimin (conspiring witnesses). The Torah commands that the second set of witnesses are believed, rather than the first. In general, Edim Zomemim are punished with the punishment they tried to cause. (Devarim 19:16-21. See Mishnah Makos 5a.)


Abaye rules that the testimony of a witness who, with regard to a later testimony, is found to be an Ed Zomem (see previous entry) is disqualified retroactively, while Rava holds that the witness becomes disqualified from giving testimony only for future testimonies. (This argument is one of the six arguments ("YE'AL KEGAM") between Abaye and Rava in which the Halachah follows the view of Abaye; see below, entry #10.)

3)[line 3] ME'IDNA D'AS'HID- from the moment at which he testified

4)[line 4] "AL TASHES YADCHA IM RASHA [LIHEYOS ED CHAMAS]"- "Do not become involved with a wicked person [to be a false witness]." (Shemos 23:1)

5)[line 5] AL TASHES RASHA ED- [the verse is interpreted to mean,] do not let an evildoer be a witness (and since the witness was proven to have lied, he is disqualified from being a witness in all cases that followed the case in which he lied)

6)[line 6] MAI CHAZIS D'SAMCHAS A'HANEI?- What do you see that makes you rely on these [witnesses, i.e. the second group]?

7)[line 10] MISHUM PESEIDA DI'LEKUCHOS- because of the loss to the buyers (if we disqualify the witness retroactively, then all of the deeds of sale on which he testified in the interim will become annulled, and the purchasers will thereby suffer a loss)

8)[line 11] D'AS'HIDU BEI TREI B'CHAD- [a case where] two witnesses testify against one witness (testifying that he is an Ed Zomem)

9)[line 12] PASLINHU B'GAZLENUSA- other witnesses invalidated these witnesses by testifying that they stole (and a Gazlan is Pasul l'Edus)

10)[line 15] YE'A"L KEGA"M - a mnemonic device to remember the six cases in which Abaye and Rava argue where the Halachah follows the opinion of Abaye. These cases are:

1.*Y*E'USH SHE'LO MI'DA'AS - The owner of a lost or stolen object does not as yet know that his object is lost or stolen. Had he known, he would have given up hope of ever getting it back, and would have verbally acknowledged that the loss is irretrievable ("Ye'ush"). Abaye rules that Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as is not considered Ye'ush (Bava Metzia 21b).

2.*E*D ZOMEM LIMAFRE'A HU NIFSAL - Abaye rules that a witness who is found to be an Ed Zomem is disqualified retroactively, such that all testimonies that he gave between the time that he gave his false testimony and now are considered invalid (Sanhedrin 27a).

3.*L*ECHI HA'OMED ME'ELAV - Abaye rules that a board which was not put in place for the purpose of being used as a Lechi (to permit carrying objects from a Chatzer to a Mavoy, and in the Mavoy itself) is considered a Lechi (Eruvin 15a).

4.*K*IDUSHIN SHE'EINAM MESURIN L'BI'AH - Abaye rules that Kidushin (betrothal) to a woman with whom marital relations will be prohibited due to a Safek Isur Kares (see Insights to Kidushin 51:1 and Background to Kidushin 51:10) are considered binding to the extent that the woman needs to receive a Get from the Mekadesh and becomes prohibited to his immediate relatives.

5.*G*ILUY DA'AS B'GITA - A husband has sent a Get to his wife with a messenger, and the messenger returns having not been able to deliver the Get. The husband then hints that he is pleased with the fact that he has not as yet divorced his wife, but he does not state explicitly that he does not want the messenger to deliver the Get, or that he wishes to revoke the Get. Abaye rules that his hints have no bearing on the validity of the Get, and the messenger is still able to deliver the Get (Gitin 34a).

6.*M*UMAR OCHEL NEVEILOS L'HACH'IS - Abaye rules that a person who eats non-Kosher food (or transgresses any other sin) in order to anger his Creator is disqualified from being a witness, even though he has not demonstrated a willingness to transgress the Torah for monetary benefit (Sanhedrin 27a).

11a)[line 15] MUMAR OCHEL NEVEILOS L'SEI'AVON- a sinner who eats non-Kosher food (or transgresses any other sin) for monetary benefit, e.g. the non-Kosher food is less expensive

b)[line 17] L'HACH'IS- [a sinner who eats non-Kosher food (or transgresses any other sin)] in order to anger his Creator

12)[line 21] AL TASHES CHAMAS ED- [the verse (Shemos 23:1; see above, entry #4) is interpreted to mean,] do not let an extortionist (i.e. someone who sins in order to get money) be a witness (but other types of sinners may serve as witnesses)

13)[line 21] MO'ALIN BI'SHEVU'OS- those who sin by swearing falsely


(a)It is forbidden to swear in vain, as the Torah states, "Lo Sisa Es Shem HaSh-m Elokecha la'Shav" (Shemos 20:7). There are four types of oaths that are in vain:

1.a false oath about something known; e.g. that a marble pillar is made of gold

2.a true oath about something known; e.g. that a stone is a stone

3.an oath to transgress a Mitzvah

4.an oath which is impossible to keep; e.g. not to sleep for three days or not to eat for seven days.

(b)If a person swears in vain b'Mezid he receives lashes. If he swears b'Shogeg he does *not* bring a Korban (SEFER HA'CHINUCH #30).

15)[line 23] SHEVU'AS MAMON- an oath attesting to the rightful ownership of money or property

16)[line 27] PASUL L'CHOL HA'TORAH KULAH- he is disqualified from serving as a witness for all matters in the Torah

17)[line 40] REBBI MEIR V'REBBI YOSI, HALACHAH K'REBBI YOSI- in a dispute between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi, the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yosi (Eruvin 46b)

18)[line 41] SASAM LAN TANA K'REBBI MEIR- the Tana wrote a Mishnah anonymously, in accordance with the view of Rebbi Meir (and therefore the Halachah should follow his view; the Gemara will explain this on 27b)

19)[line 42] BAR CHAMA KATAL NAFSHA- Bar Chama killed a person

20)[line 43] REISH GALUSA- the Exilarch, the leader of the Jews in Babylon

21)[line 44] PUK, AYEIN BAH- go out and look into the matter

22)[line 44] IY VADAI KATAL, LICH'HAYUHU L'EINEI- if he certainly killed, then poke out his eyes (see Rashi for two other interpretations of the meaning of this statement)

23)[line 47] KAMAI DIDI GANAV KAVA D'CHUSHLA- in front of me he (the witness) stole a Kav of peeled barley


24)[line 1] KATA D'VUTIYA- the handle of a spear

25)[line 1] AMAR LEI- Rav Aba bar Yakov said to Bar Chama

26)[line 11] PESULEI YUCHASIN- people of sullied lineage (such as a Ger or Mamzer) who are disqualified from serving as judges for capital cases, but may serve as judges for monetary cases

27)[line 18] MELAVEI B'RIBIS- those who lend money with interest

28)[line 24] NASHKEI L'KAR'EI- he (Bar Chama) kissed him (Rav Papi) upon his feet

29)[line 25] KIBLEI LI'CHERAGEI D'CHULEI SHENEI- he (Bar Chama) accepted upon himself to pay his (Rav Papi's) taxes for all of his years

30a)[line 28] CHAMIV- his father-in-law (his wife's father)

b)[line 28] GISO- his brother-in-law (his wife's sister's husband)

31)[line 29] CHORGO- his step-son (his wife's son from a different marriage)

32)[line 30] AVAL MISHNAH RISHONAH "DODO U'VEN DODO V'CHOL HA'RA'UY L'YORSHO"- but the ruling of the original Mishnah was that "his uncle, his uncle's son, and anyone who is fit to inherit him" may not testify for him. (This refers to the relatives of one's *father*, and not of one's mother, as one does not inherit from the relatives of one's mother. The reason the Mishnah Rishonah mentioned specifically "his uncle and his uncle's son" is because it is quoting the verse (Vayikra 25:49). The reason why it mentions them altogether and does not mention simply "anyone who is fit to inherit him" is because, in theory, the members of his entire Shevet could inherit him, and thus the Mishnah needs to point out that only the close relatives are included in the disqualification to testify (TIFERES YISRAEL). The words "Kol ha'Karov Lo b'Osah Sha'ah..." are the resumption of the words of the Tana Kama.)

33)[line 33] V'YESH LO VANIM MIMENAH, HAREI ZEH KAROV- and he (the husband of one's daughter) has children from her, he is considered a relative (even though the daughter has died)

34)[line 35] SHOSHVINO - (lit. his close comrade) (SHUSHVINUS)

Shushvinus refers to the custom whereby a person brings gifts to the wedding feast of a friend and partakes in the feast, and then the friend reciprocates and brings gifts when the first person (or one of his children) gets married. The Gemara in Bava Basra (144b-145b) discusses the details of the practice of Shushvinus at length. The SHULCHAN ARUCH (EH 60) writes that this custom is no longer practiced the way it used to be.

35)[line 36] B'EIVAH- out of enmity

36)[line 37] "LO YUMSU AVOS AL BANIM [U'VANIM LO YUMSU AL AVOS; ISH B'CHET'O YUMASU.]"- "Fathers shall not be put to death because of sons, [and sons shall not be put to death because of fathers; a man shall be put to death because of his own sin]." (Devarim 24:16)

37)[line 45] "V'AF BA'AVONOS AVOSAM ITAM YAMAKU."- "and even because of the sins of their fathers they shall perish." (Vayikra 26:39)

38)[line 50] "V'CHASHLU ISH B'ACHIV"- "Each man will stumble over his brother." (Vayikra 26:37)

39)[line 51] KULAN AREVIM ZEH VA'ZEH- they are all responsible for each other

40)[last line] HAYAH B'YADAM LIMCHOS V'LO MICHU- it was in their ability (lit. hands) to protest, and they did not protest