What are the implications of the word "Va'asisem Lo"?
Makos, 2a: It implies "Va'asisem Lo", 've'Lo le'Zar'o', which teaches us that, if the witnesses testified that a certain Kohen is a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah, 1 they do not receive the same punishment - since that would mean that their children are also Chalalim. 2
And is therefore a Chalal, who loses his status of Kohen. See Torah Temimah.
Refer to 19:19:1.1:3.
What are the implications of the words "Ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv"?
Rashi: It implies that the Eidim Zomemin are killed for what they conspired to achieve (before Beis-Din executed the accused), but not if they actually achieved it (once the execution has taken place). 1
Rashi (in Chulin, 11b): "Ka'asher Zamam", 've'Lo Ka'asher Asah'. The Gemara in Makos, 5b learns it from "La'asos le'Achniv" - 've'Adayin Achiv Kayam'. See Torah Temimah, citing the Gemara there and note 80, where he elaborates. Refer also to 19:19:1.1:2
Why does the Torah add the (otherwise superfluous) word "La'asos le'Achiv"?
Rashi: To teach us that the Zomemin of a bas Kohen are sentenced to death by Chenek ? like the adulterer, and not by S'reifah ? like the Bas Kohen 1 - "le'Achiv", 've'Lo la'Achoso'. 2
Riva (citing Mikva'os 5b): To teach us that his 'brother' (the accused) - is still alive. Otherwise, the Eidim Zomemin are not put to death. 3
Makos, 2a: It implies "La'asos le'Achiv", 've'Lo le'Zar'o' - to teach us that witnesses who teastify that Reuven is a Ben Gerushah or a Ben Chalutzah- whose daughters cannot marry a Kohen, are not subject to "Ka'asher Zamam" ? and are subject only to Malkos, 4 like a regular false witness.
Makos, 5b: To counter the Tzedokim, who naintained that Eidim Zomemin are ony sentenced to death in the event that the accused has already been killed, the Torah write "La'asos le'Achiv" ? implying that he is still alive. 5
Rashi: Refer to Vayikra, 21:9:3:1. In all other cases, there is no difference between the punishment of the man and of the woman. And in cases involving the death-sentence which onvolve only a woman, the Zomemin receive the same punishment that they wanted to mete out to her.
Refer to Vayikra, 21:9:3:2*.
See Torah Temimah, note 78.
Why, in the case of 'Ben Gerushah and a Ben Chalutzah, do we not disqualify the Eid Zomem but not his children?
Makos, 2a: Because that is not what he wanted to do to the accused.
What is the logic behind the current D'rashah? Why don't we say that, if the Eidim Zom'min are killed for attempting to have the accused killed, Kal va'Chomer if they succeeded in having him killed?
Ramban #1: Because the reason that we believe the second witnesses is due to the fact that Hashem sent them 1 to save the accused because he is innocent. 2 But if they arrive only after the death-sentence has been carried out, there is no reason to believe them any more than the first witnesses. 3
Ramban #2: Because Hashem would not allow the Beis-Din to sentence an innocent man to death, 4 and the fact that he was sentenced to death, is proof that the first pair of witnesses were telling the truth and he was guilty. 5
Riva: Because Hashem decreed that the Eidim Zom'min should die to atone for their sin. And the fact that the accused was killed indicates that their sin is so great that they are not worthy of a Kaparah.
Moshav Zekenim: If they were killed even after the execution, witnesses would never testify to kill someone, for fear that the transgressor's relatives will hire false witnesses [to avenge his death], which they are unlikely to do if he was not killed,. 6
If he was executed, perhaps his relatives hired the latter witnesses to testify falsely and avenge the witnesses who caused him to die. Before execution, they would hire witnesses to contradict the testimony, and not Zom'min (who are in mortal danger, lest they themselves be Huzam). After execution, contradiction has no effect, so we suspect lest relatives hired the latter witnesses. 7
Oznayim la'Torah: Due to the principle 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din' (One cannot punish, based on a Kal va'Chomer). 8
Ramban: Because Hashem would not have allowed the accused to be saved had he been innocent, as the Pasuk indicates in Mishpatim, Sh'mos, 23:7.
Ramban: Because Hashem would not have allowed the accused to die had he been innocent, as the Pasuk indicates in Tehilim, 37:33.
Ramban: See Devarim, 1:17 and as the Pasuk writes in Tehilim, 82:1 "Hashem Nitzav ba'Adas Keil".
See Oznayim la'Torah, who queries this explanation from Navos, who was sentenced to death even though he was innocent. See Oznayim la'Torah, who elaborates.
Perhaps he will hire false witnesses to save his relative! B'chor Shor - before execution, he would hire witnesses to contradict the testimony, and not Zom'min (who are in mortal danger, lest they themselves become Zom'min).
This seems to be what the B'chor Shor meant.
This is confined however, to Dinei Nefashos. If the Eidim Zom'min caused Reuvn to lose money, then they will indeed be obligated to pay Reuven even if the second wtnesses arrived after the 'debtor' had already paid. And the same applies to Malkos. See Oznayim la'Torah.
Now that the Torah writes "La'asoso le'Achiv", what will be the Din regarding Eidim Zom'min who testified that an Eved Cana'ani murdered?
Bava Kama, 88a: They are sentenced to death, because an Eved Cana'ani is considered a brother with regard to Mitzvos. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 78.
How will we reconcile the currentt Pasuk with the principle 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh, Ein Lokin alav'.
Bava Kama, 5a: By pointing out that the Torah calls it a Ma'aseh when it writes "Ka'asher Zamam La'asos". 1
See Torah Temimah, note 74.
When are the Eidim Zom'min warned?
Kesuvos, 33a: Eidim Zom'min do not require warning - since they did not warn the accused, and the Torah writes "Va'asisem lo Kasa'sher Zamam ... ".
How many Malkos does each of the Eidim Zom'min receive?
Makos, 5a: The full thirty-nine, just like they wanted the accused to receive. 1
As opposed to Mamon, where each one pays an equal fraction of the amount that they wanted the accused to pay. See Torah Temimah, note 72. Perhaps we can add that, whereas anything more than a Perutah fall under the category of Mamon, less than thirty-nine Malkos (wi1th regard to someone who can take it) is not called 'Malkos'.
What are the implications of "u'Vi'arta ha'Ra mi'Kirbecha"?
Refer to 17:7:3:1 & 2.
Chulin, 140a: It implies that, if a murderer flees before the death-sentence has been carried out, it is a Mitzvah to return him in order to carry out "u'Vi'arta ha'Ra mi'Kirbecha".
