According to how Rashi learns the meaning of harug yatzil, because he is karov l'atzmoi, then how does the din of Rav Yoseph brought in Tosafos from Sanhedrin 9b that ploini rav'ani l'oinsi hu v'acher mitztarfin, how does that work according to Rav Yosi since he is karoiv l'atzmoi, and we beleive that it happened to him (unlike rav'ani lirtzoini), and even according to Rebbi how does it work since heis one of the two eidim so he is masreh andhe is korov latzmoi?
Yossi Krasnanski, Monsey, USA
(1) Your question is similar to Rav Papa's question to Abaye here, and Abaye's answer can also be given to answer your question.
Therefore Rav Papa can learn that when Rav Yosef said that the "Nirva" and another witness combine to convict the "Roveya", this is referring specifically to a case where the transgression took place behind the Nirva, in such a way that he did not see what happened and therefore is not considered a witness, so there are no invalid "Karov" witnesses involved.
If, however, the Nirva saw the Aveirah, Rav Papa will maintain that the din of Rav Yosef does not apply.
(2) Rashi here DH Harug writes that Rav Papa only asked his question according to Rebbi Yosi's opinion. In contrast, Rebbi maintains that the Din of a group of witnesses who are disqualified because one of them is a close relative only applies when there was a Hasra'ah by witnesses who are not part of the action of the transgression itself.
So Rav Yosef (who is an Amora and does not disagree with Rebbi, who is a Tana) would agree that, according to Rebbi, independent witnesses are required to warn the Roveya not to do this Aveirah, and a witness does not invalidate the testimony unless he intended to be a witness, while in contrast the Nirva did not intend to be a witness.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Firstly thank you for taking the time. Secondly as I'm sure you can understand the answers below are not correct - as Rav Yosef says that ploni rav'ani loinsi - he and another can be mitztareph to say witness against him. As such it for sure did not happen in a way that he did not see or that he was not part of the witnesses as the whole point is that he can be a witness - and not that there are others and we do not need him. This question is specifically from l'oinsi not from lirtzoini - as overthere (see Tosfos in Sanhedrin) we say that we believe that it did not happen to him at all, rather to another, however by l'oinsi we do believe that it happened to him.
Yes you are right and thank you very much for pointing out my error. Let's have another shot at answering your difficult question.
(1) According to Tosfos DH Nirba your question is not difficult because Tosfos explains (in his 2nd pshat) that the Gemara's question that the Nirba should save the accused only applies if the Nirba agreed to do the transgression, and the reason he saves the Nirba is because he is a Rasha and invalid for testimony since he deliberately did this Aveira. In contrast, if he was forcibly Nirba, he will not save the Nirba so this fits in with Rav Yosef in Sanhedrin 9b that the Nirba can give testimony in ordder to kill the Rovea.
However Tosfos does not agree with Rashi, because according to Tosfos the reason the Nirba is invalid is either because he hates the Rovea, or alternatively because he is a Rasha, but not because he is Koruv Etzel Atzmo, so your question on Rashi remains difficult.
(2) However I have found 2 possible ways of explaining Rashi in Teshuvas Radbaz 4:1302 (cited here by Artscroll). Radbaz writes that the reason we believe the person who says he was Nirba, is because we are sure he is telling the truth because otherwise he would not put himself to such great shame by saying that he was part of such a terrible transgression. This is true even though he was forced into it because it is still a great disgrace to have something like this done to oneself even against one's will. Therefore one can argue that even though the nirba is a Koruv to himself, nevertheless there is a special reason we should believe him in spite of this, and in such a case even a koruv would be believed.
(3) Radbaz gives an additional explanation. When the nirba says such-and-such a person did Revia on me, we split up what he says and believe what he says that such-and-such did the Aveira but do not believe him when he says the Aveira was done on himself. Therefore he is not considered as a koruv for what happened, because it is as if he said the aveira was done on someone else, not on himself.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Firstly thank you for taking the time. Secondly as I'm sure you can understand the answers below are not correct - as Rav Yosef says that ploni rav'ani loinsi - he and another can be mitztareph to say witness against him. As such it for sure did not happen in a way that he did not see or that he was not part of the witnesses as the whole point is that he can be a witness - and not that there are others and we do not need him. This question is specifically from l'oinsi not from lirtzoini - as overthere (see Tosfos in Sanhedrin) we say that we believe that it did not happen to him at all, rather to another, however by l'oinsi we do believe that it happened to him.
Yes you are right and thank you very much for pointing out my error.
Let's have another shot at answering your difficult question.
(1) According to Tosfos DH Nirba your question is not difficult because Tosfos explains (in his 2nd pshat) that the Gemara's question that the Nirba should save the accused only applies if the Nirba agreed to do the transgression, and the reason he saves the Nirba is because he is a Rasha and invalid for testimony since he deliberately did this Aveira. In contrast, if he was forcibly Nirba, he will not save the Nirba so this fits in with Rav Yosef in Sanhedrin 9b that the Nirba can give testimony in ordder to kill the Rovea.
However Tosfos does not agree with Rashi, because according to Tosfos the reason the Nirba is invalid is either because he hates the Rovea, or alternatively because he is a Rasha, but not because he is Koruv Etzel Atzmo, so your question on Rashi remains difficult.
(2) However I have found 2 possible ways of explaining Rashi in Teshuvas Radbaz 4:1302 (cited here by Artscroll). Radbaz writes that the reason we believe the person who says he was Nirba, is because we are sure he is telling the truth because otherwise he would not put himself to such great shame by saying that he was part of such a terrible transgression. This is true even though he was forced into it because it is still a great disgrace to have something like this done to oneself even against one's will. Therefore one can argue that even though the nirba is a Koruv to himself, nevertheless there is a special reason we should believe him in spite of this, and in such a case even a koruv would be believed.
(3) Radbaz gives an additional explanation. When the nirba says such-and-such a person did Revia on me, we split up what he says and believe what he says that such-and-such did the Aveira but do not believe him when he says the Aveira was done on himself. Therefore he is not considered as a koruv for what happened, because it is as if he said the aveira was done on someone else, not on himself.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Additional reply:
Here is a very simple answer to your original question. One has to say that Rav Yosef in Sanhedrin 9b agrees with Rava in Makos 6a that the witnesses who constitute the testimony, are only "Mekaymei Dovor" - witnesses who uphold the matter that they saw, but not "Osei Dovor" - witnesses who actually make the action that happened.
Therefore the person who was forcibly "Nirba" in Sanhedrin 9b is not considered a close witness to invalidate the testimony and save the "Rovea", because he was someone who was actually part of the incident, not someone who merely observed it. Rav Yosef does not agree with the reasoning behind Rav Papa's questions that "Harug Yatzil" etc.
Kol Tuv
Dovid Bloom