The Mishna on 2a says that the zommemin witnesses get one set of lashes (arbaim) in the case of Ben Grusha. Now, on 4a R. Meir says if the zommemin witnesses testify that a person deserves lashes, the witnesses get 2 sets of lashes, One for lo ta'ane and the other for ka'asher zamam. Now, would R. Meir hold in the case of the Mishna on 2a that the witnesses get 2 sets of lashes (shmonim) one set for "lo ta'ane" and the other for "ka'asher zamam"?
Marc Borenstein, United States
No, in the case of the Mishnah it is not appropriate to give lashes for Ka'asher Zamam since the witnesses did not attempt ("Zamam") to give their victim lashes.
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Thank you for the reply, but I'm not understanding something. Even in the Mishna's case (2a) the witnesses did not attempt to give the defendant lashes yet the witnesses received lashes. But for what reason? On 2b the gemara says that the punishment for the Ben grusha case does not stem from violating "lo ta'ane" because it's a lav sh'ein bo ma'ase. That implies that there is another operating verse (ka'asher zamam?) that justifies the witnesses getting lashes despite the witnesses not testifying that the Defendant should get lashes. R. Meir (4a) seems to hold that violating "lo ta'ane" is also sufficient to give lashes. So putting two and tow together why wouldn't R. Meir hold that the witnesses get two sets of lashes one for "lo ta'ane" and another for either "ka'asher zamam" or the other verse the gemara relied on in 2b which authorized the lashes in the ben grusha case?
[Perhaps this is too involved and isn't appropriate for email communication if that is the case you can let me know.]
Thank You,
Marc Borenstein
Sorry for the delay Marc (your letter was lost until recently).
The Gemara on 2b does not mean to prescribe Malkus for a second verse. Rather, it means we would not have administered Malkus for Lo Sa'aneh if the Pasuk had not told us to do so explicitly (since there is no Ma'aseh). Now that the Torah teaches explicitly that we administer Malkus even though no Ma'aseh is involved, the Malkus is indeed for Lo Sa'aneh (see Tosfos 4b DH v'Rabanan).
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld