We are told that the witnesses that can not cause a treifa to be killed because he already will die soon are potur. Just before the latter sugia we are told that even if a person strikes another so hard that he is likely to die soon from the blow he is potur if a SECOND attacker deals a death blow first (before the victim would otherwise die). It would seem to be, then, that it depends on the moment that the victim or the treifa actually dies. In the case of the 2nd attacker he advances the demise of the one attacked; similarly in the case of the treifa, the false testimony should result in the death penalty to the false witnesses because the treifa, tho viewed as dead already, is no more dead right now that the person attacked by the first attacker and, therefore, it would seem to be that the 1st set of witnesses can indeed be contradicted and sentenced since they would ADVANCE the ultimate demise of the treifa. Could you please explain to me why I am wrong in this comparison?
Many thanks and Shabbat Shalom -- and Shalom al Yisroel!
Yizchak Coffer, Thornhill, Canada
I'm not sure what you found in the Gemara here, regarding Edim Zomemim, which is different from what the Gemara says in the previous Sugya. The Gemara quotes a Machlokes whether the last person (Acharon) is Chayav when ten people hit him. The Gemara says that the Machlokes is whether this victim is comparable to a Tereifah or not. Although he may be closer to death, the Gemara writes that since his Simanim have not been cut he may be a Goses but is not a Teraifah.
The Gemara discussing Edim Zomemim is merely an extension of the fact that one who kills a Tereifah is Patur.