More Discussions for this daf
1. Dibur is not a Ma'aseh 2. Pshat in Rashi 3. Which Mesichta comes before Makos?
4. Keitzad Ein HaEdim Neasim Zomemim 5. Edut Sh'eino Yachol L'haziman 6. Question on the second Kal Vachomer.
7. Rebbi Yochanan's Kal v'Chomer 8. Eidim Zomemim 9. Rebbi Yochanan's Kal v'Chomer
10. Does the Gerushah become a Chalalah? 11. Damages 12. Iy Atah Yachol Lehazimah, and Kim Lei...
13. 40 lashes 14. Minah Hani Mili 15. Edus she'I Efshar l'Hazimah
16. Malkus for Edim Zomemim in a case of Ben Gerushah, Tosfos 17. Question on Suggestion of First Tosfos 18. First Tosfos on Daf 2a
19. Mitzri Sheni 20. Lo Sa'aneh Without an Action 21. Mitzri Sheni
22. Ben Gerushah And Ben Chalutzah 23. Chalutzah 24. Galus
25. Chalalah 26. R Yochanons Kal v'Chomer- Insights 27. Killing b'Shogeg or b'Meizid
28. Ma'aseh or not? 29. v'Lo Ka'asher Asah 30. Tosfos on "Mah ha'Sokel"
31. Tosfos and Maharsha 2b 32. R. Yochanan's Kal v'Chomer 33. Question on the Ritva from Shifchah Charufah (in Insights)
34. מכות בגימטריא הרהורים 35. מכות בגימטריא הרהורים 36. תוספות ד"ה מעידין
37. אין עושין בהן דין הזמה כל עיקר 38. והצדיקו את הצדיק 39. בגניבתו ולא בזממו
DAF DISCUSSIONS - MAKOS 2

Abraham Yohros asked:

why we cant accept an edut she eino yejol lehazimam

Abraham Yohros, panama city, panama

The Kollel replies:

RASHI in Pesachim (12a, DH "d'Havei") explains that this is based on the Pesukim "v'Darshu ha'Shoftim Heitev v'Hinei Sheker ha'Eid Sheker Ana b'Achiv...v'Asisem Lo k'Asher Zamam" (Devarim 19:18-9). The fact that the Torah discusses checking out the witnesses to make sure they are kosher witnesses next to the topic of Zomimim, teaches us that for witnesses to be kosher they must be able to be made into Zomimim.

Take Care,

Yaakov Montrose

The Kollel adds:

Here is something the Kollel wrote on the subject in Bava Kama 75.

Best wishes,

M. Kornfeld

===========

Bava Kama 75

3) WITNESSES WHO CANNOT BE MADE INTO "EDIM ZOMEMIM"

QUESTION: The Gemara says that the Rabanan and Sumchus argue with regard to "Edus she'Iy Atah Yachol l'Hazimah" -- testimony that cannot be proven to be false through "Hazamah." The Rabanan hold that any testimony of witnesses that does not allow for the possibility of being proven false through "Hazamah" is not valid testimony. Sumchus holds that this applies only when details of the testimony are not available (such as the day and hour at which the event took place), but not in our case, where the witnesses cannot be made into Edim Zomemim because their testimony is obviously true (since the Ganav himself admits to it) and they are merely supporting the claim of the Ganav.

Why do the Rabanan and Sumchus argue? What is the underlying point of their Machlokes?

ANSWER: To explain the Machlokes, we first need to understand the principle that "Edus she'Iy Atah Yachol l'Hazimah" is not a valid testimony. There are two ways of understanding it. The first way is that it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv -- the Torah says that such Edus is not valid. Just like the Torah gives other guidelines with regard to Edus (for example, that the testimony of certain people, such as a relative, is invalid), so, too, the Torah states that "Edus she'Iy Atah Yachol l'Hazimah" is not valid. The second way of understanding this principle is that it is logical: if the witnesses know that they cannot be made into Edim Zomemim and will not face that punishment if found to be lying, they will not have that extra incentive to tell the truth, and thus there is a greater fear that they are lying.

It could be that the Rabanan maintain that "Edus she'Iy Atah Yachol l'Hazimah" is invalid testimony just like the testimony of an other invalid witness -- it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv. Just like the testimony of even the greatest Tzadik like Moshe for his brother Aharon is invalid, so, too, any Edus that cannot be found to be false through "Hazamah" is invalid. Sumchus, on the other hand, holds that the basis for this principle is logical -- because we fear that the witnesses might be lying when it is not possible to prove their testimony false. Hence, in this case, where we know that they are not lying, we can accept their testimony even though it cannot be proven false through "Hazamah." (I. Alsheich -- see also Insights to Bava Kama 84:1)