1. Is it correct that R.meir has to hold lav sh'ein bo maaser lokin alav, since he says you get malkus from "lo sa'aneh" (and on the first daf the gemoro said you can't learn that out from that passuk since lav sh'ein bo maaser EIN lokin alav)?
2. If it IS true, then does that prove that r.meir wasn't the tana of the first mishnah?
3. The gemoro only says that it's beshlema to the rabonon (that they didn't say lokeh u'meshalem) because they hold of "kdei rishaso". Is that mashma that if that passuk didn't exist, it WOULDN'T be beshlema to them and they'd hold like r.meir - that is to say that they too hold you DO get malkus for a lav sh'ein bo maaser and that's not part of the machlokes of the mishnah?
4. R.yehdua holds l.s.b.m.l.a because of the sada shava from m.s.r and e.z. But we only know e.z gets malkus itself from "hakus harasha". So this means r.meir can't hold of this sada shava since he holds the malkus in e.z come from the lav and that means he's already assuming that even though it's a lav.s.e.bo.m still lokin alav. Where does he know this from if it isn't r.yehuda? (Don't know if I was clear there!)
5. When the gemoro asks what the rabonon do with "lo sa'aneh" why doesn't it answer "they use it to give malkus to ordinary eidim shakranim"? If they do actually hold lav.s.e.bo.m lokin alav?
Thank you for your time!
Adam newton, Uk
1. Tosfos DH v'Rabanan explains that this is not necessarily so. The verse "v'Hitzdiku es ha'Tzadik) shows that Malkus is administered to Edim Zomemim of a Ben Gerushah, even though no Ma'aseh was involved in their testimony. From this we can derive that Lo Sa'aneh is an exception to the rule, and there is Malkus for Lo Sa'aneh although it involves no Ma'aseh.
2. As we wrote above, it is not true. Even Rebbi Meir agrees that Edim Zomemim of a Ben Gerushah receive no more than 40 lashes. After all, the verse which starts v'Hitzdiku specifies that the witnesses are to be given 40 lashes (see Yosef Da'as).
And even Rebbi Yehudah needs the verse of v'Hitzdiku to teach that there are Malkus for Edim Zomemim. He only knows that there is Malkus for a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh through the verse of Edim Zomemim, as the Gemara tells us.
3. Tosfos asks a similar question (DH v'Rabanan). Tosfos answers as we wrote above. The verse "v'Hitzdiku es ha'Tzadik) shows that there is Malkus by Edim Zomemim of a Ben Gerushah, even though no Ma'aseh was involved in their testimony. Therefore even the Rabanan would agree that there would be Malkus for Lo Sa'aneh, had it not been for k'Dei Rish'aso.
(The Me'iri and others take another approach. They suggest that the Gemara only needed k'Dei Rish'aso to explain the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, who holds Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh does have Malkus, but Edim Zomemim who testify about money are not lashed, like the Rabanan.)
4. As we wrote above (#1), everyone agrees that there should be Malkus for Lo Sa'aneh - aside from the Malkus of Ka'asher Zamam. This is derived from the verse of v'Hitzdiku etc. Rebbi Meir would not have thought to prescribe Malkus for Lo Sa'aneh had it not been for this verse. Neither would Rebbi Yehudah.
5. The Rabanan do not have to hold Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh Lokin Alav (as above #1). However, they do hold that there is Malkus for Lo Sa'aneh, by Ben Gerushah and even by ordinary liars (such as Ba Harug b'Raglav - see Bava Kama 74b). Therefore your question remains valid.
However, the answer you propose to the Gemara's question is not sufficient. Even if the verse teaches that liars get Malkus, that is not reason for exempting Edim Zomemim from Malkus. Let them also be given Malkus from the same verse!
Perhaps you are asking a question on the wording of the Gemara. Why does the Gemara ask "What do we do with the verse"? It should say "The verse prescribes Malkus in the case of liars - why doesn't it prescribe Malkus here as well!" If that is your question, you have asked the question of the Gilyon ha'Shas on the Gemara here.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf