More Discussions for this daf
1. Hitting one's son 2. Patricide 3. Ko'ach Kocho
4. Ketzirah Dumya d'Charishah 5. Malkus for "Yisrael Al Yedei Eved/Kusi" 6. Umnus Achrita (Father goes to Galus for killing son)

Liron Hayman asked:

The Gemora (bottom of 8b) presents that the case is "c'gon shehe'id bo v'huzam" but rejects it because the corresponding case regarding an eved doesn't work, since an eved is "lav bar eidus".

Two questions:

1. Why does this invalidate the proof? Just because a hypothetical case in which the characters are flipped does not work out, it should not invalidate the case. I'm sure there are cases in mishnayos where this point can be proven (ie first mishnah of the mesechta??)

2. If this concept is true, that the corresponding case doesnt work, then why does the eved/cuti get malkus for cursing the yisrael. Surely the same rejection can be applied.

Thank you for your time, especially at such a busy period of the year

Liron Hayman, Sydney, Australia

The Kollel replies:

After suggesting that 'Lokeh' with regard to a Kusi refers to an Eid Zomem, the Gemara rejects the suggestion because, in that case, it will also refer to an Eid Zomem with regard to Eved.

Why can't it? Because an Eved cannot testify, in which case he cannot become an Eid Zomem.

The conclusion therefore is that 'Lokeh' in the Beraisa, cannot possibly refer to an Eid Zomem. What problem do you have with that?

Be'Virchas Kol Tuv

Rabbi Chrysler