1)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses how witnesses become Zom'min - when other witnesses claim that they (the first pair) had been with them in a different location at the time that they claimed to have witnessed the act taking place.

(b)Eidim Zom'min generally receive - the same punishment that they planned ('Zom'min' means 'planned') to mete out to the defendant.

(c)One would therefore expect that if they testified ...

1. ... that Reuven, a purported Kohen, is the son of a divorcee or of a Chalutzah - (in the event that they are Kohanim) they will be branded Chalalim.

2. ... that Shimon is Chayav Galus - they will be forced to flee to a city of refuge (to escape the wrath of the defendant's next of kin).

(d)In both cases, the Tana actually prescribes - Malkos.

(e)In the former case, the witnesses can only know with certainty that the Kohen is the son of a divorcee - if the woman was divorced in their presence before the defendant was conceived, a fact to which they are obligated to add to their testimony.

2)

(a)What is strange about the Tana's Lashon "Keitzad he'Eidim Na'asin Zom'min' is - the fact that, bearing in mind that an Eid Zomem is so-called only by virtue of the fact that he receives the same punishment as he wished to mete out to somebody else, in which case he ought to have then asked 'Keitzad *Ein* ha'Eidim Na'asin Zom'min?'

(b)Moreover - we learn the genuine Din of Zom'min later in the Mishnah, when the Tana states 'Aval Amru lahem He'ach Atam Me'idin ... ', which seemingly comes to preclude the previous two cases from the Din of Zom'min.

3)

(a)In answer to these questions, we connect our Mishnah to a Mishnah in 'Eilu Hein ha'Nechnakin' in Sanhedrin, which states that - all Zom'min receive the same Misah (or other punishment) that they intended the defendant to receive, with the exception of Zom'mei bas Kohen and her Bo'el (who receive Chenek instead of S'reifah).

(b)To which our Mishnah adds that - whereas there the Din Hazamah is changed only slightly from what it ought to be, here we have two cases where the Din Hazamah is not carried out at all.

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi extrapolates the first Din in our Mishnah from the Pasuk "va'Asisem lo Ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv" - "Lo", 've'Lo le'Zar'o' (whereas if we were to carry out the Din Hazamah, then all their descendants would inevitably be punished, too).

(d)We cannot simply declare the witnesses Pasul and not their children - because that would not be fulfilling "Ka'asher Zamam" properly.

4)

(a)bar Pada learns the Din in our Mishnah from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from a case of 'Mechalel' - (a Kohen who married the divorcee, causing their children to be Chalalim) ...

(b)He learns it from the fact the Mechalel does not become a Chalal, despite the fact that his children do. In that case - the witnesses, who only *attempted* to render their victim's son Pasul, should certainly not become themselves Pasul.

(c)We reject bar Pada's source however, and revert to that of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - since in that case, we could apply the same 'Kal va'Chomer' to exempt all Eidim Zom'min from the punishment that is due to them, based on the principle 'Kasher Zamam ve'Lo Ka'asher Asah'. And if 'Ka'asher Asah' is Patur, how much more so 'Ka'asher Zamam!'

5)

(a)Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "*Hu* Yanus el Achas he'Arim ... " that - the murderer must run to the Arei Miklat, but not the Eidim Zom'min.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan learns it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - from someone who murders be'Meizid (even if there are no witnesses, and he is not put to death). Now if *he* does not need to run to the Arei Miklat, how much more so the Eidim Zom'min, who did not kill at all.

(c)We query the 'Kal-va'Chomer' however - in that perhaps a murderer does not need to run to the Ir Miklat precisely because he killed on purpose, and does therefore not deserve a Kaparah. Consequently, we are forced to learn like Resh Lakish.

6)

(a)When Ula speaks of a hint in the Torah for Eidim Zom'min - he means for Eidim Zom'min who are subject to Malkos (instead of "Ka'asher Zamam") such as the two cases in our Mishnah currently under discussion.

(b)The problem with the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Hitzdiku es ha'Tzadik, ve'Hirshi'u es ha'Rasha; ve'Hayah Im bin Hakos ha'Rasha" is that - if the Pasuk is speaking about the Dayanim, and "Tzadik" and "Rasha" refers to the litigants, then (seeing as not all court cases are subject to Malkos), the Torah should rather have opened with "Ki Yiy'heh Riv bein Anashim ... " (a case that is subject to Malkos).

(c)Ula therefore interprets the entire Pasuk with regard to the witnesses, and what the Pasuk is saying is that - if witnesses declare the righteous litigant a Rasha, and second witnesses declared him a Tzadik, by rendering the first witnesses Zom'min, then in the event that Malkos is appropriate (because they are not subject to "Ka'asher Zamam"), they will receive Malkos.

(d)We cannot learn this from the Pasuk in the Aseres ha'Dibros "Lo Sa'aneh ve'Re'acha Eid Shaker" - because it is a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh' (and would therefore not be subject to Malkos, were it not for the Pasuk under discussion).

(e)Our Mishnah cited two cases where the witnesses receive Malkos (rather than the punishment indicated by "Ka'asher Zamam"). The Tana Kama of the Beraisa cites two more cases. One of them is when they tried to make the defendant pay Kofer (by testifying that his Mu'ad ox [that already killed three animals] killed a person). The ...

1. ... fourth case is that - they cannot be sold as Avadim Ivrim (in the event that they testify that the defendant stole and is unable to pay).

2. ... fifth case added by Rebbi Akiva is that - if Eidim Zom'min admit (of their own volition) in another Beis-Din that they are Zom'min, they are not obligated to pay.

7)

(a)The S'vara behind the ruling that the false witnesses do not pay Kofer is - the fact that it is a Kaparah, and the witnesses (may well have sinned, but) they are not subject to a Kaparah.

(b)In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama holds that Kofer entails paying the dead man's value. According to Rebbi Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah - it is his own value that he has to pay.

(c)According to Rav Chisda - Rebbi Yishmael holds that Kofer is a Kaparah (and is thyereore the author of the first Beraisa), whereas according to the Tana Kama, it is Mamon.

8)

(a)Rav Papa however, disagrees. According to him, both Tana'im hold 'Kufra Kaparah' (in which case, either could be the author of the Beraisa), and the Rabbanan learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Hashasah" "Hashasah" ("Kasher Yashis alav Ba'al ha'Ishah" (in connection with a man who struck a pregnant woman and killed her baby) that - just as there, the culprit pays the value of the babies, so too, here, must the owner of the ox pay the value of the Nizak (and not his own value [even though it is a Kaparah]).

(b)Whereas Rebbi Yishmael maintains that - seeing as it is a Kaparah, the Pasuk must mean "Pidyon Nafsho" of the Mazik (and he doesn't hold of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah').

9)

(a)In the case of 'Ein Nimkarin be'Eved Ivri', Rav Hamnuna at first maintains that the Tana is speaking where the defendant has money to pay (in which case they are not sold, since the victim would not have been sold either, even if they had no money to pay. But if the latter would have had no money to pay (even if they do) - they would have to be sold (just as he would have been).

(b)We refute this explanation however, on the grounds that - they are no worse than he, and since he would not have been sold had he had money, neither are they sold if they have no money.

(c)So we amend Rav Hamnuna's statement inasmuch as the Tana is speaking where either the defendant or the witnesses, has money, but if neither does, then the Eidim Zom'min are sold, too.

(d)Based on the Pasuk "ve'Nimkar *bi'Geneivaso*", Rava finally extrapolate that - only the Ganav can be sold, but not the Eidim Zom'min under any circumstances.

10)

(a)We learned in the Beraisa that, according to Rebbi Akiva, the Eidim Zom'min do not pay by their own admission - because he considers Eidim Zom'min a K'nas (a fine), and based on the Pasuk "asher Yarshi'un Elohim" he extrapolates that, in cases of K'nas, it is only someone whom *Beis-Din* obligate to pay who is Chayav to pay, but not someone who admits of his own volition.

(b)Rabah proves that Eidim Zom'min is a K'nas - because they are sentenced to death even though the defendant has not been killed.

(c)Rav Nachman seems to bring a second proof from the fact that the money remains in the original owner's hands, yet the witnesses are obligated to pay. The problem with Rav Nachman's statement is that - it is basically a repetition of what Rabah said.

(d)We therefore amend it - to read 'And so said Rav Nachman'.