1)

(a)Bearing in mind that, in the first two cases listed in our Mishnah, the witnesses do not receive the same punishment as they intended to mete out, when the Tana asks 'Keitzad ha'Eidim Na'asin Zom'min?' he means to ask - what happens to those Eidim Zom'min who do not receive the same punishment as they intended to mete out (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)The first case is where the witnesses testify that someone is a ben Gerushah (See Tos. Yom-Tov) or a ben Chalutzah (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - with reference to a Kohen (Chalal) ...

(c)... who, they claim divorced his wife in their presence, before the baby on whom they are testifying was born (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(d)We learn from the words "Va'aseisem Lo" (in the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "Va'asisem Lo ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv") that one does to the Eid Zomem what he wanted to do the defendant, but not to his son (and the son of a Chalal is a Chalal, too).

(e)Neither is it possible to declare the witnesses Chalalim but not their children - since that is not what they wanted to do to the defendant.

2)

(a)By the same token, we Darshen from the words "Hu Yanus" (in the Pasuk there, in connection with the towns of refuge "Hu Yanus el Achas he'Arim ha'Eileh ... ") - that 'the murderer must flee to one of the towns of refuge (See Tos. Yom-Tov), but not the Eidim Zom'min (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)In the two above cases, the witnesses are not subject to "ka'asher Zamam"; instead, they receive - Malkos.

(c)We learn this from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Vehitzdiku es ha'Tzadik Vehirshi'u es ha'Rasha, Vehayah im bin Hakos ha'Rasha'. The problem with this Pasuk is that - as it stands, it conveys the impression that whoever is found guilty in Beis-Din is Chayav Malkos, which of course, is not the case.

(d)We therefore explain it to mean that - when witnesses declare a Rasha a Tzadik, and other witnesses testify that he is a Tzadik and that the first witnesses are Resha'im (i.e. Zom'min), we give them (the latter) Malkos.

3)

(a)If the witnesses testify that a man divorced his wife on a certain date and did not yet pay her the Kesubah, why, if they turn out to be Zom'min, they are not obligated to pay him the full amount of the Kesubah - since the chances are that he would have died or divorced her, in which case he would have had to pay her anyway.

(b)Consequently, they are obligated to pay him the amount a person would be willing to pay his wife for that Kesubah, knowing that he may well divorce her or die first on the one hand, and that, on the other, the woman might die first, in which case, he will not receive anything (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)And in a case where they testify that Reuven borrowed money from Shimon to be paid within thirty days - when in fact the agreement was that he pays within ten years, they are obligated to pay - the amount that the borrower would be willing to pay to extend the loan from thirty days to ten years.

4)

(a)Rebbi Meir rules that, in the event that Eidim Zom'min who testify that Reuven owes Shimon money, turn out to be Zom'min, they receive two punishments - 1. Malkos; 2. Payment ...

(b)... because the two obligations are based on two different sources (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)We learn the obligation to pay from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Va'asisem lo ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv" and the Chiyuv Malkos from the Pasuk in Yisro - "Lo Sa'aneh".

5)

(a)The Chachamim rule in the current case that - whoever pays does not receive Malkos.

(b)They learn this principle from the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim - "K'dei Rish'aso".

(c)And we know that the witnesses pay and are exempt from Malkos and not vice-versa - from the words of the Chachamim here (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(d)The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.

6)

(a)Based on the two Pesukim "Lo Sa'aneh" and "Va'asisem lo ka'asher Zamam ... ", Rebbi Meir rules that Eidim Zom'min who are Chayav Malkos - are subject to two sets of Malkos.

(b)The basis of this ruling is that - since, as we leaned earlier, wherever one cannot carry out "ka'asher Zamam", the Eidim Zom'min receive Malkos, there where one can, that Limud remains intact and they receive Malkos for it too (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)According to the Chachamim - they are only subject to the Malkos of "ka'Asher Zamam" (See Meleches Sh'lomoh).

(d)The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.

7)

(a)When the Tana says "Meshalshin be'Mamon", he means that the witnesses each pay half ...

(b)... and if there are three witnesses - a third.

(c)There where Eidim Zom'min are Chayav Malkos, each witness receives - thirty-nine Malkos ...

(d)... since they tried to make him receive thirty-nine, and unlike money, they cannot be divided (See Tos. Yom-Tov)...

8)

(a)When the Tana says 'Ein ha'Eidim Na'asim Zom'min ad she'Yazumu es Atzman', he means that - the second pair of witnesses must testify directly against the first pair themselves (in order to render them Zom'min.

(b)Based on this statement, following the testimony of the witnesses that Reuven killed Shimon on a certain day, if the second pair of witnesses testify that ...

1. ... either the murderer or the murdered man were with them on that day - they do not render the first pair Zom'min (See Tos. Yom-Tov). They only ...

2. ... render them Eidim Zom'min (See Tos. Yom-Tov) - if they testify that the first pair of witnesses were with them at a different location on the day of the murder (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)We learn this from the word "ha'Eid" (in the Pasuk "ve'Hinei Eid Sheker ha'Eid" [and not 'ha'Eidus']) - implying the witnesses themselves (and not any other part of the testimony).

9)

(a)The Tana Kama rules that if Reuven and Shimon declare the first pair of witnesses Zom'min, and when a second pair of witnesses arrive, they declare them Zom'min, too - then both pairs are, in fact, Zom'min ...

(b)... and the same will apply even if they declare a hundred pairs of witnesses Zom'min.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah claims that this is 'Istatis'. According to one explanation, this means that the Mazimin are false witnesses, who made a prior decision to declare whoever comes to testify against the defendant. Alternatively, it means that - the testimony is like a pot of paint, that paints whoever touches it with the same color paint.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah's reason is - because it is not feasible that everybody was with Reuven and Shimon on that day.

(b)Nevertheless, the first pair (that they declared Zom'min) are Zom'min ...

(c)... the first pair and not the other pairs - since Beis-Din do not accept the other pairs once the first pair have been decreed Zom'min, in which case their testimony is not considered subject to ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv" (See Tos. Yom-Tov)'

(d)The Halachah is - like the Tana Kama.

11)

(a)According to the Tzedokim, the witnesses can become Zom'min - even after the death-sentence has already been carried out.

(b)They learn it from the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim (written in connection with Eidim Zom'min) - "Nefesh be'Nafesh".

(c)The Chachamim counter this, based on the Pasuk there "Va'asisem lo ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv" - implying that the defendant is still alive, whereas ...

(d)... from Nefesh be'Nafesh", they learn that - they are only sentenced to death if they become Zom'min after the sentencce has been passed (See Tos. Yom-Tov), but not before (See Tos. Yov).

12)

(a)The problem the Mishnah has with the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "al-Pi Shenayim O Sheloshah Eidim Yumas ha'Meis" is that - since even two witnesses will suffice, why does the Torah mention three?

(b)To answer the question, the Tana Kama compares three to two - inasmuch as just as three witnesses can be Mazim two (See Tos. Yom-Tov), so too, can two witnesses be Mazim three.

(c)He learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Eidim Zom'min) "Vehinei Eid Sheker ha'Eid", that one of the witnesses cannot become an Eid Zomem unless the other one does too - from the principle that whenever the Torah says "Eid" it means two.

(d)And based on the word "Eidim", he adds to this that - two can even be Mizim a hundred witnesses (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

13)

(a)Rebbi Shimon explains "al-Pi ... Sheloshah Eidim" to teach us that - just as two witnesses cannot become Zom'min unless they both do, so two, can three witnesses not become Zom'min unless they all do.

(b)And like the Tana Kama, he learns that the same will apply even to a hundred witnesses - from the word "Eidim".

(c)According to Rebbi Akiva, the Torah inserts "Sheloshah" 'in order to be stringent with the third witness' in that - he receives the same punishment as the first two (See Tos. Yom-Tov) ...

(d)... even though his testimony is dispensable.

(e)The Mishnah learns from there that - if someone who joins a group of Resha'im receives the same punishment as them, how much more so will someone who joins a group of people who are performing a Mitzvah receive the same reward as them ...

(f)... based on the principle - that Hash-m's Midah of goodness exceeds that of punishment (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

14)

(a)The Mishnah now Darshens from the Torah's comparison of three witnesses to two that - just as if one of two witnesses is found to be a relative or Pasul, the testimony is Bateil, so too, is the testimony Bateil if one of three witnesses is found to be a relative or Pasul.

(b)And here too, the Tana learns from the word "Eidim" that - the same will apply where there are a hundred witnesses.

(c)Rebbi Yossi restricts the current ruling to Dinei Nefashos - but as far as Dinei Mamonos is concerned, the testimony of those who are Kasher remains intact.

15)

(a)Rebbi disagrees with Rebbi Yossi. In his opinion - there is no difference between Dinei Nefashos and Dinei Mamonos; either way, the testimony is Bateil.

(b)He qualifies the Din with regard to Dinei Nefashos - by confining it to where the relative or the Pasul witness warned the defendant. If he did not, he is not considered a witness and does not disqualify the other witnesses (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)This is because - otherwise, what should they do if two brothers happened to witness a murder (if one of them could not refrain)?

(d)The Halachah is - like Rebbi.

16)

(a)The Tana Kama presents a scenario where two witnesses see a crime taking place from one window another two, from another window, and Reuven (the person who is warning) is standing - in the middle.

(b)Either both or one pair of witnesses will combine with Reuven - provided at least one of that pair and Reuven can see each other ...

(c)... and the two pairs of witnesses will combine to be considered one set - provided at least one of each set can either see each other ...

(d)... or they can both see Reuven and he can see them.

17)

(a)In the event that they cannot see each other (See Tos. Yom-Tov), they are considered two sets of witness - and both the set that can see Reuven and the accused are sentenced to death (but not the second set (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)The accused is sentenced to death - due to the fact that one pair of witnesses was not declared Zom'min.

18)

(a)Based on the Pasuk "*al-Pi* Shenayim Eidim ... ", Rebbi Yossi - requires the accused to be warned by the witnesses themselves and not by a third party.

(b)We can also learn from this Pasuk that - the Sanhedrin must hear the testimony directly from the witnesses, and not from a translator (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

19)

(a)The Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... if a defendant, after having been declared guilty, runs away and subsequently returns to the same Beis-Din and requests that his case be reviewed - his request is turned down (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

2. ... if two witnesses testify that so-and-so was declared guilty in such-a-such a Beis-Din - the second Beis-Din carry out the death-sentence without any more ado ...

(b)... provided the witnesses also named the witnesses who testified in the first Beis-Din (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

20)

(a)The Mishnah rules that the Sanhedrin applies both in Eretz Yisrael and in Chutz la'Aretz (See Tos. Yom-Tov). A Sanhedrin is permitted to function in Chutz la'Aretz - provided Beis-Din ha'Gadol is sitting in the Lishkas ha'Gazis (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)A Sanhedrin can - rule in Dinei Nefashos and Dinei Kenasos (fines), which an ordinary Beis-Din cannot.

(c)We learn this from the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "Levilti Shemo'a el ha'Shofet O el ha'Kohen ha'Omeid Sham" - which implies that as long as there Kohanim serving on the Mizbe'ach, the judges may judge.

(d)According to the Tana Kama, one callz a Sanhedrin that passes the death sentence once in seven years - 'Chavlanis' (a murderous Beis-Din).

(e)The reasoning behind this statement is that - the Dayanim are obligated to be deliberate in their judgment and to do whatever they can to save the life of the accused based on the Pasuk in Mas'ei "ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah es ha'Rotze'ach").

21)

(a)Rebbi Elazar says that - Beis-Din is called 'Chavlanis' even if it kills once in seventy years (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(b)Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva claim that had they sat on the Sanhedrin - nobody would ever have been sentenced to death.

(c)The reason that these two great sages were not members of the Sanhedrin to which they are referring is - because they lived after the Sanhedrin no longer sat in the Lishkas ha'Gazis, and did not therefore have a mandate to sentence anyone to death.

22)

(a)Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva could have achieved that goal - by asking the witnesses questions that they were not able to answer.

(b)To avoid passing the death sentence, they might have asked the witnesses in ...

1. ... a murder trial - whether the victim was not a T'reifah (See Tos. Yom-Tov), or whether the sword had not entered a hole that was already there before (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

2. ... in a trial concerning adultery or incest - whether they had actually seen the man penetrate the woman (See Tos. Yom-Tov).

(c)Rabban Gamliel objected to Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva's statement - in that they would have allowed murderers to roam free.