Clarification: 'ad she'Yazimu Atzman' means that the second pair of witnesses must testify that the witnesses themselves were with them, and not the murderer or the murdered man.

Explanation: Rashi explains that the defendant was not Chayav Misah, because he had the option of admitting and being Patur.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because if that were so, all Chayvei Misos would simply confess what they had done (before the witnesses arrive in Beis-Din) and get off scot-free.

Alternative Explanation: What the Gemara must therefore mean is that seeing as the Beis-Din have not yet declared the defendant guilty, the possibility exists that no witnesses will turn up in Beis-Din, and even if they do, maybe their testimony will not be accepted. Moreover, it is forbidden to kill him before his case has been concluded.

Concluding Statement: Once Beis-Din has concluded the case against him however, and the testimony of the witnesses has been accepted, whoever kills him is Patur (and witnesses who testify that he killed after that cannot become Zom'min)

Why Mamon is Different: Regarding Mamon, the Din is different, in that if the witnesses testify that the defendant stole on Monday, and a second pair testify that that the theft took place on Friday, and that on Monday, the first pair was with them, the first pair are Patur. This is because, unlike Dinei Nefashos, where the defendant cannot be considered guilty until Beis-Din conclude the case against him (as we explained in the previous Dibur), by Dinei Mamonos, the moment the witnesses testify, the Ganav is considered Chayav, seeing as the witnesses of Mamon do not require 'D'rishah va'Chakirah' (cross-examination) as witnesses of Misah do.

Explanation: The Rif translates this as (a caldron of) deep-blue dye (see Maharsha).

Clarification: From where do we know that the Eidim Zom'min are not Chayav Malkos until the Din is concluded due to their testimony?

Question: Why does the Gemara not also ask from where we know that the Eidim Zom'min are not Chayav Mamon until the Din is concluded due to their testimony (ad she'Yigamer ha'Din)?

Answer: Just as by Diynei Nefashos we Darshen 'ad she'Yigamer ha'Din' (by Eidim Zom'min) from "Nefesh be'Nefesh" (which is written in connection with Eidim Zom'min), so too, do we Darshen 'ad she'Yigamer ha'Din' (by Eidim Zom'min) by Mamon from "Yad le'Yad Lo Yinakeh" (which is written in connection with Eidim Zom'min), from which we learn in Kesuvos that they pay Mamon too, and from which we Darshen 'ad she'Yigamer ha'Din'.

Clarification: From where do we know that the Eidim Zom'min do not receive Malkos until the Din has been concluded (as we explained)?

Question: When the Eidim Zom'min testify that the defendant is Chayav Galus, they are subject to Malkos, and we have already learned that they do not receive Malkos until the Din has been concluded, from "Rasha" "Rasha"?

Answer: Rashi therefore explains that the D'rashah from "Rasha" "Rasha" (which is talking about the litigants and not about the witnesses) is confined to where the defendant is subject to Chayav Malkos or Misah, but not to where he is subject to Galus (notwithstanding the fact that the witnesses are subject to Malkos).

Question: Why do we not say that "Eidim" comes to include four witnesses, and where one of them (over and above the three mentioned in the Pasuk) turns out to be a relative or Pasul?

Answer: Since one group is able to be Mazim two, it stands to reason that it can also be Mazim a hundred.