(Abaye): A Zomem witness is disqualified retroactively (all testimony he gave or will give after his fabricated testimony is invalid);

(Rava): He is disqualified only from the time he was Huzam.

Abaye says that he is disqualified retroactively. From when he testified, he is evil - "Al Tashes Yadcha Im Rasha Lihyos Ed Chamas";

Version #1: Rava says he is disqualified from now and onwards, because the law of Edim Zomemim is a Chidush:

Why should we believe the latter witnesses (Mezimim), who say that the first pair are Zomemim? Perhaps the latter pair are lying!

The Torah's Chidush is that in this trial (and surely, for future testimonies) we say that the first pair are liars. We have no source to consider them liars before this!

Version #2: Rava agrees that the Torah disqualifies him retroactively;

Chachamim enacted that he is disqualified only from now and onwards to prevent a loss to buyers (who signed these witnesses on their documents or purchase). (end of Version #2)

Question: Practically, what is the difference between the two versions?

Answer #1: Each witness was Huzam by a different pair of witnesses. (It is no Chidush to believe the Mezimim. Only one witness contradicts each pair of Mezimim.)

Answer #2: The witnesses who testified were not Huzmu, rather other witnesses said that these witnesses stole (and are therefore invalid witnesses) before they testified.

According to both answers, it is no Chidush to believe the latter witnesses. According to Version #1, the first witnesses are disqualified retroactively;

According to Version #2, they are not disqualified retroactively, due to the loss to buyers.

(R. Yirmeyah mi'Difti): Rav Papa ruled in a case like Rava.

(Rav Ashi): The Halachah follows Abaye.

The Halachah follows Abaye against Rava in six places, whose acronym is YA'AL K'GAM. (The 'Ayin' refers to Zomemim witnesses.)

All agree that if a Mumar eats Neveilos for enjoyment, he is disqualified;

(Abaye): If he eats to anger (Hash-m) he is disqualified.

(Rava): He is Kosher.

Abaye: He is disqualified, for he is a Rasha - "Al Tesht Rasha Ed."

Rava: The Torah disqualified only Rasha'im of Chamas (they transgress for monetary gain).

Question (against Rava - Beraisa): "Al Tesht Rasha Ed" - do not accept a witness who transgresses Chamas, e.g. a thief or one who transgresses oaths.

Suggestion: He is disqualified for a false or vain oath, even non-monetary oaths!

Answer: No, it refers only to monetary oaths;

The plural (oaths) alludes to different kinds of monetary oaths. (Alternatively, people (plural) are disqualified due to false monetary oaths. One oath disqualifies a person.)

Question (against Abaye - Beraisa): "Al Tesht Rasha Ed" - do not accept a witness who transgresses Chamas, e.g. a thief or one who lends on Ribis.

This refutes Abaye.

Suggestion: Tana'im argue as Abaye and Rava argue.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): An Ed Zomem is disqualified for all testimonies.

R. Yosi says, this is only if he was Huzam in a capital case. If he was Huzam in a monetary case, he is Kosher for capital cases.

Suggestion: Abaye holds like R. Meir, and Rava holds like R. Yosi:

Abaye holds like R. Meir. One who transgressed something light is suspected for more severe matters;

Rava holds like R. Yosi. He is not suspected for things more severe than what he transgressed.

Rejection: Granted, Abaye cannot hold like R. Yosi, but Rava could hold even like R. Meir;

R. Meir disqualified a monetary Ed Zomem from all testimony, for he is evil with respect to people and Hash-m;

A Mumar to eat Neveilos (to anger Hash-m) is evil only towards Hash-m.

The Halachah follows Abaye.

Question: He was refuted!

Answer: R. Yosi taught the Beraisa that refuted him (and we know that R. Yosi holds like Rava).

Question: Even so, the Halachah follows R. Yosi when he argues with R. Meir!

Answer: That is normally true, but here a Stam Mishnah is like R. Meir.

Question: Which Stam Mishnah is like R. Meir?

Answer: A case occurred in which Bar Chama killed someone. The Reish Galusa asked Rav Acha bar Yakov to investigate, and if he surely killed, to gouge out his eyes (some explain - give his money to the victim's heirs, or excommunicate him).

Ploni and Almoni testified that he killed. Bar Chama brought two witnesses. One said 'I saw Ploni steal a Kav of peeled barley', the other said 'I saw him steal the handle of a spear.'

Rav Acha bar Yakov: The Halachah follows R. Yosi against R. Meir. A thief is Kosher for capital cases!

Rav Papi: That applies in general, but here a Stam Mishnah is like R. Meir!

Question: Which Stam Mishnah is like R. Meir?

Answer #1 (Mishnah): Anyone qualified to judge capital cases is qualified to judge monetary cases.

This is unlike R. Yosim who says that a monetary Ed Zomem is disqualified for monetary cases but Kosher for capital cases. Rather, it is like R. Meir.

Rejection: Perhaps the Mishnah discusses lineages disqualified from judging.

Support (Seifa): One can be qualified for monetary cases, but disqualified for capital cases.

We cannot say that he was Huzam in a capital case, for all agree that he is totally disqualified!

Rather, we must say that his lineage disqualified him from capital cases. Also the Reisha refers to lineages qualified to judge!

Answer #2 (Mishnah): The following are disqualified: diceplayers, those who lend on Ribis, Mafrichei Yonim, Socharei Shemitah, and slaves;

The general rule is, anything a woman cannot testify about, they cannot testify about. (This is a Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah. Our Mishnah (24b) omits slaves and this last clause.)

Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?

It cannot be R. Yosi. He says that a monetary Ed Zomem can testify in a capital case, even though a woman cannot!

Answer: It is R. Meir.

Bar Chama kissed the feet of Rav Papi, and paid Rav Papi's head-tax for the rest of his life.

(Mishnah - R. Akiva): The following relatives are disqualified from testifying: a brother, a paternal or maternal uncle, a sister's husband, the husband of a paternal or maternal aunt, a step-father, a father-in- law, and a Gis (the husband of his wife's sister):

Also, their sons (i.e. of these relatives) and their Chasanim (son-in-laws) are disqualified;

A step-son is disqualified (but not his sons or sons-in-law).

The first version of the Mishnah disqualified only an uncle, cousin, anyone proper to inherit (i.e. paternal relatives), and anyone who was related at the time (that he saw testimony or comes to testify);

If he was related beforehand but was unrelated when he saw the testimony, he is Kosher.

R. Yehudah says, if Reuven has children from Leah, he is considered a relative of her father even after she dies.

A close friend or enemy cannot testify.

A close friend refers to a Shushbin (one who brought gifts to a Chasan);

An enemy is one who did not speak to him for three days due to hatred.

Chachamim: Yisraelim are not suspected to testify falsely due to love or hatred.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Beraisa) Question: What do we learn from "Lo Yumesu Avos Al Banim"?

It need not teach that fathers will not die for the sins of the sons or vice-versa. It already says "Ish b'Chet'o Yumasu"!

Answer: Rather, it teaches that fathers will not die through testimony of their sons or vice-versa.

Question: Is it really true that sons will not die for the sins of the fathers?! It says "Poked Avon Avos Al Banim"!

Answer: That is when they continue in the sins of the fathers.

"V'Af ba'Avonos Avosam Itam Yimaku" is when they continue in the sins of the fathers.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is even if they do not!

Rejection: "Ish b'Chet'o Yumasu."

Question: "V'Choshelu Ish b'Achiv" - a man will be punished for his brother's sin. This teaches that Yisraelim are responsible for each other.

Answer: This is when he could have protested, and did not.