Rava rules that, in a case where two witnesses testify that Reuven committed adultery with a betrothed girl and are then made Zom'min, they are sentenced to death. With regard to paying the Kesubah ...

... that they attempted to make her lose - Rava rules that they are Patur from paying, because of 'Kam leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih'.

... in a case where they initially testified that he committed adultery with Shimon's daughter - he rules that they are Chayav, because it is 'Miysah la'Zeh (to the girl), and Mamon la'Zeh (to the father)'.

We reconcile Rava with Rav Yosef, who learned on the previous Amud, that the husband's witnesses are exempt from paying for the Kesubah - by drawing a distinction between the earlier case, where the woman is married, and it was she who was losing her Kesubah, and the case here, where she is only betrothed, and the Kesubah of a Na'arah Me'urasah goes to her father.

Rava also rules in a case where witnesses become Zom'min after testifying ...

... that Reuven committed bestiality with an ox - that they are sentenced to death, but are exempt from paying (since the owner is unknown).

... that he committed bestiality with Shimon's ox - that they are sentenced to death and are also obligated to pay Shimon.

The problem we have with this set of rulings is - why Rava found it necessary to present it, since we already know it from the previous set?

In fact, Rava needs to present it only because of the She'eilah that accompanies it - what the Din will be in a case where Reuven said 'P'loni Rava Shori'; whether or not 'Adam Karov Eitzel Mamono' and he is not believed to testify about his property any more than he is believed to testify about himself or his wife.

He concludes that - 'Adam Karov Eitzel Atzmo, ve'Ein Adam Karov Eitzel Mamono' (in which case he is believed).

We learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with Malkos) "u'Shefat'tum" - (in the plural) that Malkos requires two judges, and since a Beis-Din can never consist of an even number, we add one judge to make three.

We query this however, from the continuation of the Pasuk "ve'Hitzdiku" ... "ve'Hirshi'u" - which implies that another four judges are required.

To answer this, we cite Ula, who asks 'Remez le'Eidim Zom'min min ha'Tsorah Minayin', which is puzzling - since the Torah specifically writes in Ki Seitzei "Ka'asher Zamam". So why should a hint be necessary?

What Ula really meant to ask was - from where we know that Eidim Zom'min who are not subject to "Ka'asher Zamam" (such as witnesses who testified that a certain Kohen is the son of a divorcee) automatically receive Malkos.

We cannot learn this from the Pasuk in Yisro "Lo Sa'aneh" - because of the principle 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh, Ein Lokin alav' (and Eidim Zom'min, who did not perform an act, fall into this category).

Ula learns it from the Pasuk "ve'Hitzdiku es ha'Tzadik, ve'Hirshi'u es ha'Rasha, ve'Hayah Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha", which cannot be understood literally - because there is no direct connection between the righteousness of the Tzadik and the fact that the Rasha receives Malkos.

Ula therefore interprets the Pasuk - with reference to a second set of witnesses, who, after a former set had declared the Tzadik to be a Rasha, reinstated him as a Tzadik, and the previous witnesses as Resha'im (by declaring them to be Eidim Zom'min). And the Torah continues "ve'Hayah Im bin Hakos ha'Rasha" ...

... to teach us that there are occasions when Eidim Zom'min receive Malkos, even though that is not what they attempted the defendant to receive.

According to Rebbi Yishmael in our Mishnah, Chayvei Malkos require twenty-three Dayanim. Abaye quotes the source as 'Rasha' 'Rasha', which the Torah writes by Malkos ("ve'Hayah Im bin Hakos ha'Rasha"), and which he learns from - the Pasuk in Mas'ei (in connection with Chayvei Miysah)"Asher hu Rasha Lamus".

Rava disagrees. When he gives Rebbi Yishmael's reason as "Malkos be'Makom Miysah Omedes", he means that - having contravened his Creator's orders, the culprit really deserves to die, and Malkos is merely the manner of 'death' that the Torah prescribes.

Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava asked Rav Ashi about this explanation from the Halachah that Malkos requires Umd'na' - which means that we assess how many strokes a person who is Chayav Malkos is capable of receiving, to ensure that he does not die in the process.

Rav Acha's Kashya on his father is that - seeing as 'Malkos be'Makom Misah Omedes', why are these precautions necessary. He is Chayav Misah anyway, so let him receive the thirty-nine strokes that he is due, and if he dies in the process, it will not be considered a perversion of justice ...

... to which Rav Ashi replied with the Pasuk "ve'Niklah Achicha le'Einecha" - implying that the strokes must land on the back of a live person and not a dead one.

Rav Acha then asked further from the Beraisa 'Amduhu le'Kabeil Esrim, Ein Makin oso Ela Makos ha'Re'uyos le'Hashtalesh' which means that - a sinner can only receive a number of strokes that is divisible by three ...

... a Kashya on Rava - since the assessment is that he will die only after the twenty-first stroke, let him receive the full quota, even though we know that he will die after the last stroke.

Rav Ashi used the same Pasuk to answer this Kashya too - by inferring from it that after he has received Malkos, he must still be called 'your brother', implying that he is still alive.

We extrapolate from our Mishnah 'Ibur ha'Chodesh bi'Sheloshah', Chishuv Lo ka'Tani, Kidush Lo ka'Tani. We define ...

... 'Ibur ha'Chodesh' as - the declaration that the month is Me'ubar (a full thirty-day month).

... 'Chishuv ha'Chodesh' is - the debate as to whether one should declare the month Malei or Chaser.

... 'Kidush ha'Chodesh' is - the cross-examination of the witnesses and the declaration (each month) that that day is Rosh Chodesh.

The problem with our Mishnah as it stands is - why it is necessary to announce the thirty-first day as Rosh Chodesh. Seeing as they did not pronounce the thirtieth day, there is no other choice, in which case no declaration ought to be necessary?

Rava reject Abaye's answer to learn 'Kidush ha'Chodesh' in place of 'Ibur ha'Chodesh', despite the fact that he has support from a Beraisa, whose author is - Rebbi Meir.

And the reason that he rejects it is - because of the unlikelihood of the Tana to have erred to the extent of inserting 'Ibur', instead of 'Kidush'.

When Rava answers 'Kidush be'Yom Ibur, bi'Sheloshah, Achar Ibur, Leka Kidush', he means that - 'Kidush' on the thirtieth day (which leads up to the Ibur) requires three judges, whereas on the thirty-first, it does not (as we stated in the Kashya).

The author of our Mishnah is then Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok, who rules in a Beraisa, that in a case where the moon was not seen in its time - Beis-Din no longer need to declare it Kadosh, since Hash-m has already done do.

'In its time' means - on the thirtieth day, because that is when the new moon is 'born'.

Rav Nachman says exactly the opposite. He establishes our Mishnah like P'limu, who rules in a Beraisa, 'bi'Zemano Ein Mekadshin oso, she'Lo bi'Zemano, Mekadshin oso' - because Rosh Chodesh which falls in its natural time does not need to be reinforced through Kidush Beis-Din.

According to Rav Ashi, our Mishnah means 'Chishuv de'Ibur', and the reason that the Tana says 'Ibur', and not 'Chishuv' (like we asked originally) is - in order to balance 'Ibur ha'Shanah' which follows it (and where 'Ibur' obviously needs to be said).

The author of our Mishnah, according to him, is Rebbi Eliezer, who learns from the Pasuk "ve'Kidashtem es Sh'nas ha'Chamishim Shanah" - that only years (of the Yovel) require Kidush Beis-Din, but not months.

The purpose of 'Chishuv ha'Chodesh' is - to ensure that Yom Kipur does not fall on Friday or Sunday, and that Hosha'ana Rabah does not fall on Shabbos (Otherwise, they would have fixed all the months one Malei and one Chaser alternately.

The problem Beis-Din are likely to encounter when making the Chishuv is - that one cannot fix less than four full months per year, and not more than eight.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel requires a progression of three to seven judge for Ibur Shanah - three, to decide whether there is any reason to fix the month Malei or Chaser; five, to debate the pro's and the con's, and seven, to declare the month 'Malei'.

In he event that ...

... two of the three judges agree not to go on to the debating stage, or three of the five agree not to declare the year a leap-year - then that is what they do.

... one of the three judges maintains that they should not go on to the debating stage, or two of the five maintain that they should not declare the year a leap-year - then they ignore them and abide by the majority opinion.

The source of these rulings is - the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Acharei Rabim Lehatos".

Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeini and Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi argue over the significance of the three, five and seven judges. One of them attributes them to Birchas Kohanim - with reference to the three, five and seven words respectively contained in the three Pesukim of Birchas Kohanim (see Agados Maharsha).

The other one says that the three corresponds to the three guards of the inner gate, the five, to the five of the 'Ro'ei P'nei ha'Melech' (out of the seven ministers), and the seven, to all seven ministers..

We find ...

... the three and five ministers - in connection with Tzdkiyahu ha'Melech])

... the seven ministers - in connection with Achashverosh (see also Tosfos DH 'Shiv'ah').

The significance of these connection is - the fact that all have to do with royal strategy.

When Rav Yosef quoted a Beraisa that supports the latter opinion - Abaye expressed surprise that he (Rav Yosef) had never told his Talmidim that before.

Rav Yosef responded - by asking whether he had ever failed to tell him whatever he asked.