- This topic has 17 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
If the new set of witnesses testify that the first set of witnesses were elsewhere at the time of the alleged crime and could not possibly have witnessed it (in a capital case), does it matter whether the new witnesses testified against the first witnesses before or after the originally accused party was convicted based on the false testimony? If so, what are the differences?
And if the person was already executed, can the Beis Din still accept testimony that the witnesses were elsewhere at the time of the alleged crime?
For the special Din of Eidim Zomemim that you give the intended penalty to the witnesses, they must be made Zomemim after the case has been decided but before the punishment is meted out. If the new witnesses come before the trial is finished based on the original testimony or after the defendant has been punished (execution, money, anything) then the witnesses just have the status of Eidei Sheker, not Eidim Zomemim.
I think the gemara you are referring to is daf 5b? The gemara says there is no din of hazamah(killing them) until there is a gemar din on the accused.Once the accused is dead,there is no din of hazama(not like the tzudukim).I am not really clear what you are asking.
The words of the Gemoroh are
‘Kasher zomom velo kasher osso’
once the eidus of the witnesses is carried out,
the din of eidim zomemim doesnt apply any more.
Regesh,
What does “once the eidus of the witnesses is carried out” mean?
That the din based on the eidus was carried out, or just if eidus was said in Beis Din?
That the Din based on the Eidus was carried out.
Can Beis Din execute Edim Zomemin as soon as they receive testimony that they were, in fact, Edim Zomemin, without even giving the alleged/accused Edim Zomemin the opportunity to rebut the testimony against them?
First, what is the difference between eidei hakchasha, contradictory witnesses where they can testify separately and eidim zomemin where they get killed? By eidei hackhasha their taina, the agreement of their argument is being questioned whereas by eidim zomimin, indicating that they were together somewhere else at the time, the credibility of the witnesses is eliminated. The chidush is that we trust the second witnesses and not the first. When the individual was killed, the Ramban explains that Hashem would not have led to kill him and trust the first witnesses by the Beis Din when they were not honest and credible, so kaasher zomam does not apply. The Dubner Magid gives a mashel. Someone slapped someone, so the Beis Din rules to slap him back. He says it is not fair, I was slapped innocently and he is slapped when guilty. So once killed is not kaasher zomam, is not tit for tat. By a gamal poreach, a fast flying camel, an airplane where the trip can be made the same day, they should not become eidim zomemin.
This was what happened (to a certain extent) to Rav shimon ben shetach’s son and he was still killed
I think כאשר עשה means when they decided
UJM
The gemara discusses that we consider if both can be true. Fro example if first pair said they say murder in sura, the 2nd pair says Imanu hayisem in Chicago (Gemara says Nahrdeah but minhag is to use Chicago. Beis din evlauates if can travel between the two in one day. The Gemara even entertaisn the possibility that we consider they used a “flying camel” We don’t. Clearly there is soem form of Derisha Vechakira on the 2nd set. Furthermore the secodn set has to be Yacha lLehazimam as well, which means we need get at least soem basic information from them .
The chiddush, as I understand it is once beis din determines that both groups are equally trustworthy the chidush is we beelive the second pair (and punish the first kasher zamam)
Just my 2 cents, I’m open to hearing an opposing raaya
“The words of the Gemoroh are ‘Kasher zomom velo kasher osso’”
Interestingly there is no such phrase in the Gemara. Rashi and many Rishonim quote it, and the idea is certainly in the Gemara but not that phrase
( I relaize this is an old thread, just find that observation interesting)
There is an other limud. zomam leachiv, achiv kayem, means the brother is alive. So they ask even dead is called a brother? The Ritva answers there are two kinds of brothers, A real brother is called so even after death but this a brother in mitzvos which only applies when alive.
The Moshav Zekeinim gives another reason. The executed’s family might have such strong hatred in their heart against the witnesses who killed him to get another two witnesses to be mazim them therefore hazoma will not work when killed. There is a midrash that says velo kaasher asa.
> once beis din determines that both groups are equally trustworthy the chidush is we beelive the second pair
Maybe a following sevorah: the first pair appeared to testify on their own. They had a chance to fit their testimony to the person and time of their choosing. They had time to consider all circumstances and, thus, it is pretty possible, they had a chance to frame someone. After this event is fixed, now second pair needs to address two specific people at a given time. The time that they have a reason and a possibility to frame them is much lower.
AAQ: If there’s a third, fourth, fifth, etc. set of witnesses, Beis Din still accepts the last set of witnesses.
So if there’s a fifth set of witnesses, Beis Din will execute (all 4 people of) the fourth and second sets of witnesses.
ujm, I think my logic would work for more pairs:
the first pair is least reliable, as I described before, because it is easier for them to cheat selecting a target and time. The rest are more reliable than first and all equally reliable to each other, as they all need to testify about given people and time.Let’s for simplicity say value (1) = 1, value (2) and later = 10.
For 2nd pair, easy 10 > 1.
For 3rd pair, their value is 10 + 1 from first pair, 11>10
for 4th pair 10 + 10 (4th, 2nd) > 10 + 1 (3rd, 1st)Why isn’t the first pair afraid that a second pair will come and be mazim them and therefore will be careful what they say as the second pair? The gemora says it is a chidush. Why trust the second pair more than the first?
Why not the third? Aren’t the third mazim the second?
RebE > Why isn’t the first pair afraid that a second pair will come
First pair decided to go to court and accuse someone. They have time to case a victim and find an appropriate time where they are not likely to be seen by others. It is like pickpocket, or Putin on the border with Ukraine – they choose where and when. So, having a second pair is not very likely.
Second pair are people who happen to see a specific two people (first pair) at the specific time (of the crime). They were not able to choose a moment and location that will ensure their alibi. All following pairs are the same.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.