BS'D
A CHAG Kasher Vsameach to the Chavrei HaKollel:
My understanding correct me please..
1. Ganav gets caught canít pay back-this is how he has to reimburse. (I believe the indentured servant is also until the principal is paid back, not the Keifel).
2. One may voluntarily sell themselves as an indentured Ivri to pay back debts.
These Zomemim are from the context Gemara, that the person is a Ganav.
If thatís what their Testimony is, then whatever the amount is a Chiyuv mammon. As far as ability to pay back- that is not the SUBJECT OF THEIR TESTIMONY! Reuvein and Shimon testified that Yehudah stole from Levi 500 dollars, his Cadillac etc..
Why is the ramifications of a Ganav who is outside the norms in terms of payment ability relevant to Hazamah?
Part II: The Braisah says Víein Nimkarin Líeved Ivri.
Ben Grusha Vchalutzah - always the case the Kohen becomes a Chalal
A Shogeg not Karov lmeizid or lanus..would be subject to Ir miklat also nothing else.
Kopher- same principle as above. Theyíre not subject to kaparah (why itís not mamon when their Eidus could NEVER MAKE HIM CHAYAV MISAH BYIDEI SHAMAYIM TO HAVE THE PAYMENT BE A KAPARAH?).
But The final case unless they testified that a person was sold or sentenced to be sold as an Eved IvriÖI donít see how Vnimkar Bgneivaso as way out excluding a ZomeimÖbecause by Rotzeach you have and Avodah Zarah many pesukim that can be utilized to exclude Hazama.
My understanding of part of the childish by Hazamah.. is through the punishment they take on an aspect of whatever they were testifying. As an anology with Retzicha..verbal RodfimÖverbal ganvim etc..
Avrahom , United States
Shalom Avrahom,
Thank you very much for your detailed question.
It appears that you are asking in the context of the Sugya in the Gemara, and my understanding is that you are seeking clarity regarding the case of Edim Zomemim who testified about a Geneivah, where the consequence of their testimony might lead to the person being sold as an Eved Ivri.
To analyze this, it is important to distinguish between two positions presented in the Sugya, that of Rav Hamnuna and that of Rava.
Rav Hamnuna addresses precisely the questions you raise. He understands that the sale of the Ganav as an Eved Ivri is a consequence that arises only when the Ganav has no means to repay the stolen value. Therefore, even when the Edim testify to a Geneivah, there are two possible outcomes: if the Ganav has money, he pays; if not, he is sold.
Accordingly, if the Edim themselves become Zomemim, they too would be sold only if they have no money. Rav Hamnuna even says explicitly that if neither party has the means to pay -- and the default is to be sold -- then the Edim would indeed be sold. In this way, your question is anticipated and resolved within Rav Hamnuna's position.
Rava, however, rejects this line of reasoning based on a specific verse, "v'Nimkar b'Geneivaso" -- he alone is sold, not Edim Zomemim. This is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that teaches us that Edim Zomemim are never sold, under any circumstance. The logical implications of their testimony are irrelevant according to Rava. Thus, even if they clearly intended for Beis Din to sell the defendant into servitude, and even if he (or they) had no money to repay, we still do not sell them -- because the verse excludes it outright.
In conclusion, your argument aligns well with Rav Hamnuna, who considers the intent of the Edim and the financial status of the defendant. But according to Rava, your question simply does not arise, since the Pasuk categorically removes the punishment of sale from the realm of Edim Zomemim.
I hope this helps,
Aharon Steiner