brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net
1. There is a Machlokes between Abaye and Rava with regard to whether an Ed Zomem becomes Pasul to be a witness from the time of his false testimony or only from the time that he was found to be an Ed Zomem.
2. In every dispute between Rava and Abaye except for six cases, the Halachah follows Rava's opinion.
3. A Mumar who eats Neveilos because non-Kosher meat is less expensive is Pasul to be a witness.
4. There is a Machlokes as to whether a Mumar who eats Neveilos out of spite is Pasul to be a witness.
5. A person who is a Gazlan, who swears falsely, or who lends money with interest is Pasul for testimony.
6. Rebbi Meir maintains that all Edim Zomemim are Pasul for testimony on any subject, while Rebbi Yosi maintains that only an Ed Zomem who testified falsely in a case of Dinei Nefashos is Pasul for all testimony.
7. A person who is Kosher to judge Dinei Mamonos is not necessarily Kosher to judge Dinei Nefashos.
8. Beis Din does not accept the testimony of a person who gambles, a person who lends money with interest, a person who engages in commerce with produce of Shvi'is, or a slave.
9. According to the Mishnah Rishonah, only relatives who are in line for the inheritance are Pasul for testimony, but Rebbi Akiva disagrees and maintains that all relatives are Pasul to be witnesses.
10. A person who used to be a relative but is no longer related is an acceptable witness.
11. There is a Machlokes between the Tanaim regarding whether an Ohev (a close friend) or a Soneh (an enemy) is a valid witness.
12. Sometimes a person dies because of another person's sin.
A BIT MORE
1. Abaye maintains that an Ed Zomem becomes Pasul to be a witness at the time that he testifies falsely in Beis Din, and once he is found to be an Ed Zomem, any testimony that he delivered after his initial false testimony is nullified retroactively. Rava maintains that an Ed Zomem becomes Pasul only from the time of Hazamah. However, according to one opinion in the Gemara, Rava's reason is that the disqualification of Edim Zomemim on the basis of testimony from another pair of witnesses is a Chidush, because logic does not dictate that the second set should have more credibility than the first. According to this view, Rava agrees that Edim Zomemim become Pasul from the time of their testimony if each Ed Zomem was Huzam by two witnesses. Similarly, Rava agrees that if two witnesses are disqualified for another reason, such as the fact that they are Gazlanim, they are invalidated retroactively from the time that they committed that transgression.
2. The Halachah follows Abaye's opinion with regard to six cases: Yi'ush without Da'as, the disqualification of an Ed Zomem, a Lechi which stands on its own, Kidushin with a woman with whom Bi'ah is forbidden, Giluy Da'as in Gitin, and the disqualification for testimony of a Mumar who eats Neveilos.
3. A person who eats non-Kosher meat in order to save money cannot be trusted to testify since he transgresses Torah prohibitions due to his desire for money.
4. Abaye maintains that a Mumar who eats Neveilos out of spite is a Rasha and is therefore Pasul to give testimony. Rava maintains that only a Rasha who commits transgressions against other people is Pasul to be a witness, but a Rasha who violates only prohibitions that do not involve theft can still be a Kosher witness.
5. According to Abaye, even a person who violates a vow which does not affect other people is Pasul to give testimony because he is a Rasha to Heaven. Rava maintains, however, that a person who makes a false Shevu'ah becomes Pasul to be a witness only if his Shevu'ah pertains to a monetary issue.
6. Rebbi Meir maintains that even an Ed Zomem who testified falsely in Dinei Mamonos (a monetary case) is Pasul to be a witness for Dinei Nefashos (a capital case). Rebbi Yosi agrees that an Ed Zomem who testified falsely in a capital case is Pasul to testify in any type of case, but he maintains that an Ed Zomem who testified falsely in a monetary case is still permitted to testify regarding Dinei Nefashos.
7. A Ger or Mamzer is permitted to judge Dinei Mamonos but not Dinei Nefashos. Only judges with Kosher lineage are permitted to judge Dinei Nefashos.
8. According to Rebbi Meir, a person who gambles, who lends money with interest, or who engages in commerce with produce of Shvi'is is Pasul for any testimony for which a woman is also Pasul. Similarly, a slave is Pasul for any such testimony. Rebbi Yosi maintains that all of these invalid witnesses are Pasul to testify only on Dinei Mamonos but are Kosher witnesses for Dinei Nefashos.
9. The Mishnah Rishonah states that a mother's brother and a sister's husband are Kosher for testimony because they are not in line for inheritance. Even according to the Mishnah Rishonah, a person is not permitted to testify for his mother's brother because he can inherit his uncle if the uncle dies without children.
10. A person who was formerly related through his wife to the subject of a court case is permitted to testify once his wife has died or he has divorced her. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a person may not testify for his daughter's husband even after his daughter's death if they had children together.
11. According to the Tana Kama, a Shushbin (close friend) may not give testimony at the time of his friend's Chupah. A person who does not speak to someone for three days out of spite is considered a Soneh and is also not permitted to testify about that person. However, even the opinion that permits an Ohev or a Soneh to testify maintains that they are Pasul to be judges.
12. A son is punished for his father's sins if he follows in his father's sinful ways. A person is punished for his friend's sin if it was possible for him to protest the sin but he failed to do so.
Next Daf Index to Revach for Maseches Sanhedrin