THE ARGUMENT ABOUT MOTZI SHEM RA (cont.)
Answer #5 (Rav Ashi): The case is, she was warned that she will be lashed, but not that she will be killed (according to the opinion that lashes are given for capital transgressions);
Our Tana'im argue like R. Yishmael and Chachamim.
(Mishnah): Three judges are needed for lashes;
R. Yishmael says, 23 are needed.
Answer #6 (Ravina): The case is, one witness was found to be a relative or an invalid witness. Our Tana'im argue like R. Yosi and Rebbi argue about R. Akiva's opinion.
(Mishnah - R. Akiva): (Two witnesses always suffice. The Torah discusses "two or three witnesses" to be stringent. If all the witnesses are Huzmu,) a third witness is punished like the first two (even though his testimony was not needed);
If the Torah punishes one who joins transgressors like the transgressors, and all the more so it rewards one who joins one doing a Mitzvah like the one who does the Mitzvah!
Also, just like if one of two witnesses was found to be a relative or an invalid witness, the entire testimony is invalid, the same applies to if one of three witnesses was found to be invalid.
Question: What is the source that this applies even if there are 100 witnesses?
Answer: It says "Edim".
R. Yosi says, this applies to capital cases. In monetary cases, the testimony of the Kosher witnesses is valid;
Rebbi says, R. Akiva's law applies to capital and monetary cases.
In capital cases, we disqualify all the testimony only if the invalid witness warned the transgressor;
If not, if one murdered in front of two brothers, no one (even unrelated Kosher witnesses) could testify against him!
(The case is, the invalid witness did not warn the transgressor. Chachamim hold like Rebbi, that the other witnesses can testify. R. Meir holds like R. Yosi, that all the testimony is disqualified.)
Answer #7: The case is, people other than the witnesses warned the transgressor. Our Tana'im argue like R. Yosi and Chachamim.
(Mishnah - R. Yosi): A transgressor cannot be killed unless both witnesses warned him - "Al Pi Shnayim Edim."
Answer #8: The case is, the witnesses contradicted each other about Bedikos (questions not crucial to the testimony, e.g. the color of the murderer's clothing), but agreed about Chakiros (questions crucial to the testimony, e.g. the place and time of the murder). Our Tana'im argue like Ben Zakai and Chachamim.
(Mishnah): (A murder occurred under a fig tree.) Ben Zakai asked the witnesses what color the figs were. (They contradicted each other, and their testimony was rejected.)
MONETARY LIABILITY WITH A DEATH PENALTY
(Rav Yosef): (In a case of Motzi Shem Ra,) if Reuven brought witnesses of adultery, and her father (David) brought witnesses who were Mezim them, Reuven's witnesses are killed. They do not pay (even though their testimony would also have deprived her of her Kesuvah);
If Reuven then brought witnesses who were Mezim David's witnesses, David's witnesses are killed and pay;
They are killed for trying to kill Reuven's witnesses. They also pay, because they tried to cause a loss to someone else (to make Reuven pay a fine of 100 Shekalim).
(Rav Yosef): If Shimon says 'Levi forcibly raped me', Shimon can join with a second witness to kill Levi;
If he says 'I willingly had Bi'ah with him', he is a Rasha (and cannot testify) - "Al Tesht Rasha Ed."
Rejection (Rava): One is like a relative with respect to himself, so he cannot establish himself to be a Rasha (to disqualify himself from testimony. Therefore, we split his testimony. It is as if he said 'Levi had Bi'ah with a man. I consented to have Bi'ah with a man.' We ignore his admission, and he joins with a second witness to kill Levi.)