SPLITTING TESTIMONY (cont.)
(Rava): If Shimon says 'Levi had Bi'ah with my wife', Shimon can join with a second witness to kill Levi, but not to kill his wife.
Question: Is the Chidush that we split his testimony? We know this from Rava's previous teaching!
Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: One might have thought that one is a relative with respect to himself, but with respect to his wife he is a valid witness, and he joins with a second witness to kill her. (Ran - because we believe his testimony about Levi, we believe it also about her.)
Version #2 (Ra'avad, brought in Ran) Answer: One might have thought that one is so close to himself that we totally ignore what he says about himself. It is not even considered invalid testimony, therefore his testimony about Levi remains;
However, with respect to his wife, he is an invalid witness (a relative), so his testimony about her is invalid, so all his testimony (even about Levi) is disqualified! (end of Version #2)
Rava teaches that this is not so.
(Rava): If two witnesses testified that Ploni had Bi'ah with a Na'arah Me'orasah (an Arusah (engaged girl), without specifying her name) and they were Huzmu, they are killed, they do not pay money;
If they testified that he had Bi'ah with Almoni's daughter (and she consented) and they were Huzmu, they are killed and they pay money;
They pay her (for trying to reduce her Kesuvah) and they are killed for trying to kill Ploni.
(Rava): If two witnesses testified that Ploni had Bi'ah with an ox and they were Huzmu, they are killed and they do not pay money;
If they testified that he had Bi'ah with Almoni's ox, and they were Huzmu, they are killed, and they pay money;
They pay Almoni (they sought to kill his ox), and they are killed for trying to kill Ploni.
Question: We know this from his previous teaching!
Answer: He taught this because he had a question.
Question (Rava): If Reuven and David testified 'Ploni had Bi'ah with Reuven's ox', what is the law? (Rashi - he asks about the ox. Surely, we kill Ploni. Ra'avad - he asks even about killing Ploni.)
We know that one is like a relative with respect to himself, i.e. if he testifies about himself and another, we split his testimony, we ignore what he says about himself, and accept his testimony about the other;
Is one like a relative with respect to his money (and we ignore what he says about his money), or, do we accept his testimony about his money as well?
Answer (Rava): He is a relative with respect to himself, but not with respect to his money.
CASES OF LASHES
(Mishnah): Cases of lashes require three judges...
Question: What is the source of this?
Answer (Rav Huna): The plural "u'Shfatum" teaches two judges;
We do not make a Beis Din with an even number of judges, therefore three judges are required.
Question: If so, we should say that "v'Hitzdiku" teaches another two judges, and "v'Hirshi'u" teaches another two, making seven in all!
Answer: We expound those as Ula did.
Question (Ula): Where does the Torah hint about Zomemim witnesses?
Objection: The Torah explicitly discusses them - "Ka'asher Zomam"!
Correction: Rather, where does the Torah hint that Zomemim witnesses are lashed (when we cannot apply to them what they plotted to do to the subject of their testimony, e.g. if they testified that he is a disqualified Kohen)?
Answer: "V'Hitzdiku Es ha'Tzadik v'Hirshi'u Es ha'Rasha...";
Question: Acquitting the innocent is not a condition for (lashing the Rasha, the continuation of the verse) "V'Hayah Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha"!
Answer: Rather, the case is that (Zomemim) witnesses caused a Tzadik to be convicted, and other witnesses (Mezimim) showed that he was truly a Tzadik and that the first witnesses were Resha'im, "v'Hayah Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha."
Question: We should already know that they are lashed for "Lo Sa'aneh" (do not testify (falsely))!
Answer: It is a Lav without an action. (Normally,) one is not lashed for such a Lav.
(Mishnah): R. Yishmael says, 23 judges are needed (for lashes).
Question: What is his reason?
Answer #1 (Abaye): He learns a Gezerah Shavah "Rasha- Rasha" from Chayavei Misah;
Regarding lashes it says "v'Hayah Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha." Regarding Chayavei Misah it says "Asher Hu Rasha Lamus";
Just like 23 judges are needed for capital cases, also for lashes.
Answer #2 (Rava): Lashes are in place of death (it is like a death penalty).
Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): If so, why must we estimate how many lashes he can bear? We should lash the full 39, without concern lest he dies!
Answer (Rav Ashi): "V'Niklah Achicha l'Einecha" - you must strike him when he is your brother (i.e. alive).
Question (Beraisa): If they estimated that he can survive 20 lashes, we lash him only a number divisible by three, i.e. 18.
We should give 21 lashes. Even if he dies on the last, we gave the required number when he was alive!
Answer: "V'Niklah Achicha l'Einecha" - even after you strike him, he must still be your brother.
(Mishnah): R. Meir says, three judges are needed for Ibur Chodesh.
Question: The Mishnah does not say to consider whether to be Me'aber (add a day to) the month, nor to be Mekadesh (accept testimony of the new moon and declare the 30th day to be the first of the coming) month, rather, Ibur (adding a day);
If we were not Mekadesh on the 30th day, the month is automatically Me'ubar! (What do the judges do?)
Answer #1 (Abaye): The Mishnah refers to Kidush ha'Chodesh.
Support (Beraisa - R. Meir): Three judges are needed for Kidush ha'Chodesh and Ibur Shanah.
Objection (Rava): the Mishnah says Ibur Chodesh!
Answer #2 (Rava): Three judges are required to be Mekadesh the new month on the day (that was proper to be) Ibur (added) to the old month (the 30th);
If it was not Mekudash on this day, no Kidush is required (it is automatically Mekudash the next day).
The Mishnah is like R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok.
(Beraisa - R. Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok): If the new moon was not seen in its proper time (the 30th), we are not Mekadesh the new month. Hash-m caused the 31st day to be Mekudash.
Answer #3 (Rav Nachman): Three judges are required to be Mekadesh the new month after the day (proper to be) Ibur (i.e. Kidush on the 31st);
We are not Mekadesh on the 30th.
The Mishnah is like Flimo.
(Beraisa - Flimo): If the new moon begins on the proper day (i.e. first possible day, the 30th), we are not Mekadesh it; if it begins on the 31st, we are Mekadesh it.
Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): Really, the Mishnah teaches about considering whether to be Me'aber the month;
Even though it says Ibur Chodesh, this means considering whether to be Me'aber it.
It says Ibur Chodesh for parallel structure to the next topic, Ibur Shanah (adding a month to the year).
Question: Rav Ashi explains that our Stam (anonymous) Mishnah requires three judges to consider whether or not to be Me'aber the month, but not for Kidush. Like whom is this?
Answer: It is like R. Eliezer.
(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Whether the new month begins on the 30th or 31st, we are not Mekadesh it;
"V'Kidashtem Es Shenas ha'Chamishim Shanah" - we are Mekadesh years, but not months.
(Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): We begin with three...
(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): We begin with three, we deliberate with five, and the verdict is with seven;
If one (of the first three) says to sit to deliberate and the other two disagree (they hold that surely, we need not be Me'aber the year), we ignore the lone opinion.
If two say to sit and one disagrees, we add two more judges.
If two (of these five) say to be Me'aber the year and three disagree, we are not Me'aber;
If three say to be Me'aber the year and two disagree, we add two more judges and Me'aber the year, for at least seven are needed for this.
Question: Why do we make Batei Din of three, five and seven for Ibur Shanah?
Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak bar Nachmani or R. Shimon ben Pazi): These correspond to the numbers of words in the three verses of Birkas Kohanim.
Answer #2 (The other of R. Yitzchak bar Nachmani or R. Shimon ben Pazi): Three guard the king's gates (or Kelim), five of those who (regularly) see the king (mentioned in Melachim 2:25:19), and seven who see the king (mentioned in Yirmeyahu (52:25) - Tosfos; Rashi - in Esther 1:14).
Rav Yosef taught a Beraisa like Answer #2.
Abaye (to Rav Yosef): Why didn't you explain this way before?
Rav Yosef: I thought that you knew (since you did not ask);
Did you ever ask something that I didn't answer?