POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Sanhedrin 27
1) IS A MUMAR DISQUALIFIED?
(a) (Abaye): A Zomem witness is disqualified retroactively
(all testimony he gave or will give after his fabricated
testimony is invalid);
2) WHAT IS THE HALACHAH?
(b) (Rava): He is only disqualified from the time he was
1. Abaye says he is disqualified retroactively - from
when he testified, he is evil - "Al Tashes Yadcha Im
Rasha Lihyos Ed Chamas";
(c) (R. Yirmeyah mi'Difti): Rav Papa ruled a case as Rava.
2. Version #1: Rava says he is disqualified from now
and onwards - because the law of Edim Zomemim is a
i. Why should we believe the latter witnesses
(Mezimim), who say that the first pair are
Zomemim - perhaps the latter pair are lying!
3. Version #2: Rava agrees that the Torah disqualifies
ii. The Torah's Chidush is that in this trial (and
surely, for future testimonies) we say that the
first pair are liars - we have no source to
consider them liars before this!
i. Chachamim enacted that he is only disqualified
from now and onwards to prevent a loss to
buyers (who signed these witnesses on their
documents or purchase). (End of Version #2)
4. Question: Practically, what is the difference
between the 2 versions?
5. Answer #1: Each witness was Huzam by a different
pair of witnesses (so it is no Chidush to believe
the Mezimim, each pair of Mezimim is contradicted by
only 1 witness).
6. Answer #2: The witnesses that testified were not
Huzmu, rather other witnesses said that these
witnesses stole (and are therefore invalid
witnesses) before they testified.
i. According to both answers, it is no Chidush to
believe the latter witnesses - according to
Version #1, the first witnesses are
ii. According to Version #2, they are not
disqualified retroactively, because of the loss
(d) (Rav Ashi): The law is as Abaye.
(e) The law is as Abaye against Rava in 6 places, whose
acronym is YA'AL K'GAM. (The 'Ayin' refers to Zomemim
(f) All agree that if a Mumar eats Neveilos for enjoyment, he
(g) (Abaye): If he eats to anger (Hash-m) he is disqualified.
(h) (Rava): He is Kosher.
1. Abaye: He is disqualified, for he is a Rasha - "Al
Tesht Rasha Ed".
(i) Question (against Rava - Beraisa): "Al Tesht Rasha Ed" -
do not accept a witness that transgresses Chamas, e.g. a
thief or one who transgresses *oaths*.
2. Rava: The Torah only disqualified Rasha'im of Chamas
(they transgress for monetary gain).
1. Suggestion: He is disqualified for a false or vain
oath, even non-monetary oaths!
(j) Answer: No, it only refers to monetary oaths;
1. The plural (oaths) alludes to different kinds of
monetary oaths (alternatively - *people* (plural)
are disqualified on account of false monetary oaths
(one oath disqualifies a person)).
(k) Question (against Abaye - Beraisa): "Al Tesht Rasha Ed" -
do not accept a witness that transgresses Chamas, e.g. a
thief or one who lends on Ribis.
(l) This refutes Abaye.
(m) Suggestion: Tana'im argue as Abaye and Rava argue.
1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): An Ed Zomem is disqualified for
(n) Rejection: Granted, Abaye cannot hold like R. Yosi, but
Rava could hold even like R. Meir;
2. R. Yosi says, this is only if he was Huzam in a
capital case; if he was Huzam in a monetary case, he
is Kosher for capital cases.
3. Suggestion: Abaye holds like R. Meir, Rava holds
like R. Yosi:
i. Abaye holds like R. Meir - one who transgressed
something light is suspected for more severe
ii. Rava holds like R. Yosi - he is not suspected
for things more severe than what he
1. R. Meir only disqualified a monetary Ed Zomem from
all testimony, for he is evil with respect to people
2. A Mumar to eat Neveilos (to anger Hash-m) is only
evil towards Hash-m.
(a) The Halachah follows Abaye.
(b) Question: But he was refuted!
(c) Answer: R. Yosi taught the Beraisa that refuted him (and
we know that R. Yosi holds like Rava).
(d) Question: Even so, the Halachah follows R. Yosi when he
argues with R. Meir!
(e) Answer: That applies in general, but here an unauthored
Mishnah is like R. Meir.
(f) Question: Which unauthored Mishnah is like R. Meir?
(g) Answer: A case occurred, Bar Chama killed someone; the
Reish Galusa asked Rav Acha bar Yakov to investigate: if
he surely killed, gouge out his eyes (some explain - give
his money to the victim's heirs, or excommunicate him).
1. Ploni and Almoni testified that he killed; Bar Chama
brought two witnesses, one said 'I saw Ploni steal a
Kav of peeled barley', the other said 'I saw him
steal the handle of a spear'.
3) A RELATIVE CANNOT TESTIFY
2. Rav Acha bar Yakov: The Halachah follows R. Yosi
against R. Meir, a thief is Kosher for capital
(h) Bar Chama kissed the feet of Rav Papi, and paid Rav
Papi's his head-tax for the rest of his life.
3. Rav Papi: That applies in general, but here an
unauthored Mishnah is like R. Meir!
4. Question: Which unauthored Mishnah is like R. Meir?
5. Answer #1 (Mishnah): Anyone fit to judge capital
cases is fit to judge monetary cases.
i. This is not like R. Yosi - he says that a
monetary Ed Zomem is disqualified for monetary
cases but Kosher for capital cases - rather, it
is like R. Meir.
6. Rejection: Perhaps the Mishnah discusses lineages
disqualified from judging.
i. Support (end of the Mishnah): One can be
qualified for monetary cases but disqualified
for capital cases.
7. Answer #2 (Mishnah): The following are disqualified:
diceplayers, those who lend on Ribis, Mafrichei
Yonim, Socharei Shemitah, and slaves;
ii. We cannot say that he was Huzam in a capital
case, all agree that he is totally
iii. Rather, we must say that his lineage
disqualified him from capital cases - also the
beginning of the Mishnah refers to lineages
qualified to judge!
i. The general rule is: anything a woman cannot
testify about, they cannot testify about. (This
is a Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah - our Mishnah
(24B) omits slaves and this last clause.)
8. Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
i. It cannot be R. Yosi - he says that a monetary
Ed Zomem can testify about money, even though a
9. Answer: It is R. Meir.
(a) (Mishnah - R. Akiva): The following relatives are
disqualified from testifying: a brother, a paternal or
maternal uncle, his sister's husband, the husband of his
paternal or maternal aunt, his step-father, his
father-in-law, his Gis (his wife's sister's husband):
1. Also, their sons (i.e. of these relatives) and their
Chasanim (son-in-laws) are disqualified;
(b) The first version of the Mishnah only disqualified an
uncle, cousin, anyone fitting to inherit (i.e. paternal
relatives), and anyone who was related at the time (that
he saw testimony or comes to testify);
2. A step-son is disqualified (but not his sons or
1. If he was related beforehand but was unrelated when
he saw the testimony, he is Kosher
(c) R. Yehudah says, if Reuven has children from Leah he is
considered a relative of her father even after she dies.
(d) A close friend or enemy cannot testify.
1. A close friend - this refers to a Shushbin (one who
brought gifts to a Chasan);
(e) Chachamim: Yisraelim are not suspected to testify falsely
on account of love or hatred.
2. An enemy - this is one who did not speak to him for
three days on account of hatred.
(f) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?
(g) Answer (Beraisa): Question: "Lo Yumesu Avos Al Banim" -
what does this teach?
1. If to teach that fathers will not die for the sins
of the sons or vice-versa - it already says "Ish
2. Answer: Rather, it teaches that fathers will not die
through testimony of their sons or vice-versa.
3. Question: Is it really true that sons will not die
for the sins of the fathers?!
i. But it says "Poked Avon Avos Al Banim".
4. Answer: This is when they continue in the sins of
i. "V'Af ba'Avonos Avosam Itam Yimaku" - this is
when they continue in the sins of the fathers.
ii. Suggestion: Perhaps it is even if they do not!
iii. Rejection: "Ish b'Chet'o Yumasu".
iv. Question: "V'Choshelu Ish b'Achiv" - a man will
be punished for his brother's sin - this
teaches that Yisraelim are responsible for each
v. Answer: This is when he could have protested
and did not.