Ed Zomem Mishalem Lifi Chelko

Translate the following phrase: עד זומם משלם לפי חלקו

• We do to an ed zomem that which he wanted to do to the innocent person

• An Ed Zomem who takes part in a testimony receives a portion of the total lashes

• An Ed Zomem pays according to his portion

• None of the answers here

Answer explanation

This is the opening statement of Rav Yehuda/Rav upon which the sugyah is based. Although the exact fact situation is unclear, it simply means an ed zomem - false witness משלם pays לפי חלקו according to his portion

The Gemara's first interpretation is:

• An Ed Zomem receives both lashes and pays

• If there are two edim zomimim, they split the total amount they owe in a case where they lied about Reuven owing a sum of money

• If there are four edim zomimim, none of them pay unless they are all huzam

• None of the answers here

This is rejected because

• This rule is already spelled out in a mishna

• This rule is contradicted by a baraisa

• Both of the answers that appear here

The Gemara's second interpretation is: דהוזם חד מינייהו דמשלם פלגא דידיה

• One of the two edim admitted that he lied in a second Beis Din

• Two of the edim admitted they lied in a second Beis Din, then one of them retracted his original testimony

• One of the edim was proven by a second set to be false, and therefore has to pay his half

The Gemara rejects this explanation, since...

• It was already taught in a baraisa

• It was already taught in a mishna

• It contradicts the rule in the baraisa that neither ed pays unless both are huzam

• None of the answers here

The Gemara goes to a third interpretation of Rav Yehuda, offered by Rava.

באומר עדות שקר העדתי. The translation of this is:

• He admits that his friend lied

• He admits that he lied

• He admits that both he and his friend lied

In this scenario, where he admits that he lied, a second set of edim come and say that that the first edim lied. Which of the first two edim has to pay according to this view, the one who admitted he lied, or the other guy who did not admit it?

• The one that admitted he lied

• The one who did not admit it

Why does the ed who admits that he lied not have to pay?

• Because he was honest, and the Torah respects honesty

• Because he retracted his edut/testimony and therefore the second set's hazama cannot have an impact on him

• This is a trick question, the guy who admits DOES have to pay

The Gemara rejects this interpretation by saying

כל כמיניה כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד

This means:

• Is this within his power? Once he's testified, he cannot retract his testimony

• Is this correct? Because he has admitted that he lied, he has to pay

If retracting a testimony does not work, then ...

• both witnesses would have to pay, and this cannot be the case of R. Yehuda/Rav

• one witness would have to pay, and this cannot be the case of R. Yehuda/Rav