NEW
Font size
WorksheetsEd Zomem Mishalem Lifi Chelko
Total questions: 17
Worksheet time: 20mins
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
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
So the Gemara moves to another explanation:
Two edim ran from one Beis Din to another one and both admitted that they testified, lied, and were huzam in the first court
One ed ran from one Beis Din to another one and he alone admitted that they testified, lied, and were huzam in the first court
The second ed in this case does not admit that this happened. Which ed has to pay?
The one who admitted that it all happened
The one who was silent and did not admit that it happened
The Gemara rejects this explanation, because it...
confirms R. Akiva, who says מודה בקנס פטור
contradicts R. Akiva, who says מודה בקנס פטור
The reason that Edim Zomimim's potential payment would be a קנס is that
they caused a loss and have to pay for it
they did not cause a loss and still have to pay
So the Gemara adjusts the case by adding on that the ed who admitted that this all happened also claims וחוייבנו ממון. We were judged by the judges to have to pay the money to the person we accused. This transforms the hazama ...
into the category of actual $ debt instead of קנס
into the category of קנס instead of actual $ debt
In such a case, the ed who admitted that this all happened,
must pay
is exempt from paying
Have we found an explanation for Rav Yehuda/Rav's statement
עד זומם משלם לפי חלקו? Are we happy or sad?
No, we are sad
Yes, we are happy
