top of page

Parshas Shemos 5785

סנהדרין כז.

"עדים זוממין למפרע הוא נפסל"


Abaye holds if witnesses testify in ניסן and 6 months later they are הוזם, we now realize that they are רשעים, so all additional testimony they might have given from ניסן until now are all פסול. רבא argues that since עדים זוממין is a חידוש, because the second pair of עדים should not be believed any more than the first and it should be treated as a standard case of תרי ותרי, yet the Torah tells us to believe the second pair over the first, this חידוש is only חל and considers the first כת to be שקרנים from the time of the חידוש and on "אין לך בו אלא משעת חידוש ואילך". The גמ' concludes that the halacha follows אביי and this case is one of the יע"ל קג"ם.The שו"ע paskens[חו"מ לד,ח] like אביי that they are פסול למפרע and any testimony they said in the interim is disregarded. The [חו"מ ס' לח'] טור and the רמב"ן [דברים יט',יח'] give a טעם to this halacha and explain that the 2nd pair is נאמן because they are testifying on the "גוף העדים" by saying עמנו הייתם. So just like if 2 עדים would testify thatראובן and שמעון were מחלל שבת we would believe them, and ראובן and שמעון can’t argue because they are בעלי דברים, so too by הזמה, when they are testifying about the actual עדים, the 2ndכת is נאמן and the first כת are considered בעלי דברים. [קובץ שיעורים ב"ק אות מג'] ר' אלחנן says שיטת אביי (they are פסול למפרע) may be explained in 2 ways: 1) He doesn’t hold of the rule "אין בו אלא משעת חידושו". 2) אביי holds that this is not such a חידוש because like the טור and רמב"ן explain above, the הגדה is on the גוף העדים and this type of עדות is always believed. ר' אלחנן says צ"ע on this סברא. True if 2 עדים say ראובן and שמעון are גזלנים, then they are נאמן and Reuven and Shimon are considered בעלי דברים and we don’t consider this תרי ותרי. But byהזמה why are they considered בעלי דברים? Because they are being called שקרנים? Isn’t every תרי ותרי in essence saying the other עדים are שקרנים, yet we consider it תרי ותרי? ע"ש.

The [עדות פי"ח,ב] רמב"ם says the חידוש of זוממין applies when the 2ndכת only says עמנו הייתם, but not any testimony as to whether the actual מעשה happened or not. If, however, they say to the first pair עמנו הייתם and also add that this man Reuven who you say killed Shimon, could not have done it, because they were also with us somewhere else, this is not called הזמה, but rather is treated like a case of regular הכחשה.

The [ג' פ"ד] שב שמעתתא brings שיטת הגאונים בתראי regarding a שוחט who became a מומר. They paskened that all his שחיטות למפרע are פסול because we are מצטרף the חזקת איסור of every בהמה (before it’s slaughtered) and the חזקה דהשתא that he is a רשע and ממילא all his שחיטות למפרע are pasul. The ש"ך disagrees and says אוקי גברא אחזקתיה and he is barred from שחיטה only going forward. The שמעתתא says our sugya of הזמה seems to be in accordance with the ש"ך. Because why is their עדות only pasul going back to their שעת הגדה? We should say we have תרתי לריעתה. 1. They are רשעים now in front of us. 2. If they testified previously on a monetary case, we should say אוקי ממונא בחזקת מריה.

 
bottom of page