Sanhedrin 53

עד זומם אביי אמר למפרע הוא נפסל ורבא אמר מיכן ולהבא הוא נפסל

A witness who was proved a <i>Zomem</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. This refers to a case where a period elapsed between his giving of evidence and being proved a Zomem. ');">¹</span>

אביי אמר למפרע הוא נפסל מעידנא דאסהיד רשע הוא והתורה אמרה (שמות כג, א) אל תשת ידך עם רשע אל תשת רשע עד

Abaye ruled, Hisdisqualification is retrospective;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the time he began to give his evidence in court, and all the evidence he has given in the intervening period becomes invalidated. ');">²</span>

רבא אמר מיכן ולהבא הוא נפסל עד זומם חידוש הוא מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני אין לך בו אלא משעת חידושו ואילך

Raba maintained, He isdisqualified only for the future.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the time when he is proved a Zomem. ');">³</span>

איכא דאמרי רבא נמי כאביי סבירא ליה ומאי טעם קאמר מכאן ולהבא משום פסידא דלקוחות

Abaye makes thedisqualification retrospective: he was a wicked man from the time of testifying [falsely], and theTorah says: Do not accept the wicked as witness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An interpretation of Ex. XXIII, 1. ');">⁴</span>

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאסהידו בי תרי בחד אי נמי דפסלינהו בגזלנותא

Raba holdsthat he is disqualified prospectively [only]: now, the entire law of a falsified witness isanomalous; for [it is two against two, then] why accept the evidence of one pair rather than that ofthe other? Therefore it can take effect only from the time that this anomalous procedure isemployed. Some say that Raba really agrees with Abaye; yet why does he rule [that the incompetenceis] prospective? — Because of the purchaser's loss.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If purchasers have transacted business through documents signed by the Zomemim, having been unaware of their disqualification, they would become involved in considerable loss, should their evidence be declared invalid. ');">⁵</span>

ואמר ר' ירמיה מדיפתי עבד רב פפי עובדא כוותיה דרבא מר בר רב אשי אמר הלכתא כותיה דאביי

Wherein do they [the two views on Raba's ruling] differ? — A difference arises where two havetestified against one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: two pairs against one pair, each of the former refuting the testimony of a single member of the latter; in this case there is no anomaly, hence disqualification is retrospective. Tosaf.: there are two witnesses refuting one, leaving the other unaffected. The reason based on the injury to purchasers, on both interpretations, however, is still valid. ');">⁶</span>

והלכתא כוותיה דאביי ביע"ל קג"ם

or where he was disqualified on thegrounds of robbery.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here again the argument that it is an anomalous procedure no longer holds good. It should be observed that, strictly speaking, the term Zomem is inapplicable in that case, but it is here used rather loosely in the sense of a witness proved to have been ineligible. Tosaf. however, gives this explanation: A and B attested a certain act, claiming that they had witnessed it together, whereupon C and D declared A a Zomem, but leaving the testimony of B unaffected. Now, in point of fact, since A and B jointly testified, they both (including B), deny the allegation of C and D, and therefore it is an anomaly that credence is given to the latter pair. Here, however, B too was proved to be incompetent, though on other grounds, viz., robbery; therefore it is no anomaly that the testimony of C and D against A should be accepted. ');">⁷</span>

מומר אוכל נבילות לתיאבון דברי הכל פסול

And R. Jeremiah of Difti related thatR. Papi ruled in a certain case in accordance with Raba's view; while Mar son of R. Ashi said: Thelaw rests with Abaye. And, [concludes the Talmud], the law rests with Abaye in Y'AL KGM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. Six decisions scattered throughout the Babylonian Talmud in which Abaye differs from Raba, and where the law rests with the former. Y'AL KGM is composed of six initial letters of words which indicate various legal terms, YOD (')[H], 'abandonment of lost article,' B.M. 21b. 'AYIN ([H]) [H], referred to here. LAMED ([H]) [H], 'A pole put up accidentally,' 'Er. 15a. KOF (e) [H], 'Betrothal which cannot result in actual cohabitation,' Kid. 51a. GIMEL ([H]) [H] 'The act of revealing one's attitude indirectly in regard to a Get,' Git. 34a. MEM [H]) [H], A Pervert, in the following discussion. ');">⁸</span>

להכעיס אביי אמר פסול רבא אמר כשר

&nbsp; &nbsp; <font>As for a Mumar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (from run convert, exchange), hence a pervert; an apostate; an open opponent of the Jewish law; a non-conformist. The word Mumar is also employed by the Talmud to designate one who transgresses a Biblical command in general. ');">⁹</span></font>

אביי אמר פסול דהוה ליה רשע ורחמנא אמר אל תשת רשע עד ורבא אמר כשר רשע דחמס בעינן

who eats <i>nebelah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] carrion, an animal that died a natural death or which was not slaughtered according to ritual law. ');">¹⁰</span>

מיתיבי אל תשת רשע עד אל תשת חמס עד אלו גזלנין ומועלין בשבועות מאי לאו אחד שבועת שוא ואחד שבועת ממון

merely tosatisfy his greed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his greed for money, because it is cheaper. ');">¹¹</span>

לא אידי ואידי שבועת ממון ומאי שבועות שבועות דעלמא

all agree that he isdisqualified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he is classed with the wicked, who commit their misdeeds for gain. ');">¹²</span>

מיתיבי אל תשת רשע עד אל תשת חמס עד אלו גזלנין ומלוי רביות תיובתא דאביי תיובתא

If his purpose is provocative;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to defy, and show his contempt for, the law. ');">¹³</span>

נימא כתנאי עד זומם פסול לכל התורה כולה דברי רבי מאיר ר' יוסי אומר בד"א שהוזם בדיני נפשות אבל הוזם בדיני ממונות כשר לדיני נפשות

Abaye said, He is ineligible; Raba ruled, He iseligible. Abaye said: He is ineligible, because he is classed with the wicked, and the Torah said:Do not accept the wicked as witness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXIII, 1. ');">¹⁴</span>

נימא אביי כר"מ ורבא כר' יוסי אביי כר"מ דאמר אמרינן מקולא לחומרא ורבא דאמר כרבי יוסי דאמר מחומרא לקולא אמרינן מקולא לחומרא לא אמרינן

Raba ruled: He iseligible, because he must have been wicked for the sake of gain [hamas].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], 'violence', 'plunder'. Cf. Ex. XXIII, 1, 'to be a witness of violence' (E.V. 'unrighteous witness'). I.e., such as a robber; whereas in this case his action is prompted by other motives. ');">¹⁵</span>

לא אליבא דר' יוסי כ"ע לא פליגי כי פליגי אליבא דר"מ

An objection is raised: Do not accept the wicked as witness; [this means,]Do not accept a despoiler<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One who violates another's rights to satisfy his own greed. ');">¹⁶</span>

אביי כר"מ ורבא עד כאן לא קאמר ר"מ התם אלא גבי עד זומם דממון דרע לשמים ורע לבריות אבל הכא דרע לשמים ואין רע לבריות לא

as witness;e.g., robbers, and those who have trespassed by [false]oaths.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., perjurers. ');">¹⁷</span>

והלכתא כוותיה דאביי והא איתותב ההיא רבי יוסי היא

Surely this refers to botha vain oath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., an oath that a pillar of stone is made of stone, which is a needless oath. ');">¹⁸</span>

ותיהוי נמי ר' יוסי ר"מ ור' יוסי הלכה כר' יוסי

and an oath concerningmoney matters?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As follows from the plural, oaths. Hence the motive for his evil act need not be lust for money, in contradistinction to Raba's opinion. ');">¹⁹</span>

שאני התם דסתם לן תנא כרבי מאיר והיכא סתם לן

— No; in bothcases,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Actually, only one case is mentioned, viz., oaths. But the phrase is used on the questioner's hypothesis (v. n. 6), and the answer proceeds to demolish that assumption. ');">²⁰</span>

כי הא דבר חמא קטל נפשא אמר ליה ריש גלותא לרב אבא בר יעקב פוק עיין בה אי ודאי קטל ליכהיוהו לעיניה אתו תרי סהדי אסהידו ביה דודאי קטל אזל איהו אייתי תרי סהדי אסהידו ביה בחד מהנך חד אמר קמאי דידי גנב קבא דחושלא וחד אמר קמאי דידי גנב

oaths concerning money mattersare alluded to; then why state 'oaths' [plural]? — [To indicate] oaths ingeneral.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., such as are made in litigation. ');">²¹</span> An objection is raised: Do not accept the wicked as witness; [this means,]Do not accept a despoiler as witness, e.g., robbers andusurers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his wickedness must, to disqualify him, have been prompted by gain for money only, in contradistinction to the opinion of Abaye. ');">²²</span> This refutation of Abaye'sview is unanswerable. Shall we say that their difference is identical with that of Tannaim? [Forit has been taught:]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_23">²³</a> A witness proved a <i>Zomem</i> is unfit [to testify] inall Biblical matters: this is R. Meir's view. R. Jose said: That is onlyif he has been proved a <i>Zomem</i> in capitalcases;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, having been found dishonest in grave matters, his evidence is all the more suspect in matters less grave. ');">²⁴</span> but if in monetary cases,his evidence is valid in capital charges. Shall we affirm, Abaye agrees withR. Meir, and Raba with R. Jose? 'Abaye agrees with R. Meir,' who maintainsthat we impose [disqualification] in respect of major cases as a result ofa minor transgression.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the case under discussion is similar: that of a provocative Mumar only; nevertheless, he is declared incompetent to testify in a civil suit, though false evidence in such a case is evil both in the sight of God and man, and hence constitutes a greater transgression. ');">²⁵</span> 'AndRaba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that the evidence of a man who transgressed a ritual law (an evil in the sight of God alone) need not be doubted in a civil case. ');">²⁶</span> with R. Jose,' who says, Weimpose [disqualification] in respect of minormatters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., is the case of a Zomem in monetary cases. ');">²⁷</span> as a result of a majortransgression;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., in the case of a Zomem in capital cases. ');">²⁸</span> but not the reverse!— No! On R. Jose's opinion, there is no dispute atall.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye can certainly not agree with R. Jose, for he can in no wise hold that a Zomem in civil cases is eligible in capital cases. ');">²⁹</span> They differ only on the basisof R. Meir's opinion. Abaye certainly agrees with R. Meir. But Raba [mayargue]: So far R. Meir gives his ruling only in the case of a <i>Zomem</i> in amonetary case, who is evil in the sight of God and man. But in this case,since he is evil in the sight of Godalone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as is involved in the open defiance of the ritual law by eating Nebelah. ');">³⁰</span> even R. Meir does not disqualifyhim. And the law rests with Abaye. But has he not been refuted? — That [Baraithawhich refuted him] represents the opinion of R.Jose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the preceding argument (cf. n. 3). Abaye, however, rules as does R. Meir. ');">³¹</span> Granted; yet even so, [wherever]R. Meir and R. Jose [are in dispute], the <i>halachah</i> rests with R.Jose!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. 'Er. 46b. This is a general rule. ');">³²</span> — In the other case it isdifferent, for the Tanna has taught R. Meir's viewanonymously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a general principle that if an individual view is stated anonymously, as though it were a general opinion, the halachah rests with it. ');">³³</span> And where does thisoccur? — [As we find] in the case of Bar Hama, who committed murder. TheResh Galutha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Exilarch. ');">³⁴</span> said to R. Abba b.Jacob:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read with Ms.M., R. Aha b. Jacob, v. D.S. a.l.] ');">³⁵</span> Go and investigate the matter,if he is definitely the murderer, dim hiseyes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Perhaps, 'blind him,' 'put out his eyes.' Capital punishment was abolished four decades before the fall of Jerusalem (cf. infra 41a). Others, however, interpret it of Kenas, i.e., confiscation of property. ');">³⁶</span> Two witnesses thereafter appearedand testified to his definite guilt; but he [Bar Hama] produced two otherwitnesses, who gave evidence against one of the accusing witnesses. One deposed:In my presence this witness stole a <i>kab</i> of barley; the other testified: Inmy presence he stole