לזכות אבי מורי ואמי מורתי שיחיו לברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיהם!!
לזכות ידיד נפשי הרב ר' שמחה דן גיסינג'ר שליט"א לשפע רב עד בלי די!!
The Gemara says [Kesubos 32b]:
אלמא קסבר רבי יוחנן כל היכא דאיכא ממון ומלקות ואתרו ביה מילקא לקי ממונא לא משלם וכו' כדאמר רבי אילעא בפירוש
ריבתה תורה עדים זוממין לתשלומין הכא נמי בפירוש ריבתה תורה חובל בחבירו לתשלומין
The Gemara observes: Apparently, Rabbi Yochanan maintains that in any case where there is liability to both pay money and receive lashes, and the witnesses forewarned him, he is flogged but does not pay money etc. The Gemara answers that the fact that conspiring witnesses pay money can be explained in accordance with that which Rabbi Ile’a said in a different context: The Torah explicitly amplified the case of conspiring witnesses to include liability for payment. The Torah employed language indicating that conspiring witnesses who testified falsely in order to render one liable for payment must pay the sum and are not flogged. Here, too, with regard to injury, the Torah explicitly amplified the case of one who injures another to include liability for payment.
Now even though the Gemara compares חובל בחבירו and עדים זוממין to each other, it would appear that they are fundamentally different.
The Rambam writes [Eidus 20/8-9]:
עדים שהעידו על אחד והרשיעוהו רשע שאין בו לא מלקות ולא מיתה ולא חיוב ממון ואח"כ הוזמו הרי אלו לוקין אע"פ שלא זממו להלקות זה ולא לחייבו ממון כיצד העידו על כהן שהוא חלל כגון שהעידו בפנינו נתגרשה אמו או נחלצה במקום פלוני ביום פלוני והוזמו הרי הן לוקין וכן אם העידו על אדם שהרג בשגגה והוזמו לוקין ואינן גולין העידו על שורו של זה שהרג הנפש והוזמו הרי הן לוקין ואין משלמין את הכופר העידו עליו שנמכר בעבד עברי והוזמו לוקין וארבעה דברים אלו מפי הקבלה הן:
כך קבלו חכמים ששנים שהרשיעו את הצדיק והצדיקו את הרשע בעדותן ובאו עדים אחרים והזימום והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע הרי עדים הראשונים לוקים אף על פי שלא הרשיעו הצדיק להלקותו אבל אם העידו עליו שאכל בשר בחלב או שלבש שעטנז הרי אלו לוקין משום שנאמר ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם:
The following rule applies when witnesses testify against another person and have him convicted in a matter that does not involve lashes, capital punishment, or a financial obligation and then the witnesses are disqualified through hazamah. They are given lashes even though they did not conspire to have the defendant lashed or to obligate him financially.
What is implied? Witnesses testified that a priest was a challal, e.g., they testified that his mother was divorced or released through chalitzah in their presence in this-and-this place on this-and-this date. If the witnesses are disqualified through hazamah, they are punished by lashing.
Similarly, if they testified that a person inadvertently killed a colleague and they are disqualified through hazamah, they are punished by lashing; they are not exiled. And if they testify that a person's ox killed another person and they were disqualified through hazamah, they receive lashes and are not required to pay an atonement fine. If they testify that a person was sold as a Hebrew servant and they were disqualified through hazamah, they receive lashes. These four rulings are part of the Oral Tradition.
With regard to the above matters, our Sages received the following tradition: When two people cause a righteous person to be condemned and a wicked person to be vindicated through their testimony and two others come and disqualify their testimony through hazamah vindicating the righteous person and condemning the wicked, the first pair of witnesses receive lashes even though their condemnation of the righteous person would not have had him subjected to lashes.
If, however, witnesses testify that a person partook of milk and meat or wore shaatnez, they are punished by lashes, as implied by Deuteronomy 19:19: 'You shall requite him as he conspired.'
On a simple level he means to say that when the witnesses testified that he ate meat with milk, we don't need the special limud מפי הקבלה in order to give מלקות, but rather we can give מלקות because of כאשר זמם. Since they plotted to give him מלקות, they receive the same punishment.
However, it would seem that it is more than that. It is not only that when we fulfill כאשר זמם we don't need והצדיקו in order to give מלקות but that והצדיקו is not relevant. The Tumim [38-1] proved from the Ramban [מלחמות על סנהדרין פ"ו, ב] that witnesses who testified to disqualify someone from being a witness and were found to be זוממים don't receive מלקות. He explained that rationale that since we fulfilled with them the דין of כאשר זמם [because now they are פסולים לעדות as they tried to make the accused] we can't give them מלקות as mandated by the pasuk of והצדיקו. This is because the חידוש of מלקות from the פרשה of והצדיקו only applies when we can't carry out כאשר זמם [giving the same punishment they intended that the accused receive]. He also reads this opinion into the Rambam - see there. According to this, the Rambam should be read differently: If they testified that he ate meat and milk, they receive מלקות only because of the דין of כאשר זמם but the מלקות that stem from והצדיקו are not relevant. The novelty that עדים זוממין receive מלקות because of והצדיקו את הצדיק even though לא תעשה ברעך עד שקר is a לאו שאין בו מעשה was only regarding the 4 דינים enumerated by the Rambam [Ben Grusha, Galus, Kofer and Eved Ivri] and in no other cases because those are cases which in their essence are precluded from the דין of כאשר זמם since they involve neither capital punishment, nor מלקות, nor money. In those cases we learn מפי הקבלה that if they plotted to obligate the accused, since they are not included in the pasuk כאשר זמם, they instead receive מלקות. But regarding other testimonies where we fulfill כאשר זמם there is no חידוש of מלקות. That is what the Rambam concluded that if they testified that he ate milk and meat they receive מלקות because of כאשר זמם, meaning that as far as והצדיקו is concerned there are no מלקות and all the מלקות only come from the pasuk of כאשר זמם. [So wrote the אור שמח [Eidus 18-6] in explanation of why if only one of the עדים became an עד זומם he doesn't receive מלקות based on the pasuk of והצדיקו - Because when כאשר זמם applies we don't have the חידוש of these מלקות and therefore since it is possible that the other witness will also be found to be an עד זומם (and we will carry out כאשר זמם), there is no מלקות for והצדיקו].
See Tosfos in Shavuos [21a ד"ה חוץ] where it emerges from their words that this pasuk of והצדיקו from which we learn that there is מלקות is a revelation about the לאו of לא תענה, that even though it is a לאו שאין בו מעשה, there is still מלקות. They wrote that it would have been fitting to list this together in Maseches Temura with swearing falsely, Temurah and blasphemy, as unique איסורים where there is מלקות even though there is no מעשה - see there in Tosfos. According to what they wrote, it emerges that essentially all עדים זוממים are liable to מלקות because of the לאו of לא תענה, even when we carry out the punishment of כאשר זמם and only because we can't give two punishments ["כדי רשעתו"] they don't receive מלקות. But according to our analysis, the Rambam has a different approach. He holds that as far as לא תענה is concerned, עדים זוממין are not supposed to receive מלקות because they transgressed a לאו שאין בו מעשה. Just we have a חידוש based on tradition that they DO receive מלקות but ONLY when their זממה is not under the rubric of ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם. But when it IS classified as a case where we carry out כאשר זמם, there are no מלקות.
According to this, it emerges that that according to the Rambam there is a difference between the statement that "בפירוש ריבתה תורה עדים זוממין לתשלומין" - "The Torah explicitly amplified the case of conspiring witnesses to include liability for payment" and the parallel statement about about חובל בחבירו - injuring his friend. A חובל בחבירו transgressed a לאו שיש בו מעשה and thus he is liable to מלקות just like other לאוין. Just the Torah "amplified" [was "מרבה"] that he pays and doesn't get flogged because two punishments cannot be meted out. But when it comes to עדים זוממין, when we say that the Torah included them in the obligation to pay [when they testified about a monetary case], it means that they are not obligated at all in מלקות. So the definition ["גדר"] is NOT that they are חייב מלקות but we don't give it to them because we can't give two punishments - but rather that they are not liable at all to מלקות.
But it is still not so clear: The Gemara says that עולא learns from עדים זוממין that in the whole Torah we impose payment and not מלקות and ר' יוחנן argues and says that normally we give מלקות and don't require payment. Then the Gemara asks on ר' יוחנן that regarding עדים זוממין we should ALSO say that they receive מלקות and don't have to pay. The Gemara answers that בפירוש ריבתה תורה - the Torah explicitly amplified that עדים זוממין must pay. If so, we see that even when there is a monetary obligation, מלקות is still relevant. Just the Torah "amplified" that he pays and doesn't receive מלקות. This is NOT like we said that the punishment of עדים זוממין is fundamentally different than the punishment of חובל בחבירו but rather it is comparable. In both cases two different punishments are relevant but we only give one of them.
We have to therefore explain that the words "בפירוש ריבתה תורה עדים זוממין לתשלומין" mean that there is no obligation of מלקות at all, since they are liable to pay money.
We have to therefore explain that the words "בפירוש ריבתה תורה עדים זוממין לתשלומין" mean that there is no obligation of מלקות at all, since they are liable to pay money.
[עפ"י תורת מורנו הגאון רבי חיים שמואלביץ זצ"ל]
