Removing A Negiya

לזכות רפואת הרב שי בן לאה וחי' חנה בת אורנה אדל

What is the דין if an עד is פסול to testify b/c he has a נגיעת ממון [i.e. he has a financial interest in the outcome of the case], is he obligated to remove the נגיעת ממון in order to testify?

If we say that he must, that would explain the opinion of the Rambam [מלכים ט-י"ד] that Shimon and Levi judged all the inhabitants of the city  b/c they violated the mitzva of דינים by not judging Shechem [and that is why women and children who can't testify were spared]. But why were the inheritors of Shechem killed - they had a נגיעת ממון b/c if Shechem is executed they get his possessions? However if we say that a witness must remove his נגיעה in order to testify we understand that they too were guilty for not removing themselves from the ירושה in order to fulfill מצות דינים. 

The Mishna says [שבועות לא-ב] :

 שבועת העדות שמביא עליה קרבן עולה ויורד כיצד? אמר לשנים: "בואו והעידוני", ואמרו לו: "שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות". או שאמרו לו: "אין אנו יודעין לך עדות", ואמר להם: "משביע אני עליכם", ואמרו: "אמן", והתברר שהיה זה שקר — הרי אלו חייבין.השביע עליהם חמש פעמים חוץ לבית דין, ובאו לבית דין והודו כלומר, העידו כראוי — הרי הם פטורין; אבל אם כפרו גם בבית דין — חייבין על כל אחת ואחת מהפעמים שהשביע עליהם מחוץ לבית דין. השביע עליהן חמש פעמים בפני בית דין וכפרו — אינן חייבין אלא אחת.

Liability to bring a sliding-scale offering for taking a false oath of testimony, how so? In a case where the plaintiff said to two individuals: Come and testify on my behalf, and they replied: On our oath we do not know any testimony on your behalf, i.e., we do not have any knowledge of the matter you speak of, or in a case where they said to him: We do not know any testimony on your behalf, and he said to them: I administer an oath to you, and they said: Amen; if it was determined that they lied, these two witnesses are liable. 

If he administered an oath to them five times outside the court, and they came to court and admitted that they had knowledge of the incident in question and testified, they are exempt. But if they denied knowledge of the incident in court as well, they are liable for each and every one of the oaths administered to them outside the court. 

Asks the Ktzos [כ"ח ח] why are they חייב five times? After the first שבועת שקר they are פסולים לעדות so by the second time they shouldn't be חייב??

Answered the Ktzos' brother: They can do Tshuva after every שבועת שקר and make themselves כשרים לעדות. Therefore they are חייבים קרבן b/c they didn't make themselves כשרים לעדות. 

The Ktzos didn't agree. He asserted that they are not obligated to do what they can [in this case - תשובה] in order to be kosher עדים. 

So according to that - an עד need not remove his נגיעה in order to testify. If that is true then any defendant can create a פסול in the עדים of the claimant by obligating himself to pay them money if they testify to his disadvantage [!!!!]. But if we say that they must remove any נגיעה then they would have to forgo the obligation and testify. 

[עפ"י תורת מורנו הגאון רבי אברהם גנחובסקי זצ"ל]