Communicated: TefillaChillul Tefila Bifarhesia, as well as halachicly challenged verbiage and dress, are external manifestations of a critical lack of personal yiras shomayim which has lethal consequences.
In this week’s parshah the Torah discusses the halachos of eidim zomimim. The Gemara in Makkos 2a explains that eidim zomimim is when one set of two or more witnesses testifies against someone, and another set of witnesses testifies that the first set of witnesses was with them and therefore could not have known their testimony. The Torah says that the later set of witnesses is believed and the testimony of the first set of witnesses is disqualified. If beis din had not yet carried out the verdict that the first set of witnesses intended to impose, the verdict is placed on the first set of witnesses. This is known as kasher zamam v’lo kasher asah. Once the verdict of the first witnesses is carried out the witnesses are not punished.
Generally, one only receives lashes for an aveirah that was performed with an action. The Gemara in Temurah 3a lists three different aveiros that are exceptions to that rule: one who does temurah (attempting to switch kedushah onto another animal); swearing falsely; and cursing one’s fellow with Hashem’s name. Tosafos asks: why did the Gemara not also mention eidim zomimim and motzi shem ra, for which one receives lashes and are also aveiros performed with speech alone and without the performance of any other action? Tosafos’s answer: regarding eidim zomimim and motzi shem ra, the Torah says explicitly that one receives lashes; therefore the Gemara did not need to write this.
The Brisker Rav offers another solution to Tosafos’s question. He suggests that the lashes that eidim zomimim and practitioners of motzi shem ra receive are different than the lashes one receives for transgressing another lav in the Torah. Generally, lashes are administered simply as a punishment for transgressing the lav. Regarding eidim zomimim and motzi shem ra, one does not receive lashes for transgressing the lav since the lav did not have an action associated with it. The lashes are administered as a result of one being an eid zomaim or a motzi shem ra. When one transgresses the lav of eidim zomimim or motzi shem ra he attains a status of an eid zomaim or motzi shem ra, and it is that status that causes him to receive lashes.
This can also be the explanation as to why the Gemara in Kesubos 33a and the Rambam (Hilchos Eidus 18:4) say that eidim zomimim do not require a warning in order to receive their punishment. The reason for this is because their punishment does not directly result from a lav. Since their punishment comes from the status that they attained, they do not need to be warned.
We originally find this concept by the parshah of ben sorer u’moreh. The Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim 7:7) says that a boy’s father and mother must bring him to a beis din of three, then bring witnesses who testify that the boy stole from his father and acquired meat and wine with the money he stole, and ate the items after being warned not to. Beis din then administers lashes to the boy. If he repeats the action (stealing, eating the meat, and drinking the wine), his parents must bring him to a beis din of 23. After hearing testimony from witnesses, beis din must check to see if he has two hairs and that the hairs of his lower beard have not completely grown in. If they have grown in, he is exempt from the laws of ben sorer u’moreh. However, if he has two or more hairs and does not have a complete lower beard, and he is between the age of 13 and 13 and three months, beis din stones him.
The Kesef Mishneh asks why the Rambam did not require that beis din check the boy’s hairs before administering lashes. Why did the Rambam only require him to be checked before killing him?
Additionally, the Gemara in Sanhedrin 78b suggests that the laws of ben sorer u’moreh should apply to a minor. But how can the Gemara entertain the possibility that we punish a minor?
Reb Chaim Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav’s father, in his sefer on the Rambam, writes that the punishment of the ben sorer u’moreh does not directly result from a punishment for transgressing the lav associated with the ben sorer u’moreh. Rather, when one transgresses that lav he attains the status of a ben sorer u’moreh – and a ben sorer u’moreh receives the punishment of death. This explains how the Gemara could entertain the possibility that a minor could be liable for being a ben sorer u’moreh, since minors are only exempt from punishments of lavim. However, even a minor could be punished for being a ben sorer u’moreh. The lashes that a ben sorer u’moreh receives are also for attaining the status of a ben sorer u’moreh – and not for the lav. Yet all the requirements that must be met (i.e. his age and hairs) are only requirements for the part of his sentence whereby he receives death. The lashes are administered even if those requirements are not met. Therefore, the Rambam did not write that beis din must check him before administering lashes.
About the Author: For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


You must log in to post a comment.


Do you say Shema before you go to sleep? I’m sure you do.
But perhaps you, like many, feel too tired at night to say the entire tefillah of Kri’as Shema as it appears in the siddur. If you do say the entire tefillah, you will recognize a pasuk in this week’s Haftorah. And if you don’t say the whole Kri’as Shema al Hamitah, perhaps after this column, you’ll re-consider and find yourself connecting with the following very comforting pasuk.

The sand is rapidly running through the hourglass, as the centrifuges in the secret Iranian nuclear plants spin furiously. It is quite clear that the Iranians are on the brink of attaining nuclear capability, and we are well aware of the danger that would face Klal Yisroel in that event, chas v’sholom. All the sanctions, threats, and computer worm attacks do not seem to be stopping them, and it is terrifying. And when we see how vulnerable we are to terrorist attacks anywhere in the world, we become even more terrified.

Miriam spoke disparagingly about Moshe Rabbeinu. Because of this, she contracted tzaras, and for seven days she was sent outside the camp of Israel.

Samuel Scherr was a very successful businessman. He also was generous and would share of his wealth with others. In this way, he became the uncle of favor to his nieces and nephews, whom he would frequently shower with gifts.
Detached Or Unrelated
‘He Made An Asheirah Tree Into a Ladder…’
(Eruvin 78b)
In this week’s parshah we read about the individuals who were tamei and thus could not bring the korban Pesach. They approached Moshe Rabbeinu and asked him whether there was anything they could do to bring the korban. Ultimately, Hashem told Moshe that they should bring a korban a month after Pesach, on the 14th of Iyar.
Question: As Shavuot is fast approaching – a holiday on which we dwell on the story of Ruth and the origins of the royal house of David – I was wondering if you could help me resolve something. Some people say that Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi, the redactor of the six orders of the Mishnah and a scion of King David, purposely kept any mention of Chanukah and the Hasmonean kings out of the Mishnah because the Hasmoneans improperly crowned themselves and ignored the rule that all Jewish kings are supposed to come from the tribe of Yehudah. Is this true?
Menachem
(Via E-Mail)
One of the thirty-nine prohibited melachot on Shabbat is carrying an object from a private domain, reshut hayachid, to a public domain, reshut harabim, or carrying an object a distance of four amot, six to eight feet, in a reshut harabim. The Torah does permit, however, carrying within the reshut hayachid itself. The definition of a reshut hayachid and a reshut harabim is crucial, therefore, to the laws of carrying on Shabbat.
Question: The Midrash notes that the song the Jews sang after they crossed the Red Sea (“Az Yashir”) was unique; its likes had never been heard before in the world. Our Sages even refer to it as a shirah chadashah, a “new song.” What made “Az Yashir” so unique and in what sense was it a “new song”?
The rav was not a wealthy man, but earned enough to live comfortably. He earned his money by serving as the rav of a religious community in Yerushalayim. He also received some royalties from sefarim he had written over the years. He was well known, and many people approached him for a berachah, advice and help. They were not turned away.
Tanach, the Hebrew Bible, is remarkable for the extreme realism with which it portrays human character. Its heroes are not superhuman. Its non-heroes are not archetypal villains. The best have failings; the worst often have saving virtues. I know of no other religious literature quite like it.
Last week I shared a letter from a newly observant Jewish woman. She and her husband reside in a small suburban community outside of Los Angeles. Last year they came to consult with me on a personal religious issue. While they were both ba’alei teshuvah, there was one fine difference between them. He had become a ba’al teshuvah earlier than she and was therefore somewhat more settled in an observant lifestyle.
I watch my children use blocks to build a large structure, observing the trepidation with which they add each block. As the structure becomes larger there is a greater risk of it collapsing, thus bringing an end to an hour of playful labor. I anticipate what will happen when one child adds a block to the top floor, compromising the integrity of the building and resulting in the collapse of the entire structure. The argument that ensues is predictable, as each child blames the other for “ruining” the fun. As an adult, I wonder about the need to attribute blame. Will assigning blame be instrumental in rebuilding the structure?
In this week’s parshah the Torah discusses the halachos of when one steals from another and when confronted in beis din, the thief swears falsely with his denial that he stole. This parshah was already taught in parshas Vayikra; however, there are two halachos that the Torah adds in this parshah to this topic.
In order to carry from one’s home into the street (even when the area is enclosed by a properly constructed eruv), the eruvin ceremony must be performed. This ceremony involves the placing of food in one designated home on behalf of all Sabbath observers in the enclosed area. In order for the eruvin ceremony to be valid, however, it must be performed on behalf of all owners of streets and homes in the enclosed area.

In this week’s parshah we read about the individuals who were tamei and thus could not bring the korban Pesach. They approached Moshe Rabbeinu and asked him whether there was anything they could do to bring the korban. Ultimately, Hashem told Moshe that they should bring a korban a month after Pesach, on the 14th of Iyar.

In this week’s parshah the Torah discusses the halachos of when one steals from another and when confronted in beis din, the thief swears falsely with his denial that he stole. This parshah was already taught in parshas Vayikra; however, there are two halachos that the Torah adds in this parshah to this topic.
In this week’s parshah the Torah tells us that the bechorim were replaced by the levi’im to serve in the Mikdash. The Torah says that there were 273 more bechorim than levi’im. Those bechorim could not simply be replaced, and had to be redeemed. Hashem told Moshe that each bechor should give five shekalim to Moshe, who, in turn, should give them to Aharon and his sons. With that, they would be redeemed.
In parshas Behar the Torah reiterates some of the halachos of ribbis, and teaches several new halachos as well. The pasuk says that one should not take ribbis from his fellow, he should fear God, “v’chei achicha imach – and your brother shall live with you.” The Gemara derives from the end of this pasuk that if one does charge ribbis and collects it, it must be returned.
This week I will be addressing a question from a previous column – with a new answer.
The pasuk in this week’s parshah (Vayikra 23:14) says, “V’lechem v’kali v’karmel lo sochlu ad etzem hayom hazeh ad haviachem es korban elokeichem – And you shall not eat bread [etc.] on this very day until you bring the offering of your God.” This pasuk teaches us that all of the five grains (wheat, spelt, rye, oats, and barley) are forbidden from the time they are harvested until after the korban omer is brought.
.
Both of this week’s parshiyos discuss the various arayos – forbidden relationships. The Gemara in Kiddushin 67b states that if one attempts to perform kiddushin on one of the arayos, the kiddushin is invalid.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/eidim-zomimim-conspiring-witnesses/2012/08/23/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online:
No related posts.