Sanhedrin Daf 27 - Eidim Zomemin L'mafrei'a
Summary
- Sanhedrin 27 centers on two of the YALKGM rulings where the halacha follows Abaye: the retroactive disqualification of an ed zomem and the disqualification of a mumar ochel nevelot le-hach’is, and it develops the competing rationales of Abaye and Rava, practical nafka minot, and the final pesak. It then anchors the Abaye ruling against the general rule favoring Rabbi Yosi over Rabbi Meir by identifying a stam Mishnah like Rabbi Meir through the Bar Chama episode. It concludes with a Mishnah detailing psulei kerovim, major rishon-level disputes about the scope of de’oraita vs. derabbanan disqualifications and about descendants across generations, concrete relationship-cases and timing rules, and the derashic source from “Lo yumtu avot al banim.”
- Abaye says an ed who becomes an ed zomem is disqualified le-mipre’a because he is a rasha and “Al tashet rasha ed,” and the Ran limits retroactivity to oral testimony while conceding that in shtarot we cannot backdate the pesul since a shtar me’uchar remains valid. Rava says “mi-kan u-le-haba” because ed zomem is a ḥiddush—“ein lekha bo ela mi-sha’at ḥidusho”—since we believe the second pair despite standard “trei u-trei,” while the Tur (CM 38) reports Abaye’s response that it is not a ḥiddush since the second pair testifies about the first pair’s presence and incapacity rather than contra the event, and the Lechem Mishneh reads the Gemara’s “ḥiddush” characterization as only per Rava. Tosafot (Bava Kamma 72b) asks that if it is a ḥiddush limited to what the Torah stated (“ka’asher zamam”), perhaps there is no pesul edut at all, and answers that kal va-ḥomer one who is subject to “ka’asher zamam” cannot remain a trusted witness.
- # Mumar Ochel Nevelot: Le-ta’avon vs. Le-hach’is
- The sugya aligns the dispute with Rabbi Meir vs. Rabbi Yosi on extending pesul from a davar kal to a davar ḥamur and vice versa, categorizing ra la-shamayim versus ra la-beriyot, and then limits that alignment: Abaye and Rava do not argue about Rabbi Yosi’s principle; they argue within Rabbi Meir whether ra la-shamayim alone triggers broader pesul like edei zomemim of mamon, which are both ra la-shamayim and ra la-beriyot. The halacha follows Abaye that an ochel nevelot le-hach’is is pasul le-edut, and the earlier t’yuvta is assigned to Rabbi Yosi’s view, while the general rule “Rabbi Meir ve-Rabbi Yosi, halacha ke-Rabbi Yosi” is overridden here because a stam Mishnah follows Rabbi Meir.
- Bar Chama killed someone, the Reish Galuta tasked Rav Abba bar Yaakov to enforce strong penalties if guilt were certain, two witnesses testified to murder, and Bar Chama produced two witnesses who invalidated one accuser by proving theft. Rav Pappa challenged the move based on the rule that Rabbi Meir vs. Rabbi Yosi yields halacha like Rabbi Yosi (who holds that chashud al ha-mamon remains kasher for dinei nefashot), and he answered that here a stam Mishnah follows Rabbi Meir, not Rabbi Yosi. A proposed proof from Niddah about who may judge was rejected as about psulei yuchasin, and the conclusive stam was “Elu hen ha-psulin: ha-mesachek be-kubya, malvei be-ribit, mafrichei yonim, socharei shevi’it, va-avadim… zeh ha-kelal: kol edut she-ein isha keshera lah af hen ein kesherin lah,” which, if like Rabbi Yosi, would produce cases of dinei nefashot where women are pesulot yet these men are kesherim. Bar Chama rewarded Rav Papi, and the Yad Ramah justifies this as sahar for an advocate rather than shochad to a dayan, while the Rosh notes that talmidei ḥakhamim are exempt from taxes, nullifying any monetary impropriety.
- The sugya frames three avenues of kinship—paternal, maternal, and marriage—with the Rambam (Edut 13) ruling de’oraita pesul only on the paternal side and maternal and affinity relations as derabbanan, while the Rashba in teshuva treats all three as de’oraita. The Meiri counts father and son as rishon be-rishon (like brothers), yielding that a person may testify for a great-grandparent (rishon be-shelishi), whereas the Rashbam holds that “yotz’ei yerecho shel adam” remain pasul ad le-olam afilu ad elef dorot.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions