- עדים זוממין who testified about adultery, claiming "לאוסרה על בעלה באנו"
Rav Chanan said that עדים who testified that a נערה מאוסרה committed adultery, and the עדים were found zomemin, they are not killed, מתוך שיכולים לומר לאוסרה על בעלה באנו – because they can say, “We only came to prohibit her to her husband, not to kill her.” Since their intent was not to have her killed, they cannot be killed for "כאשר זמם". The Gemara asks that if they warned her beforehand, they obviously intended to have her executed, and it answers that they did not warn her. Although התראה is normally required, the case is באשה חבירה – with a learned woman, and follows Rebbe Yose bar Rebbe Yehudah’s opinion, that a scholar does not require a warning, לפי שלא נתנה התראה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד – because התראה was only given to distinguish between a mistaken transgressor and an intentional one. The Gemara concludes that if the עדים would not be executed for hazamah, the woman herself cannot be killed based on their testimony, because it is עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה – testimony that cannot be discredited through hazamah (with its accompanying punishment), which is invalid.
- Which בדיקות invalidate testimony for conflicting answers
The Mishnah taught that if עדים give conflicting answers to בדיקות (secondary questions about the event’s details), their testimony is void (a Baraisa below derives this from "נכון" – correct, שיהא נכון – that [the testimony] should be correct, i.e., consistent). Rav Chisda says that if one witness said a murder was committed with a knife, and the other said it was with an axe, אין זה נכון – this testimony is not consistent, but if they answered differently whether his clothes were black or white, the testimony is valid, because this is a peripheral detail. Rav Chisda is challenged from Baraisos invalidating testimony for conflicting answers about the color of the murderer’s clothes or shoes, and the Gemara answers that these were used to kill the victim (through strangling or kicking, respectively). He is then challenged from our Mishnah, in which Ben Zakkai questioned witnesses about the stems of figs, and a Baraisa adds that he asked about the color of the figs themselves (which cannot be a murder weapon), and the Gemara concedes that Ben Zakkai himself equates secondary בדיקות with primary חקירות, and any conflicting response disqualifies their testimony.
- Why unanswered חקירות disqualify testimony, but unanswered בדיקות do not
Rav Kahana and Rav Safra were learning Maseches Sanhedrin In Rabbah’s Yeshivah, and Rami bar Chama asked them what novelty they had learned there. They asked him what difficulty he had, and he replied that he was troubled by our Mishnah, which teaches that if a witness cannot answer a חקירה (question about the event’s time and place), the testimony is invalid, but if he cannot answer a בדיקה (question about details), it remains valid. Since both types of questions are Biblically required, what difference is there between them? They answered that regarding חקירות, if a question remains unanswered, the testimony is disqualified, דהויא לה עדות שאי אתה יכול להזימה – because it is a testimony which is impossible to discredit through hazamah, since the time and place of their testimony is not established. Regarding בדיקות, however, the testimony can be refuted through hazamah even if questions remain unanswered. Rami bar Chama remarked: אי הכי אמריתו בה – if you said this about [the laws of sanhedrin], טובא אמריתו בה – you have said much about it! They replied: מטיבותיה דמר אמרינן בה טובא – because of Master’s goodness, we have said much about it, מנזיהותיה דמר לא אמרינן בה ולא חדא – but if you had confronted us, we would not have been able to tell you anything about it.