DansDeals.com Forums

DansDeals Forum => Just Shmooze => Topic started by: SuperFlyer on July 19, 2010, 04:34:48 AM

Title: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on July 19, 2010, 04:34:48 AM
Vicious Guy/Circle

Statements:

1) Every 'ayd' (witness) has to be (potentially) an 'ayd she'ato yochoyl lehazeemo', otherwise they are not accepted to begin with.

2) An 'ayd' that wants to give witness on the position/look of the moon, for the sake of 'ibur hachodesh', is allowed to desecrate shabbos.

Question:

Considering the above statements, every 'ayd' that is desecrating shabbos in order to testify by bes din, if they are being 'mazemd', that would mean that the 'ayd' (who knows that he is lying), was desecrating shabbos 'bemayzid', so they are  'resho'i'm' and there 'aydus' is nullified to begin with, so if its nullified, the 'ayday hazomo' are obsolete.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: aussiebochur on July 19, 2010, 05:44:50 AM
I'm not sure I understand.
In every case of aidim zommim, they themselves know that that are lying.
Same place that says "keep shabbos" says, " don't bear false witness", so by lying they become reshoim.
The idea youre suggesting would therefore apply to every case of aidim zommim.

What am I missing?
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on July 19, 2010, 06:13:29 AM
I'm not sure I understand.
In every case of aidim zommim, they themselves know that that are lying.
Same place that says "keep shabbos" says, " don't bear false witness", so by lying they become reshoim.
The idea youre suggesting would therefore apply to every case of aidim zommim.

What am I missing?


you are right, but what I wanted to say is that in a case where they were mechale shabbos (as we see later on), that means that they were posule aydim, and thus couldn't be mazim.

In other words, how can any ayd be mechalel shabos for kidush levono, as he becomes an ayd she'i ato yochol lehazimo.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: aussiebochur on July 19, 2010, 06:48:14 AM
Woops, I just realized that its Tisha Bav (for me).
Any discussion on the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, perhaps?
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: Lamdan on April 26, 2012, 02:42:31 PM
Vicious Guy/Circle

Statements:

1) Every 'ayd' (witness) has to be (potentially) an 'ayd she'ato yochoyl lehazeemo', otherwise they are not accepted to begin with.

2) An 'ayd' that wants to give witness on the position/look of the moon, for the sake of 'ibur hachodesh', is allowed to desecrate shabbos.

Question:

Considering the above statements, every 'ayd' that is desecrating shabbos in order to testify by bes din, if they are being 'mazemd', that would mean that the 'ayd' (who knows that he is lying), was desecrating shabbos 'bemayzid', so they are  'resho'i'm' and there 'aydus' is nullified to begin with, so if its nullified, the 'ayday hazomo' are obsolete.
If there's no aydim on the chillul shabbos he doesn't have a din rasha benogeia bes din, ain adam maisim atzmo rasha. And it could be ain hachi nami, if there's aydim to the chillul shabbos, it's aydus shein ata yachol lehazimam. P.S. for those wondering why i'm posting on such an old topic, Superflyer linked to it today.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: Lamdan on April 26, 2012, 02:48:41 PM
Vicious Guy/Circle

Statements:

1) Every 'ayd' (witness) has to be (potentially) an 'ayd she'ato yochoyl lehazeemo', otherwise they are not accepted to begin with.

2) An 'ayd' that wants to give witness on the position/look of the moon, for the sake of 'ibur hachodesh', is allowed to desecrate shabbos.

Question:

Considering the above statements, every 'ayd' that is desecrating shabbos in order to testify by bes din, if they are being 'mazemd', that would mean that the 'ayd' (who knows that he is lying), was desecrating shabbos 'bemayzid', so they are  'resho'i'm' and there 'aydus' is nullified to begin with, so if its nullified, the 'ayday hazomo' are obsolete.
veod yesh lomar, meheicha teisi benogeia other dinim we trust the eidim zomimin, lemashal if there were eidim to the claimed chilul shabbos with hasraah, i don't think we'll kill the nizamim, bec. the din of eidim zomimin, es ken zayn, was said legabey that eidus we believe the zomimin, so lefi zeh, the zomemin won't be believed that they were lying bemayzid, legabay chillul shabbos, so they wouldn't have a din rasha, so their eidus was valid, so their yachol lehazimam. vedo"k. :)
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on April 27, 2012, 06:10:23 AM
veod yesh lomar, meheicha teisi benogeia other dinim we trust the eidim zomimin, lemashal if there were eidim to the claimed chilul shabbos with hasraah, i don't think we'll kill the nizamim, bec. the din of eidim zomimin, es ken zayn, was said legabey that eidus we believe the zomimin, so lefi zeh, the zomemin won't be believed that they were lying bemayzid, legabay chillul shabbos, so they wouldn't have a din rasha, so their eidus was valid, so their yachol lehazimam. vedo"k. :)

didn't understand that part.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: mercaz1 on April 27, 2012, 08:58:43 AM
veod yesh lomar, meheicha teisi benogeia other dinim we trust the eidim zomimin, lemashal if there were eidim to the claimed chilul shabbos with hasraah, i don't think we'll kill the nizamim, bec. the din of eidim zomimin, es ken zayn, was said legabey that eidus we believe the zomimin, so lefi zeh, the zomemin won't be believed that they were lying bemayzid, legabay chillul shabbos, so they wouldn't have a din rasha, so their eidus was valid, so their yachol lehazimam. vedo"k. :)
there are more yeshivish words in this post than i have seen or said in about 5 years
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: dirah on April 28, 2012, 06:46:51 AM
2) An 'ayd' that wants to give witness on the position/look of the moon, for the sake of 'ibur hachodesh', is allowed to desecrate shabbos.
Just saw this thread.
I believe your founding premise is wrong.
The Halacha is that an Eyd who ALREADY SAW moon can be Mechallel Shabbos to travel to Beis Din.
[See R"H 21b, and Rambam Kiddush Hachodesh 3:2.]
I am not aware of any Halacha allowing one to be be Mechallel Shabbos IN ORDER to see the new moon.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on April 28, 2012, 05:38:35 PM
Just saw this thread.
I believe your founding premise is wrong.
The Halacha is that an Eyd who ALREADY SAW moon can be Mechallel Shabbos to travel to Beis Din.
[See R"H 21b, and Rambam Kiddush Hachodesh 3:2.]
I am not aware of any Halacha allowing one to be be Mechallel Shabbos IN ORDER to see the new moon.

Didn't formulate it correctly, but that's what I meant.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: dirah on April 28, 2012, 08:25:19 PM
Didn't formulate it correctly, but that's what I meant.
If so, what is the question?
At the moment when they (claim that they) saw the Eydus they were not yet Balei Aveira.
So it is Eydus Sheattoh Yochol L'Hazimah.
It is true that the Eidim can no longer be made Zomemim if they became Balei Aveira between when they saw the Eydus and when they were Me'id in Beis Din.
But the actual Eydus is Eydus Sheattoh Yochol L'Hazimah.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on April 28, 2012, 09:31:39 PM
Why were they not baalei aveiro (talking about them using the facility of chilul shabbos)?

They knew that they were lying, so obviously the chilul shabbes was not permissible + bemayzid.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: Lamdan on April 29, 2012, 12:37:42 AM
there are more yeshivish words in this post than i have seen or said in about 5 years
Lol
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: dirah on April 29, 2012, 07:32:55 AM
I reread your question, and I don’t think I understood it the first time. I think this is what you are asking:
If Kat Alef travelled on Shabbos in order to testify in B”D, and afterwards Kat Beis came and were Mazim Kat Alef. That would mean that Kat Alef were Mechalel Shabbos B’Meyzid and are Reshoim. This means that Kat Alef were Pesullim L'Eidus at the time that they were Me'id in B"D, and obviously cannot become Muzomim.

If that is your question, then I propose that the Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvah 4) has a much bigger question, whose answers are good for your question as well.

Question:
There is no Din Hazomoh by Kiddush Hachodesh at all. [See Rambam Kiddush Hachodesh 2:2.] How can there be any Eydus by Kiddush Hachodesh if there is no Din Hazomo?

Answers:
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on May 02, 2012, 12:59:05 PM
Oh, that would answer how someone can give aydus, which being that the witnesses, throught their own aydus, become bar mitsva, and thus elegible to give aydus.(They have their birthday on day 1 of the new month).

Now the problem would be that if they are being mazemd, they are still 12, and not valid for aydus, so obviously not mazimable.

The above answer, also answer this question.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on May 02, 2012, 12:59:30 PM
Well said dirah.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: PlatinumGuy on May 14, 2012, 01:13:33 PM
@Lamdan the mishna in R"h 20a (not sure I got that right) discusses a story of 40 pairs who stopped by at one of the tanoomin on their way to be meid on the same shabbos. In that case it will be very hard to assume there weren't eideim about the chillul shabbos.

@dirah, the Kheloy Yaakov in R'H siman 20 proves eidues shey ata yachol lehazeima is meacev also in kiddush hachodesh, from tosfos in Kesovos 20a that explains the halacha of ein ed naasa dayan is because that way it is eidus shey ata yachol lehazima. Since ein eid naasa dayan also in kiddush hachodesh, we see from tosfos eidua shey ata yachol lehazima is passul by kiddush hachodes.
Also what u quote from R Shmuel that eidus shey ata yachol lehazima is based on being mevatel there eidus, is basically a rashi in Sanhderin 40a. However, this would still not answer the rebbes question, as in his case the eidus would not be void due to the eidim being muzamim, rather due to them being passul leidus.
Even though we used hazomo to arrive at that conclusion, since we now know they are not eidem at all, they are eidem zommim, and the process was thus not a genuine hazomo. So even according to Rashis opinion it is lechorah an eidus shey ata yachol lehzsima.


Standing on Lamdan's pshat, I think the answer is that even if there are other eidem to prove the chilul shabbos, the eidem are innocent until proven guilty. Thus, we can be mekabel their eidus on the assumption of being meizem them. (Ein adam karov etzel atzomo, so we don't trust them about coming on shabbos).
Even if later eidem came to testify that they came to BD on shabbos, the eidus would remain acceptable as at the time of eidus it was kosher and roy lehzama. The only problem would be if we first accepted the testimony of those who say the eidem came on shabbos.
That would be impossible, as so long as we don't have eidi hazomo, we assume they are honest, and thus coming on shabbos is not chillul shabbos. Hence the testimony about their travelling on shabbos serves no purpose (as they remain kosher), and from the sugya of chetzi davar we know that we don't hear eidus without practical implications.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: Lamdan on May 14, 2012, 11:12:17 PM
@Lamdan the mishna in R"h 20a (not sure I got that right) discusses a story of 40 pairs who stopped by at one of the tanoomin on their way to be meid on the same shabbos. In that case it will be very hard to assume there weren't eideim about the chillul shabbos.
Brilliant! Great "chap", nice Mareh Makom.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on May 15, 2012, 03:38:50 AM
What means (care to elaborate): In that case it will be very hard to assume there weren't eideim about the chillul shabbos.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on May 15, 2012, 03:40:21 AM
What means (care to elaborate): In that case it will be very hard to assume there weren't eideim about the chillul shabbos.

I didn't look at the gemoro, but unless its very clear, you would have to assume that they are not mechalel shabbos.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: PlatinumGuy on May 15, 2012, 06:10:59 AM
What means (care to elaborate): In that case it will be very hard to assume there weren't eideim about the chillul shabbos.
Since these 40 pairs walked through the taana's house in a city, it would be a big doichak to assume there weren't eidem to prove their being mechalel shaboos.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on May 15, 2012, 10:02:37 AM
Since these 40 pairs walked through the taana's house in a city, it would be a big doichak to assume there weren't eidem to prove their being mechalel shaboos.

Why is that? unless I got the whole story wrong.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: PlatinumGuy on May 15, 2012, 11:39:37 AM
Why is that? unless I got the whole story wrong.
80 eidem were walking in pairs from town X to BD in J'lem, and all stopped in town Y on the way to speak to a taana.
Its very hard to assume there were no 2 eidem who saw any of those 80 people going, which would be enough to testify to his being mechallel shabbos & thus a rasha
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on May 15, 2012, 06:09:18 PM
Were they going over the tchum? Otherwise what aveiro were they doing.

40 pairs, and not just one mega pair, so even if one is passeld, the 39 other pairs are still valid.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: PlatinumGuy on May 15, 2012, 06:25:33 PM
Were they going over the tchum? Otherwise what aveiro were they doing.

40 pairs, and not just one mega pair, so even if one is passeld, the 39 other pairs are still valid.
Yes, over the techum. That's why after 40 he didn't let the rest go.

40 pairs and we know all were kosher, as otherwise the taana wouldn't have let them be mechallel shabbos to go.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on May 15, 2012, 06:30:24 PM
Yes, over the techum. That's why after 40 he didn't let the rest go.

40 pairs and we know all were kosher, as otherwise the taana wouldn't have let them be mechallel shabbos to go.

the tana made drishos vachakiros ?
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: PlatinumGuy on May 15, 2012, 07:12:54 PM
the tana made drishos vachakiros ?
No, but he knew what was going on. So if they would be passul and their eidus not accepted he wouldn't have let them be mechalled shabbos to go to BD
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: dirah on May 15, 2012, 07:34:00 PM
the Kheloy Yaakov in R'H siman 20 proves eidues shey ata yachol lehazeima is meacev also in kiddush hachodesh, from tosfos in Kesovos 20a that explains the halacha of ein ed naasa dayan is because that way it is eidus shey ata yachol lehazima. Since ein eid naasa dayan also in kiddush hachodesh, we see from tosfos eidua shey ata yachol lehazima is passul by kiddush hachodes.
You probably mean תוספות כתובות כ"א עמוד ב' ד"ה אין עד.
I don’t know who the “Kheloy Yaakov” is (misspelling?), but I suppose he is basing himself on the יש מפרשים in that Tosfos. If that is the case, I refer you to Beis Halevi (3:6:4 – here is a link (http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=590&st=&pgnum=400&hilite=)) who learns Tosfos differently. In a nutshell, he says that there is clearly no דין הזמה by קידוש החודש. Therefore, the פשט in Tosfos is that because there is the כלל of אין עד נעשה דיין (based on the דין הזמה) by דיני נפשות ודיני ממונות, therefore, by קידוש החדש there is also the דין of אין עד נעשה דיין. The reason for this is that we have to make equal דיני העדויות as much as possible (based on the פסוק of משפט אחד יהיה לכם), unless there is a clear גזירת הכתוב to the contrary. There is a גזירת הכתוב saying that there is no דין הזמה by קידוש החודש, however, there is no such גזירת הכתוב with regards to the כלל of אין עד נעשה דיין.
In short, there is a דין of אין עד נעשה דיין by קידוש החדש (which is derived בעלמא from עדות שאתה יכול להזימה), but there is not a דין of עדות שאתה יכול להזימה by קידוש החדש.
Also what u quote from R Shmuel that eidus shey ata yachol lehazima is based on being mevatel there eidus, is basically a rashi in Sanhderin 40a. However, this would still not answer the rebbes question, as in his case the eidus would not be void due to the eidim being muzamim, rather due to them being passul leidus. Even though we used hazomo to arrive at that conclusion, since we now know they are not eidem at all, they are eidem zommim, and the process was thus not a genuine hazomo. So even according to Rashis opinion it is lechorah an eidus shey ata yachol lehzsima.
Again, Reb Shmuel says (did you look it up?) that the דין הזמה itself carries within it two ענינים, one is that the עדות becomes בטל, second that there is the עונש of הזמה. The דין of עדות שאתה יכול להזימה is only regarding the first detail, not the second.
Now, in our case, the fact that Kat Alef were פסול לעשות at the time that they were מעיד is irrelevant to the first detail, and is relevant only to the second. Therefore, it is considered עדות שאתה יכול להזימה. [And I don't see how the מראה מקום to רש"י in סנהדרין is relevant.]
P.S. I hope the readers don’t mind the Hebrew type, it is just easier to do it that way, then to figure out how to spell it in English. [I imagine anyone reading this thread would not be the type to mind.]
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: dirah on May 15, 2012, 07:50:58 PM
Standing on Lamdan's pshat, I think the answer is that even if there are other eidem to prove the chilul shabbos, the eidem are innocent until proven guilty. Thus, we can be mekabel their eidus on the assumption of being meizem them. (Ein adam karov etzel atzomo, so we don't trust them about coming on shabbos).
Even if later eidem came to testify that they came to BD on shabbos, the eidus would remain acceptable as at the time of eidus it was kosher and roy lehzama. The only problem would be if we first accepted the testimony of those who say the eidem came on shabbos.
That would be impossible, as so long as we don't have eidi hazomo, we assume they are honest, and thus coming on shabbos is not chillul shabbos. Hence the testimony about their travelling on shabbos serves no purpose (as they remain kosher), and from the sugya of chetzi davar we know that we don't hear eidus without practical implications.
According to what you say, we would accept  עדי קידוש החדש on שבת only if it was not yet established in בית דין that they came on שבת. Such a big נפק"מ להלכה should appear in ש"ס or in רמב"ם. Since it doesn't, this answer can't be right.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: PlatinumGuy on May 15, 2012, 07:53:35 PM
@dirah, I meant the kehilos yaakov.

I quite disagree - if the eid was determined passul, the eidus is batel because he is not an eid, not because of the geziras hakosov not to rely on eidem zommemim. Thus there is no eidus at all, and even in regard to the first detail above it is not roei lehazama.
According to what you say, we would accept  עדי קידוש החדש on שבת only if it was not yet established in בית דין that they came on שבת. Such a big נפק"מ להלכה should appear in ש"ס or in רמב"ם. Since it doesn't, this answer can't be right.
As I pointed out, it is impossible to establish that in beis din, as beis din don't hear eidus when there is no nafka mina on hand, since we don't yet know they are lying their coming on shabbos is not chillul shabbos, so since there is no relevence to it, BD cannot determine if they came on shabbos
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: dirah on May 15, 2012, 08:02:05 PM
@dirah, I meant the kehilos yaakov.
 
I will IYH look it up later. Although I don’t know how on earth anyone could say that there is a דין הזמה by קידוש החדש, it is a ירושלמי מפורש, and therefore the רמב"ם paskens accordingly.
I quite disagree - if the eid was determined passul, the eidus is batel because he is not an eid, not because of the geziras hakosov not to rely on eidem zommemim. Thus there is no eidus at all, and even in regard to the first detail above it is not roei lehazama.
Reb Shmuel vs. PlatinumGuy … lol … I’ll stick with Reb Shmuel, especially as it answers the questions.
As I pointed out, it is impossible to establish that in beis din, as beis din don't hear eidus when there is no nafka mina on hand, since we don't yet know they are lying their coming on shabbos is not chillul shabbos, so since there is no relevence to it, BD cannot determine if they came on shabbos
What about Beis Din Shero’u – if they saw it with their own eyes? Or it was a case where there was a Nafka Minah? Leave it to the Bochurim to think of a Heicha Timtza over lunch.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: PlatinumGuy on May 15, 2012, 08:17:04 PM
I will IYH look it up later. Although I don’t know how on earth anyone could say that there is a דין הזמה by קידוש החדש, it is a ירושלמי מפורש, and therefore the רמב"ם paskens accordingly.Reb Shmuel vs. PlatinumGuy … lol … I’ll stick with Reb Shmuel, especially as it answers the questions.What about Beis Din Shero’u – if they saw it with their own eyes? Or it was a case where there was a Nafka Minah? Leave it to the Bochurim to think of a Heicha Timtza over lunch.
Reb Shmuel doesn't say in a case where the eidem were also found reshaim it is considered hazama. All R Shmuel says is that what's required is not the punishment, but the voidment of the eidus because of the geizara haksov of eidem zommemim. This is a Rashi on Sanhedrin 40a, who says eidus shei ata yachol lehazima is passul because its lacking an element of eidus (kinda like roi leibila).

In this scenario the reason there is no eidus is not because of them being zommemim, but because they are not eidem at all. The method that was determined doesn't turn them into eidem zommemim. Thus this eidus is ei ata yachol lehazima, as there is no possibilty to void their eidus becaue they are zommemim.



Even if there was a heicha timtza, you can't bring a rayeh from the Rambam/Shu'a not discussing that specific case. So I will argue that in that heicha timtza, the eidus will be passul.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on May 16, 2012, 03:53:51 AM
I believe Plat makes more sense.

Ultimately the question is (if it wasn't clear before), how can anyone give eidus on kidush levana when doing a melocho on shabbes, since it can never be muzam, which is a basic requirement for their acceptance by bes din.

PS: using the hebrew fonts is great.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: shmuelb on May 16, 2012, 02:07:00 PM
What about Beis Din Shero’u – if they saw it with their own eyes? Or it was a case where there was a Nafka Minah? Leave it to the Bochurim to think of a Heicha Timtza over lunch.

How can they see that the chillul Shabbos was b'meizid? How can they give hasraah? Let's say they the eidim coming off a plane, without hasraa how do they shtel avek that it was b'meizid? Maybe they had another heter?

Sorry, I did not learn this sugyas in years and never really learnt it up.

The demographics here allow for some good lomdishe reid with the gemarakups here.  :)
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: Lamdan on May 16, 2012, 02:26:51 PM
Earlier in this thread I wrote a post starting with the words "veod yesh lomar", I don't think it was written well, but I think it's a good תירוץ, so let me rewrite it. There is no reason logically to trust the second pair of witnesses that claims the 1st pair is lying, it is a גזירת הכתוב. Therefore, it is possible to say, that we only believe them over the 1st pair לגבי the testimony that the 1st pair testified, and we'll disqualify the 1st pair's testimony. But the 1st pair won't have a din rasha, because לגבי wether they were michalel shabbos we don't believe the 2nd pair over the 1st, the גזירת הכתוב doesn't extend to believing the 2nd pair לגבי anything else that's a פועל יוצא of their testimony.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: asd on May 16, 2012, 02:56:01 PM
@lamdan there is a whole sugya about eidus lechatzoin when something is preventing us from believing the whole eidus lemoshol if he implacates himself in the eidus (ploiny ruvany lirtzoiny) but lechoira your sevara is true nonetheless because here the eidus of zoimimim is specifc to the eidus the whole neemunes is only benogaiah the eidus and the chillul shabbos was never part of their eidus just derech agav, or maybe not
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: PlatinumGuy on May 16, 2012, 03:04:04 PM
How can they see that the chillul Shabbos was b'meizid? How can they give hasraah? Let's say they the eidim coming off a plane, without hasraa how do they shtel avek that it was b'meizid? Maybe they had another heter?

Sorry, I did not learn this sugyas in years and never really learnt it up.

The demographics here allow for some good lomdishe reid with the gemarakups here.  :)
Huh? What does hasraa have to do with passul leidus? One is passul leidus even if he is oiver an averah w/o hasraa.

A person is neeman when he says mezid haysi, see rishonim Makkos 2a why that's so.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: Lamdan on May 16, 2012, 03:34:59 PM
@lamdan there is a whole sugya about eidus lechatzoin when something is preventing us from believing the whole eidus lemoshol if he implacates himself in the eidus (ploiny ruvany lirtzoiny) but lechoira your sevara is true nonetheless because here the eidus of zoimimim is specifc to the eidus the whole neemunes is only benogaiah the eidus and the chillul shabbos was never part of their eidus just derech agav, or maybe not
Thanx for being maskim. There is a yesod from the Bais Halevi, that if you're traveling between two big cities and you don't meet anyone on the way, it's because you're on the wrong route, so too in learning if no one agrees with you it's bec. you have the wrong mehalech.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: shmuelb on May 16, 2012, 04:37:42 PM
Earlier in this thread I wrote a post starting with the words "veod yesh lomar", I don't think it was written well, but I think it's a good תירוץ, so let me rewrite it. There is no reason logically to trust the second pair of witnesses that claims the 1st pair is lying, it is a גזירת הכתוב.

From what I remember, there is a sevara that you can not be meid about yourself. That is why "imanu hayisem" works to be mazim but "nirtzach haya imanu" etc does not work.

An example of what you are waying can be why in the Mishna in Makos, 6b

Quote
מתני' היו שנים רואין אותו מחלון זה ושנים רואין אותו מחלון זה ואחד מתרה בו באמצע בזמן שמקצתן רואין אלו את אלו הרי אלו עדות אחת ואם לאו הרי אלו שתי עדיות לפיכך אם נמצאת אחת מהן זוממת הוא והן נהרגין והשניה פטורה

you can ask how it was one Kat if they were not there so they never really saw each other?

With your answer, ken zein you can say that the mazimim are not neeman legabey that. Ayin b'Ktzos, Rav Chaim and more iirc.
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: PlatinumGuy on May 16, 2012, 04:56:38 PM
Earlier in this thread I wrote a post starting with the words "veod yesh lomar", I don't think it was written well, but I think it's a good תירוץ, so let me rewrite it. There is no reason logically to trust the second pair of witnesses that claims the 1st pair is lying, it is a גזירת הכתוב. Therefore, it is possible to say, that we only believe them over the 1st pair לגבי the testimony that the 1st pair testified, and we'll disqualify the 1st pair's testimony. But the 1st pair won't have a din rasha, because לגבי wether they were michalel shabbos we don't believe the 2nd pair over the 1st, the גזירת הכתוב doesn't extend to believing the 2nd pair לגבי anything else that's a פועל יוצא of their testimony.
Assuming we have another pair of eidem to testify that they came on shabbos, the only question remaining to determine if they were mechallel shabbos is if they were meid trully or falsely.

So basically, what you're saying is that in geizars haksov of eidem zommemim not to believe them in this eidus, we reckon the eidus was false for all ramifications such as what day yo'k is, and even about their eidus itself (hence we give them malkus), + they become passul for future eidus (B'K 74a) but we still mantain they were truthfull when judging if they were mechallel shabbos for a true eidus?
זה לא עובד ככה :)
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: shmuelb on May 18, 2012, 04:00:18 AM
Quote
זה לא עובד ככה

Thanks for the smile. Is that not how palginan diburei works?
Title: Re: Vicious Guy/Circle
Post by: SuperFlyer on May 18, 2012, 04:09:27 AM
Thanks for the smile. Is that not how palginan diburei works?

correct me if I'm wrong, but this palginon diburei seems to work only when we split the story on the etsem act, not something (semi) separate, such as mechalel shabbos, or any other deed that qualify them as resho'im.