Eidim Zomemim in a case of seeing a new moon
As discussed in Maseches Rosh Hashanah, if two witnesses saw the new moon, they'd go to Beis Din to testify they saw it and Beis Din would then declare when Rosh Chodesh would be.
But what if these witnesses were found to be eidim zomememim? An initial assumption we could make is to say it falls into the general criteria taught in Makkos 2a of what to do when we can't really apply "v'aseesem lo ka'asher zamam":
ויש עדים זוממין אחרים שאין עושין בהן דין הזמה כל עיקר אלא מלקות ארבעים
And there are other conspiring witnesses with regard to whom the court does not apply the halakhot governing the cases of conspiring testimony at all, and they do not receive the punishment they sought to have inflicted. Rather, they receive forty lashes.
But... can we actually apply this reasoning to witnesses for a new moon? We can make a distinction that Makkos 2a is an eidus that will inflict damage in someone, either literally or financially.
However, witnesses for a new moon are NOT testifying against a person but rather about an event and (apologies if I may be mistaken), but even if Beis Din decrees what is literally the wrong day, Beis Din's decree wins out even over the actual metzius- ie even if the witnesses were liars it's irrelevant since we follow what BD says and l'maaseh it would turn out they wouldn't be harming anyone.
B'kitzur: what would happen the case of eidim zomemim for a new moon, and if they get a punishment- what would it be?
beit-din-court rosh-chodesh-new-month sheker-false edim-witnesses
add a comment |
As discussed in Maseches Rosh Hashanah, if two witnesses saw the new moon, they'd go to Beis Din to testify they saw it and Beis Din would then declare when Rosh Chodesh would be.
But what if these witnesses were found to be eidim zomememim? An initial assumption we could make is to say it falls into the general criteria taught in Makkos 2a of what to do when we can't really apply "v'aseesem lo ka'asher zamam":
ויש עדים זוממין אחרים שאין עושין בהן דין הזמה כל עיקר אלא מלקות ארבעים
And there are other conspiring witnesses with regard to whom the court does not apply the halakhot governing the cases of conspiring testimony at all, and they do not receive the punishment they sought to have inflicted. Rather, they receive forty lashes.
But... can we actually apply this reasoning to witnesses for a new moon? We can make a distinction that Makkos 2a is an eidus that will inflict damage in someone, either literally or financially.
However, witnesses for a new moon are NOT testifying against a person but rather about an event and (apologies if I may be mistaken), but even if Beis Din decrees what is literally the wrong day, Beis Din's decree wins out even over the actual metzius- ie even if the witnesses were liars it's irrelevant since we follow what BD says and l'maaseh it would turn out they wouldn't be harming anyone.
B'kitzur: what would happen the case of eidim zomemim for a new moon, and if they get a punishment- what would it be?
beit-din-court rosh-chodesh-new-month sheker-false edim-witnesses
1
What would be a case of eidim zomemim by eidus hachodesh? You were inside with us all night in a house with no windows?
– DonielF
2 hours ago
@DonielF could be that, sleeping, or any case where imanu hayisem would preclude them from seeing the new moon
– alicht
2 hours ago
1
Just occurred to me that Bava Kama 4b might be a proof to the logic you employ in the paragraph following the quote. As Eidim Zomemim is explicitly considered a type of "damage," maybe it doesn't apply when no damage is done. Maybe, as such, the most that could be done is label them as false witnesses and therefore they get makkos.
– DonielF
1 hour ago
1
@DonielF very solid svara #thumbsupemoji
– alicht
1 hour ago
1
Shame I don't have an actual source for it that I feel comfortable posting it as an answer. I'm on a roll with these kinds of comments on your questions, aren't I? :)
– DonielF
1 hour ago
add a comment |
As discussed in Maseches Rosh Hashanah, if two witnesses saw the new moon, they'd go to Beis Din to testify they saw it and Beis Din would then declare when Rosh Chodesh would be.
But what if these witnesses were found to be eidim zomememim? An initial assumption we could make is to say it falls into the general criteria taught in Makkos 2a of what to do when we can't really apply "v'aseesem lo ka'asher zamam":
ויש עדים זוממין אחרים שאין עושין בהן דין הזמה כל עיקר אלא מלקות ארבעים
And there are other conspiring witnesses with regard to whom the court does not apply the halakhot governing the cases of conspiring testimony at all, and they do not receive the punishment they sought to have inflicted. Rather, they receive forty lashes.
But... can we actually apply this reasoning to witnesses for a new moon? We can make a distinction that Makkos 2a is an eidus that will inflict damage in someone, either literally or financially.
However, witnesses for a new moon are NOT testifying against a person but rather about an event and (apologies if I may be mistaken), but even if Beis Din decrees what is literally the wrong day, Beis Din's decree wins out even over the actual metzius- ie even if the witnesses were liars it's irrelevant since we follow what BD says and l'maaseh it would turn out they wouldn't be harming anyone.
B'kitzur: what would happen the case of eidim zomemim for a new moon, and if they get a punishment- what would it be?
beit-din-court rosh-chodesh-new-month sheker-false edim-witnesses
As discussed in Maseches Rosh Hashanah, if two witnesses saw the new moon, they'd go to Beis Din to testify they saw it and Beis Din would then declare when Rosh Chodesh would be.
But what if these witnesses were found to be eidim zomememim? An initial assumption we could make is to say it falls into the general criteria taught in Makkos 2a of what to do when we can't really apply "v'aseesem lo ka'asher zamam":
ויש עדים זוממין אחרים שאין עושין בהן דין הזמה כל עיקר אלא מלקות ארבעים
And there are other conspiring witnesses with regard to whom the court does not apply the halakhot governing the cases of conspiring testimony at all, and they do not receive the punishment they sought to have inflicted. Rather, they receive forty lashes.
But... can we actually apply this reasoning to witnesses for a new moon? We can make a distinction that Makkos 2a is an eidus that will inflict damage in someone, either literally or financially.
However, witnesses for a new moon are NOT testifying against a person but rather about an event and (apologies if I may be mistaken), but even if Beis Din decrees what is literally the wrong day, Beis Din's decree wins out even over the actual metzius- ie even if the witnesses were liars it's irrelevant since we follow what BD says and l'maaseh it would turn out they wouldn't be harming anyone.
B'kitzur: what would happen the case of eidim zomemim for a new moon, and if they get a punishment- what would it be?
beit-din-court rosh-chodesh-new-month sheker-false edim-witnesses
beit-din-court rosh-chodesh-new-month sheker-false edim-witnesses
asked 2 hours ago
alichtalicht
53612
53612
1
What would be a case of eidim zomemim by eidus hachodesh? You were inside with us all night in a house with no windows?
– DonielF
2 hours ago
@DonielF could be that, sleeping, or any case where imanu hayisem would preclude them from seeing the new moon
– alicht
2 hours ago
1
Just occurred to me that Bava Kama 4b might be a proof to the logic you employ in the paragraph following the quote. As Eidim Zomemim is explicitly considered a type of "damage," maybe it doesn't apply when no damage is done. Maybe, as such, the most that could be done is label them as false witnesses and therefore they get makkos.
– DonielF
1 hour ago
1
@DonielF very solid svara #thumbsupemoji
– alicht
1 hour ago
1
Shame I don't have an actual source for it that I feel comfortable posting it as an answer. I'm on a roll with these kinds of comments on your questions, aren't I? :)
– DonielF
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
What would be a case of eidim zomemim by eidus hachodesh? You were inside with us all night in a house with no windows?
– DonielF
2 hours ago
@DonielF could be that, sleeping, or any case where imanu hayisem would preclude them from seeing the new moon
– alicht
2 hours ago
1
Just occurred to me that Bava Kama 4b might be a proof to the logic you employ in the paragraph following the quote. As Eidim Zomemim is explicitly considered a type of "damage," maybe it doesn't apply when no damage is done. Maybe, as such, the most that could be done is label them as false witnesses and therefore they get makkos.
– DonielF
1 hour ago
1
@DonielF very solid svara #thumbsupemoji
– alicht
1 hour ago
1
Shame I don't have an actual source for it that I feel comfortable posting it as an answer. I'm on a roll with these kinds of comments on your questions, aren't I? :)
– DonielF
1 hour ago
1
1
What would be a case of eidim zomemim by eidus hachodesh? You were inside with us all night in a house with no windows?
– DonielF
2 hours ago
What would be a case of eidim zomemim by eidus hachodesh? You were inside with us all night in a house with no windows?
– DonielF
2 hours ago
@DonielF could be that, sleeping, or any case where imanu hayisem would preclude them from seeing the new moon
– alicht
2 hours ago
@DonielF could be that, sleeping, or any case where imanu hayisem would preclude them from seeing the new moon
– alicht
2 hours ago
1
1
Just occurred to me that Bava Kama 4b might be a proof to the logic you employ in the paragraph following the quote. As Eidim Zomemim is explicitly considered a type of "damage," maybe it doesn't apply when no damage is done. Maybe, as such, the most that could be done is label them as false witnesses and therefore they get makkos.
– DonielF
1 hour ago
Just occurred to me that Bava Kama 4b might be a proof to the logic you employ in the paragraph following the quote. As Eidim Zomemim is explicitly considered a type of "damage," maybe it doesn't apply when no damage is done. Maybe, as such, the most that could be done is label them as false witnesses and therefore they get makkos.
– DonielF
1 hour ago
1
1
@DonielF very solid svara #thumbsupemoji
– alicht
1 hour ago
@DonielF very solid svara #thumbsupemoji
– alicht
1 hour ago
1
1
Shame I don't have an actual source for it that I feel comfortable posting it as an answer. I'm on a roll with these kinds of comments on your questions, aren't I? :)
– DonielF
1 hour ago
Shame I don't have an actual source for it that I feel comfortable posting it as an answer. I'm on a roll with these kinds of comments on your questions, aren't I? :)
– DonielF
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
According to Rabbi Akiva Eiger, (Shu"t RA"E Mahadura Kama 176, cited here) they are not punished by the hand of man:
וגם משום מלקות, נראה דלא לקו, דלא שייך בזה 'לא תענה ברעך' דהא לא העידו כלל על רעהו להפסידו בשום דבר
And also with regard to lashes, it would appear that they were not lashed, for [the verse - Exodus 20:12] "though shalt not testify against thine fellow [false testimony]" is not applicable [in this case], for indeed they did not testify against [their] fellow abouth anything
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
According to Rabbi Akiva Eiger, (Shu"t RA"E Mahadura Kama 176, cited here) they are not punished by the hand of man:
וגם משום מלקות, נראה דלא לקו, דלא שייך בזה 'לא תענה ברעך' דהא לא העידו כלל על רעהו להפסידו בשום דבר
And also with regard to lashes, it would appear that they were not lashed, for [the verse - Exodus 20:12] "though shalt not testify against thine fellow [false testimony]" is not applicable [in this case], for indeed they did not testify against [their] fellow abouth anything
add a comment |
According to Rabbi Akiva Eiger, (Shu"t RA"E Mahadura Kama 176, cited here) they are not punished by the hand of man:
וגם משום מלקות, נראה דלא לקו, דלא שייך בזה 'לא תענה ברעך' דהא לא העידו כלל על רעהו להפסידו בשום דבר
And also with regard to lashes, it would appear that they were not lashed, for [the verse - Exodus 20:12] "though shalt not testify against thine fellow [false testimony]" is not applicable [in this case], for indeed they did not testify against [their] fellow abouth anything
add a comment |
According to Rabbi Akiva Eiger, (Shu"t RA"E Mahadura Kama 176, cited here) they are not punished by the hand of man:
וגם משום מלקות, נראה דלא לקו, דלא שייך בזה 'לא תענה ברעך' דהא לא העידו כלל על רעהו להפסידו בשום דבר
And also with regard to lashes, it would appear that they were not lashed, for [the verse - Exodus 20:12] "though shalt not testify against thine fellow [false testimony]" is not applicable [in this case], for indeed they did not testify against [their] fellow abouth anything
According to Rabbi Akiva Eiger, (Shu"t RA"E Mahadura Kama 176, cited here) they are not punished by the hand of man:
וגם משום מלקות, נראה דלא לקו, דלא שייך בזה 'לא תענה ברעך' דהא לא העידו כלל על רעהו להפסידו בשום דבר
And also with regard to lashes, it would appear that they were not lashed, for [the verse - Exodus 20:12] "though shalt not testify against thine fellow [false testimony]" is not applicable [in this case], for indeed they did not testify against [their] fellow abouth anything
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
LoewianLoewian
11.8k11443
11.8k11443
add a comment |
add a comment |
1
What would be a case of eidim zomemim by eidus hachodesh? You were inside with us all night in a house with no windows?
– DonielF
2 hours ago
@DonielF could be that, sleeping, or any case where imanu hayisem would preclude them from seeing the new moon
– alicht
2 hours ago
1
Just occurred to me that Bava Kama 4b might be a proof to the logic you employ in the paragraph following the quote. As Eidim Zomemim is explicitly considered a type of "damage," maybe it doesn't apply when no damage is done. Maybe, as such, the most that could be done is label them as false witnesses and therefore they get makkos.
– DonielF
1 hour ago
1
@DonielF very solid svara #thumbsupemoji
– alicht
1 hour ago
1
Shame I don't have an actual source for it that I feel comfortable posting it as an answer. I'm on a roll with these kinds of comments on your questions, aren't I? :)
– DonielF
1 hour ago