There's a פלוגתא דאמוראי in this case. Gemara brings a machloket. Gemara brings an argument, and it says ב' כיתי עדים המכחישות זו את זו. You have two groups of עדים that contradict each other. That means, lemashal, if one group of עדים, two people, come and say, \"We saw Reuven borrow $100 from Shimon, and Reuven owes Shimon $100.\" The other group comes and says, \"Reuven did not borrow from Shimon $100. We know for sure, we were there, we saw that at the time he said, he didn't borrow.\" So they're contradicting each other. Does the time have to be exactly both at the same time? They came from different places... Well, there are all kinds of ways of contradicting. Have to be right there at the same time? That's what they claim that they saw, but not הזמה, this is הכחשה. They're not saying the עדים were with us someplace else. They say, \"You say you were in New York, 2:00 on Kings Avenue, and you saw Reuven borrow.\" The two other עדים say, \"We were in New York, Kings Avenue, 2:00, and we were standing there, and we saw he didn't borrow,\" or in other ways they contradict each other. So obviously, לגבי this situation that they're contradicting, we can't use either עדים, because why is one better than the other? But what about coming to other ענינים? Can these עדים be accepted when they want to testify for something else? Because... Well, one of them is lying. One of them is lying. So we don't know who's lying, so it's possible on each group, it's possible he's lying. So אמר רב הונא, and Rav Huna says, זו באה בפני עצמה ומעידה, וזו באה בפני עצמה ומעידה. Later on, on another testimony, another case, each one separately could be believed. And the reason is we say, because each one has a חזקת כשרות, each person has a chazakah that he's kasher, unless you prove him being pasul. No one has proved it. The other ones say that he's pasul, but according to the other ones he's pasul, but we don't know for sure, and according to these, the other one is pasul, but we don't know for sure. So when it comes to something else, they could testify, as long as they're separate. Lemashal, one witness from this group and one witness from this group, let's say they would come together for something else... They're useless. ...you can't believe them. Why? Because one of the two is certainly pasul. We don't know which one. So all you're left is with one עדות. Is there a register you write down this this כת can never have... Oh, obviously if you know you if you don't know, you don't know. Online, get an order. So, Rav Huna says that this that they contradicted themselves in this case doesn't affect any other case. Each one remains kasher. Individually. Individually. But רב חסדא אמר, רב חסדא says no, בהדי סהדי שקרי למה לי? We can't believe them anything. Since each one is a safek he might be pasul, so we can't believe them anything, because every time you're going to use any group of these two, you'll be using people who are safek pasul. How could you take עדים which is safek if maybe they're pasul? Because you don't know, might be pasul, so we can't use them. So that's the machloket of Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. The halacha is like Rav Huna. In Rambam, in Shulchan Aruch, we pasak like Rav Huna. That what? That they are kasher. The first opinion. You have to remember, that's Rav Huna. So Rav Chisda said it's not kasher? Rav Chisda said it's not kasher, and Rav Huna says זו באה בפני עצמה ומעידה, וזו באה. Each group in itself is kasher. We put them on the חזקת כשרות. This is the din in this Gemara, and this is in Shulchan Aruch, the halacha that the halacha is like Rav Huna, that they are kasher.

We find another din in Shulchan Aruch, and that's in סימן ל''ד, also in הלכות עדות. There it says another case. It says, what happens if you have two עדים coming and saying on a certain individual that this guy... Separate pairs of עדים, right? No, no. Two עדים come on a certain individual and they say that this guy is פסול לעדות, he's a גזלן. This guy is פסול לעדות. Comes another pair of עדים and they say this guy is not פסול לעדות. So you have the two עדים contradicting each other. So the halacha is that that guy is ספק פסול. You can't use him for any עדות. He's a safek, cause he's pasul. And the מפרשים ask: what's the difference between the two cases? Here also, when you have the two groups contradicting each other, each group is a ספק פסול. Maybe he's פסול, maybe not. And we say as long as we're not sure on a person that he's פסול, he has a חזקת כשרות. We assume he's כשר, and that's how we פסק like Rav Huna. How come in that case, where it's the same, kinda the same idea, two people say he's כשר, two he's פסול, so he's a ספק, so you should say put him on the חזקת כשרות, as long as we don't know for sure, he should be he should be כשר, and we say no, he's ספק פסול, and therefore he is פסול. That's the shaila that they all ask. Comes the Ketzos brings the Bach, and the Bach answers it like this. He says the difference is because in this case where the two עדים come, they're not talking about the people. The עדים are not talking about you're being פסול or not, they're talking about a מעשה. On a מעשה, yeah, a מעשה that happened. But here, they're talking about the person, whether he's כשר or not. So who's פסול? The first, the third, third... דער מענטש איז פסול because there's a ספק, we don't know. So you say because here they're talking about it, but the shaila is we have to know what is what is the difference. After all, what is the difference whether you're talking about him or not, בשעת when they're contradicting each other, when this group says that you say you saw him borrow money and the second group says it's not true, basically they're saying you're liars. No, they didn't say those words, but they're saying, \"When you testify that you saw him borrow money, we're saying you're liars.\" Two עדים come and they say, so they the first group says that you borrow the second group says that he didn't borrow, so the second group is basically saying that what the first group said is a lie and they're liars. So they're talking about that. And the first group says to the second group, \"You guys are liars.\" Heh, you say he didn't, he did. So, the bottom line, it has to be kashrus, we can see a difference. But we have to understand sof kol sof, la'poal here also we say that we're dealing sof kol sof with the people. What's the difference? The brings the Chacham Tzvi.

The Chacham Tzvi brings another, a different difference. And he says like this. In the case where the two עדים are contradicting each other on the מעשה, there is a group here which is definitely כשר. That's right. We just don't know which one it is, but there's one definitely כשר. Over there when dealing with about one person, there is no definitely כשר here. There's a shaila on this guy, is he כשר or פסול? But there is no one to say that he's definitely כשר. Mah she'ein ken here, one is definitely כשר, u'meila, so he says here we say they're both כשרים, which I have to tell you the truth, I don't understand it. Right. Because it's one definitely פסול. Right, but there's a different but the You know what it's kashrus? What? Once they fit situations you allow them to No, no. But the shaila, why is each one why isn't each group ספק פסולים? Because if you're פסול מספק, you say because one group is for sure כשר. This case is worse than the other case. The other case is a guy, we don't know if he's כשר or not. Maybe yeah, maybe not. Here, one group is definitely פסול. And that should outweigh the fact that one group is definitely כשר. And I'll tell you why. I'll give you an example. We find a din that wherever there's אתחזק איסורא I'll explain it in a moment is worse than not. אתחזק איסורא means when I have a safek but there is a definite issur here and a definite כשר of definite issur, we look at it as definite. I'll give you an example. We know where it says We know there's a din called אשם תלוי. Every morning we mention אשם. What is an אשם תלוי? When you did an עבירה בשוגג, but you're not sure. Chatat you bring if you did an aveirah by mistake, you didn't even know, and you know you did that thing, you bring chatat. אשם תלוי is when you don't know. But what's the case? It says clearly a din that let's say a person ate a piece of fat. חלב חלב is one of those aveirot that if you ate it b'shogeg you have to bring a korban. Not for all aveirot you bring a korban, but חלב has to be karet. חלב is karet, okay. If there's a piece of fat, the person ate. Later someone comes over to him and says, \"You know that piece of fat maybe was חלב.\" We don't know. It's חתיכה אחת ספק חלב. So now he doesn't know if he did an aveirah. He doesn't bring a korban. When is there אשם תלוי? If there were two pieces of fat, and he ate one of the two. And then someone comes over to him and he says, \"You know one of the two that you ate was חלב, but we don't know if that's the one you ate or not.\" That's when he brings a korban. What's the difference? So it says because one of them is for sure חלב. That's where Over there, we call it אתחזק איסורא. There was an issur here for sure. We just don't know if you got the issur, or you didn't. But if there was no issur for sure, there was a piece we don't know if it's חלב or not, then you're פטור. I did just farkert. In this case, one was for sure כשר. Over there, when there's one piece, maybe it's kasher, maybe not. That's like with meat, you know, you are you have your three pieces of meat and one of them's kosher, the other's No, no, that's because it's batel. It's not a question of bitul. Here, we know there are two pieces, one is cheilev, one is not, and you ate one, you don't know which one you ate. You can't check the other one? The case we obviously, you can check it. Check, but you know in case where you can't check. What's What was the first case? First case, you have one piece. Yeah. And you found out after you ate it that it might have been cheilev. So we say in that case you don't have to bring a korban. And it differed because this is אתחזק איסורא, because here there is definitely one piece which is cheilev, which is treif, while on the other case we don't have such a case. It's not חתיכה חלב. It's one piece which is a safek. Five out of three. Something like that. All right. What about שני שבילין? Well, the truth is we'll get to that. We'll get to that. Yeah, that's part of it. Part of it. Keep it fresh for Keep it fresh for שני שבילין. We'll we'll get to that. So what do we see from this case? We see from this case that when you have two, and one is ודאי אסור, and one is vadai for sure asur, and one is for sure kasher, we say that's called איתחזק איסורא. There is a ודאי איסור here. That makes worse. So by the edim, so you have to bring a korban. It became Yeah, the other way don't bring a korban because it's Yeah, the other way you don't bring a korban because it's not so bad, it's a ספק עבירה. Here it's more than just stam a safek. Here there is a ודאי איסור here. So by the two edim should say the same thing. He said, the Chacham Tzvi says, that when there are two groups since one is ודאי כשר, so therefore it's less. Adraba, since it's פסק איתחזק איסורא, one is ודאי פסול, so memeila it should be even worse. משא״כ by the case when they're both talking about one, there is no ודאי פסול, so maybe it should be kasher, and the and the and the din is a פלוגתא here, so the so the Chacham Tzvi is shver.

The Tzemach Tzedek brings a Ramban. Brings the Rosh who brings a Ramban. And the Ramban says that the difference is, and the way it bases on the Ramban, that in the case where they both made, where they both testifying two groups on one person, it's not 100%. In In the case, okay, when they're contradicting each other, I mean it's not 100% that the one that they're lying, one is lying. Maybe they made a mistake. Maybe one of the groups made a mistake. And since it's not vadai that one is lying, so we could pasak that they're both kasher. If somebody זאגט עדות, he's not making a mistake. He's How? Maybe he made a mistake with the story, maybe. No. He had the pictures and everything like that. And he said that it's So, it's very hard to understand. What he's asking is a good shaila. And besides that, and over there, why can't you say when they both say about one guy, maybe one group made a mistake? The difference It's a It's a hard sevara. He brings the Ramban says a sevara like that, but One is physically you're viewing something and you're lying about what you saw. The other one is a mistake, but then it's Then a mistake is called לשון הרע. Yeah, you shouldn't be saying, you shouldn't be One is you're saying the guy I saw this guy borrow $5. That's a different story than saying Oh good, nu, but maybe they say maybe they thought that it was him, maybe they saw him from the back. I mean, if you're going to say made a mistake, we don't say such things. By עדים we don't say, but if you do, what's the difference between the cases? Because here it's more of reputation. Going on reputation. How do you know somebody's What's the difference? They say the guy is No, they've got to say we saw this guy steal. No, what is the עדות? If two guys say, \"We saw this guy steal,\" and the other guys say, \"That time he didn't steal.\" Same thing. So it's also talking about something which makes him pasul. So what's the difference? It's a good question. Okay. Ha? A good question. So we're back to it to the beginning. What's the pshat and what's the difference between these two cases? What did the Tzemach Tzedek was saying? Ha? What did the Tzemach Tzedek was saying? He said that there's He brings that in the case where the two עדים are contradicting against each other, maybe he made a mistake. Yeah, and over there Okay, yes. I was trying this and that, this is a this is a gute shaila. So understanding this, let's go to another thing.

There is a famous machloket between the Rambam and the Tur. We all know that there is a difference between הכחשה and הזמה. הכחשה is, we need another שיעור, הכחשה is when two witnesses, two groups of witnesses contradict each other. Like we said, this guy says he did do this, this guy says he didn't do it. Then there's a special thing called הזמה. הזמה is when one group comes and says something, and the other group comes and says only one situation: You should know that at the time you claim you saw this and this happened in this and this place, you witnesses were with us. Elsewhere. Elsewhere, someplace else. As a matter of fact, they say if the מעשה happened or not, we don't know. If you say Reuven borrowed money from Shimon, very possible. But see in the other case you say, you say Reuven borrowed, that's not true, it's not true, he didn't borrow. The second thing, הזמה is not that. They say, maybe he borrowed, you did not see it! You were not there! That's called הזמה. And הזמה has a different din. By הכחשה we said, what do we do? We don't accept either one. הזמה, the Torah says a chidush that we believe the second group. And the first group is pasul. The second, and the second group is believed. And not only that, ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו. You make the first group do what they wanted. If they wanted to make a guy pay money, you make him pay. If you make they wanted to have a guy killed because they testified that he was מחלל שבת in front of the בית דין and they wanted him killed, you kill them. I mean, that's that's what הזמה is. That's the clear din in חומש, that's pashut. Shaila is the Rambam, it comes out from the Rambam, what happens if it's hachashah and hazamah together? What din does it have? Lemashel, they come and say that you witnesses, plus plus the guy you claim borrowed the money were with us. You say he was in New York, he was with us in Miami. So at this point they're tzad mezim them, they say you say you were in New York at 2:00 on this and this day, you were with us in Miami at that time. And also you say he borrowed money, he never borrowed money, because he himself was there too. Why do we believe the second edim? That's a chidush, yeah, that's a It's a chidush, there's no logic. There is some logic into it. There's logic to it? Yeah, because they know that by them them making the edut, they can pasel themselves and the other people also, they wouldn't do such a thing. The first people said standard, because whatever it is. The second group Yeah, but the nafka mina is the second group tells them you're liars. You're saying that you were there, it's not true, we were in Miami, you're saying you were in New York. wouldn't say it unless they were sure. And the first also? Not necessarily. There's a geder, though, by hazamah, the testimony from the zomemim, the mezemim, is against a person. That's the Rambam's lashon. That's against a person, that's against the ma'aseh. That's the Rambam's lashon. But the she'eilah is here, the Rambam says what happens if you have hachashah and hazamah together? So the Rambam says that it's a din of hachashah. Hachashah trumps? It's a din of hachashah. Like the light the lighter one, more lenient one, not hazamah. That's what that's what that's what we That's what will be, they'll both not be believed. If they said to the first guys you and the guy was with us, it doesn't have a din of hazamah, umimela all the dinim of hachashah are there, that you don't believe either one and you don't do כאשר זמם, you don't make him do what they you do to them what they wanted. The Tur holds not, the Tur holds it's a din of hazamah. And likhora the Tur makes more sense, because if you have something that you did which has the lighter thing and the stricter thing, sevara is so that you go according to the stricter. What's the sevara of the Tur, of the Rambam, and what is the machloket between the Rambam and the Tur? So here we have a הסברה that mefarshim give on the Rambam and on the Tur, the same הסברה, the opposites. The Lechem Mishneh explains the pshat of the Tur. The Lechem Mishneh explains, you know what the Tur learns why it's it's הזמה? He says because as soon since there was הזמה here, this second group was מזים the first, you can't accept the הכחשה anymore. Because when the second group is מזים the first, then the first are not believed anymore. So the fact that they are מוכחיש doesn't count. The Netivot explains the Rambam, and he says, you know what the sevara of the Rambam is? No, the Netivot explains the Rambam, and he says, you know what the Rambam's's sevara why it's הכחשה? Because if the since they're מוכחיש each other, so how can you accept this הזמה? That's right. Which came first? Oh, but it's not what they said, they say together, it's together. So it's a she'eilah is which approach we take, that's all. So the machloket is here, what we look at. Do we look at it as from the side that you're starting with הכחשה? In time, you said it בבת אחת, it's תוך כדי דיבור. Do we look at it as a time of הכחשה, as a גדר of הכחשה, from the הכחשה וממילא you can't be מזים when you're מוכחיש, What's the sevara behind that? What's the sevara behind that? Okay.

In order to get to all that, we have to first understand what's the machloket between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda? Rav Huna Rav Huna said that when the two עדים are מוכחיש each other, זו בא בפני עצמה, meaning each one could go and be עדים in other things themselves, and Rav Chisda says they can't. They are not together, but separately they could. What's the logic behind the sevara? The logic is פשוט בפשטות. When two עדים are מוכחיש each other, contradict each other, so obviously we can't accept either one. What is the pshat? We believe both, or we don't believe either? You could say we believe nobody. Okay, we don't believe either, nobody because you can't. Or פסל them. Or you could say we believe both. But since l'maaseh you can't do like both, so you can't accept it. But the pshat is when two עדים come and say, we believe them. When other two עדים come and say, we believe them. L'maaseh, since they're contradicting, so we can't do what this guy we believe this, we believe that, we can't do either. If we can't do either, we don't do it. So in this case, we just disregard them, but not because we don't believe them. Or you say farkert, because they're contradicting each other, this guy's מוכחיש this, this guy's we don't believe either one. If you're saying you believe both כיתות, then why can't you have one from כת א׳ and one from כת ב׳ test testify together? Logically, it's an impossibility. We know that both one of them is lying. Right. B'foal, we know they're one lying, but not because we פסקנ׳ד that that we don't believe them. What are you saying? L'maaseh, it can't be both. So l'maaseh, you're taking two opposites. It hasn't פסל׳ד them out. Right. That's the machloket here. The machloket here is Rav Huna holds that we believe them, we believe them both. Believe them both, so therefore, as long as it's בפני עצמה, because they're not contradicting together, so as long as it's בפני עצמה, we can accept it, because they weren't פסול, they didn't become פסול the fact that they were contradicting each other. But Rav Chisda says no, we don't believe either one, וממילא each one פסל the other. one because we don't believe them. Okay. This gufa is based on what? This sevara whether we believe or not believe could be based on this. And this is the nekudah here. When two עדים are מכחיש each other, there are two things happening here. They're discussing the maaseh, he says he borrowed money, this guy says he didn't borrow the money, discussed. But also, he says you're a liar, he says you're a liar. Now, here when we talk about these two things, there are two ways to look at it. You could say one, let's call it these names, one is the עצם טענה, exactly, and one is the הסתעפות, right? Or they're both עצם. You could say one is the עצם, the עצם is they're talking about the maaseh. That's what... You could say הסתעפות means a result. Since I'm telling you the maaseh never happened and you are saying the maaseh happened, so automatically it comes out that I'm saying you're a liar. But that's not what I'm dealing with. We're not directly dealing with that. We're dealing with the What's the עצם? The עצם is the maaseh, not the person. Or you could say no, b'foal, whether they say it or not, they're saying you are liars. So this is also part of the עצם עדות of the עדים themselves. You could say the third way is not possible: that the עצם is that you're liars and the maaseh is only a result. That's not true. Sure not, because they're sitting and speaking about the maaseh. But to say that in this speaking about the maaseh links in them the עצם, that you could say. So if you're going to say that they're only talking about the they're only talking about the maaseh as an עצם, and themselves that they're saying you're a liar is הסתעפות, so the pshat is if you're talking about the maaseh, no one is posel the people. So the people could be believed. There's no one saying you are a liar. That's already a result later, but what we're dealing with is he's saying the maaseh happened and the maaseh didn't happen. But no one is posel the person. So if no one is posel the person, so why can't If a person says a maaseh happened, you believe him. This guy says a maaseh happened, you believe him. So the the sevara that you believe both is because we look at the עצם as the maaseh. The sevara that we don't believe both is because we're looking at the עצם as posel also. So this guy pasel him, so you can't believe This guy pasel him, so you can't believe him. Umemela they're you don't believe either one. And that will be the reason for the machloket between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. That's right? Could it maybe also be something else? With the first עדות when they said that you borrowed money, yeah, they already set a precedent. The second one Don't look at it that way. They're both equal. Because he said he pashut came first to beit din, but they're both speaking about the same maaseh, and they're conflicting because after the second group asked him, he asks him back, and what did you say? No, it did happen. The other case where they posel the actual the The guys. Yeah. We'll get to that. That's a whole different So this is the the sevara. I'll just use an example where we find that sometimes there are two things, but one is the main thing, one is הסתעפות, למשל. This is an example. We have a klal: ספק איסור לחומרא. There's a ספק something is asur or not, we go lechumra. מחמת, ספק ממון לקולא. Every time it's a ספק ממון, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, we're always mekel. The she'eilah is every ספק ממון is a ספק איסור. Because if we pasak the money is yours, and he's over on gezel, he's over on stealing if he takes it. If we pasak that it's his, you're over on It affects an איסור. Every ספק איסור is a ספק ממון. If I say it's asur, that's if it's especially if it's אסור בהנאה, then that means it has no value. If I say it's tereifah, then it costs less. Everything depends. So what does If you look, why is how could it be ספק איסור, ספק ממון? Obvious. There's a she'eilah what's the עצם and what's the result. When we talk about money, we're talking about money. As a result will come out an איסור, good, but we're not dealing with that. That's the result. Same thing by ספק איסור, a result will be money, if it's asur, we're not talking Same thing here. If we're talking בעצם on the on the מעשה, so the whole idea of they're talking about the people is only a result, or we can say both. And this would be the machloket between Rav Huna le-Rav Chisda. That's one way to explain it. That Rav Huna says that they're kasher because we're dealing with the מעשה, and in the מעשה they're both believed because they're not We're not dealing with this guy being פוסל the people. They're not saying you're liars. Turns out to be. But if you hold that when they say he says that he borrowed, he said he didn't means they're saying directly you're liars, they're פוסל him. So if they're פוסל the people, so then they're both not believed. Then there's another nekudah that you could say the same thing further and we'll get to it, that this nekudah is a little bit different. When they Depending also on what they talk about, whether we say that they're talking about the מעשה or also talking about the עצם. When two people two eidim contradict itself, in this ענין that they're contradicting themselves, we can't pasken like both. I mean, either he borrowed or he didn't borrow. The nekudah of the people themselves, can we pasken that they're both kasher? To pasken that they're both kasher is a contradiction. They cannot be both kasher. Mamash lo. Yes. Or one of them is one of them is lying. Ela mai, sometimes we find, that's what you mentioned שני שבילין, sometimes we find that we do pasken a contradiction. Lemashal, is the case of שני שבילין. שני שבילין is when you had two roads, we mentioned that other shiur also, you have two roads and one road is laying טומאה, that if you pass by that road is no way to get through without becoming tamei. Guy comes to Beit Din and he says, I went on one of the two roads, I don't remember which one I went. What's the din? So the din is he's tahor, because the din is ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים, if there's always a safek of טומאה in a in a public place, the din is always tahor. That's the din. ספק טומאה ברשות היחיד is טמא, ברשות הרבים is tahor. So since this guy was in a רשות הרבים, and he comes and he says by me it's a safek, and we say tahor. Comes another guy, and the other guy says, you know, I went on the other road, and I don't know which one. So Beit Din says to him, no, ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים, טהור. So they're both tahor. And that's for sure can't be. It's definitely a contradiction, because one of the two for sure had, and we know for sure that they went to the two separate roads, one of them for sure is tamei. But only if they're being judged so we say, what's the klal there? If we're paskening separately, then they're both we could pasken a setirah. If this guy asks, he's tahor, because we're dealing with you, we don't worry about anybody, we don't know about anybody else, and you're tahor. Comes the other guy, we don't know about this guy, we're dealing with you. If they come together, or the Gemara says even better, one guy comes and says, I went one and my friend went another, what's our din? Beit Din will never be able to say they're both tahor, you can't say that, because that doesn't make any sense. To come the other way is also impossible. But since we're deal depends what we're dealing with. That's the din. So the same thing here also, to pasken that they're both believed and they're both kasher is a contradiction. But that's only if we're talking about them. So if the main esek is on a maaseh, and we're going to pasken what's happening to that maaseh, we're not dealing with their kashrut. When do we start dealing with their כשרות? Later on when this group decides to come to be מעיד on, oh, can he be מעיד or not? Sure he could be מעיד, because he's a ספק, has a חזקת כשרות, everyone is kasher. The other guy comes the other group comes and wants to do something with it, there, kasher. But that's only why? Because we're not dealing with them at the same time, we're dealing with the maaseh. But if you're going to hold that the that the that dealing with them is also עצם, in other words when this guy says the maaseh happened or didn't happen, and each one is paskening the other, and that's, so when we pasken this din, we're actually paskening their what their status is, so we're one pask on both. On one pask on both we can't say both kasher. And that's the machloket between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. Rav Rav Huna says that they're both kasher, why? Because Rav Huna says that the עצם is just the maaseh. And memila, the מעשה, תקיע since there are, it's a contradiction. So if those two sets of עדים happen to pop up a week later on a different case together and they're They can, yeah. They can. According to Rav Huna, yeah. Not together. Even according to Rav Huna. Not together. No, even even a week later. Yeah, and they're מכחיש each other with both four together? No, no, they came and they're they're giving עדות, have to give עדות on a case with All four together? All four together. So, well two are good, for sure. Yeah, that's true, two are good. According to Rav Chisda... If these if these two עדים gave עדות after on a קידושין... Well, it's on anything. Rav Chisda, no. Because According to Rav Huna. According to Rav Huna, they're good. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's everybody's saying. It's separate But the whole reason why, I'm explaining the reason why, so before I explained it much simpler, but now I'm saying it more that because you cannot pasken a סתירה if you're dealing with it. I'm saying like in a case with like by a wedding where you need two sets of עדים. To use them for the beginning part and then use the second That's separate. You could it's separate. You could, you could, why not? Good. I'm talking about the same wedding. So, but this is the כתובה, this is the קידושין, it's the same maaseh, no, it's the same couple. So what's the case? Same couple. So you think that one is פסול for sure? No, they're not. We פסקן כשר. But they're only כשר because you're using them on a different case. Right, because it's a different מעשה. That's a different case, that's called a different case, no, it's for sure. A קידושין is a different case and the כתובה. Sure, same couple. A קידושין has no כתובה. That's why I'd be having פסולי עדות. What did you say about...? You cannot פסקן a סתירה if you're in it for... what what what? If you're if you're פסקנינג one פסק on both. What does one פסק? Give me an example. If you're going to say, one פסק, this group is כשר, this group is כשר, that cannot be. Cannot do that. Right. But if you're going to פסק this group is כשר, you could פסק, it's a ספק, we don't know, and since he has a חזקת כשרות, we פסק כשר. Then tomorrow we speak about it, but when I'm saying tomorrow doesn't have to be tomorrow, it's an ענין if they're two separate גדרים, so it depends all how you learn. If you look at it that you're dealing לכתחילה with the מעשה only, so you're פסקנינג on a מעשה, that you can't פסקן a סתירה. Now with the עדים themselves, that's not what they were talking about each other, they were not פסקנינג who they are, so that will be פסקנינג separately, so we could פסקן a סתירה we can פסקן both כשר. But if you're going to פסקן, if The גוף of the people is the same, the גוף is part of the עצם, by that we can't פסק'ן a סתירה. Okay, so therefore Rav Chisda holds that you can't, that it's a it's a סתירה. So Rav Huna is the one that holds that way. How are you working out to have the מעשה not be the עצם? No, the מעשה I said for sure is the עצם. That I can't set it to this a third way. So the shaila is, the מעשה the עצם and the עדים, the people, is the טפלים or they're both עצם? L'mashal, if they would not use those words: you said that it happened, it's not true, you are a liar. So then they're talking about So even if I'm sinking into it, they don't say it. בפועל, but if they would say it, it's still not, but that's not what they're You are a liar, because according to according to Rav Huna, it's still not still even if the guy says Right, right, because בפועל The עצם is the מעשה. I have a quick question. What happened that why did the עדים say you borrowed you borrowed money and one said not? How did it start? Somebody had the עדים, somebody must come out I brought them, yeah. The מלוה brought the עדים that, \"You owe me money.\" And he says, \"Yeah, okay, we saw you borrow.\" So the לוה says, \"What are you talking about?\" How is it coming to shailas? Mr. Schein is not here. ער קען דאס פרעגן שאלה'ס. ער פרעגט שאלה'ס אויף דעם מלוה. Anyway, so if we learn like this, so it comes out that if we And so this is what Rav Huna holds. So if we pasken like Rav Huna, that means that what do we pasken? We said that Rav Huna's שיטה is that we look at the מעשה that they're dealing with as the עצם, and the people as the טפלים. And that's how we pasken, that's what Rav Huna holds. Okay. Since we pasken like Rav Huna, now becomes a shaila, which this will be the מחלוקת between the Tur and the Rambam. When we say that of the עצם the מעשה is the עצם, that's what we're dealing with, and the people that they talk about is the טפלים, is this only because they're talking about a מעשה? So normally when you talk about a מעשה, the מעשה is the עיקר, the עצם or not? What would be if they b'foal talk about two things at the same time: a maaseh and the people? Which is הכחשה and הזמה together. So you could learn two ways. You could learn that when we say to pasken like Rav Huna that the maaseh is the ikar, it's not because they're only talking about a maaseh. That's what Rav Huna's shita is, that whenever you have a maaseh and the people, we look at the maaseh always as the etzem. So, or you say, \"No, in that case over there where he's only talking about the maaseh, then we look at the maaseh as the etzem, but if they're actually saying two things, then we look at the both as etzem.\" And that's the machloket. The Rambam says that in this case we always look at the maaseh as the ikar. Even though they're talking they're מוכחיש which is on the maaseh, and הזמה is on the people, הזמה means you, still we look at that the maaseh is the ikar. That's why the Rambam holds that הכחשה and הזמה, it's הכחשה. And the Tur says, \"No, we always that since we pasken like Rav Huna, it's a klal that whenever there's a she'eilah, even if they directly openly talk about the people, but whenever we talk about the maaseh and the people, maaseh is etzem, and the people is always a secondary thing.\" If people are a secondary thing, so when you have הכחשה and הזמה No, here he says, \"adrabah, they're both etzem.\" If they're both etzem, according to the Tur they're both etzem, so you talk about the people, so it's הזמה. So if you're talking about the people, so we're talking about הזמה, הזמה is always is stronger, הזמה is the people. What's the חילוק הזמה הכחשה? He mentioned that before: הכחשה is talking about a מעשה, הזמה means עמנו הייתם. The Rambam gives that לשון. He said הכחשה, you מכחיש the עדות. In הזמה, you מכחיש the עדים. הזמה, you מכחיש הזמה is the עדים. Plural, people. No, not plural. The people, the עדים, the witnesses! And the other one is the עדות. With that, when you מכחיש a מעשה, that's what he calls the עדות. The Rambam says The Rambam says that So therefore the Rambam holds that הכחשה and הזמה together is הכחשה because whenever since we pasken like Rav Huna, always we look at the מעשה as the עצם, and the people are טפלים, are secondary. So if the מעשה the people are that's, it's הכחשה, the moment it's הכחשה, finished, you you can't do הזמה because any הכחשה, you can't be they they you can't trust them in הזמה in the same thing. Mah she'ein ken the Tur learns that it's that when do we say the עיקר is the מעשה? When they're talking about the מעשה. Where does this כלל come from? No, that's a fact. Where does it come from? What comes? That you're basing one on on the מעשה and one on That הזמה and הכחשה is like... No, no. Well, that's if we say this is the machloket between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. Oh, where did Where did I say is Rav Huna? מעשה. It's funny how, you know, that gives you based the whole... on... Yeah, it's always like this. When you have a machloket, no, you If you If you say what's the sevara, so you have to think. When you understand the sevara of one shita, then you can understand why they are like this. This is what This is what a pilpul is all about. How does the Rambam say it? No, we're not finished yet. Now, can I explain how they answered on the Rambam? Huh? Who answered on the Rambam before? The Rambam there in תשובות. And he said that because he said this because he said the לשון because since you have a הכחשה, how could you accept הזמה? עדים המוכחשים, how could you accept הזמה from עדים which are מוכחשים? But why do you look at הכחשה first? The Rambam...look at הזמה first. So I'm saying because he learns that whenever you have the people and the מעשה, you always look at the מעשה first. So the הכחשה is first. That's Rav Huna. That it's a פלוגתא? But everyone looked at it, looks like a פלוגתא. And if it were the גופא, the she'eilah is worth. So it comes out that the whole thing here is based on one thing. That when you talk about if you talk about the גוף, you can't make him kasher. If you talk about the מעשה, you could make him kasher. Talk about the The גוף can not. In the case where the two עדים talk about the guy, they're talking about the גוף. That's why over there it's pasul. This is basically what the Bach was saying. The Bach was saying there's a difference between here they're talking about the גוף, here they're talking about the מעשה. This answers the difference between the cases. Here you talk about the גוף. And I I want to say that this is what the Tzemach Tzedek means also. When the Tzemach Tzedek says the sevara because in the case where they're talking about they're two עדים against each other, maybe they made a mistake. I don't think he means the sevara made a mistake. The the real חידוש חילוק between the two cases, because here they're talking about the מעשה and here they're talking about about the גוף. And by the מעשה you could פסקן two opposites. And by the גוף you can't פסקן. The שאלה is aber, when you, aber ניט, sof kol sof when you פסקן two opposites, how could you do that? Because we look at each one separately. So we gotta find some words that we could put it. So we say, maybe they made a mistake. As long as about I

I use the example always like by mezuzah the מעשה of the Rabbi Rashab. The Rabbi Rashab said that in Lubavitch the minhag is that we put up the mezuzah pending how the door opens. So someone asked him, what happens if you're in the second floor? What happens if, yeah, you're in the second floor and the door opens the other way, how did you get this, usually you have to come in this way from the door. Cuz downstairs you come in this way and the other door over here opens in, so you're gonna make the the mezuzah going in. But how did you get in? You have to climb here? No, if it's outside the front door. How'd you get in? So he said, well, you put up a ladder and you go in that side. He said, what happens if there's no door on that side? You climb through the window. He didn't mean בפועל you climb. You have to find some אחיזה. The the sevara is a sevara. The the halacha is for that reason you have to go according to the door. You have to find some אחיזה. So I want to say the same thing here also. When he says that the mistake it's it's אחיזה, cuz we're saying that by when you when you פסקן on the on the מעשה properly, when it comes to the people you could פסקן a סתירה. Mah she'ein kein on the גוף itself you can't. But sof kol sof how could you פסקן a סתירה when you talk about the people? So he says, maybe they made a mistake. That's so it's not that the עצם looked like that. You asked a good שאלה. If you think they made a mistake, so no עדים could be accepted. They can't make a mistake! The reason we פסקן like that is because we can פסקן a סתירה, but as long as we can find some way to say it, but normally we don't say it. So in the case when they talk about the גוף, and then גוף how can you פסקן? In the גוף, what happens? So there we always פסקן they're פסול. Just like by the הזמה we פסקן פסול. Just like what happens, I'll give an example. If there are two עדים who say something and other two edim come and say, 'You too? The meier you're gazlanim.' We believe the second edim. Because they're posel the גוף. If they're talking about a מעשה, they're... That's not hazamah? No. They already learned that that Because that's a din because their testimony doesn't work. They can't testify themselves. That I am kasher. What did they say, I'm kasher? Whatever on a מעשה, they're both equal. But he says you're pasul, so you're a בעל דין now. And they say that you're pasul. The latter, yeah, they come and say you're pasul. We don't know the story, you're a gazlan. We believe the second, not the first. Because of the גוף. So the same thing here. When they're talking about the גוף, so then that could be said that's a safek. It's pasul. מה שאין כן if they're talking about themselves, so then if you learn that in in in the case we פסקן like Rav Huna, which means that we're not talking about the גוף, and the גוף is a is a second case. See, in the case where they both talk about a guy, they are talking about him, about the גוף. But here they're not talking about the גוף, so here it could be פסקן that they're kasher. מה שאין כן this guy, this guy's pasul. So people that learn without מפרשים, how do they know what's going on? I taka don't know. No, they learn Gemara סתם, a letter, ich weis, a taka a letter. Yeah, someone learns the Gemara... What's the sevara? Why? What's the חשש? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Who are you with, the Rambam? The Tur, the Tur. So the Tur says that the Tur explains that the Tur says that they're both both a חפצא. That they're both עצם. They're both עצם, right. They're both עצם. They're both therefore And how's that for that you take the stricter one? No, they're both עצם, so they're dealing on the person, so so automatically if you have הזמה and הכחשה He says הזמה, he says הזמה, because, yeah, the Rambam says you can't get to הזמה because you started, the ikar talking about is הכחשה, so you're never going to get to, because they're מוכחש already. עדים which are מוכחש cannot be מוזם. In the case of witnesses, false witnesses, don't they get punished by whatever they wanted to make the guy to pay? Fifty dollars, so they have to pay fifty dollars?