בבא בתרא דף ל״א עמוד ב׳, we're going to discuss a piece of Gemara here which is be'emet not נוגע to the whole sugya where it talks about, but the Gemara brings it in concerning something else, so we will discuss that inyan that the Gemara brings in. And that is what says like this. דאיתמר, we learned in a מימרא. בבא בתרא? בבא בתרא דף ל״א עמוד ב׳. בי תרי כתי עדים המכחישי זו את זו, if you have two groups of עדים that contradict each other, למשל, if two groups of עדים, one group comes and says that we saw that this person borrowed a hundred dollars in this and this point of time, and another group comes and says, they contradict them, they say it's not true, we were there and whatever, we saw it didn't happen. So in this case that they are actually testifying, obviously you can't accept testimony, they cancel each other out, because they're both עדים and you don't know who's right, so it's as if they don't exist. The question will be what about in a different case? Can they come and testify in a different case? Because the din is like this: if two עדים testify falsely, they become פסול לעדות forever, until they do teshuvah, and there's a whole process that they have to go through. So if two עדים would testify and then we would find out somehow that these two עדים are pasul, then they can never testify again. In this case, we didn't accept the testimony of either group. Since we didn't accept the testimony, the question is, does that mean that each one becomes pasul, and therefore, from now on they can't testify, none of them could testify because each one is pasul, or not? So here we have a machloket, an argument between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda.

אמר רב הונא, Rav Huna said, זו בא בפני עצמו ומעיד וזו בא בפני עצמו ומעיד. Each group separately is able to come and testify. Together, not. Let's say if you would have, the Rashbam explains here, if you'd have one עד from one group and another one from the other group, and together they would come on another case and they would testify, you couldn't believe them, because each one is like, they're each one is a ספק פסול. And here, out of the two, one is for sure pasul, you just don't know which one it is, but one is for sure pasul, therefore, you can't accept it. But in a case where two, a specific, one of the two groups come and testify, can you believe them or not? So he says you can, and the way the Rashbam explains, very simple, because each one has a חזקת כשרות. We don't know which one is pasul, the two contradict each other, one of them is lying, one of them is pasul, we don't know, so it's a ספק, so each group of עדים is a ספק he might be pasul. The din is that when there's a ספק if a person is pasul or not, we have a chazakah. Every person has a חזקת כשרות, has a chazakah that he's kasher, as long as you cannot prove for sure that he's pasul, he remains kasher. So therefore, in this case, each group is assumed to be kasher because of the chazakah, that's Rav Huna's peshat. Rav Chisda אמר,

Rav Chisda says, בהדי סהדי שקרי למה לי, no, we look at each one as liars, and how could you trust a a group of witnesses that are liars? And therefore, you can't accept these witnesses in any other case, that's Rav Chisda. Now, what is the reason for Rav Chisda? There are different mefarshim go into it, and we will also discuss to see what is the reason of Rav Chisda, which basically means what we're trying to discuss is what is the yesod for the argument between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda? What would be the two reasons why Rav Huna would hold that being each group is only a safek, and therefore we look at each one as a חזקת כשרות, when there is a safek you have a חזקת כשרות and he's kasher, other than this case specifically where they are contradicting each self themselves, but in other cases they're kasher, and Rav Chisda holds no, that by contradicting here we consider them עדים פסולים, they become pasul, and therefore we can't believe them anywhere. What is the basis of the machloket? That's one thing. But then there's another question here. In this machloket, we know we have to pasken like Rav Huna. That's the halachah, the Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch, everyone paskens like Rav Huna, which means זו בא בפני עצמו ומעיד וזו בא בפני עצמו ומעיד, that each group is allowed to go testify, because each one has a חזקת כשרות, that's the din. And since there is a חזקת כשרות, we can't pasel them, and every other time they are kasher. The question is, in Shulchan Aruch, in סימן ל״ד, he brings a case: if there are two witnesses that come and say on a certain human being that he is פסול לעדות, they come and say he's a גזלן. One of the things that make a person pasul is if he's a gazlan. If we know for sure that he stole, then he's פסול לעדות till he does teshuvah, and there's a whole procedure what makes, but till he does teshuvah he is פסול. So two people come and testify Reuven is a gazlan. Come two other people and testify that when they said that they saw him steal or whatever they saw, it's not true, and he didn't steal, and they also testify. So you have here two against two testifying whether this person is or not. The

Shulchan Aruch says that this person is a ספק פסול. You can't take him as an עדות. Possible gazlan. Because he's a possible gazlan, and it's a ספק, since there are two עדים that say, and we're not sure they're right, because there are other two say the opposite, but because it's a ספק, we can't accept him as an עדות because he is a ספק פסול. That's the that's what the Shulchan Aruch פסקנ'ס. All the מפרשים ask a kashya on the Shulchan Aruch. Why should the din be that way? Since over here we pasken like Rav Huna, why is that case different than this case? Here, it's a case where you have two עדים contradicting each other לגבי something else, and nevertheless, we pasken that each group of עדים is כשר, even though בעצם, when you start thinking about it, each group is a ספק פסול. Each group might be the liars. It's a ספק פסול, and because it's only a ספק, we say we put them on the חזקת כשרות, and they are allowed to testify in other cases. Why in this case, when they two contradict each other concerning a third person, why here we say since he's a ספק, because he might be a gazlan, we don't believe him? What's the difference? And the מפרשים ask this. In the same case, the two עדים are both saying No, in that case you can't believe, right. Sure not a gazlan. We don't believe two עדים that maybe it's a ספק הלוואה. Yeah, there is. When in הלוואה, sure there is. Yeah, we say there's, and therefore we can't collect, cuz we don't know. We can Yeah, we can't collect, so we don't know. We don't know who's right, and therefore we can't In the case of third party, why don't the two two sets of witnesses cancel each other out, and therefore, how can you blame the person that they're That's That's the kashya. Over here by the case of the It's exactly By the case of the two our case of the Gemara, we say because there is a ספק, we don't know who's right, they're they're all כשר. And over there, we have the same ספק, and we say he's פסול. Even with a third party. Yeah. So the Ketzos talks about it, and Bach brings the Bach. The Bach answers like this. The

Bach says that the difference between the two cases is because here they're talking about a maaseh. Here, the contradiction in our Gemara is there are two edim the two groups they are talking about a maaseh. This guy says he borrowed the money, this guy says he didn't borrow the money. But over there, they're talking about the person. They're talking whether the person is a gazlan. The type of pasul that's going to fall upon the edim here is a result of their testimony about a maaseh, but over there, it's testimony directly on the person. That's his point. And other mefarshim ask, they don't buy this point. So what's the difference? What is סוף כל סוף the difference? The bottom line is the same. It's a ספק פסול, and when you're a ספק פסול, you have a חזקת כשרות, and that's the halacha. So over there too, this guy is a safek, they takeh testified בנוגע the person, but סוף כל סוף, he is a ספק פסול, and a ספק פסול, you put under the חזקת כשרות. Then there's another teirutz that they bring. So mimela his teirutz needs explanation. The Chacham Tzvi gives a teirutz. What is the difference between these two cases? And he says like this: In our case of the Gemara, you know why they both are kasher? Because we know for sure that one group is kasher. What do you have here? Two edim against two edim. One group of these two for sure is kasher. We just don't know which one it is. While over there, they're dealing with one person, that that one person is a safek. So there is no cat no case in their testimony which is ודאי כשר. It's a a person who is a safek, is he kasher or not, so there we're machmir. But here, because there is one group ודאי כשר, after all, one of them is for sure kasher, one for sure is saying the truth, that's why over there we say they're both kasher. For sure. Well, for sure! Two guys say he borrowed, two guys say he didn't. Or he borrowed, or he didn't. One guy's lying, one is saying the truth. We just don't know which one. But one group is saying the truth. So one group is definitely not pasul, definitely not pasul! So it's a different There, it's a safek. Here, we just don't know who's the one, but one is ודאי. Huh? In the case of Shulchan Aruch, the sets of עדים themselves, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, probably No, that's טאקע אמת. Yeah, they themselves would be כשר like they're כשר here, but the guy himself would be פסול. Now one guy is one out of the two is כשר, the other one Not one out of the two. One out of the two, the two One group out of the two groups. Yeah. No. Both are saying the same thing. Two guys say, \"We saw him borrow.\" Two guys say, \"At that time, he couldn't have been borrowing, because, whatever, we saw something else.\" They say he saw him, but what if they really didn't see him? So make it חלום? But they're saying the truth! One group is definitely not lying. No, they didn't see them. Any time two witnesses come, maybe they didn't see him? When two witnesses come, maybe they're lying? Do we look at it that way? Never! If you look at it that way, there's no such thing as witnesses. When two witnesses come, they're saying the truth. Here, why is there a ספק that they're lying? Because there are two witnesses against them! But the one that is So, what what we're looking is only one of the two groups is the liar. The other one is regular witnesses. So since there is one group ודאי כשר, so we accept here it should be כשר. Now, this answer also needs an explanation, I'll tell you why. Because why look at it this way that one group is ודאי כשר, look at the opposite! One group is ודאי פסול! Over there, this guy, we don't know if he's a כשר or פסול, so there's a ספק. Here, one of the two groups is definitely פסול. And in a case like that, it's worse than if there wouldn't be a ודאי. And I'll tell you why. We

find that's what the Chacham Tzvi is a פלאדיגע Chacham Tzvi, because this seems to be mamash a strong kushya on him. In a case where you have like similar to our case, that is called אקבע איסורא. When one is ודאי פסול, it's worse than if there is no ודאי. And I'll give you an example where we find it. By the דין of אשם תלוי. אשם תלוי is like this. When do you bring an אשם תלוי? An אשם, a קרבן for a ספק עבירה. So the דין in Gemara in Kerisos says like this, Kerisos דף י״ח, if a person eats a piece of meat and he doesn't know whether it was בשוגג, and he doesn't then later let's say someone walks over to him and says, \"You know that piece of meat might have been טרפה, might have been חלב.\" We don't know if it was חלב or not. So what do we have here? A ספק עבירה. Maybe he ate חלב בשוגג, maybe he didn't eat חלב בשוגג. You don't bring an אשם תלוי for that. When do you bring an אשם תלוי? If there were two pieces laying and he ate one of the two, and someone comes and says, \"You know one of the two was חלב, and we don't know whether he the one he ate was the חלב or not.\" That's when you bring an אשם תלוי. Why? So the Gemara says the lashon, because it's אקבע איסורא. It's a case where one is ודאי טרפה, ודאי חלב. We just don't know if that's the one you ate. The previous case, when you ate a piece which is a ספק חלב, ספק not, maybe it wasn't even חלב! But here, there is אקבע איסורא. So what do we see from this case? That אקבע איסורא is worse. א, in that same case we could look another way, but one is ודאי כשר. We don't say that, but since one is ודאי פסול, it's אקבע איסורא, it's worse. So the same thing should be here. And the

Rambam actually, by the Rambam this is a very important point, because we know there is, I don't want to get into other things, but just to mention it, we know there is a machloket in the rishonim, between the Rambam and the Rashba mainly, בנוגע the din of ספיקא דאורייתא לחומרא. Means like this: when you have a ספק whether something is אסור or not. So the rule is, if it's a ספק דרבנן, if it's a דין דרבנן and there's a ספק, it's לקולא, you're allowed. If it's a ספק דאורייתא, if מדאורייתא, it's a דין דאורייתא and there's a ספק, you have to be machmir. The question is, this din that you have to be machmir by a ספיקא דאורייתא, is it a דין דאורייתא or a דין דרבנן? Is it that דרבנן said that when it comes to דאורייתא you have to be machmir, or it's a din from the Torah? So this is a machloket of the rishonim. Machloket between the Rambam and the Rashba. The Rashba says ספיקא דאורייתא מדאורייתא לחומרא. Yeah? And the Rambam says ספיקא דאורייתא מדרבנן לחומרא. Actually, one of the things they connect their machloket is, they both have the same source, and they use it the opposite. One of this the the it's a kushya. There's a din, the Gemara learns out from the pasuk \"ממזר לא יבא בקהל ה׳\", says a ממזר cannot marry a Jewish woman, a regular Jewish woman. So the Gemara has a derash from the pasuk, which means it's a din of the pasuk, \"ממזר ודאי לא יבא, ספק ממזר יבא\". Meaning the Torah is trying to teach us that only if he's a definite ממזר, then he's not allowed to. If he's a ספק ממזר, you're allowed. Comes the Rambam and he says, \"So you see, the Torah is trying to teach us that if it's a safek, it's allowed. א, we know ספיקא דאורייתא is אסור לחומרא, that דרבנן said! But from the Torah you're allowed.\" Comes the Rashba, and the Rashba says the opposite. \"If the din is ספיקא דאורייתא מדאורייתא לקולא, why do we need a pasuk by by ממזר? From the fact that the Torah has to tell us the pasuk by ממזר is a re'aya the opposite! That if not for this case, it's טאקע לחומרא, and the Torah has to be matir it.\" But that's a So lefo'al we have this machloket. According to the Rambam that ספיקא דאורייתא מדאורייתא לקולא, okay, מדאורייתא, so מדאורייתא there's no such thing as when you do a ספק איסור it should be an aveirah. So how is there an אשם תלוי? Because the only time, according to the Rambam, that ספיקא דאורייתא is אסור מדאורייתא is by אקבע איסורא. Is when you have a case where you have the two pieces, and there is a ודאי איסור here, and the safek is only whether I took the vadai or not, that's when it's אסור מדאורייתא. So not only do we see that אקבע איסורא is more חמור, that's why there is an אשם תלוי by otherwise not, according to the Rambam, if it's not אקבע איסורא, בכלל it's not אסור מדאורייתא! Not only there's no korban, it's בכלל מותר! Because it's a ספיקא דאורייתא מדאורייתא לקולא! דרבנן לחומרא, מדאורייתא לקולא. It's only in the case of אקבע איסורא. So all I'm trying to bring out is, really it's not connected to the whole ענין, that אקבע איסורא makes it worse. So how does the Chacham Tzvi answer that the מאי that why is over here לקולא? Because here you have the two עדים, and one צד is ודאי כשר, that's why it's more reason to be מיקל, and over there, where you have one person that's a safek on this person, it's the opposite! Here it should be worse, because here it's, you have one צד ודאי אסור, ודאי פוסל, so it's איקבע איסורא, it should be worse. So the terutz seems to be, not a terutz, it needs explanation. Now on Shabbos he gave a different example. It was, but it was with something else, it had to do with with treif. You remember, about someone if there's a piece of meat Right, and you know that That's we go בתר רוב. If somebody goes, like No, that you're allowed to eat. That's not No, but no, but wouldn't the same thing apply though? No, because this is a safek about is this Yeah, but you know one is you know one of these places is definitely Yeah, but, so? No, but you know one place is definitely Well, there's a din of בתר רוב, but there is There we go בתר רוב. That's always the din. Every time when you have a רוב and a מיעוט, the מיעוט is for sure asur, and the רוב is for sure kasher. They just got mixed up! So we go b'sha'ar rov. Here it's half and half, there's only two pieces. And is that why it is? Is it that why it is? No, but over there also, by kavua, it's מחצה על מחצה even if you have nine, but the question is not on the meat, but on the store, so then it's called קבוע כמחצה על מחצה, it's also מחצה על מחצה. I can't understand now why with the two sets of witnesses, with the gazlan, with the with the gazlan on the, that one set of witnesses is certainly vadai is right, right? One set is Well, we're not dealing with the witnesses, we're talking about the guy! The guy we know is a is a safek. is what? He's a safek! Right, so when we deal with the guy, there is a metziut of a safek. We're discussing now the status of this guy, not the status of the edim. When we discuss, no, status of the edim the halachah is אידי ואידי. Here, status of the edim. So, he says that because of the status of the edim, so we don't know the edim are one side kasher, one side pasul, we just don't know which side. While the status of the guy, there are no two sides, there is one guy who is a safek. So he claims that that makes it worse over there. And my kashya is that lichorah it should be worse over here, because here it's ikva isura. The case of our Gemara malveh v'loveh? Because the loveh now is a ספק גזלן because he's being paid from the ta'anah of the malveh, that's a set of edim saying he's a gazlan. No, that's not called a gazlan if a guy The din of a gazlan is only when you find him to be a gazlan vadai. There's no such thing as a ספק ודאי. That's what you're saying, you're the ספק ודאי. No, if you Look, there's edut, that's a כת. Why why does התקבל that this loveh Why not pay half for something like that? Why half? What does he do half? We don't know. המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה, he has no re'ayah, so it's So we're back by the by that this guy is a גזלן, חזקת כשרות? Which guy? He has a חזקת כשרות. This guy is a gazlan. That too, right, that's the kashya. So that's the kashya we're asking. So we're back to our she'eilah! Why over here we do put him on חזקת כשרות, and over there we don't put him on חזקת כשרות? By גזלן we don't. In the case of a גזלן, we say he remains ספק פסול, and he's stuck because he's a ספק, he can't be מעיד. And over here we say זה בא בפני עצמו ומעיד, we pask like Rav Huna, that he could be מעיד. So what's the difference? Now, the Tzemach Tzedek brings the Bach, he brings the Chacham Tzvi, and then he says another teretz. He brings the Shita, or פירוש, it says in the Shita בשם Ramban, and it says the difference is like this, which also needs very much explanation. He says that in the case of our Gemara, it's not that they're ודאי lying, not even one side. That's what it seems he says. Because maybe one of them made a mistake. One guy says, \"I saw him borrow,\" one guy says, \"I didn't.\" Maybe he's mistaking. So it's not a ודאי that one of even either one of them is ודאי lying. Over there, this guy has a ספק whether he's כשר or not. I mean, you read the Tzemach Tzedek, it's it's not clear. Why can't you say the same thing there? So maybe maybe made a mistake? Just like they said, \"We saw him steal,\" the guy says, \"No, at that time this guy was someplace else,\" or whatever. Maybe one made a What's the pshat? I mean, it's very hard to understand. And bichlal, how do you say by עדות maybe made a mistake? How could you bichlal trust עדים? Maybe they make a mistake! We don't say it! We

don't say it because you could always say it. You'll always say it, so we never say it! Whether עדות is a בירור or עדות is a din, they have the big חקירה, the famous חקירה that everyone talks about, whether עדות is a בירור, it's a clear thing. If two עדים say, we know that whatever they say is true. Or we takeh don't know, maybe they're takeh lying, we don't know. But the Torah said whatever two עדים say, you trust, על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר. Whichever way, but we never suspect עדים in halacha of making a mistake. So when two עדים contradict themselves, what we say is one of them is saying the truth and the other one obviously is lying, we just don't know who. But we don't say someone made a mistake! Sometimes in the Gemara we find when there is a contradiction and there is a common case of making a mistake, we do it, like about hours. If one guy says, \"This guy killed this guy at three hours of the day,\" this guy says \"at two hours of the day,\" so then we say אדם טועה שעה אחת or אדם טועה שתי שעות, people can make a mistake, and they're really not contradicting themselves, and they mean the same thing. So there, because it's the Gemara makes a כלל, אדם טועה, a person, they didn't have watches in those days, you have to check it by the sun, so you're not so sure, so you make a mistake. But stam azoy we don't say עדים make a mistake. So what's the peshat they make a mistake? You have a part with that Shabbos that they say, one set of עדים say the לוה owes it In other words, like yeah, so according to it's was with Did he see it happen? No, it doesn't mean not all day, could be a minute. Let's say he says, \"I saw him borrow at 3:00,\" and he says, \"I saw\" so during that hour. So, so according to the sevara, it seems like one of them made a mistake. Lav davka he's a liar, lav davka he's a פסול. But it's a פלאדיגע זאך what I'm saying. It's a מאדנע זאך to say they made a mistake, so we need more explanation here.

Does it say anybody make a distinction about why why the case is by a גזלן, specifically a גזלן? Or? Could be anything else. Anything that could make him פסול. Yeah, it's not davka by a גזלן, it's anything that could make him פסול, like a מחלל שבת. Yeah, the same thing. Let's say two people come and say we saw him מחלל שבת. Two people say no, it's not true. So according to these two he's פסול לעדות. This guy is not פסול לעדות. So we say he's like a פסול. As long as we don't verify him, I mean, he's פסול מספק. Same kashya. What happens to the status of of the two sets of witnesses? Over there? That's like here. By a גזלן. Like here. Like yeah, yeah. Over there, in our, in the Gemara, in our case, there is no testimony on the עדים. Right. They're just Good, but they're, but by the גזלן somebody is somebody's testifying And there's somebody saying farkert. Yeah, but they're not it's it's not they're not testifying on the So who cares? That's, you're saying the Bach's vort! That's what the Bach says! That's why I said the Bach says that here they're talking about the person, and here they're not. Here they're talking about the maaseh. Good! I see the words are words! I don't think he's talking about the maaseh so much as that that over there you have עדים saying this guy is a גזלן. But you have עדים saying he's not. Right, you have עדים saying he's not. So over there it could be a safek. Here, what do you have? You have a witness that says, \"I saw him do this.\" Nobody's coming testifying on me that I did Right, okay. It's just somebody But by you saying, but by the other guy saying that it didn't happen, he's saying you're a liar. Neither set of witnesses is really testifying against you. Yeah. Listen, really we're going to get into all this. I'm saying, but at first glance, they are testifying against you. What was the case you mentioned at the beginning about the two sets of witnesses offset each other? And you throw out or you draw out no testimony. No, so they can't collect money. Let's say one guy says he owes and one guy says he doesn't, you can't collect. But the same groups of witnesses could later testify in other cases, because each one has a חזקת כשרות. There is another דין. There is a famous מחלוקת between the Rambam and the Tur, and that is here in הלכות עדות פרק י״ח הלכה ב׳. That's where the Rambam discusses the difference between הכחשה and הזמה. הכחשה is when two groups of עדים contradict each other. הזמה is a specific case when two עדים come and say, \"We saw this and this happen.\" Let's say, \"We saw this and this guy do this and this, in this and this date, this and this place.\" Come other two later and say, \"On that day, in that place, you two witnesses were with us.\" That's what they're saying: \"You were with us.\" Now they don't know whether the מעשה happened, maybe you're right, maybe the guy on that day borrowed money, maybe the guy on that day was מחלל שבת, we have no idea, we're not saying he's not, but you were with us so you are lying, you can't, your testimony is a lie. If you have that, that's called הזמה. There's a

big difference between הכחשה and הזמה, a major difference, many things. Number one: הכחשה, they're both not accepted, right? If two עדים say, \"Yeah,\" and two it's not, they're both not accepted. In this case, by הזמה, you accept the second, and the first not. The first are liars, we say the first ones are liars, and the second ones are saying the truth. The Gemara says עדים זוממין חידוש הוא. It's a חידוש, we don't know, but that's what it is. Then also in punishment. By הכחשה, what do you do to the עדים? Nothing. By הזמה, ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו, you do to them what they wanted to do to the guy. That's the דין of הזמה. The שאלה comes out, what is the דין when you have הכחשה and הזמה together? Which דין does it have? If the second group of עדים testify in such a way that they are מכחיש the מעשה, they say the מעשה that you're saying happened we're testifying it didn't happen, and at the same time they're also saying that you people were with us. And the Rambam gives an example, let's read the Rambam's case here: שתי כיתי עדים המכחישות זו את זו, אין כאן עדות. If there are two עדים contradict each other, so there is no עדות and you don't punish either one, because לפי שאין אנו יודעים מי היא כת השקרנית, we don't know which is the liar. מה בין הכחשה להזמה? What's the difference between הכחשה and הזמה? הכחשה בעדות עצמה. הכחשה is on the עדות, on the מעשה that happened. זו אומרת, one group says, היה דבר זה, this happened. וזו אומרת, לא היה דבר זה, הרי זו הכחשה. הזמה בעדים עצמן, is on the עדים. ואלו העדים שהזימום אינם יודעים אם היה הדבר או לא היה. The עדים don't know if it happened or not, they're just מזים them that you כיצד? And the Rambam gives an example, in that example we see his שיטה. עדים שבאו ואמרו, if עדים come and say, ראינו זה שהרג את הנפש, או לוה מנה לפלוני, we saw this guy kill somebody or this guy borrowed, ביום פלוני במקום פלוני, this and this day, in this and this place, ואחר שהעידו ונבדקו, after they testified and they were investigated and it seemed like good עדות, באו שנים אחרים ואמרו, came two other ones and said, ביום זה ובמקום זה, in this day, in this place, היינו עמכם ועם אלו כל היום. We were with you עדים and with that guy you claim that killed somebody or borrowed, ולא היו דברים מעולם, it never happened, because you yourself was with us, you עדים were with us and that guy was with us. לא זה הרג את זה ולא זה הלוה את זה, this guy didn't kill this guy. What דין? So what's this example of? הכחשה and הזמה together, because they're testifying that you were with us and at the same time they're testifying that the מעשה didn't happen. הרי זו הכחשה. Has a דין of הכחשה. So the Rambam שיטה is that הכחשה and הזמה together has a דין of הכחשה.

All the מפרשים quote the Tur. The Tur says different, that הכחשה and הזמה together has a דין of הזמה. Now, which שיטה makes more sense? I mean, at first glance, the Tur, no, the Rambam. The Tur, the Tur has ta'am. הכחשה and הזמה, הכחשה is less, not as strict as הזמה. What why does the הזמה become weaker? Why does the הזמה lose the גדר of הזמה because there's also הכחשה? We go על פי שכל, if you are מזים, then it has the whole תוקף, the whole strength of הזמה. The fact that in addition to that you also claim that the מעשה didn't happen, if only, it could help, could make it even stronger. I would think the other way, because when they when they Okay, so we understand the machloket now. When they say הכחשה and הזמה, they at the same time they're they're they're they're making them עדים זוממים, but at the same time they're canceling their testimony, so their עדות no longer is עדות. So then So we have here, yeah, we have here a pshat that someone says in the Tur, and a pshat that someone says in in the Rambam. And they both say the same thing to the opposite directions, and it's based on what you're saying. The

Lechem Mishneh tries to explain the Tur, and he says that vort, that being that it's also הכחשה, so הכחשה cancels the עדים out, so their הזמה can't be accepted. Since the other ones are מכחיש me, too. I'm מזים them, but they are מכחיש, הכחשה means they're מכחיש, so they're מכחיש me. If they're מכחיש me, so I my הזמה can't be accepted. That's what he says. The Nesivos tries to explain pshat in the Rambam. So the Nesivos says like this: being that I'm מזים them, so their הכחשה is not accepted, so it's הזמה. You hear? He's seeing, I'm מזים them, and the din by הזמה is that the first ones are not believed. See, הכחשה they're both not believed, derech agav. By הזמה, so I since I'm מזים them, finish, so they're not accepted, so it's only הזמה, finish, so it's הזמה. So you can look at it both ways, so we're back to the so we didn't gain anything. So we're back to the question: what are the two sides here? The pshat could be like this, to combine, to explain pshat in the machloket of the Rambam and the Tur, and the machloket between Rav Huna and Rav Chiya and Rav Chisda. I want to say that the Rambam and the Tur are based on the machloket of Rav Huna and Rav Chisda, and and since the halacha is like Rav Huna, after we understand what the machloket of Rav Huna and Rav Chisda is, and when we know what Rav Huna's opinion is, then we could see that in Rav Huna itself there are two ways to learn, and that's where the machloket of the Rambam and the Tur will come in. And mimela it will answer our first question that we had in the Shulchan Aruch in that din. Bichlal, when we say two עדים are מכחיש each other, two groups, and therefore they cancel each other out, there's a big chakirah in the acharonim. What's the pshat they cancel each other out? Is the pshat we believe them both, or we don't believe either one? You could say like this: you could say we don't believe either one. If you don't believe either one, finish, we don't believe them. Because this guy can't believe, because the other ones are מכחיש him, you can't believe him, because these are מכחיש him, so they they they're they're not both not believed. Or you can say farkert. This guy is a עדות, we believe him, this guy is עדות, we believe him. Since we believe both, so we can't do both, so that's why, what do we do? Nothing. The outcome will be the same. The outcome will be in this case that when they're מעיד, we can't accept either one, but the question is why can't we accept either one? Is it because they're not believed at all, or they are both believed? That's a she'elah that that that they have. Now the nafka mina will be, that could be the machloket in Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. If we say that they're both believed, so in this case, where they're contradicting each other, since they're both believed, you can't do either way, because you can't do both. But they themselves are believed. If they're believed, so in another case, you could believe them. If you say they're because they're kind of both not believed, the moment they're not believed, so we say you're not believed, we accept you as a שקרן. We accept you as a שקרן, you're a liar, you're a liar. If you're both liars, you can't be believed either. To go a little bit further, the basis of this sevara, whether they're both believed or not, could be based on another chakira, another she'elah here. The she'elah would be like this: when two people are מכחיש each other, they are talking about the מעשה, right? He says he borrowed the money, this group says he didn't borrow, this group says this guy killed somebody, this guy said he didn't kill. They're talking about the מעשה. They are outright not talking about the other people. The group of עדים, the first and the second, the second one doesn't come and say to the first, \"We are מעיד that you're liars. We say that the מעשה, you're you're saying yeah, well the מעשה didn't happen.\" This guy says to the other guy, \"You're saying the מעשה didn't happen, I'm saying the מעשה did happen.\" As a result, comes out from here that The second עדים are saying to the first, \"You're liars.\" The first one is saying to the second, \"You're liars.\" The question here is like this: Is the fact that the group each עדים is each עד is saying to the other one, \"You are a liar\", is that part of their עדות, do we accept it as part of their עדות, or do we say that's only a הסתעפות? Is it עצם, מעצם העדות, or a הסתעפות of the עדות? הסתעפות means a result, an after, yeah. A consequence, right. Is it a consequence, הסתעפות, or is it עצם עדות? You could say that when the second עדים come to the first to say, \"You say that he borrowed the money, I'm telling you he didn't.\" So it's mamash as if he's saying, \"You guys are liars.\" So that's part of the עצם of the עדים, of the עצם of what what they're saying. So they're really saying two things: They're saying basically that the מעשה never happened, plus they're saying, \"We are מעיד that you are שקרנים.\" So there are עדים that these guys are liars. The other group is saying the opposite, saying also, \"The מעשה never happened, you are שקרנים.\" Or you could say, \"No. What they're saying is the מעשה. The fact that they're שקרנים, that's not what they are being מעיד, even though it's a result of what they are saying.\" Now, what will be the difference? The difference will be whether we could believe him or not. If they're talking about a מעשה, there's nobody who testifies that they are liars, there's no testimony that they are liars, so you believe them. Now, these guys are also believed. If you say that their testimony includes the fact, part of their עצמדיקע testimony includes the fact that you are a liar, as if they're saying being me'id you are a liar, when two eidim are me'id on somebody that he's a liar, you can't believe him. So he's a liar, he's pasul. Then you can't believe what he says. Now, the other guys also have two eidim saying that they're liars, you can't believe them either. So it comes out like this, that the she'eilah whether the two eidim are believed or not believed, are really is really a she'eilah starting off a little further. Is the fact, when they're me'id on the ma'aseh and they're מכחיש each other, are they also me'id directly against the person or not? So this is, generally speaking, which the outcome will be the machloket between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. So we understand the machloket. The machloket

will be that Rav Huna who says that we are believe, they believe him in some places, because Rav Huna will hold that they are believed. Why are they believed? Because the testimony is only on the ma'aseh, not on the eidim, it's only on the edut, not on the eidim. And Rav Chisda who says no, they can't testify, you know, because we say that the עצם of the eidim, part of the עצם העדות is on the eidim, and when you're me'id on the eidim, you can't be believed. So each one has that, so both can't be believed. You could explain the same idea, go to a little bit further, another step here. I don't know if it's another step, but a little a little bit further. We're talking here about the two groups of eidim. Now, in this specific case that they are me'id now, right? You can't believe them, even though there's a חזקת כשרות, right? Each one has a חזקת כשרות. But you can't believe them, number one, because you can't believe both. Technically, you can't accept both what they're saying, בגשמיות. But besides that, there's another din. There is a din like this, the Gemara says in Pesachim, that this is another case, it has nothing to do with that Gemara, but the, how it came to become, when there were two שבילין, I think we once spoke, mentioned this din, I think, once. Two שבילין, there are two roads. On one road, there was a tumah. And when you walk down that road, for sure, you have to touch the met, the dead body, and you have to become tamei. Person comes and he doesn't know if he walked in this place or he walked in this place, he doesn't remember which road he took. And he comes to Beit Din and asks, \"Am I tamei or not?\" So the Beis Din would pask and say it's a ספק, ספק טומאה. But the din is ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים, if it happened in רשות הרבים, in the street, ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים ספקו טהור. So they פסק טהור. What happens if there are two people? One guy walked in one route, one guy walked in the other road. And they both don't remember which one they rode, but there's definitely not on the same road. What's the din there? But the Gemara says like this: If each one comes separately to ask the question, we say each one tahor. You come, you're asking, you're a ספק, ספק is tahor. This guy comes, you're a safek, it's tahor. If they come together, then you can't say you can't say that they're both tahor. It's a, it makes no sense, you can't say it. There's a מחלוקת תנאים if one guy comes and asks for himself and the other guy, is that called together or not, whatever. But what do we see from here like this? That the chachamim cannot pasken, even when there's a safek, they cannot pasken a pask which will be a contradiction if they're paskening the two the two contradictions at the same time. They could pask a contradiction. In the case if they come separately, it's a contradiction. Both psakim together contradict. If he's tahor, he's tamei, and if he's tahor, he's tamei, it can't be! Nevertheless, we look at the din, that's halacha, because look at him separately, we pask his din, we look at his, pask his din. So we

have this klal. Here, when they come both to be מעיד on this maaseh, whether the guy borrowed the money or not, we can't pask like either one. Besides the fact that we can't accept both, bagashmiyut, either it can't be, or he borrowed or he didn't, but afilu in theory if it could, you couldn't pask both because it would be a contradiction. Okay. But if the pask that we want to make is not at the same time, we could pask two opposite cases. And therefore, like this: Let's look at it. When we pasken, when Beis Din paskens the status of these עדים, do we look at it that they're paskening the status of both at the same time or not? I'll tell you what it'll depend on. If we say that their testimony doesn't include only the מעשה, but also on the person, that means that the testimony of this group that says that this guy borrowed the money is really saying that you're a liar, this group is saying that you're a liar, so since that's what they're saying, when the beis din paskens the din, they're also paskening the status of the people, and there is one pask here, they're going to pasken one pask, so whatever pask they're going to pask, you cannot pasken this guy's kasher and this guy's kasher, that's a contradiction. So beis din has to pasken that because there's a safek you're both pasul. Both pasul could be, but both kasher

cannot be, both pasul can stay because we don't know. That's only if the the עדות on the person is the עצם of the עדות. If we're saying what they're really testifying is on the מעשה, they're not testifying on the people, אה יבוא it's a result, but that's not what they're saying. So therefore, when beis din paskens, what are they paskening? The מעשה, they're not paskening the status of the people. When will they be paskening the status of the people? Later on, when this group want to come and be מעיד on something, they'll come to beis din, beis din will say, \"Yeah, you're kasher.\" The other guy will come and want to pasken on something else, they'll say, \"You're also kasher.\" That's no problem. So really that's the machloket between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. It's basically like we said before, but I'm extending it. Rav Huna says that they could come somewhere, why? Rav Huna holds that when the עדים are contradicting themselves, they're only they're only talking about the מעשה, they're not talking about the people. So the pask that we're giving is only on the מעשה, not on the people. When will we be giving the pask on the people? We'll be giving it later. If we give it later, we could pasken, do you have a חזקת כשרות? You're kasher. Do you have a חזקת כשרות? You're kasher.

Comes Rav Chisda, and Rav Chisda says, \"No, this is part of the עצם עדות, when they testify, they're saying you are a liar, and they're saying you're a liar, and whatever beis din is going to פסקן is going to include the פסק דין even of of them.\" So if we're going to פסקן now that they're kasher, it's not that we're פסקנינג later, we're פסקנינג now that they're both kasher. We can't פסקן now that they're both kasher, it's because b'vat achat we can't פסקן a contradiction between two psakim. So what what do we have to פסקן? That they're both pasul. That's why Rav Chisda says that you cannot come later and testify. That's the מחלוקת פשט in Rav Huna and Rav Chisda, whichever But the bottom line of the machloket the way it works, explaining it now is that it depends on one נקודה: whether the testimony includes part of the עצם is the person also or only is the maaseh. The halacha is like Rav Huna. So obviously, what is the halacha? That it's just the maaseh and not the person. Okay, now that we know the halacha of Rav Huna, we have a she'eilah now. Hold on, wait, we'll get to that. Hold on, wait, one second. Now we'll get that, now that we

have the the halacha like Rav Huna, let in Rav Huna גופא, in this fact that he said that the testimony on the person is considered a הסתעפות, not טפל, a secondary thing, why is it? And we'll see there are two ways to learn it, and that'll be the two ways that Rambam and the Tur, and then we'll see how it fits the Rambam and the Tur. You could say, on one hand is because the chachamim understood that whenever a person comes to testify, and you deal with two parts, with the maaseh and the person, the עדים are really interested in the maaseh not in the person. The person's dealing with the person is always test always secondary, that's not really what they really mean. That's one way to learn. Or you could say, \"No, it's only when they're talking about the maaseh and not talking about the person, then we say even though the person is included, but they didn't say anything about it. But if they would outright speak about the person, then the person would be definitely part of the part of the עצם עדות.\" We're talking about Rav Huna, Rav Huna who holds that in our case the עדים the עדים the people talking about the people is not part of the עצם, you could say it's only in our case. Because here, what was the what was the case? They came, this guy said you borrowed the money, this guy said you didn't borrow the money, they weren't talking about the people. It's included. So he says since they weren't talking about it, we don't look at it. But let's say they would come clearly and say, \"You know, you I know you are a liar, and this didn't happen.\" Then maybe it would be. Or you say no, even when they would say it outright, the fact that it's it's not what they're talking about, that's not what people when they come to testify about about a מעשה, that's not what the עדות is, even though they're saying it. What would be the nafka mina? The nafka mina would be if they בפועל say it. Okay.

What's the difference בכלל between הכחשה and הזמה? A general look. So I read the Rambam before, I'll read it again. מה בין הכחשה להזמה? הכחשה בעדות עצמה, it's the עדות, not the people. הזמה בעדים עצמן. Comes the Rambam and he says like this: here I see we paskan like Rav Huna, so Rav Huna says that when you have testimony which includes the person and includes the מעשה, the עיקר is the עיקר is the מעשה, not the person, so the Rambam says, \"So the same thing should be: what's the difference between הכחשה and הזמה? הכחשה is the מעשה and הזמה is the person, so if the הכחשה and הזמה come together, the עיקר should be the מעשה, the מעשה is הכחשה. הזמה is something with the person, so that's not, so הזמה is secondary. The moment it's secondary, it doesn't even have a חשש. Comes the Tur and says it's not true. Even though we paskan like Rav Huna, paskan like Rav Huna is only because the case was where he didn't speak about the person. But in our case of the Rambam when he said clearly הכחשה and הזמה, he spoke about the maaseh and about the person. He said the person, the person who borrowed the money was with us, and you edim were with us, two ענינים. So here he says that's different and therefore, since it's different, so it's not, here they're both עצם, and if they're both עצם, why should the הכחשה weaken the הזמה? It has to be an הזמה. Okay. Now after all this, what comes out from here, that the bottom line is that in this case of of Rav Huna, why is it, why can't we pasken, why do we pasken each one בפני עצמו? Because the פסק דין they're not dealing with the person. Since בעצם they're not dealing about the person, therefore we're able to pasken that you're kasher, you're kasher. In the

case of the Shulchan Aruch, they are dealing about the person. There, they're talking directly about the person. The whole דין is that they're saying this person is kasher or this person is pasul. Yeah, but there's a third person, it's not... Yeah, even though it's a third person. But in this safek, where do we see that we put the person on the חזקת כשרות? You know, so when do we put the person on the חזקת כשרות? Because the person was not discussed by the עדות. So you say, the person was not discussed by the עדות and whatever, so therefore there's a חזקת כשרות. But we don't see from there, in our Gemara, that if they would be talking about it, the whole sevara of Rav Huna, the way I'm explaining, is because they're not talking about the person. They never talk, said you are pasul. And because they never said you are pasul, so we disregard that pasul. And later, when it comes to pasken, we פסקן חזקה. But here, when they are discussing the person, here takeh we say he's pasul. That's the peshat in the Bach. What did the Bach say? The Bach said the words that you're trying to use before: Here they're talking about the person, and here they're talking about the, about the עדות, so who cares. My kashya was, what's the difference? But now we see what's the difference, because the whole basis of Rav Huna is this vort. The only reason why he pasken's the way he does is because we're not dealing with the person. So we're not dealing with the person. Huh? But the Rambam pasken's like Rav Huna, so no difference. The Rambam just says something else, that in the case of הכחשה and הזמה... Right, with הכחשה and הזמה... Yeah, but here, where, because they're dealing with the מעשה and the person. But in the case where they're dealing only with the person, only with the person, are talking, they're saying you're כשר, they're saying you're פסול. So here, who says that we put him on the חזקת כשרות? And maybe this would... They're not being מכחיש each other in that case. So the עדים are takeh מכחיש. So the עדים are כשר. So Rav Huna, in that case the central issue of the litigation is the, is the מעשה. Here is the person. Is the person! Here is the מעשה! In Shulchan Aruch is the person. Exactly, that's the difference! It's like the Bach's difference, but the Bach's difference needed backing to explain sof kol sof what's the difference? There's a ספק. The same goes we can't learn out from here, because here the whole נקודה is, since they are talking about a מעשה and the person, so the מעשה, the person becomes טפל to the מעשה. So the person's case... I don't, I don't even understand that, because the, the person only has the status of a גזלן because of the, of the action that he did. It's not, and so why is it about an individual? It's not like they're saying a ממזר. Is this person a ממזר, not a ממזר? That would be a, that would be a definite example, because then it's a status of the individual. A גזלן, did he steal or not steal it? No, that's the, that's the story. Lemashal,

here, if, if two people come and are מעיד, lemashal, take a case of עדים, Tosafot brings a case: If, you know, say he's a גזלן. If the second group, if the second group, there's a דין, if the first group comes and says that this guy did, borrowed money, then another group of עדים come and say the first are גזלנים, פסל ליה לגזלנותא. So then the second ones, I believe the first or not? Right. Why? Because they're talking about the person. Where we're talking about הכחשה, they're both discussing the מעשה. But if one group of עדים come and say this guy borrowed money, and we believe, comes other group and they're, these guys, they're גזלנים. Obviously these guys are saying we're not גזלנים, but you can't, you can't believe on themselves. So obviously believe the second guys. So when you say גזלנים, that's on the person. That's called פסול. Okay, I get what you're saying. You're not talking about if this guy stole... No, we're not discussing whether he has to pay him or not! We're talking if he's a כשר'ע עדות or not, and they are saying he's a פסול'ע עדות because we saw him steal! So they're saying, so there in a case like that, they're believed. And could be that that's the pshat of the Tzemach Tzedek, even though it's bedochak. Tzemach Tzedek says that maybe he made, because here maybe he made a mistake. I don't know the Tzemach Tzedek means pashut that maybe he made a mistake. He didn't say that. The vort is, here we have a right, since they weren't talking about it, we have a way of saying, since they're not talking, we can pasken that he's, they're both kasher. Ay, sof kol sof you're gonna kvetch someone and say, well how could you say they're both kasher? Well maybe they made a mistake. It's true. Yeah. But, but the word mistake is only like a ארויסדרייע זאך, to get out of it, to say, but you are contradicting. Well who knows what happened? But it's not because that's the, the basis of the din, because we assumed, oh, somebody made a mistake, that's why he's not a liar. He's not a liar because the din is that היות they're not talking directly about it, which that's why that's the din. Yeah, maybe they made a mistake, maybe who knows what happened. As if you would answer, who knows what happened. We're not dealing with it. Because their credibility is not an issue. Right, maybe... That's what it means. Like I, it depends how you sing it. You don't, normally, we learn pshat on the Tzemach Tzedek: Oh, the hava amina is, oh, he assumed he made a mistake. What does Who knows if he made a mistake? It's it's this.