Wait a question, that before it with the contradiction? No, you don't believe both. On this ma'aseh we don't believe both. Right, but in this case... But to say that we to that they both should be pasul... That's not what I'm saying. But why? But even though it's a... Because they're both pasul... But it's a contradiction anyway. It's still a contradiction. It's a contradiction to believe... It's anyway, because when we say this guy is kasher and this guy is kasher, it's a contradiction. Because we say that they're both a safek and... They're both a safek and because of the safek we paskan kasher. And because here there's a special way to do it, one after the other. Right, and because it's not בבת אחת. Okay, so there... And therefore we say, okay maybe he's mistaken and who knows what. How do you resolve this issue? Now the issue, in this issue that they're discussing, we cancel each other out. Can't resolve it. Or or both believed or both not believed, whatever, but we can't use either one. For two reasons: number one, we can't use the opposite, but besides that, even if we could, because we're paskening together, we can't paskan on both a contradiction pesak. It seems also that Tzemach Tzedek is not talking about the legal what what's going to happen to the case at hand that we litigate. He's only talking about as as an about the edim themselves. About the edim themselves. So that's why you could say, ah, it doesn't matter... Right, exactly! Ah, does it matter, it doesn't matter for the case. But what but the bottom line, but what is the point, why taka they're both kasher? Because the halachah is, they're not talking about them and therefore you could kasher them. And then you say they both made mistakes. A she'eilah over there when they are talking about it, there's nothing that you can say. In the

case where they, where you have, where they're both zomemim and מוכחשין. So, what could be, either either these the first witnesses are telling the truth, in which case the second witnesses are liars, so they can't be, we don't have to worry about them making them zomemim. Or, the first the second guys are telling the truth, in which case the first guys are liars, so they can't be zomemim. You could you could say that by every hachchashah. One second. You could say by every hachchashah. So how could they... And the... One second. What you're saying is by every hachchashah. Every hachchashah, the first, one second, but that's the din. The din is that we don't know who's right, so they're both machchish each other. No, but I'm saying, I'm saying as far as them not being why the din should not be that they should be zomemim, that they should be treated like zomemim. Yeah. Because how could they be zomemim? Either they're liars... No, they're they're saying the truth. No no, either let's say they're saying the truth. Yeah, that's why... They're saying the truth, then the second guys who come are not saying the truth. No, it's not the first, the second ones who are mezim the first, are saying the truth. Right. They're saying the truth. Right, and the first ones are edim zomemim. Are edim zomemim. No, but they can't be edim zomemim...

Why? ...because... Why not? Because... The second group was mezim the first. Wait, but you're not, you your testimony can't be subject to becoming edim zomemim if you if somebody is contradicting your testimony, then your testimony doesn't count for anything, so how could it be... I mean, edim zomemim they have their testimony is they were going to get the guy, they were going to get the guy hung, and that and now we make them zomemim. Now we're saying we're not we're going to throw out their testimony because we have we have opposing witnesses. Remember, but they come, what's a regular case of hazamah? Two edim come and say, we saw this and this guy do this and this on this and this day. And they accept the edut, everything's fine, and they they gave out a verdict, this guy's supposed to be killed, or whatever it is. Right. Before they kill him, other two come and say that, you guys were with us. So what's the din now? We believe this, the Torah says, we believe the second, and the first ones are liars. Why wouldn't you say this here too? The first ones are liars. But if if you have if you have two witnesses, they come and they say the guy killed him, and we פסקן the guy should be hung. Yeah. Now two witnesses come and say these guys are liars. סתם as a... They say, not not הזמה. These guys are liars. So we don't, if they say they're liars, if they say that we we testify that this guy did not kill him... No, we say that they testify these these, right, we say the opposite. So now we don't know who's right. Now, now... We don't know who's right. We don't know who's right. So now the witnesses cannot become... and now we want to say, oh, and... Why... ...you were with them. Well, who cares what, they they no longer can be, their testimony has already been... No, why do you say that the הכחשה doesn't allow their הזמה to come? Say the opposite! That their הזמה doesn't allow the הכחשה to come! Because they're מזים them, so then the first guys are not believed against them. Because by הזמה the second set are believed against the first. They give a status... And that would make sense that the הזמה, they're מזים, the moment you're מזים them, that's it. They have they have a status... The first are עדים זוממין and they and their testimony against me is nothing. How do you look at which comes first? Yeah, how do you look which first? So I'm saying it depends, now I explain how how do you see which comes first. Because it depends how you learn the fact that they're...

Since by the חוט המשולש case we see that the person is always secondary, so the Rambam says, okay, the person is always secondary. So when you don't know what to look at, whether to look at the person or the maaseh, so you look at the maaseh, not at the person. That's how that's the Rambam. Comes the Tur and says, that's not true! You look at it, over there it's different because over there they're speaking about, they weren't speaking about it, but if you speak it, the הזמה comes first. Did you say where the, did you say the זוממין would get the punishment according to the Tur? According to Rambam, not. Right, according to Rambam, not. Yeah, but then no more... They're free, both free. According to the cheshbon mentioned before, though, about maybe they made a mistake with this one, you wouldn't have in a הזמה case. You don't make a mistake there witnesses. No, right. You might make a mis- you might make a mistake that about what they saw, but you wouldn't make a... No, but so you'd say the same thing by הכחשה. By הכחשה, it could be one of that ways of being מוכחש is that that the מלוה was with us. It's one of the ways. That's not הזמה, eh? That's הכחשה. But you could say the same thing. The thing about הזמה is you're bringing in the credibility of the person. Oh! There, it's not the person. That's not the עדים. You're talking about the maaseh, whether it was the maaseh through other ways or through saying the מלוה was with us, but you're not dealing with the עדים. In הזמה, you are talking about the עדים. That's right. When it comes up in a מלוה ולוה by a הכחשה, you don't look at anything. You leave it the way it was, no change. Right. By a case where you're talking about the credibility of a person, so then you accept, yeah. Right, right, right, right. Exact, that's exact. This is basically the Rambam. What was the case in the beginning that you mentioned where the contradicting witnesses and they don't accept their they never testified? As if they never they We say in this maaseh, we don't accept either one. So the I that the she'eilah is do is it because we don't believe either one or we believe both? No, that's definitely What case did you say that that they contradict them, but they That's the first That's that That's the Gemara. Yeah, the whole testi- as if they never testified. No, but you just said words, לגבי this din. The question is, is it in a way that only in this case, but in other cases they're believed, or we say that because now we don't accept either one, that means we say each one is a liar, at least a safek liar, so next case, no one could testify in other cases either.

Would you say each one is a safek liar?