For the last several pages, the Gemara has been exploring the laws of witnesses who are disqualified from giving testimony. At the top of today’s daf, the Gemara brings a dispute with regard to edim zomemim, or conspiring witnesses. The case of conspiring witnesses is a very specific one. It isn’t simply that two sets of witnesses give contradictory testimony, but rather that one set of witnesses testifies that another set of witnesses could not have truthfully given the testimony they did.
So for example, if two witnesses testify that they saw Reuven steal a watch on Tuesday morning in New York, and then another set of witnesses testify that the first set of witnesses were actually in Boston on Tuesday morning, the first set of witnesses are considered conspiring witnesses. The second set of witnesses aren’t contradicting the facts of the original testimony; they are contesting the ability of the first set of witnesses to have seen what they claim to have seen.
In such an instance, not only is the testimony of the conspiring witnesses thrown out, but they are also sentenced to whatever punishment they were trying to inflict upon the defendant. In the case of theft, they would have to pay double the value of the item they claimed to have seen stolen, as the defendant would have been required to do the same had they been found guilty.
Since conspiring witnesses have been proven to be liars, they are invalid witnesses for all future cases. But the Gemara records a dispute over when this status begins:
Abaye says: He is disqualified retroactively. And Rava says: He is disqualified from that point forward.
Abaye believes that conspiring witnesses have the status of invalid witnesses from the moment they give their testimony. So if a pair of witnesses testifies that they saw Reuven steal a watch on December 1, and on January 1 another pair testifies they couldn’t have witnessed Reuven steal the watch, any testimony those first witnesses gave from December 1 onward is now void. Rava disagrees, holding that the conspiring witnesses are considered disqualified only from January 1 onward.
The Gemara explains their respective rationales:
Abaye says he is disqualified retroactively because from that time when he testified, he is considered a wicked man. And the Torah stated: “Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness” (Exodus 23:1), which is interpreted to mean: Do not allow a wicked man to serve as a witness.
Abaye’s logic is rather straightforward: The court knows that at least as of December 1, the witnesses were willing to lie and conspire. Since they have this “wicked” status, anything they said afterward should be suspect, even though their deception was only discovered later.
Rava says that he is disqualified only from that point forward because the disqualification of a conspiring witness is a novelty. What did you see that causes you to rely on (the second set of witnesses)? You could instead rely upon the first set. Therefore, you can disqualify him only from the time of its novelty and onward.
Rava points out that the rule concerning conspiring witnesses is a novel ruling. Normally, when two witnesses state one thing and two other witnesses state a contradictory thing, we believe neither. The fact that in this particular instance of conspiring witnesses we trust the second set of witnesses is anomalous. Therefore, this novel ruling about their status should only be functional from the point where they were determined to be conspiring witnesses.The Gemara then suggests a different rationale for Rava’s ruling:
There are those who say that Rava also holds like Abaye. And what is the reason Rava says only from that point forward? It is due to the loss for purchasers.
Some say that Rava really agrees with Abaye that conspiring witnesses should be disqualified retroactively. But Rava rules that these witnesses are only rendered untrustworthy moving forward because otherwise all the cases in which these witnesses testified in the interim would be thrown out, resulting in significant monetary loss.
Ultimately, the Gemara sides with Abaye, one of only six cases in all of the Talmud where Abaye prevails against Rava.
Read all of Sanhedrin 27 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on January 13, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
