Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

The term zomeim has its source in Deuteronomy 19:19, which states that a witness should be punished “as he conspired to do against his colleague.”

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 180) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 524) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., all the witnesses who testified falsely.

I.e., each of the lying witnesses receives a full 39 lashes. We do not divide the 39 lashes they wished the defendant to suffer between them.

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 17:1.
Even if the person whom he testified against would have received more or less lashes, the lying witness is given the amount of lashes that he can bear.

Makkot 5a distinguishes between the penalty of receiving lashes and the obligation to make financial reimbursement, stating that as far as the defendant is concerned, money is a sum which is cumulative. He is not concerned with the number of people from whom the sum is collected. Lashes, by contrast, is a punishment and that punishment comes in a total sum; it cannot be divided.

I.e., although they violated the negative commandment against giving false testimony and that commandment is punishable by lashes, they are not given that punishment. The rationale is that whenever a person is liable for a financial penalty and lashes for the same transgression, he is given the financial penalty and not punished by lashes (Makkot 4a; Hilchot Na’arah Betulah 1:11; Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2).

This automatically disqualifies their testimony, for if they were in Babylon on that date, there is no way they could have observed what took place in Jerusalem.

If they testified with regard to murder.

If they testified with regard to a loan.

I.e., ultimately, it is the word of these two witnesses against that of these two. Seemingly, there is no reason why one should be favored over the other (Bava Kama 72b; Sanhedrin 27a.)

See also Chapter 20, Halachah 5.

Once two acceptable witnesses testify together, their testimony is binding. The fact that their are more witnesses in another group is of no consequence whatsoever. See Makkot 5b.

For there is no Scriptural decree to follow the testimony of the latter pair when the testimony of two pairs of witnesses contradicts each other.

The Rambam’s statements here are amplified by his statements in Chapter 20, Halachah 4: “There is no concept of inadvertent action with regard to lying witnesses, because there is no deed involved.’” Since the entire purpose of a warning is to differentiate between an act pert.ormed intentionally and one performed unintentionally (Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:2), a warning is unnecessary.
Ketubot 33a gives a different interpretation. The lying witnesses sought to have the defendant executed without a warning. Since we are obligated to requite them as they conspired, they are also executed without a warning.

I.e., we do not say that since the testimony was contradicted, it was already nullified and hence is of no consequence. See Bava Kama 73b.

Since the lying witnesses become obligated for punishment or a financial penalty through hazamah, the testimony against them must be delivered in their presence, as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 11.

For in this instance, the only effect of their testimony is to release the defendant.

The punishments associated with hazamah can be administered only when the disqualifying testimony is delivered in the witnesses’ presence. The witnesses’ testimony, however, is disqualified even if the testimony is delivered in their absence. Since these statements have the power to disqualify their testimony if they were made in their presence, certainly they have the power to disqualify their testimony when made in their absence, for it is possible that were they made in their presence, they would admit their falsehood (Ketubot 20a).
The Rivash (Responsum 266) emphasizes that even in such a situation, we accept the testimony of the last pair of witnesses as true. We do not consider this as a situation where there are two pairs of witnesses whose testimony contradicts that of each other (see Chapter 22, Halachah 1). The Noda B’Yehudah (Even HaEzer, Responsum 72) does not accept this conclusion and instead interprets the Rambam’s words as meaning: “There is no valid testimony at all,” i.e., neither of the pairs of witnesses are accepted.

Although the prohibition against delivering false testimony is punishable by lashes as stated in Halachah 1, that punishment is not given in this instance for the reason the Rambam proceeds to explain.

This would prove without a doubt that the testimony they delivered was false.

I.e., were their testimony to be disqualified because of hazamah, they would have been executed for this is the punishment they wished to inflict upon the defendant.

See Hilchot Sanhedrin 16:3, 18:5, and notes for a definition of this punishment and the situations where it is applied.

I.e., as implied by the Rambam’s words, after the lying witnesses are punished, a proclamation is circulated throughout the land of Israel.

This verse is referring to all the inhabitants of the Holy Land.

I.e., it is not restitution for money which they caused the defendant to lose, because he did not in fact suffer a loss. Instead, it is a fine, levied against them as a penalty for their undesirable conduct.

For whenever a person admits an obligation which is a fine on his own initiative, he is not held liable (Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 2:8).

This is speaking about a situation where a decision was not rendered by the court. Hence a financial obligation has not yet been established.

Since a verdict has already been rendered, this is no longer considered as a fine, but as any other admission of debt.

I.e., half the sum he conspired to have the defendant forfeit. Although his word is not sufficient to obligate the other witness, it creates a binding obligation for his own self (Makkot 2b,3a).