No Literal כאשר זמם for Witnesses

On Monday evening, we continued the Gemara's inquiry as to why the characters in the mishna do not receive the classic כאשר זמם penalty.  

The first view expressed, that of Reish Lakish, argues that one of the pesukim regarding the עיר מקלט precludes this possibility. 

ה וַֽאֲשֶׁר֩ יָבֹ֨א אֶת־רֵעֵ֥הוּ בַיַּ֘עַר֘ לַחְטֹ֣ב עֵצִים֒ וְנִדְּחָ֨ה יָד֤וֹ בַגַּרְזֶן֙ לִכְרֹ֣ת הָעֵ֔ץ וְנָשַׁ֤ל הַבַּרְזֶל֙ מִן־הָעֵ֔ץ וּמָצָ֥א אֶת־רֵעֵ֖הוּ וָמֵ֑ת ה֗וּא יָנ֛וּס אֶל־אַחַ֥ת הֶעָֽרִים־הָאֵ֖לֶּה וָחָֽי

On the phrase הוא ינוס - RL derives - he - and not zomimin!

In other words, we can infer from the passage dealing with ערי מקלט that the Torah intended to say that only the actual accidental murderer will flee to such a city, but not עדים זוממים who tried to "frame" a person and send him, through their false accusations, to an עיר מקלט.  

We noted that there is no automatic license to make such inferences, or "diyukim" simply because the Torah is describing a specific incident and halacha - in this case: the laws of cities of refuge for manslaughterers.  There has to be something compelling in the language of the pasuk that mandates a drasha of this sort!  Here, we noted that the pasuk began with the phrase ואשר יבוא - with no specific reference to the third person male הוא; in Hebrew grammar, there is no necessity to mention the person who is performing the action if the conjugation indicates that it's third person male....Therefore, at the end of the pasuk, the word הוא , in the prhase הוא ינוס - is unnecessary.  This prompted the drasha - HIM - and not zomimin!

R. Yochanan, like his counterpart Bar Padah in the previous part of the sugyah, says that a Kal va'Chomer teaches this: A murderer, who did an action, is not exiled if he was Mezid (even if he is not killed). Edim Zomemim did not do an action. (all they did was utter a דיבור בעלמא - mere words) Therefore, we must conclude that all the more so they are not exiled even though they were Mezidim!   As we noted in class,  the premise of this proof is that cities of refuge are essentially punitive in their function.  The logic states that if the more severe behavior is not punished by exile to an עיר מקלט, how much more so should a less severe behavior, which is only in the category of dibbur, and not ma'aseh - speech and not deed. 

The Gemara responds by saying היא הנותנת - and Rashi explains that this is a קושיא on R. Yochanan - with the following pshat: This middah/quality that you just mentioned - namely, that the edim simply spoke but did not do an action - is the aspect that actually should give them a  חובת גלות - exile - even though actual murderers do not go to the עיר.  Since there is a כפרה /atonement component to the cities of refuge - only the more minor offense of dibbur and not ma'aseh warrants cities of refuge for the edim.

Because of this, the kal v'chomer cannot be the source of exemption for edim zomimin going to galut and receiving a different consequence instead.

This is why the Kal V'chomer does not work to exempt the edim from Galut - and the Gemara concludes that we must return to the original drasha of הוא ינוס of Reish Lakish.