Rewinding To Sanhedrin

General Usage of תנא התם קאי

We began last night's shiur by explaining the expression תנא התם קאי.  Parallel usages of the term in both the Gemara in Berachot and Ta'anit indicate that it always introduces an answer to a question.  In both Berachot and Ta'anit, the Gemara asks what the basis of an opening question of the mishna is - if we have no proof of a fundamental obligation in the first place....The Gemara in Berachot answers: תנא אקרא קאי - the Tanna in Berachot is basing himself on the pasuk which says that one must utter (the words of Shema) בשכבך ובקומך .  This triggers the question - "when does the nighttime Shema begin?"   In Ta'anit, the Gemara says תנא התם קאי -  there is a Tanna elsewhere who says that we mention "Gevurot Geshamim" in the bracha of "Techiyat Hametim".  This is the basis of the question in the mishna in Ta'anit - "from when do we start reciting משיב הרוח? "

Application To Our Gemara

Similarly, in our Gemara, we raised two difficulties about the wording of our mishna.  Our Gemara's answer is תנא התם קאי.  Our Tanna is spinning off of a mishna at the end of Sanhedrin that states that generally speaking, עדים זוממים receive the punishment that they intended to impose on the accused.  This holds true except for זוממי בת כהן ובועלה: Edim who implicatied the married daughter of a Kohen of having illicit relations with a man other than her husband.  Here, the בת כהן receives שריפה, burning, while the partner receives חנק -strangulation.  The drasha in Sanhedrin 90 establishes, based on the pasuk ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו

That the extra word in the pasuk , לאחיו - to his brother, is meant to specifically address the case of a Kohen's daughter - ie that when there are two competing penalties to such witnesses, we administer the one due to the male partner, and not the Kohen's daughter.  In other words, the edim receive חנק and not שריפה. They are strangled and not burnt.

The Context of Our Mishna

With this in mind, our Gemara now re-reads our mishna as being part of a flow, ending in Sanhedrin: There are cases in which the "zamam" penalty departs from the normal rules (Sanhedrin) and there is a case in which it is not administered כל עיקר - at all (Rashi: כלל) - ie our mishna, where lashes are given instead of the typical penalty.

Our challenges:

- How is the mishna in Sanhedrin an eg of where the normal rules don't apply? After all, there is a question as to what punishment to administer, and the pasuk steers us in the direction of the man's penalty.  How is this is at all a departure from the regular rules of עדים זוממים? Dov Ber suggested that the witnesses' central thrust was to implicate the בת כהן, but I challenged that assumption...Here's one approach, of the Ritvah, courtesy of the Bar Ilan Responsa Project:

חידושי הריטב"א מסכת מכות דף ב עמוד א

 תנא התם קאי. פירוש אפרק הנחנקין דקתני כל הזוממין וכו' ויש עדים זוממין וכו', ק"ל מה תשובה יש בזה לתירוץ קושיתינו דאנן לא בעינן [תנא] היכא קאי דקתני הכי, וי"ל דקא מתרץ דתנא הכי קאמר כיצד העדים נעשין זוממין בלבד שאין בהם קיום הזמה אלא לשון זוממין בלבד, ומשום דפרק הנחנקין איירי בקולא דידהו במקצת שאין מקדימין למיתה החמורה אלא למיתה קלה, קתני הכא שיש עדים אחרים קלים יותר שאין בהם אלא לשון זוממין ומלקות בעלמא, ומכל מקום אין פירוש זה נכון דאכתי לא מיתרצא קושיין [ד]ועוד כדקתני לקמן הוא לפום מאי דפרישנא.

- How do we read this answer back into our mishna? How, at the end of the day, does this help explain the language of our mishna?