Witnesses falsely testify that a man divorced his wife without paying her ketubah. How do courts calculate the payment they owe?
Courts estimate the 'tovat hana'ah' — how much someone would pay in the market to acquire the right to collect this ketubah upon widowhood or divorce. This varies with the woman's age, health, and marital harmony.
Question 2
Witnesses falsely testify that Reuven's ox gored Shimon's ox. They are disqualified through hazamah. What do they pay?
The zomeim witnesses would have caused Reuven to pay only half-damages (for a tam ox), and only from the ox's body. The mirror principle means they pay half-damages — and if the ox isn't worth half, only the ox's value.
Question 3
Two witnesses testify to the theft and two others testify to the slaughter. If only the theft witnesses are disqualified, what is the outcome?
The slaughter (or sale) testimony depends on the theft testimony. Without the theft, there is no four-or-five-fold liability. Disqualifying the theft witnesses collapses the entire chain of liability.
Question 4
In a wayward son (ben sorer u'moreh) case, both the first testimony group (initial warning) and second testimony group (capital testimony) are disqualified. What happens?
The first group can say 'we only came to cause him lashes' (the initial testimony only requires lashing). The second testimony is what causes death. So the first group receives lashes and the second group is executed.
Question 5
Three groups of witnesses establish that an ox has a tendency to gore. Groups 1 and 2 are disqualified through hazamah. What happens to them?
Groups 1 and 2 can claim: 'We only intended to make him pay half-damages. We didn't know a third group would come to make the ox a muad.' They are not liable unless all three groups were clearly coordinating (motioning to each other, appearing consecutively, etc.).