Witnesses Who Intentionally Incriminate Falsely [Edim Zomimin עדים זוממין]
Please note that the full practical definition of "Edim Zomimin" is: Witnesses who conspire to testify falsely, and are revealed by witnesses who prove that they were in fact with them at the time when the alleged crime occurred. The singular form is "Ed Zomem."
Procedure
Whether we require that all courtroom testimony be eligible for Hazamah, meaning that facts which will aid in proving that they couldn't have been there, must be provided: Pesachim 12a
Making a Single Witness into an Ed Zomem, even though the testimony of one witness would not have been acceptable, in any case: Bava Metzia 4a
Whether witnesses are made Zomimin by other witnesses who say "The victim/assailant was with us when you say it happened," or only by "You were with us when you say it happened:" Makkot 5a
Whether a single set of witnesses is credible to say that many individual sets of witnesses, all of whom come to testify to a specific person's guilt, are all Zomimin: Makkot 5a, 5b
Whether indictment of Zomimin must occur in the presence of those Edim Zomimin: Ketuvot 19b-20a
Whether "You were with us at that time in another place" makes the initial witnesses into Zomimin if the two places are close enough together that they could have witnessed the event from the other location: Makkot 5a
Whether "You were with us at that time in another place" makes the initial witnesses into Zomimin if the two places are close enough together that they could have travelled to other location in time: Makkot 5a
What happens if only part of a set of witnesses are Zomimin: Makkot 3a, 5b-6a, 6b
Punishment
Whether witnesses are punished as Zomimin if the man they would have indicted actually was guilty: Makkot 5a, 6b
Whether speech of Witnesses is considered a "Deed," so that criminal testimony is eligible for lashes or other penalties: Bava Kama 5a; Makkot 2b, 4b; Keritot 4a
Whether an Ed Zomem can be made to pay solely on his own admission of guilt: Makkot 2b-3a
Providing the same death they had intended for their victim: Makkot 2a
Whether Edim Zomimin must be warned of their potential liability, and the challenges of providing that warning: Ketuvot 33a; Makkot 4b
Whether Edim Zomimin are punished for what they intended, without succeeding, or are punished even if they succeeded: Makkot 2b
How successful the witnesses must be, in order to warrant punishment as Zomimin: Makkot 5b
Whether payment of intended damages is considered to be a Fine or actual restitution: Bava Kama 5a; Makkot 4b
Whether Edim Zomimin are punished with payment of the debt they would have caused the defendant, as well as lashes, or only with payment: Makkot 4a-5a
Having the witnesses split the financial or physical penalty they would have caused the defendant: Makkot 3a, 5a
What happens if someone admits to conviction as an Ed Zomem before another court, without having paid the penalty yet: Makkot 3a
Announcing the crime and punishment after the punishment is administered: Makkot 4b-5a
Requiring edim zomimin to pay even though they also violated a prohibition which should have been punished with lashes, despite the rule that we only give the greater of two punishments for which one is liable: Ketuvot 32a-33a
Punishment for Special Cases
