Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 7, 2017 | 讬状讞 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Makkot 2

There are certain exceptions to the rule when false witnesses do not聽receive the punishment “that they tried to do to their brother.”聽 In those cases, they get lashes instead.聽 For example, if they testify about the status of a person (about a kohen that his father married a divorce) or that he killed accidentally and should go to the refuge city.聽 The gemara聽looks for the source that in these cases one doesn’t get the punishment “as he tried to do to his brother” and also looks for the source that one can derive the lashes punishment for these crimes.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 讛注讚讬诐 谞注砖讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬注砖讛 讝讛 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 转讞转讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐

MISHNA: How are witnesses rendered conspiring witnesses? This applies in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: We testify with regard to so-and-so, who is a priest, that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, a yevama who performed the rite of 岣litza to free herself from the levirate bond. Those testimonies render him a 岣lal (see Leviticus 21:6鈥7), one disqualified from the priesthood due to flawed lineage. If a second set of witnesses testifies in court and renders the first set conspiring witnesses, one does not say with regard to each of the conspiring witnesses: This witness shall be rendered the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza in his stead. Rather, he receives forty lashes as punishment for his false testimony.

诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讙诇讜转 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讙诇讛 讝讛 转讞转讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐

Likewise, in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: We testify with regard to so-and-so that he is liable to be exiled to a city of refuge for unwittingly killing another (see Numbers 35:11), and a second set of witnesses testifies in court and renders the first set conspiring witnesses, one does not say with regard to each of the conspiring witnesses: This witness shall be exiled in his stead. Rather, he receives forty lashes.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 谞注砖讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 诪讚拽转谞讬 诇拽诪谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讛讬讗讱 讗转诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讛专讬 讘讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讗转诐 讛讬讬转诐 注诪谞讜 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讗诇讜 讗讬谉 讝讜诪诪讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the opening question of the mishna: But based on the cases discussed in the mishna, the tanna should have asked: How are witnesses not rendered conspiring witnesses? The standard punishment for conspiring witnesses is the punishment that they conspired to have inflicted upon the subject of their testimony. The mishna cites anomalous cases where their punishment does not correspond to the punishment they sought to have inflicted. The Gemara asks: And furthermore, from the fact that the tanna teaches in a mishna cited later (5a): But if the second set of witnesses attempting to render the first set conspiring witnesses said to them: How can you testify to that incident when on that day you were with us in such and such place, these first witnesses are conspiring witnesses. One learns by inference from the final phrase in the cited passage: These are conspiring witnesses, that those enumerated in the mishna here are not conspiring witnesses.

转谞讗 讛转诐 拽讗讬 讻诇 讛讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 诪讬转讛 讞讜抓 诪讝讜诪诪讬 讘转 讻讛谉 讜讘讜注诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 诪讬转讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讬转讛 讗讞专转

The Gemara answers both questions: The tanna is standing there in his studies, at the end of tractate Sanhedrin, which immediately precedes Makkot, and Makkot is often appended to the end of Sanhedrin. The mishna there teaches (89a): All those who are rendered conspiring witnesses are led to be executed with the same mode of execution with which they conspired to have their victim executed, except for conspiring witnesses who testified that the daughter of a priest and her paramour committed adultery, where the daughter of the priest would be executed by burning (see Leviticus 21:9) and her paramour would be executed by strangulation. In that case, they are not taken directly to be executed with the same mode of execution that they sought to have inflicted on the woman; rather, they are executed with a different mode of execution, the one they sought to have inflicted on the paramour.

讜讬砖 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讘讛谉 讚讬谉 讛讝诪讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 讗诇讗 诪诇拽讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讻讬爪讚 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬注砖讛 讝讛 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 转讞转讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讛 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

Therefore, the tanna continues in this first mishna in Makkot: And there are other conspiring witnesses with regard to whom the court does not apply the halakhot governing the punishment in standard cases of conspiring testimony at all, and they do not receive the punishment they sought to have inflicted. Rather, they receive forty lashes. How, and in what cases, is this applied? This is applied in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: We testify with regard to so-and-so that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, one does not say with regard to each of the conspiring witnesses: This witness shall be rendered the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza in his stead. Rather, he receives forty lashes.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讝专注讜 讜诇讬驻住诇讜讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讬驻住诇讜 诇讝专注讬讛 讘注讬谞谉 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇注砖讜转 讜诇讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived that the court does not punish the witnesses with the punishment they sought to have inflicted and disqualify them from the priesthood? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19), from which the Gemara infers: It is done 鈥渢o him,鈥 but not to his offspring. Rendering the witness a 岣lal would disqualify his offspring as well. The Gemara challenges: Let the court invalidate the witness and not invalidate his offspring. The Gemara explains: That too would not accord with the directive in the verse, as based on the verse we require that the punishment be 鈥渁s he conspired to do鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19), and that is not the case here, as the witness conspired to disqualify the subject of his testimony and his offspring.

讘专 驻讚讗 讗讜诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讛诪讞诇诇 讗讬谞讜 诪转讞诇诇 讛讘讗 诇讞诇诇 讜诇讗 讞讬诇诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬转讞诇诇 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗诐 讻谉 讘讟诇转 转讜专转 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉

Bar Padda says that this alternative form of punishment is derived through an a fortiori inference: If one who actually disqualifies another from the priesthood, i.e., a priest who fathers a son with a divorc茅e disqualifies their son from the priesthood, is not himself disqualified from the priesthood, so too with regard to this witness who came to disqualify another from the priesthood but was unsuccessful and did not disqualify him because he was rendered a conspiring witness, isn鈥檛 it logical that he should not be disqualified? Ravina objects to this reasoning: If so, that the failure of the conspiring witnesses to achieve their objective is the consideration at the basis of the a fortiori inference, you have thereby rendered the halakha of conspiring witnesses obsolete, as one could claim:

讜诪讛 讛住讜拽诇 讗讬谞讜 谞住拽诇 讛讘讗 诇住拽讜诇 讜诇讗 住拽诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬住拽诇 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗

If one who stones another, i.e., who testified that another is liable to be executed via the death penalty of stoning and was rendered a conspiring witness after that person was executed, is not stoned, as the halakha is that conspiring witnesses receive the punishment that they conspired to have inflicted and not the punishment that they actually had inflicted, then with regard to a conspiring witness who came to stone another and was unsuccessful and did not stone him, as he was rendered a conspiring witness before that person was executed, isn鈥檛 it logical that he should not be stoned? The Gemara concludes: Rather, it is clear as we answered initially: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired鈥; this should be done to him, but not to his offspring.

诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讙诇讜转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讬谞讜住 讗诇 讗讞转 讛注专讬诐 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讝讜诪诪讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches that in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: We testify with regard to so-and-so that he is liable to be punished with exile, one does not say that these witnesses shall be exiled in his stead; rather, they receive forty lashes. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Reish Lakish says: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states with regard to an unwitting killer: 鈥淎nd he shall flee to one of the cities鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), and the Gemara infers: He shall flee, but conspiring witnesses shall not.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讛讜讗 砖注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讛谉 砖诇讗 注砖讜 诪注砖讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讙诇讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is derived through an a fortiori inference: If the killer, who performed an action that, had he done so intentionally, he would not be exiled for it even if he were not sentenced to death, e.g., because there was no forewarning, then in the case of the conspiring witnesses, who did not perform an action, as their conspiracy was exposed and their testimony rejected, even if they testified intentionally, isn鈥檛 it logical that they should not be exiled?

讜讛讬讗 谞讜转谞转 (讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗) 讛讜讗 砖注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 诇讬讙诇讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讻驻专讛 讛谉 砖诇讗 注砖讜 诪注砖讛 讘诪讝讬讚 谞诪讬 诇讬讙诇讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讛讜讬 诇讛讜 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 诪讬讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

The Gemara challenges: But that distinction provides support to the contrary. Could this not be derived through logical inference? With regard to one who performed an action, i.e., killed a person, if he did so intentionally, let him not be exiled so that he will not have atonement for his action, and he will instead receive harsh punishment at the hand of Heaven. With regard to the conspiring witnesses, who did not perform an action, even if they testified intentionally, let them also be exiled so that they will have atonement for their misdeed. The Gemara concludes: Rather, it is clear in accordance with the explanation of Reish Lakish: 鈥淎nd he shall flee to one of the cities鈥; he, but not conspiring witnesses.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 专诪讝 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 专诪讝 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 讗诇讗 专诪讝 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 砖诇讜拽讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛爪讚讬拽讜 讗转 讛爪讚讬拽 讜讛专砖讬注讜 讗转 讛专砖注 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 讘谉 讛讻讜转 讛专砖注 诪砖讜诐 讜讛爪讚讬拽讜 讗转 讛爪讚讬拽 讜讛专砖讬注讜 讗转 讛专砖注 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 讘谉 讛讻讜转 讛专砖注

Ulla says: From where is an allusion in the Torah to conspiring witnesses derived? The Gemara asks: Is an allusion to conspiring witnesses required? But isn鈥檛 it written explicitly: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19)? Rather, Ulla鈥檚 question is: From where is an allusion in the Torah to the halakha that conspiring witnesses are flogged in certain cases derived? It is derived from that which is written: 鈥淚f there is a quarrel between people and they come to judgment, and the judges judge them, and they vindicated the righteous and condemned the wicked, and it shall be if the wicked is deserving of lashes鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:1鈥2). Ostensibly, this verse is difficult: Is it due to the fact that 鈥渢hey vindicated the righteous鈥 that they 鈥渃ondemned the wicked, and it shall be if the wicked is deserving of lashes鈥? In most disputes, the fact that one party is vindicated does not necessarily lead to lashes for the other party.

讗诇讗 注讚讬诐 砖讛专砖讬注讜 讗转 讛爪讚讬拽 讜讗转讜 注讚讬诐 讗讞专讬谞讬 讜讛爪讚讬拽讜 讗转 讛爪讚讬拽 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讜砖讜讬谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 专砖注讬诐 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 讘谉 讛讻讜转 讛专砖注

Rather, the verse is addressing the case of witnesses who, through their testimony, condemned the righteous, and other witnesses came and vindicated the original righteous person and rendered these first set of witnesses wicked conspiring witnesses. In that case, the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be if the wicked is deserving of lashes,鈥 indicating that lashes are an appropriate punishment for conspiring witnesses.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪诇讗 转注谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: And why not derive the halakha that conspiring witnesses are liable to receive lashes from the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor鈥 (Exodus 20:13)? The Gemara answers: One is not flogged for violating that prohibition, due to the fact that it is a prohibition that does not involve an action, as one violates it through speech, not action, and the principle is: For every prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation. Therefore, it was necessary to derive the halakha from the verse: 鈥淎nd they vindicated the righteous.鈥

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讗讬谉 谞注砖讬谉 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讜讗讬谉 讙讜诇讬谉 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 讜讗讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 讜讗讬谉 谞诪讻专讬谉 讘注讘讚 注讘专讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专讜 讗祝 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: Four matters were stated with regard to conspiring witnesses, i.e., there are four cases in which their punishment deviates from the norm. They are not rendered the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza; they are not exiled to a city of refuge; they do not pay the ransom if they testified that the forewarned ox of someone killed another; and they are not sold as a Hebrew slave in a case where they testified that one stole property and he would be sold into slavery if he lacked the means to repay the owner. The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: They also do not pay based on their own admission. If they were rendered conspiring witnesses in one court, and before that court managed to collect the payment that they owed, they appeared in a different court and admitted that they had been rendered conspiring witnesses, they are exempt from payment.

讗讬谉 谞注砖讬谉 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讻讚讗诪专谉 讜讗讬谉 讙讜诇讬谉 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 讻讚讗诪专谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 拽住讘专讬 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛 讜讛谞讬 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讻驻专讛 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara elaborates: They are not rendered the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, as we stated and explained earlier. And they are not exiled to a city of refuge, as we stated and explained earlier. And they do not pay the ransom, as these Sages hold that the ransom paid by one whose ox killed another is atonement for him, as he is liable for the actions of his animal, and it is not payment of damages. And these conspiring witnesses are not subject to a need for atonement, as their ox did not kill anyone.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜谞转谉 驻讚讬谉 谞驻砖讜 讚诪讬 谞讬讝拽 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讚诪讬 诪讝讬拽 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讻讜驻专讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that the ransom is atonement? Rav 岣sda says: It is Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse concerning a case where the ox of one person gored another: 鈥淚f ransom is imposed upon him, and he shall give the redemption of his soul鈥 (Exodus 21:30); the term 鈥渉is soul鈥 means the value of the victim, i.e., the owner of the ox must pay the heirs of the deceased his value as it would be assessed were he sold as a slave in the market. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: The term 鈥渉is soul鈥 means the value of the one liable for the damage. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this principle: That one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the ransom is monetary restitution for the damage that his ox caused the victim; and one Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that the ransom is atonement, as he thereby redeems his own soul from death at the hand of Heaven?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘讚谞讬讝拽 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讚诪讝讬拽 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉

Rav Pappa says: No, perhaps everyone agrees that the ransom is atonement, and here, it is with regard to this matter that they disagree: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that we assess the payment in terms of the value of the victim; and one Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that we assess the payment in terms of the value of the one liable for the damage.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 谞讗诪专 讛砖转讛 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专 讛砖转讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讚谞讬讝拽 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讚谞讬讝拽

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who abandon the straightforward meaning of the verse? The Rabbis derive it in the following manner: Imposition is stated below with regard to one whose ox killed another: 鈥淚f ransom is imposed upon him鈥 (Exodus 21:30), and imposition is stated above, in the case of one who struck a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry: 鈥淗e shall be punished, as the husband of the woman imposes upon him鈥 (Exodus 21:22). Just as there, with regard to the miscarriage, it is in terms of the value of the victim, the fetus, that we assess the payment, here too, in the case of the ransom, it is in terms of the value of the victim that we assess the payment.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜谞转谉 驻讚讬谉 谞驻砖讜 讻转讬讘 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 谞驻砖讜 讻转讬讘 诪讬讛讜 讻讬 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 讘讚谞讬讝拽 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉

And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: 鈥淎nd he shall give the redemption of his soul鈥 is written, indicating that the sum is based on the value of the one seeking atonement. And the Rabbis explain: Yes, the phrase 鈥渞edemption of his soul鈥 is written, and the payment functions to redeem his soul. Nevertheless, when we assess the sum of the redemption payment, it is in terms of the value of the victim that we assess the payment.

讜讗讬谉 谞诪讻专讬谉 讘注讘讚 注讘专讬 住讘专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讚诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬讛讜 诇讗 谞讝讚讘谉 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谞讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 诪讬讝讚讘谞讜

搂 The baraita teaches: Conspiring witnesses are not sold as a Hebrew slave in a case where they testified that one stole property. Rav Hamnuna thought to say: This statement applies only in a case where the falsely accused has means of his own to repay the sum of the alleged theft, as since, had the testimony been true, he would not have been sold for his transgression, the witnesses too are not sold when they are rendered conspiring witnesses. But in a case where the falsely accused does not have means of his own, and would have been sold into slavery had their testimony been accepted, even if the witnesses have means of their own, they are sold, as they sought to have slavery inflicted upon him.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜诇讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗谞转 讛讜讛 诇讱 诪讬 讛讜讛 诪讬讝讚讘谞转 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谞讬谞谉 讗诇讗 住讘专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讚讬讚讛讜 诪讝讚讘谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜谞诪讻专 讘讙谞讘转讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘讙谞讘转讜 讜诇讗 讘讝诪诪讜

Rava said to him: And let the witnesses say to the person against whom they testified: If you had money, would you have been sold? We too will not be sold. Since they have the means, they can pay the sum that they owe and not be sold as slaves. Rather, the Gemara proposes an alternative formulation of the statement of Rav Hamnuna. Rav Hamnuna thought to say: This statement applies only in a case where either he, the falsely accused, or they, the witnesses, have the means to pay the sum; but in a case where neither he nor they have the means, the witnesses are sold. In that case, had their testimony stood, the alleged thief would have been sold into slavery, and they too lack the means to pay the sum that they are liable to pay as conspiring witnesses. Therefore, they are sold. Rava said to him: That is not so, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd he shall be sold for his theft鈥 (Exodus 21:30), from which it is inferred: For his theft, but not for his conspiring testimony.

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专讜 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽住讘专 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讜拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 转讚注 砖讛专讬 诇讗 注砖讜 诪注砖讛 [讜谞讛专讙讬诐] 讜诪砖诇诪讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转讚注 砖讛专讬 诪诪讜谉 讘讬讚 讘注诇讬诐 讜诪砖诇诪讬诐

搂 It is taught in the baraita: The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: They also do not pay based on their own admission. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? He holds that money paid by a convicted conspiring witnesses is a fine [kenasa], and the principle is: One does not pay a fine based on his own admission; one pays a fine only on the basis of testimony. Rabba says: Know that it is a fine, as these witnesses did not perform an action and caused no actual damage, and yet they are executed or pay depending on the nature of their testimony, indicating that it is a fine rather than a monetary restitution. Rav Na岣an says: Know that it is a fine rather than a monetary restitution for damages, as the money they sought to compel him to pay ultimately remains in the possession of the owner against whom they testified, and yet they pay him.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Makkot 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Makkot 2

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 讛注讚讬诐 谞注砖讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬注砖讛 讝讛 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 转讞转讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐

MISHNA: How are witnesses rendered conspiring witnesses? This applies in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: We testify with regard to so-and-so, who is a priest, that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, a yevama who performed the rite of 岣litza to free herself from the levirate bond. Those testimonies render him a 岣lal (see Leviticus 21:6鈥7), one disqualified from the priesthood due to flawed lineage. If a second set of witnesses testifies in court and renders the first set conspiring witnesses, one does not say with regard to each of the conspiring witnesses: This witness shall be rendered the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza in his stead. Rather, he receives forty lashes as punishment for his false testimony.

诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讙诇讜转 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讙诇讛 讝讛 转讞转讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐

Likewise, in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: We testify with regard to so-and-so that he is liable to be exiled to a city of refuge for unwittingly killing another (see Numbers 35:11), and a second set of witnesses testifies in court and renders the first set conspiring witnesses, one does not say with regard to each of the conspiring witnesses: This witness shall be exiled in his stead. Rather, he receives forty lashes.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 谞注砖讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 诪讚拽转谞讬 诇拽诪谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讛讬讗讱 讗转诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讛专讬 讘讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讗转诐 讛讬讬转诐 注诪谞讜 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚讗诇讜 讗讬谉 讝讜诪诪讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the opening question of the mishna: But based on the cases discussed in the mishna, the tanna should have asked: How are witnesses not rendered conspiring witnesses? The standard punishment for conspiring witnesses is the punishment that they conspired to have inflicted upon the subject of their testimony. The mishna cites anomalous cases where their punishment does not correspond to the punishment they sought to have inflicted. The Gemara asks: And furthermore, from the fact that the tanna teaches in a mishna cited later (5a): But if the second set of witnesses attempting to render the first set conspiring witnesses said to them: How can you testify to that incident when on that day you were with us in such and such place, these first witnesses are conspiring witnesses. One learns by inference from the final phrase in the cited passage: These are conspiring witnesses, that those enumerated in the mishna here are not conspiring witnesses.

转谞讗 讛转诐 拽讗讬 讻诇 讛讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 诪讬转讛 讞讜抓 诪讝讜诪诪讬 讘转 讻讛谉 讜讘讜注诇讛 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇讗讜转讛 诪讬转讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讬转讛 讗讞专转

The Gemara answers both questions: The tanna is standing there in his studies, at the end of tractate Sanhedrin, which immediately precedes Makkot, and Makkot is often appended to the end of Sanhedrin. The mishna there teaches (89a): All those who are rendered conspiring witnesses are led to be executed with the same mode of execution with which they conspired to have their victim executed, except for conspiring witnesses who testified that the daughter of a priest and her paramour committed adultery, where the daughter of the priest would be executed by burning (see Leviticus 21:9) and her paramour would be executed by strangulation. In that case, they are not taken directly to be executed with the same mode of execution that they sought to have inflicted on the woman; rather, they are executed with a different mode of execution, the one they sought to have inflicted on the paramour.

讜讬砖 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讘讛谉 讚讬谉 讛讝诪讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 讗诇讗 诪诇拽讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讻讬爪讚 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬注砖讛 讝讛 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 转讞转讬讜 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讛 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

Therefore, the tanna continues in this first mishna in Makkot: And there are other conspiring witnesses with regard to whom the court does not apply the halakhot governing the punishment in standard cases of conspiring testimony at all, and they do not receive the punishment they sought to have inflicted. Rather, they receive forty lashes. How, and in what cases, is this applied? This is applied in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: We testify with regard to so-and-so that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, one does not say with regard to each of the conspiring witnesses: This witness shall be rendered the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza in his stead. Rather, he receives forty lashes.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讝专注讜 讜诇讬驻住诇讜讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讬驻住诇讜 诇讝专注讬讛 讘注讬谞谉 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇注砖讜转 讜诇讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived that the court does not punish the witnesses with the punishment they sought to have inflicted and disqualify them from the priesthood? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19), from which the Gemara infers: It is done 鈥渢o him,鈥 but not to his offspring. Rendering the witness a 岣lal would disqualify his offspring as well. The Gemara challenges: Let the court invalidate the witness and not invalidate his offspring. The Gemara explains: That too would not accord with the directive in the verse, as based on the verse we require that the punishment be 鈥渁s he conspired to do鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19), and that is not the case here, as the witness conspired to disqualify the subject of his testimony and his offspring.

讘专 驻讚讗 讗讜诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讛诪讞诇诇 讗讬谞讜 诪转讞诇诇 讛讘讗 诇讞诇诇 讜诇讗 讞讬诇诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬转讞诇诇 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗诐 讻谉 讘讟诇转 转讜专转 注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉

Bar Padda says that this alternative form of punishment is derived through an a fortiori inference: If one who actually disqualifies another from the priesthood, i.e., a priest who fathers a son with a divorc茅e disqualifies their son from the priesthood, is not himself disqualified from the priesthood, so too with regard to this witness who came to disqualify another from the priesthood but was unsuccessful and did not disqualify him because he was rendered a conspiring witness, isn鈥檛 it logical that he should not be disqualified? Ravina objects to this reasoning: If so, that the failure of the conspiring witnesses to achieve their objective is the consideration at the basis of the a fortiori inference, you have thereby rendered the halakha of conspiring witnesses obsolete, as one could claim:

讜诪讛 讛住讜拽诇 讗讬谞讜 谞住拽诇 讛讘讗 诇住拽讜诇 讜诇讗 住拽诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬住拽诇 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗

If one who stones another, i.e., who testified that another is liable to be executed via the death penalty of stoning and was rendered a conspiring witness after that person was executed, is not stoned, as the halakha is that conspiring witnesses receive the punishment that they conspired to have inflicted and not the punishment that they actually had inflicted, then with regard to a conspiring witness who came to stone another and was unsuccessful and did not stone him, as he was rendered a conspiring witness before that person was executed, isn鈥檛 it logical that he should not be stoned? The Gemara concludes: Rather, it is clear as we answered initially: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired鈥; this should be done to him, but not to his offspring.

诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讙诇讜转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讬谞讜住 讗诇 讗讞转 讛注专讬诐 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讝讜诪诪讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches that in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: We testify with regard to so-and-so that he is liable to be punished with exile, one does not say that these witnesses shall be exiled in his stead; rather, they receive forty lashes. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Reish Lakish says: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states with regard to an unwitting killer: 鈥淎nd he shall flee to one of the cities鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), and the Gemara infers: He shall flee, but conspiring witnesses shall not.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讛讜讗 砖注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讛谉 砖诇讗 注砖讜 诪注砖讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讙诇讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is derived through an a fortiori inference: If the killer, who performed an action that, had he done so intentionally, he would not be exiled for it even if he were not sentenced to death, e.g., because there was no forewarning, then in the case of the conspiring witnesses, who did not perform an action, as their conspiracy was exposed and their testimony rejected, even if they testified intentionally, isn鈥檛 it logical that they should not be exiled?

讜讛讬讗 谞讜转谞转 (讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗) 讛讜讗 砖注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 诇讬讙诇讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讻驻专讛 讛谉 砖诇讗 注砖讜 诪注砖讛 讘诪讝讬讚 谞诪讬 诇讬讙诇讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讛讜讬 诇讛讜 讻驻专讛 讗诇讗 诪讬讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

The Gemara challenges: But that distinction provides support to the contrary. Could this not be derived through logical inference? With regard to one who performed an action, i.e., killed a person, if he did so intentionally, let him not be exiled so that he will not have atonement for his action, and he will instead receive harsh punishment at the hand of Heaven. With regard to the conspiring witnesses, who did not perform an action, even if they testified intentionally, let them also be exiled so that they will have atonement for their misdeed. The Gemara concludes: Rather, it is clear in accordance with the explanation of Reish Lakish: 鈥淎nd he shall flee to one of the cities鈥; he, but not conspiring witnesses.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 专诪讝 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 专诪讝 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 讗诇讗 专诪讝 诇注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 砖诇讜拽讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛爪讚讬拽讜 讗转 讛爪讚讬拽 讜讛专砖讬注讜 讗转 讛专砖注 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 讘谉 讛讻讜转 讛专砖注 诪砖讜诐 讜讛爪讚讬拽讜 讗转 讛爪讚讬拽 讜讛专砖讬注讜 讗转 讛专砖注 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 讘谉 讛讻讜转 讛专砖注

Ulla says: From where is an allusion in the Torah to conspiring witnesses derived? The Gemara asks: Is an allusion to conspiring witnesses required? But isn鈥檛 it written explicitly: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19)? Rather, Ulla鈥檚 question is: From where is an allusion in the Torah to the halakha that conspiring witnesses are flogged in certain cases derived? It is derived from that which is written: 鈥淚f there is a quarrel between people and they come to judgment, and the judges judge them, and they vindicated the righteous and condemned the wicked, and it shall be if the wicked is deserving of lashes鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:1鈥2). Ostensibly, this verse is difficult: Is it due to the fact that 鈥渢hey vindicated the righteous鈥 that they 鈥渃ondemned the wicked, and it shall be if the wicked is deserving of lashes鈥? In most disputes, the fact that one party is vindicated does not necessarily lead to lashes for the other party.

讗诇讗 注讚讬诐 砖讛专砖讬注讜 讗转 讛爪讚讬拽 讜讗转讜 注讚讬诐 讗讞专讬谞讬 讜讛爪讚讬拽讜 讗转 讛爪讚讬拽 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讜砖讜讬谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 专砖注讬诐 讜讛讬讛 讗诐 讘谉 讛讻讜转 讛专砖注

Rather, the verse is addressing the case of witnesses who, through their testimony, condemned the righteous, and other witnesses came and vindicated the original righteous person and rendered these first set of witnesses wicked conspiring witnesses. In that case, the verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be if the wicked is deserving of lashes,鈥 indicating that lashes are an appropriate punishment for conspiring witnesses.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪诇讗 转注谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: And why not derive the halakha that conspiring witnesses are liable to receive lashes from the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor鈥 (Exodus 20:13)? The Gemara answers: One is not flogged for violating that prohibition, due to the fact that it is a prohibition that does not involve an action, as one violates it through speech, not action, and the principle is: For every prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation. Therefore, it was necessary to derive the halakha from the verse: 鈥淎nd they vindicated the righteous.鈥

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讗讬谉 谞注砖讬谉 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讜讗讬谉 讙讜诇讬谉 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 讜讗讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 讜讗讬谉 谞诪讻专讬谉 讘注讘讚 注讘专讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专讜 讗祝 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: Four matters were stated with regard to conspiring witnesses, i.e., there are four cases in which their punishment deviates from the norm. They are not rendered the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza; they are not exiled to a city of refuge; they do not pay the ransom if they testified that the forewarned ox of someone killed another; and they are not sold as a Hebrew slave in a case where they testified that one stole property and he would be sold into slavery if he lacked the means to repay the owner. The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: They also do not pay based on their own admission. If they were rendered conspiring witnesses in one court, and before that court managed to collect the payment that they owed, they appeared in a different court and admitted that they had been rendered conspiring witnesses, they are exempt from payment.

讗讬谉 谞注砖讬谉 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讻讚讗诪专谉 讜讗讬谉 讙讜诇讬谉 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 讻讚讗诪专谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜驻专 拽住讘专讬 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛 讜讛谞讬 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讻驻专讛 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara elaborates: They are not rendered the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, as we stated and explained earlier. And they are not exiled to a city of refuge, as we stated and explained earlier. And they do not pay the ransom, as these Sages hold that the ransom paid by one whose ox killed another is atonement for him, as he is liable for the actions of his animal, and it is not payment of damages. And these conspiring witnesses are not subject to a need for atonement, as their ox did not kill anyone.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜谞转谉 驻讚讬谉 谞驻砖讜 讚诪讬 谞讬讝拽 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讚诪讬 诪讝讬拽 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讻讜驻专讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that the ransom is atonement? Rav 岣sda says: It is Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse concerning a case where the ox of one person gored another: 鈥淚f ransom is imposed upon him, and he shall give the redemption of his soul鈥 (Exodus 21:30); the term 鈥渉is soul鈥 means the value of the victim, i.e., the owner of the ox must pay the heirs of the deceased his value as it would be assessed were he sold as a slave in the market. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: The term 鈥渉is soul鈥 means the value of the one liable for the damage. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this principle: That one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the ransom is monetary restitution for the damage that his ox caused the victim; and one Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that the ransom is atonement, as he thereby redeems his own soul from death at the hand of Heaven?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讜驻专讗 讻驻专讛 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讘讚谞讬讝拽 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讚诪讝讬拽 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉

Rav Pappa says: No, perhaps everyone agrees that the ransom is atonement, and here, it is with regard to this matter that they disagree: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that we assess the payment in terms of the value of the victim; and one Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that we assess the payment in terms of the value of the one liable for the damage.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 谞讗诪专 讛砖转讛 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专 讛砖转讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讚谞讬讝拽 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讚谞讬讝拽

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who abandon the straightforward meaning of the verse? The Rabbis derive it in the following manner: Imposition is stated below with regard to one whose ox killed another: 鈥淚f ransom is imposed upon him鈥 (Exodus 21:30), and imposition is stated above, in the case of one who struck a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry: 鈥淗e shall be punished, as the husband of the woman imposes upon him鈥 (Exodus 21:22). Just as there, with regard to the miscarriage, it is in terms of the value of the victim, the fetus, that we assess the payment, here too, in the case of the ransom, it is in terms of the value of the victim that we assess the payment.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜谞转谉 驻讚讬谉 谞驻砖讜 讻转讬讘 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 谞驻砖讜 讻转讬讘 诪讬讛讜 讻讬 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉 讘讚谞讬讝拽 砖讬讬诪讬谞谉

And Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: 鈥淎nd he shall give the redemption of his soul鈥 is written, indicating that the sum is based on the value of the one seeking atonement. And the Rabbis explain: Yes, the phrase 鈥渞edemption of his soul鈥 is written, and the payment functions to redeem his soul. Nevertheless, when we assess the sum of the redemption payment, it is in terms of the value of the victim that we assess the payment.

讜讗讬谉 谞诪讻专讬谉 讘注讘讚 注讘专讬 住讘专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讚诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬讛讜 诇讗 谞讝讚讘谉 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谞讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 诪讬讝讚讘谞讜

搂 The baraita teaches: Conspiring witnesses are not sold as a Hebrew slave in a case where they testified that one stole property. Rav Hamnuna thought to say: This statement applies only in a case where the falsely accused has means of his own to repay the sum of the alleged theft, as since, had the testimony been true, he would not have been sold for his transgression, the witnesses too are not sold when they are rendered conspiring witnesses. But in a case where the falsely accused does not have means of his own, and would have been sold into slavery had their testimony been accepted, even if the witnesses have means of their own, they are sold, as they sought to have slavery inflicted upon him.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜诇讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗谞转 讛讜讛 诇讱 诪讬 讛讜讛 诪讬讝讚讘谞转 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谞讬谞谉 讗诇讗 住讘专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讚讬讚讛讜 诪讝讚讘谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜谞诪讻专 讘讙谞讘转讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘讙谞讘转讜 讜诇讗 讘讝诪诪讜

Rava said to him: And let the witnesses say to the person against whom they testified: If you had money, would you have been sold? We too will not be sold. Since they have the means, they can pay the sum that they owe and not be sold as slaves. Rather, the Gemara proposes an alternative formulation of the statement of Rav Hamnuna. Rav Hamnuna thought to say: This statement applies only in a case where either he, the falsely accused, or they, the witnesses, have the means to pay the sum; but in a case where neither he nor they have the means, the witnesses are sold. In that case, had their testimony stood, the alleged thief would have been sold into slavery, and they too lack the means to pay the sum that they are liable to pay as conspiring witnesses. Therefore, they are sold. Rava said to him: That is not so, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd he shall be sold for his theft鈥 (Exodus 21:30), from which it is inferred: For his theft, but not for his conspiring testimony.

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专讜 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽住讘专 拽谞住讗 讛讜讗 讜拽谞住 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 注诇 驻讬 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 转讚注 砖讛专讬 诇讗 注砖讜 诪注砖讛 [讜谞讛专讙讬诐] 讜诪砖诇诪讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转讚注 砖讛专讬 诪诪讜谉 讘讬讚 讘注诇讬诐 讜诪砖诇诪讬诐

搂 It is taught in the baraita: The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: They also do not pay based on their own admission. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? He holds that money paid by a convicted conspiring witnesses is a fine [kenasa], and the principle is: One does not pay a fine based on his own admission; one pays a fine only on the basis of testimony. Rabba says: Know that it is a fine, as these witnesses did not perform an action and caused no actual damage, and yet they are executed or pay depending on the nature of their testimony, indicating that it is a fine rather than a monetary restitution. Rav Na岣an says: Know that it is a fine rather than a monetary restitution for damages, as the money they sought to compel him to pay ultimately remains in the possession of the owner against whom they testified, and yet they pay him.

Scroll To Top