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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 10, 2017 | 讻状讗 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Makkot 5

The basics of conspiring witnesses are discussed.聽 What is the difference between conspiring witnesses and contradictory testimony?聽 When the witnesses pay/lashes do they split the amount or do they each have to pay the full amount/get the full amount of lashes?聽 What happens in a case every group that comes is turn into conspiring witnesses by the same group of witnesses – do we assume the group saying “you were with us” to every group of witnesses is lying?聽 Would it be the same if someone keeps bringing false witnesses and then brings ones who can’t be proven to be false.聽 Do we suspect they are just because they were brought by someone proven to bring false witnesses?聽 There is a basic argument between the Perushim and Tzedukim – do the conspiring witnesses get killed only if they succeeded in convicting the person but didn’t succeed in getting them killed (Perushim) or only if they actually succeeded in getting him killed?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇讛讻专讝讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讻专讝讛 诪讬砖诪注讜 讜讬专讗讜 谞驻拽讗

for the requirement of proclamation. When the witnesses are taken to their execution, there is a mitzva for the court to publicly proclaim the transgression for which they are being punished, in order to deter others from committing the same transgression. And Rabbi Meir derives the requirement of proclamation from the phrase in that verse: 鈥淪hall hear and fear.鈥 The prohibition is derived from the phrase 鈥渁nd shall not continue to perform any more evil.鈥

诪转谞讬壮 诪砖诇砖讬谉 讘诪诪讜谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖诇砖讬谉 讘诪讻讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛注讬讚讜讛讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪砖诇砖讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛注讬讚讜讛讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诪诇拽讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐

MISHNA: When punishing conspiring witnesses based on the verse: 鈥淎s he conspired to do to his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19), one divides the punishment of money among them, but one does not divide the punishment of lashes among them; each receives thirty-nine lashes. The mishna elaborates: How so? If the witnesses testified about someone that he owes another person two hundred dinars and they were then found to be conspiring witnesses, the witnesses divide the sum among themselves and pay a total of two hundred dinars. But if they testified about someone that he was liable to receive forty lashes and they were then found to be conspiring witnesses, each and every one of the witnesses receives forty lashes.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞讗诪专 专砖注 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 讜谞讗诪专 专砖注 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗讬谉 诪讬转讛 诇诪讞爪讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗讬谉 诪诇拽讜转 诇诪讞爪讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that the witnesses do not divide the punishment of lashes among themselves, derived? Abaye said: 鈥淲icked鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2), is stated with regard to those liable to receive lashes, and: 鈥淲icked鈥 (Numbers 35:31), is stated with regard to those liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty. Just as there, with regard to those sentenced to be executed, there is no partial death penalty, so too here, with regard to those liable to receive lashes, there is no partial administering of lashes.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讞讬讜 讜诇讬讻讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪诪讜谉 谞诪讬 诪诪讜谉 诪爪讟专祝 诪诇拽讜转 诇讗 诪爪讟专祝

Rava said: The reason the punishment of lashes is not divided is that we require fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淎s he conspired to do to his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19), and were the conspiring witness to receive fewer than thirty-nine lashes, the verse would not be fulfilled. The Gemara asks: If so, in the case of money too, one should not divide the sum between them, as each sought to cause the defendant loss of the entire sum. The Gemara answers: Sums of money paid by the witnesses can combine, as the person against whom they testified receives the entire sum that they sought to cause him to lose, but lashes administered to the witnesses cannot combine.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 谞注砖讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 注讚 砖讬讝讬诪讜 讗转 注爪诪谉

MISHNA: Witnesses are not rendered conspiring witnesses until the witnesses who come to render them conspiring impeach the witnesses themselves and not merely their testimony.

讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讬 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛专讙 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讛讬讗讱 讗转诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 砖讛专讬 谞讛专讙 讝讛 讗讜 讛讛讜专讙 讝讛 讛讬讛 注诪谞讜 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讛讬讗讱 讗转诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 砖讛专讬 讗转诐 讛讬讬转诐 注诪谞讜 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讜谞讛专讙讬谉 注诇 驻讬讛诐

How so? A set of witnesses said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he killed a person, and they attested to the precise time and place that the murder took place. Then, a second set of witnesses came to court and said to them: How can you testify about this event? This person who was killed, or this person who killed, was with us, i.e., with the second set of witnesses, on that day in such and such place, which is not the location identified by the first set of witnesses. In that case, although the second set of witnesses contradicted the testimony of the first set, these first witnesses are not rendered conspiring witnesses. But if the second set of witnesses came to court and said to them: How can you testify about that event? You were with us on that day in such and such place. In this case, these first witnesses are rendered conspiring witnesses, and are executed on the basis of their, i.e., the second set鈥檚, testimony.

讘讗讜 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讝讬诪讜诐 讘讗讜 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讝讬诪讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 讻讜诇诐 讬讛专讙讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬住讟讟讬转 讛讬讗 讝讜 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讛专讙 讗诇讗 讻转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘诇讘讚

If other witnesses, i.e., a third set, came and corroborated the testimony of the first set of witnesses, and the second set of witnesses testified that this third set of witnesses were also with them elsewhere that day and rendered them conspiring witnesses, and similarly, if yet other witnesses, i.e., a fourth set, came and corroborated the testimony of the first set of witnesses and the second set rendered them conspiring witnesses, even if one hundred sets of witnesses were all rendered conspiring witnesses by the same second set of witnesses, all of them are executed on the basis of their testimony, as the authority of two witnesses is equivalent to the authority of numerous witnesses. Rabbi Yehuda says: This situation where a set of witnesses renders all the others conspiring witnesses is a conspiracy [istatit], as there is room for suspicion that they simply decided to impeach all witnesses who offer that testimony, and it is only the first set alone that is executed.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛谞讛 注讚 砖拽专 讛注讚 砖拽专 注谞讛 注讚 砖转砖拽专 讙讜驻讛 砖诇 注讚讜转

GEMARA: With regard to the halakha that witnesses are rendered conspiring witnesses only if the second set testifies that the first set was with them elsewhere at that time, and not if they directly contradict the testimony of the first set, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Adda said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states with regard to conspiring witnesses: 鈥淎nd the witness is a false witness; he testified falsely against his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:18), indicating that they are not rendered conspiring witnesses until the body of the testimony is rendered false, i.e., the testimony with regard to the actual witnesses was proven wrong, as they were not there at the time of the event in question.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 诇注谞讜转 讘讜 住专讛 注讚 砖转住专讛 讙讜驻讛 砖诇 注讚讜转

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different source for this halakha. It is stated in that passage: 鈥淚f an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to bear perverted witness against him鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:16), indicating that the witnesses are not rendered conspiring witnesses until the body of the testimony is rendered perverted, but not through contradiction of any aspect of the testimony.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘诪讝专讞 讘讬专讛 讛专讙 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讜讛诇讗 讘诪注专讘 讘讬专讛 注诪谞讜 讛讬讬转诐 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讻讚拽讬讬诪讬 讘诪注专讘 讘讬专讛 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讜 诇诪讝专讞 讘讬专讛 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉

Rava says: Two witnesses came and said: So-and-so killed a person to the east of a building [bira], and two other witnesses came to court and said to the first set: But were you not with us to the west of the building at that time? How can you testify to an incident that transpired on the other side of the building? We see: If, when people are standing to the west of the building they see to the east of the building, these witnesses are not conspiring witnesses. But if it is not possible to see from one side of the building to the other, these witnesses are conspiring witnesses.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 诇谞讛讜专讗 讘专讬讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Let us be concerned about the possibility that these witnesses have particularly good eyesight and were able to see that far despite a typical person鈥檚 being unable to see that far. Therefore, Rava teaches us that one does not take that possibility into account.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘住讜专讗 讘爪驻专讗 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讛专讙 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬讗 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 注诪谞讜 讛讬讬转诐 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 诪爪驻专讗 诇驻谞讬讗 诪爪讬 讗讝讬诇 诪住讜专讗 诇谞讛专讚注讗 诇讗 讛讜讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉

And Rava says: If two witnesses came and said: So-and-so killed a person in Sura in the morning on Sunday, and two other witnesses came to court and said to the first set: In the evening on Sunday you were with us in Neharde鈥檃, we see: If one is able to travel from Sura to Neharde鈥檃 from morning until evening they are not conspiring witnesses, as conceivably they could have witnessed the murder in Sura and traveled to Neharde鈥檃 by evening. And if it is not possible to travel that distance in that period of time, they are conspiring witnesses.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 诇讙诪诇讗 驻专讞讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Let us be concerned about the possibility that these witnesses traveled on a flying camel, i.e., one that runs so quickly that it enabled them to traverse the distance faster than the typical person. Therefore, Rava teaches us that one need not take that possibility into account.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讛专讙 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 注诪谞讜 讛讬讬转诐 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讗诇讗 讘转专讬 讘砖讘转讗 讛专讙 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 注专讘 砖讘转 讛专讙 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转 讛谞驻砖 谞讛专讙讬谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗讜 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗

And Rava says: If two witnesses came and said: On Sunday so-and-so killed a person, and two other witnesses came and said: You were with us on Sunday, but on Monday that same so-and-so killed that same person. Moreover, even if the second set of witnesses said: On Shabbat eve so-and-so killed that same person, the first set of witnesses is executed, despite the fact that the person against whom they testified was liable to be executed without their testimony. The reason they are liable is that at the time that they testified, conspiring to have him executed by the court, the man was not yet liable for execution by the court.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 诇驻讬讻讱 谞诪爪讗转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讝讜诪诪转 讛讜讗 讜讛谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讜讛砖谞讬讛 驻讟讜专讛

The Gemara asks: What is Rava teaching us? We learn in a mishna (6b) with regard to two sets of witnesses who testified that one person killed another: Therefore, if one of the sets of witnesses was found to be a set of conspiring witnesses, he, the accused, and they, the conspiring witnesses, are executed by the court, and the second set of witnesses is exempt. The accused is executed because the testimony of the witnesses who were not rendered conspiring witnesses remains unchallenged. The first set of witnesses is executed because they were rendered conspiring witnesses. Clearly, conspiring witnesses may be executed even though they testified against a guilty person who was sentenced to death, provided that their testimony was delivered before he was sentenced.

住讬驻讗 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讙诪专 讚讬谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 注诪谞讜 讛讬讬转诐 讗诇讗 讘注专讘 砖讘转 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 讘转专讬 讘砖讘转讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讛专讙讬谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: It was the latter clause of this halakha, teaching that it is not so with regard to the verdict, that contains a novel element, and therefore it was necessary for Rava to teach it, and in the context of teaching the latter halakha he taught the first case as well. The latter clause is: If two witnesses came on Tuesday and said: On Sunday so-and-so was sentenced to death in a certain court, and two other witnesses came and said: On Sunday you were with us elsewhere and you could not have witnessed the verdict in that court, but on Shabbat eve the same so-and-so was sentenced to death, the first set of witnesses are not executed. Moreover, even if the second set of witnesses said: On Monday the same so-and-so was sentenced to death, the first set of witnesses are not executed, as at the time that they testified against him, on Tuesday, the man was already liable to be executed, and it is as though they conspired to kill a dead man.

讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 拽谞住

The Gemara adds: And likewise, the same halakha that applies with regard to witnesses who testify about one who is sentenced to death applies to the matter of payments of a fine.

讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 注诪谞讜 讛讬讬转诐 讗诇讗 讘转专讬 讘砖讘转讗 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗讜 讘专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara explains: If two witnesses came and said: On Sunday this person stole and then slaughtered or sold an ox or a lamb, thereby rendering him liable to pay a fine of four or five times the value of the stolen animal (see Exodus 21:37), and then two other witnesses came and said to the first set of witnesses: On Sunday you were with us elsewhere, but on Monday this same person stole and then slaughtered or sold an ox or a lamb, the first set of witnesses pay the accused four or five times the value of the stolen animal. This is because at the time that according to their testimony he stole the animals, he had not yet stolen. Moreover, even if the second set of witnesses said: It was earlier, on Shabbat eve, that he stole and then slaughtered or sold the animals, the first set of witnesses pay the accused the amount of the fine he would have had to pay, as at the time that they testified the accused man had not yet been found liable for payment by the court, and he could have admitted his guilt and exempted himself from paying the fine. They conspired to render him liable.

讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 注诪谞讜 讛讬讬转诐 讗诇讗 注专讘 砖讘转 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜讘转专讬 讘砖讘转讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 讘专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讜讗

But if two witnesses came on Tuesday and said: On Sunday this person stole and then slaughtered or sold an ox or a lamb and was sentenced to pay a fine of four or five times the value of the stolen animal, and two other witnesses came and said: On Sunday you were with us, but that person stole and then slaughtered or sold an ox or a lamb, and was sentenced on Shabbat eve, the first set of witnesses are exempt from payment. Moreover, even if the second set of witnesses said: On Sunday he stole and then slaughtered or sold an ox or a lamb, corroborating the testimony of the first set, and on Monday he was sentenced to pay the fine, the first set of witnesses do not pay the accused. This is because at the time that they testified against him, on Tuesday, the man had already been found liable for payment by the court, and therefore they are not conspiring witnesses.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬住讟讟讬转 讛讬讗 讝讜 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says that if a single set of witnesses rendered numerous sets of witnesses, all of whom testified that one person killed another, conspiring witnesses, this situation is a conspiracy, and only the first set of conspiring witnesses is executed.

讗讬 讗讬住讟讟讬转 讛讬讗 讝讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讻转 专讗砖讜谞讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖拽讚诪讜 讜讛专讙讜

The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Yehuda states that this situation is a conspiracy, and there is suspicion that the second set is not truthful, let even the first set of witnesses who were rendered conspiring witnesses based on their testimony also not be executed. Rabbi Abbahu said: The mishna is referring to a case where the judges already executed the first set of witnesses. Rabbi Yehuda is saying that no witnesses are executed other than the first set of witnesses, who were already executed.

诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讻转 讗讞转 谞讛专讙转 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讟驻讬 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讛讗 讘诇讘讚 拽讗诪专 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara challenges: If so, what was, already was; there is no point in stating it as a halakha. Rather, Rava said this is what Rabbi Yehuda is saying: If it is only one set of witnesses that is rendered conspiring witnesses by the second set, the witnesses are executed; if there is more than one set they are not executed at all. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda say: It is only the first set alone that is executed? This indicates that contrary to Rava鈥檚 explanation, it is a case involving more than one set of witnesses. The Gemara notes: Indeed, this matter is difficult.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讗转讗讬 住讛讚讬 讜讗讬砖转拽讜专 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讜讗讬砖转拽讜专 讗讝诇讛 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讚诇讗 讗讬砖转拽讜专 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讜讞讝拽讛 讝讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诐 讛讬讗 讛讜讞讝拽讛 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 讛讜讞讝拽讜

Apropos the dispute in the mishna, the Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who brought witnesses to testify on her behalf, and they were proven to be liars. She brought other witnesses, and they too were proven to be liars. She went and brought yet other witnesses, who were not proven to be liars. There is an amoraic dispute whether the testimony of the third set of witnesses is accepted. Reish Lakish said: This woman has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty because of her repeated reliance on false witnesses; therefore, the testimony of the third set is rejected. Rabbi Elazar said to him: If she has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty, has the entire Jewish people assumed that presumptive status? Why assume that these witnesses are dishonest?

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗转讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 诪注砖讛 诇拽诪讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讜讞讝拽讛 讝讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诐 讛讜讞讝拽讛 讝讜 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 讛讜讞讝拽讜 讛讚专 讞讝讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讬砖讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪注转 诪讬诇讬 诪讘专 谞驻讞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专转 诇讬 诪砖诪讬讛

The Gemara relates: On another occasion, Reish Lakish and Rabbi Elazar were sitting before Rabbi Yo岣nan and an incident similar to this one came before them for judgment. Reish Lakish said: This woman has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: If she has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty, has the entire Jewish people assumed that presumptive status? When Reish Lakish heard Rabbi Yo岣nan respond in a manner identical to the earlier response of Rabbi Elazar, he turned his head and glared angrily at Rabbi Elazar, and he said to him: You heard this matter from bar Nappa岣, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, and you did not say it to me in his name? Had I known that you were stating Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion I would have accepted it.

诇讬诪讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Reish Lakish stated his opinion that this woman has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who invalidates the testimony of witnesses based on suspicion that arises due to the circumstances even though there is no proof that they lied. And Rabbi Yo岣nan stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not invalidate testimony based on unsubstantiated suspicion.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讱 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讛讚专 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讗 讚拽讗 诪讛讚专讗

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Reish Lakish could say to you: I state my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as the Rabbis say that one relies on witnesses who render multiple sets of witnesses conspiring witnesses only there, in the mishna, in a case where there is no one who is seeking to hire witnesses to testify on his behalf, and one could assert that their testimony is true. But here, there is this woman who is seeking to hire witnesses to testify on her behalf, which arouses suspicion that she hired them to lie on her behalf.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讙讘讬 讛谞讬 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛谞讬 讬讚注讬 讘住讛讚讜转讗 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 讬讚注讬 讘住讛讚讜转讗

And Rabbi Yo岣nan could say to you: I state my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yehuda says that the testimony of the second set is invalid based on unsubstantiated suspicion only there, in the mishna, where circumstances exacerbate the suspicion that they are lying, as we say: Is that to say that everyone, the numerous sets of witnesses, was standing near these witnesses who testify in order to render them conspiring witnesses? But here, perhaps these witnesses who came last and were not proven to be liars know the content of the testimony, and these witnesses who were proven to be liars do not know the content of the testimony. The fact that the testimony of the first sets of witnesses was rendered void has no bearing on the status of other witnesses.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚 砖讬讙诪专 讛讚讬谉 砖讛专讬 讛爪讚讜拽讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛专讙 砖谞讗诪专 谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖

MISHNA: The conspiring witnesses are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the verdict of the accused is concluded. This is in contrast to the opinion of the Sadducees, as the Sadducees say: Conspiring witnesses are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the accused is killed on the basis of their testimony, as it is stated: 鈥淎 life for a life鈥 (Exodus 21:23; see Deuteronomy 19:21).

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讞讬讜 讜讛专讬 讗讞讬讜 拽讬讬诐 讜讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖 讬讻讜诇 诪砖注讛 砖拽讘诇讜 注讚讜转谉 讬讛专讙讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖 讛讗 讗讬谞诐 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚 砖讬讙诪专 讛讚讬谉

The Rabbis said to the Sadducees: But wasn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19), and this latter verse indicates that his accused brother is alive? And if so, why is it stated: 鈥淎 life for a life鈥? One might have thought that if they are rendered conspiring witnesses from the moment the judges accepted their testimony in court, they will be executed, even though no verdict was concluded. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎 life for a life,鈥 teaching that they are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the verdict of the accused will be concluded, from the moment that the court is on the verge of taking his life.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讘专讬讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛专讙讜 谞讛专讙讬谉 讛专讙讜 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讜 讘谞讬 诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗

GEMARA: It is taught with regard to the halakha in the mishna that a Sage referred to as the Distinguished [Beribbi] says: If the conspiring witnesses have not yet killed the accused with their testimony they are executed, but if they killed the accused with their testimony they are not executed. The father of that Sage, who was also a prominent Sage, said to him: My son, is this matter not derived through an a fortiori inference? If, when they were unsuccessful in their attempt to kill the accused they are executed, all the more so if they were successful in killing him should they be executed.

讗诪专 诇讜 诇讬诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 砖讗讬谉 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬拽讞 [讗转] 讗讞转讜 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讘转 讗诪讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗诪讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讘转 讗诪讜 讜讘转 讗讘讬讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注专讜转 讗讞转讜 讙诇讛

He said to his father: You have taught us, our teacher, that one does not administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference. The punishment must be stated in the Torah. As it is taught in a baraita that among the relatives with whom engaging in intercourse is forbidden it states: 鈥淎 man who takes his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother鈥 (Leviticus 20:17): I have derived only the daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, or the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father. From where is it derived that one is liable for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is both the daughter of his mother and the daughter of his father? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淗e has uncovered the nakedness of his sister鈥 (Leviticus 20:17), indicating that one is liable for engaging in intercourse with any sister.

注讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讬砖 诇讬 讘讚讬谉 讗诐 注谞砖 注诇 讘转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗诪讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讗 诇诪讚转 砖讗讬谉 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉

The baraita continues: Even if the verse had not stated that one is liable for engaging in intercourse with his sister, i.e., one鈥檚 sister with whom he has both parents in common, I have proof from an a fortiori inference: If the Torah punished an individual for engaging in intercourse with the daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, or for engaging in intercourse with the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father, is it not all the more so clear that he should be punished for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is both the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother? From the fact that the Torah explicitly prohibited intercourse in that case and did not rely on the inference, you learn that one does not administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference.

注讜谞砖 砖诪注谞讜 讗讝讛专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注专讜转 讗讞讜转讱 讘转 讗讘讬讱 讗讜 讘转 讗诪讱 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗诪讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注专讜转 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讱 诪讜诇讚转 讗讘讬讱 讗讞讜转讱 讛讜讗

The baraita continues: We heard from that verse (Leviticus 20:17) the punishment for engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 sister with whom he has both parents in common. From where is the prohibition against engaging in those acts of intercourse derived? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淭he nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother鈥you shall not uncover鈥 (Leviticus 18:9). I have derived the prohibition against engaging in intercourse only with the daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, or with the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father. From where do I derive a prohibition against engaging in intercourse with his sister who is both the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淭he nakedness of the daughter of your father鈥檚 wife, born of your father; she is your sister鈥 (Leviticus 18:11), indicating that engaging in intercourse with any sister is prohibited.

注讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讬砖 诇讬 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诪讛 讗诐 讛讜讝讛专 注诇 讘转 讗诪讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗诪讜 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讗 诇诪讚转 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉

The baraita continues: Even if the verse had not stated that engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 sister with whom he has both parents in common is forbidden, I have proof for this from an a fortiori inference: If one was prohibited from engaging in intercourse with the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father, and with the daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, is it not all the more so clear that he is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with his sister who is both the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother? You learn from this that one does not derive a prohibition based on an a fortiori inference.

讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专砖注 专砖注

The baraita continues: From where is it derived that one does not administer punishment to those liable to receive lashes based on an a fortiori inference, and that the principle is not limited to capital punishment? The verse states a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渨icked鈥 written with regard to those liable to be executed and the term 鈥渨icked鈥 written with regard to those liable to receive lashes. With regard to those liable to be executed, it is written: 鈥淲ho is wicked and deserves to die鈥 (Numbers 35:31). With regard to those liable to receive lashes, it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall be if the wicked is deserving of lashes鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2).

讞讬讬讘讬 讙诇讬讜转 诪谞讬谉 讗转讬讗 专爪讞 专爪讞

From where is it derived that one does not administer punishment to those liable to be exiled based on an a fortiori inference? It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渕urderer鈥 written with regard to those who kill intentionally (see Numbers 35:21) and the term 鈥渕urderer鈥 written with regard to those who kill unwittingly (see Numbers 35:11). The conclusion is that one does not administer any punishment based on an a fortiori inference.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讟讘讗讬 讗专讗讛 讘谞讞诪讛 讗诐 诇讗 讛专讙转讬 注讚 讝讜诪诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪诇讘谉 砖诇 爪讚讜拽讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛专讙 讛谞讚讜谉

搂 Apropos the dispute between the Sadducees and the Sages, it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai says in the form of an oath: I will not see the future consolation of the Jewish people if I did not as a member of the court kill a single conspiring witness, in order to eradicate this reasoning from the hearts of the Sadducees, who would say: The conspiring witnesses are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the accused will be killed. Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai killed the conspiring witness while the accused remained alive.

讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讗专讗讛 讘谞讞诪讛 讗诐 诇讗 砖驻讻转 讚诐 谞拽讬 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚 砖讬讝讜诪讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注讚 砖讬讝讜诪讜 砖谞讬讛诐

Shimon ben Shata岣 said to him: I will not see the consolation of the Jewish people if you did not shed thereby innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless both of them are rendered conspiring witnesses, and they are not flogged unless both of them are rendered conspiring witnesses. In this case, only one was rendered a conspiring witness.

诪讬讚 拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讟讘讗讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜专讛 讛讜专讗讛 讗诇讗 诇驻谞讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讜讻诇 讬诪讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讟讘讗讬 讛讬讛 诪砖转讟讞 注诇 拽讘专讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 讛注讚 讜讛讬讛 拽讜诇讜 谞砖诪注 讜讻住讘讜专讬谉 讛注诐 诇讜诪专 拽讜诇讜 砖诇 讛专讜讙 讗诪专 拽讜诇讬 砖诇讬 讛讜讗 转讚注讜 诇诪讞专 讛讜讗 诪转 讗讬谉 拽讜诇讜 谞砖诪注

Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted a commitment upon himself that he would issue a halakhic ruling only when he was before Shimon ben Shata岣, to avoid mistakes in the future. And throughout all of Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai鈥檚 days he would tearfully prostrate himself on the grave of that witness whom he executed, to request forgiveness for having done so, and his voice was heard from a distance. And the people thought to say that it was the voice of the executed witness that was heard. Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai said to them: It is my voice. Know that this is so, as tomorrow, i.e., sometime in the future, he, referring to himself, will die, and his voice will no longer be heard.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚诇诪讗 讘讚讬谞讗 拽诐 讘讛讚讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 驻讬讜住讬 驻讬讬住讬讛

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: The fact that the voice will cease after Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai鈥檚 death is inconclusive as proof that the voice is not that of the executed witness. Perhaps the reason that the voice of the executed person will no longer be heard is that he confronted Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai in trial before the heavenly court, obviating the need for crying from his grave. Alternatively, perhaps Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai appeased the executed witness in the World-to-Come, and there is silence because no grievances remained.

诪转谞讬壮 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 注讚讬诐 讗讜 砖诇砖讛 注讚讬诐 讬讜诪转 讛诪转 讗诐 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讛注讚讜转 讘砖谞讬诐 诇诪讛 驻专讟 讛讻转讜讘 讘砖诇砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽讬砖 砖诇砖讛 诇砖谞讬诐 诪讛 砖诇砖讛 诪讝讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛砖谞讬诐 讗祝 讛砖谞讬诐 讬讝讜诪讜 讗转 讛砖诇砖讛 讜诪谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚讬诐

MISHNA: It is written: 鈥淎t the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he who is to die be executed鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:6). The question is: If the testimony is valid with two witnesses, why did the verse specify that it is valid with three? Rather, it is to juxtapose and liken three to two: Just as three witnesses can render the two witnesses conspiring witnesses, so too, the two witnesses can render the three wit-nesses conspiring witnesses. And from where is it derived that two witnesses can render even one hundred witnesses conspiring witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淭hree witnesses.鈥 Since the verse is obviously discussing witnesses, the term witnesses is superfluous, as it could have stated: Two or three. The term 鈥渨itnesses鈥 teaches that two witnesses can render a set of witnesses conspiring witnesses irrespective of their number.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讗祝 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谞谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 砖诇砖转诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讜诪谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚讬诐

Rabbi Shimon says that three witnesses are mentioned in the verse in order to teach: Just as two witnesses who testified that a person is liable to be executed are not killed for this testimony unless both of them are found to be conspiring witnesses, so too, three witnesses who testified together are not killed unless all three of them are found to be conspiring witnesses. And from where is it derived that the same halakha applies even to one hundred witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淭hree witnesses.鈥 The superfluous term 鈥渨itnesses鈥 teaches that the status of all witnesses who come to court as a single set of witnesses is that of one testimony with regard to this halakha.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讗 讛砖诇讬砖讬 诇讛拽诇 讗诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讜 讜诇注砖讜转 讚讬谞讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讗诇讜

Rabbi Akiva says: The third witness mentioned in this verse does not come for the judges to be lenient concerning him; rather, its mention comes for the judges to be stringent concerning him and to render his halakhic status like that of these two witnesses who testified with him. One could claim that since the testimony of the third witness is superfluous, as the testimony of the other two witnesses sufficed, the third witness and any other witnesses beyond the first two should be exempt. Therefore, the verse teaches that since he testified with them and was rendered a conspiring witness with them, he too is executed.

讜讗诐 讻谉 注谞砖 讛讻转讜讘 诇谞讟驻诇 诇注讜讘专讬 注讘讬专讛 讻注讜讘专讬 注讘讬专讛 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讬砖诇诐 砖讻专 诇谞讟驻诇 诇注讜砖讬 诪爪讜讛 讻注讜砖讬 诪爪讜讛

One can learn a moral from this halakha: And if the verse punished one who associates with transgressors with a punishment like the one received by the transgressors, even though his role in the transgression is ancillary, all the more so will God pay a reward to one who associates with those who perform a mitzva like the reward of those who perform the mitzva themselves, even though his role in performing the mitzva is ancillary.

讜诪讛 砖谞讬诐 谞诪爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽专讜讘 讗讜 驻住讜诇 注讚讜转谉 讘讟诇讛 讗祝 砖诇砖讛 谞诪爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽专讜讘 讗讜 驻住讜诇 注讚讜转谉 讘讟诇讛 诪谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚讬诐

The mishna cites another derivation based on the juxtaposition of two to three: And just as with regard to two witnesses, if one of them is found to be a relative or is otherwise disqualified, their entire testimony is voided, as it is no longer the testimony of two witnesses, so too, with regard to three witnesses who came to testify as one set, if one of them is found to be a relative or is otherwise disqualified, their entire testimony is voided, even though two valid witnesses remain. From where is it derived that the same halakha applies even in the case of one hundred witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淲itnesses.鈥

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Makkot 5

诇讛讻专讝讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讻专讝讛 诪讬砖诪注讜 讜讬专讗讜 谞驻拽讗

for the requirement of proclamation. When the witnesses are taken to their execution, there is a mitzva for the court to publicly proclaim the transgression for which they are being punished, in order to deter others from committing the same transgression. And Rabbi Meir derives the requirement of proclamation from the phrase in that verse: 鈥淪hall hear and fear.鈥 The prohibition is derived from the phrase 鈥渁nd shall not continue to perform any more evil.鈥

诪转谞讬壮 诪砖诇砖讬谉 讘诪诪讜谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖诇砖讬谉 讘诪讻讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛注讬讚讜讛讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 诪砖诇砖讬谉 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛注讬讚讜讛讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诪诇拽讜转 讗专讘注讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讬诐

MISHNA: When punishing conspiring witnesses based on the verse: 鈥淎s he conspired to do to his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19), one divides the punishment of money among them, but one does not divide the punishment of lashes among them; each receives thirty-nine lashes. The mishna elaborates: How so? If the witnesses testified about someone that he owes another person two hundred dinars and they were then found to be conspiring witnesses, the witnesses divide the sum among themselves and pay a total of two hundred dinars. But if they testified about someone that he was liable to receive forty lashes and they were then found to be conspiring witnesses, each and every one of the witnesses receives forty lashes.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞讗诪专 专砖注 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 讜谞讗诪专 专砖注 讘讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗讬谉 诪讬转讛 诇诪讞爪讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗讬谉 诪诇拽讜转 诇诪讞爪讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that the witnesses do not divide the punishment of lashes among themselves, derived? Abaye said: 鈥淲icked鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2), is stated with regard to those liable to receive lashes, and: 鈥淲icked鈥 (Numbers 35:31), is stated with regard to those liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty. Just as there, with regard to those sentenced to be executed, there is no partial death penalty, so too here, with regard to those liable to receive lashes, there is no partial administering of lashes.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘注讬谞谉 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讞讬讜 讜诇讬讻讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪诪讜谉 谞诪讬 诪诪讜谉 诪爪讟专祝 诪诇拽讜转 诇讗 诪爪讟专祝

Rava said: The reason the punishment of lashes is not divided is that we require fulfillment of the verse: 鈥淎s he conspired to do to his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19), and were the conspiring witness to receive fewer than thirty-nine lashes, the verse would not be fulfilled. The Gemara asks: If so, in the case of money too, one should not divide the sum between them, as each sought to cause the defendant loss of the entire sum. The Gemara answers: Sums of money paid by the witnesses can combine, as the person against whom they testified receives the entire sum that they sought to cause him to lose, but lashes administered to the witnesses cannot combine.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 谞注砖讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 注讚 砖讬讝讬诪讜 讗转 注爪诪谉

MISHNA: Witnesses are not rendered conspiring witnesses until the witnesses who come to render them conspiring impeach the witnesses themselves and not merely their testimony.

讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讬 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讛专讙 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讛讬讗讱 讗转诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 砖讛专讬 谞讛专讙 讝讛 讗讜 讛讛讜专讙 讝讛 讛讬讛 注诪谞讜 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讛讬讗讱 讗转诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 砖讛专讬 讗转诐 讛讬讬转诐 注诪谞讜 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讜谞讛专讙讬谉 注诇 驻讬讛诐

How so? A set of witnesses said: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that he killed a person, and they attested to the precise time and place that the murder took place. Then, a second set of witnesses came to court and said to them: How can you testify about this event? This person who was killed, or this person who killed, was with us, i.e., with the second set of witnesses, on that day in such and such place, which is not the location identified by the first set of witnesses. In that case, although the second set of witnesses contradicted the testimony of the first set, these first witnesses are not rendered conspiring witnesses. But if the second set of witnesses came to court and said to them: How can you testify about that event? You were with us on that day in such and such place. In this case, these first witnesses are rendered conspiring witnesses, and are executed on the basis of their, i.e., the second set鈥檚, testimony.

讘讗讜 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讝讬诪讜诐 讘讗讜 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讝讬诪讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 讻讜诇诐 讬讛专讙讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬住讟讟讬转 讛讬讗 讝讜 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讛专讙 讗诇讗 讻转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘诇讘讚

If other witnesses, i.e., a third set, came and corroborated the testimony of the first set of witnesses, and the second set of witnesses testified that this third set of witnesses were also with them elsewhere that day and rendered them conspiring witnesses, and similarly, if yet other witnesses, i.e., a fourth set, came and corroborated the testimony of the first set of witnesses and the second set rendered them conspiring witnesses, even if one hundred sets of witnesses were all rendered conspiring witnesses by the same second set of witnesses, all of them are executed on the basis of their testimony, as the authority of two witnesses is equivalent to the authority of numerous witnesses. Rabbi Yehuda says: This situation where a set of witnesses renders all the others conspiring witnesses is a conspiracy [istatit], as there is room for suspicion that they simply decided to impeach all witnesses who offer that testimony, and it is only the first set alone that is executed.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛谞讛 注讚 砖拽专 讛注讚 砖拽专 注谞讛 注讚 砖转砖拽专 讙讜驻讛 砖诇 注讚讜转

GEMARA: With regard to the halakha that witnesses are rendered conspiring witnesses only if the second set testifies that the first set was with them elsewhere at that time, and not if they directly contradict the testimony of the first set, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Adda said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states with regard to conspiring witnesses: 鈥淎nd the witness is a false witness; he testified falsely against his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:18), indicating that they are not rendered conspiring witnesses until the body of the testimony is rendered false, i.e., the testimony with regard to the actual witnesses was proven wrong, as they were not there at the time of the event in question.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 诇注谞讜转 讘讜 住专讛 注讚 砖转住专讛 讙讜驻讛 砖诇 注讚讜转

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different source for this halakha. It is stated in that passage: 鈥淚f an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to bear perverted witness against him鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:16), indicating that the witnesses are not rendered conspiring witnesses until the body of the testimony is rendered perverted, but not through contradiction of any aspect of the testimony.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘诪讝专讞 讘讬专讛 讛专讙 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讜讛诇讗 讘诪注专讘 讘讬专讛 注诪谞讜 讛讬讬转诐 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讻讚拽讬讬诪讬 讘诪注专讘 讘讬专讛 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讜 诇诪讝专讞 讘讬专讛 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉

Rava says: Two witnesses came and said: So-and-so killed a person to the east of a building [bira], and two other witnesses came to court and said to the first set: But were you not with us to the west of the building at that time? How can you testify to an incident that transpired on the other side of the building? We see: If, when people are standing to the west of the building they see to the east of the building, these witnesses are not conspiring witnesses. But if it is not possible to see from one side of the building to the other, these witnesses are conspiring witnesses.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 诇谞讛讜专讗 讘专讬讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Let us be concerned about the possibility that these witnesses have particularly good eyesight and were able to see that far despite a typical person鈥檚 being unable to see that far. Therefore, Rava teaches us that one does not take that possibility into account.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘住讜专讗 讘爪驻专讗 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讛专讙 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘驻谞讬讗 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 注诪谞讜 讛讬讬转诐 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 诪爪驻专讗 诇驻谞讬讗 诪爪讬 讗讝讬诇 诪住讜专讗 诇谞讛专讚注讗 诇讗 讛讜讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讜 讝讜诪诪讬谉

And Rava says: If two witnesses came and said: So-and-so killed a person in Sura in the morning on Sunday, and two other witnesses came to court and said to the first set: In the evening on Sunday you were with us in Neharde鈥檃, we see: If one is able to travel from Sura to Neharde鈥檃 from morning until evening they are not conspiring witnesses, as conceivably they could have witnessed the murder in Sura and traveled to Neharde鈥檃 by evening. And if it is not possible to travel that distance in that period of time, they are conspiring witnesses.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 诇讙诪诇讗 驻专讞讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Let us be concerned about the possibility that these witnesses traveled on a flying camel, i.e., one that runs so quickly that it enabled them to traverse the distance faster than the typical person. Therefore, Rava teaches us that one need not take that possibility into account.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讛专讙 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 注诪谞讜 讛讬讬转诐 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讗诇讗 讘转专讬 讘砖讘转讗 讛专讙 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 注专讘 砖讘转 讛专讙 驻诇讜谞讬 讗转 讛谞驻砖 谞讛专讙讬谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗讜 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗

And Rava says: If two witnesses came and said: On Sunday so-and-so killed a person, and two other witnesses came and said: You were with us on Sunday, but on Monday that same so-and-so killed that same person. Moreover, even if the second set of witnesses said: On Shabbat eve so-and-so killed that same person, the first set of witnesses is executed, despite the fact that the person against whom they testified was liable to be executed without their testimony. The reason they are liable is that at the time that they testified, conspiring to have him executed by the court, the man was not yet liable for execution by the court.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 诇驻讬讻讱 谞诪爪讗转 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讝讜诪诪转 讛讜讗 讜讛谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讜讛砖谞讬讛 驻讟讜专讛

The Gemara asks: What is Rava teaching us? We learn in a mishna (6b) with regard to two sets of witnesses who testified that one person killed another: Therefore, if one of the sets of witnesses was found to be a set of conspiring witnesses, he, the accused, and they, the conspiring witnesses, are executed by the court, and the second set of witnesses is exempt. The accused is executed because the testimony of the witnesses who were not rendered conspiring witnesses remains unchallenged. The first set of witnesses is executed because they were rendered conspiring witnesses. Clearly, conspiring witnesses may be executed even though they testified against a guilty person who was sentenced to death, provided that their testimony was delivered before he was sentenced.

住讬驻讗 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讙诪专 讚讬谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 注诪谞讜 讛讬讬转诐 讗诇讗 讘注专讘 砖讘转 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 讘转专讬 讘砖讘转讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讛专讙讬谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: It was the latter clause of this halakha, teaching that it is not so with regard to the verdict, that contains a novel element, and therefore it was necessary for Rava to teach it, and in the context of teaching the latter halakha he taught the first case as well. The latter clause is: If two witnesses came on Tuesday and said: On Sunday so-and-so was sentenced to death in a certain court, and two other witnesses came and said: On Sunday you were with us elsewhere and you could not have witnessed the verdict in that court, but on Shabbat eve the same so-and-so was sentenced to death, the first set of witnesses are not executed. Moreover, even if the second set of witnesses said: On Monday the same so-and-so was sentenced to death, the first set of witnesses are not executed, as at the time that they testified against him, on Tuesday, the man was already liable to be executed, and it is as though they conspired to kill a dead man.

讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬 拽谞住

The Gemara adds: And likewise, the same halakha that applies with regard to witnesses who testify about one who is sentenced to death applies to the matter of payments of a fine.

讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 注诪谞讜 讛讬讬转诐 讗诇讗 讘转专讬 讘砖讘转讗 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 诇讗讜 讘专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara explains: If two witnesses came and said: On Sunday this person stole and then slaughtered or sold an ox or a lamb, thereby rendering him liable to pay a fine of four or five times the value of the stolen animal (see Exodus 21:37), and then two other witnesses came and said to the first set of witnesses: On Sunday you were with us elsewhere, but on Monday this same person stole and then slaughtered or sold an ox or a lamb, the first set of witnesses pay the accused four or five times the value of the stolen animal. This is because at the time that according to their testimony he stole the animals, he had not yet stolen. Moreover, even if the second set of witnesses said: It was earlier, on Shabbat eve, that he stole and then slaughtered or sold the animals, the first set of witnesses pay the accused the amount of the fine he would have had to pay, as at the time that they testified the accused man had not yet been found liable for payment by the court, and he could have admitted his guilt and exempted himself from paying the fine. They conspired to render him liable.

讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 注诪谞讜 讛讬讬转诐 讗诇讗 注专讘 砖讘转 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 讘讞讚 讘砖讘转讗 讙谞讘 讜讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 讜讘转专讬 讘砖讘转讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讗讬谉 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讙讘专讗 讘专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讜讗

But if two witnesses came on Tuesday and said: On Sunday this person stole and then slaughtered or sold an ox or a lamb and was sentenced to pay a fine of four or five times the value of the stolen animal, and two other witnesses came and said: On Sunday you were with us, but that person stole and then slaughtered or sold an ox or a lamb, and was sentenced on Shabbat eve, the first set of witnesses are exempt from payment. Moreover, even if the second set of witnesses said: On Sunday he stole and then slaughtered or sold an ox or a lamb, corroborating the testimony of the first set, and on Monday he was sentenced to pay the fine, the first set of witnesses do not pay the accused. This is because at the time that they testified against him, on Tuesday, the man had already been found liable for payment by the court, and therefore they are not conspiring witnesses.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬住讟讟讬转 讛讬讗 讝讜 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says that if a single set of witnesses rendered numerous sets of witnesses, all of whom testified that one person killed another, conspiring witnesses, this situation is a conspiracy, and only the first set of conspiring witnesses is executed.

讗讬 讗讬住讟讟讬转 讛讬讗 讝讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讻转 专讗砖讜谞讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖拽讚诪讜 讜讛专讙讜

The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Yehuda states that this situation is a conspiracy, and there is suspicion that the second set is not truthful, let even the first set of witnesses who were rendered conspiring witnesses based on their testimony also not be executed. Rabbi Abbahu said: The mishna is referring to a case where the judges already executed the first set of witnesses. Rabbi Yehuda is saying that no witnesses are executed other than the first set of witnesses, who were already executed.

诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讻转 讗讞转 谞讛专讙转 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讟驻讬 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讛讗 讘诇讘讚 拽讗诪专 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara challenges: If so, what was, already was; there is no point in stating it as a halakha. Rather, Rava said this is what Rabbi Yehuda is saying: If it is only one set of witnesses that is rendered conspiring witnesses by the second set, the witnesses are executed; if there is more than one set they are not executed at all. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda say: It is only the first set alone that is executed? This indicates that contrary to Rava鈥檚 explanation, it is a case involving more than one set of witnesses. The Gemara notes: Indeed, this matter is difficult.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 讚讗转讗讬 住讛讚讬 讜讗讬砖转拽讜专 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讜讗讬砖转拽讜专 讗讝诇讛 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 讚诇讗 讗讬砖转拽讜专 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讜讞讝拽讛 讝讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诐 讛讬讗 讛讜讞讝拽讛 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 讛讜讞讝拽讜

Apropos the dispute in the mishna, the Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who brought witnesses to testify on her behalf, and they were proven to be liars. She brought other witnesses, and they too were proven to be liars. She went and brought yet other witnesses, who were not proven to be liars. There is an amoraic dispute whether the testimony of the third set of witnesses is accepted. Reish Lakish said: This woman has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty because of her repeated reliance on false witnesses; therefore, the testimony of the third set is rejected. Rabbi Elazar said to him: If she has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty, has the entire Jewish people assumed that presumptive status? Why assume that these witnesses are dishonest?

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗转讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 诪注砖讛 诇拽诪讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讜讞讝拽讛 讝讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诐 讛讜讞讝拽讛 讝讜 讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬 讛讜讞讝拽讜 讛讚专 讞讝讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讬砖讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪注转 诪讬诇讬 诪讘专 谞驻讞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专转 诇讬 诪砖诪讬讛

The Gemara relates: On another occasion, Reish Lakish and Rabbi Elazar were sitting before Rabbi Yo岣nan and an incident similar to this one came before them for judgment. Reish Lakish said: This woman has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: If she has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty, has the entire Jewish people assumed that presumptive status? When Reish Lakish heard Rabbi Yo岣nan respond in a manner identical to the earlier response of Rabbi Elazar, he turned his head and glared angrily at Rabbi Elazar, and he said to him: You heard this matter from bar Nappa岣, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, and you did not say it to me in his name? Had I known that you were stating Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion I would have accepted it.

诇讬诪讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Reish Lakish stated his opinion that this woman has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who invalidates the testimony of witnesses based on suspicion that arises due to the circumstances even though there is no proof that they lied. And Rabbi Yo岣nan stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not invalidate testimony based on unsubstantiated suspicion.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讱 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讛讚专 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 讛讗 讚拽讗 诪讛讚专讗

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Reish Lakish could say to you: I state my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as the Rabbis say that one relies on witnesses who render multiple sets of witnesses conspiring witnesses only there, in the mishna, in a case where there is no one who is seeking to hire witnesses to testify on his behalf, and one could assert that their testimony is true. But here, there is this woman who is seeking to hire witnesses to testify on her behalf, which arouses suspicion that she hired them to lie on her behalf.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讙讘讬 讛谞讬 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛谞讬 讬讚注讬 讘住讛讚讜转讗 讜讛谞讬 诇讗 讬讚注讬 讘住讛讚讜转讗

And Rabbi Yo岣nan could say to you: I state my opinion even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yehuda says that the testimony of the second set is invalid based on unsubstantiated suspicion only there, in the mishna, where circumstances exacerbate the suspicion that they are lying, as we say: Is that to say that everyone, the numerous sets of witnesses, was standing near these witnesses who testify in order to render them conspiring witnesses? But here, perhaps these witnesses who came last and were not proven to be liars know the content of the testimony, and these witnesses who were proven to be liars do not know the content of the testimony. The fact that the testimony of the first sets of witnesses was rendered void has no bearing on the status of other witnesses.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚 砖讬讙诪专 讛讚讬谉 砖讛专讬 讛爪讚讜拽讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛专讙 砖谞讗诪专 谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖

MISHNA: The conspiring witnesses are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the verdict of the accused is concluded. This is in contrast to the opinion of the Sadducees, as the Sadducees say: Conspiring witnesses are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the accused is killed on the basis of their testimony, as it is stated: 鈥淎 life for a life鈥 (Exodus 21:23; see Deuteronomy 19:21).

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讜 讻讗砖专 讝诪诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讞讬讜 讜讛专讬 讗讞讬讜 拽讬讬诐 讜讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖 讬讻讜诇 诪砖注讛 砖拽讘诇讜 注讚讜转谉 讬讛专讙讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖 讛讗 讗讬谞诐 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚 砖讬讙诪专 讛讚讬谉

The Rabbis said to the Sadducees: But wasn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:19), and this latter verse indicates that his accused brother is alive? And if so, why is it stated: 鈥淎 life for a life鈥? One might have thought that if they are rendered conspiring witnesses from the moment the judges accepted their testimony in court, they will be executed, even though no verdict was concluded. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎 life for a life,鈥 teaching that they are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the verdict of the accused will be concluded, from the moment that the court is on the verge of taking his life.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讘专讬讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛专讙讜 谞讛专讙讬谉 讛专讙讜 讗讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讜 讘谞讬 诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗

GEMARA: It is taught with regard to the halakha in the mishna that a Sage referred to as the Distinguished [Beribbi] says: If the conspiring witnesses have not yet killed the accused with their testimony they are executed, but if they killed the accused with their testimony they are not executed. The father of that Sage, who was also a prominent Sage, said to him: My son, is this matter not derived through an a fortiori inference? If, when they were unsuccessful in their attempt to kill the accused they are executed, all the more so if they were successful in killing him should they be executed.

讗诪专 诇讜 诇讬诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 砖讗讬谉 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬拽讞 [讗转] 讗讞转讜 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讗讜 讘转 讗诪讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗诪讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讘转 讗诪讜 讜讘转 讗讘讬讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注专讜转 讗讞转讜 讙诇讛

He said to his father: You have taught us, our teacher, that one does not administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference. The punishment must be stated in the Torah. As it is taught in a baraita that among the relatives with whom engaging in intercourse is forbidden it states: 鈥淎 man who takes his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother鈥 (Leviticus 20:17): I have derived only the daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, or the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father. From where is it derived that one is liable for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is both the daughter of his mother and the daughter of his father? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淗e has uncovered the nakedness of his sister鈥 (Leviticus 20:17), indicating that one is liable for engaging in intercourse with any sister.

注讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讬砖 诇讬 讘讚讬谉 讗诐 注谞砖 注诇 讘转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗诪讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讗 诇诪讚转 砖讗讬谉 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉

The baraita continues: Even if the verse had not stated that one is liable for engaging in intercourse with his sister, i.e., one鈥檚 sister with whom he has both parents in common, I have proof from an a fortiori inference: If the Torah punished an individual for engaging in intercourse with the daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, or for engaging in intercourse with the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father, is it not all the more so clear that he should be punished for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is both the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother? From the fact that the Torah explicitly prohibited intercourse in that case and did not rely on the inference, you learn that one does not administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference.

注讜谞砖 砖诪注谞讜 讗讝讛专讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注专讜转 讗讞讜转讱 讘转 讗讘讬讱 讗讜 讘转 讗诪讱 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗诪讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注专讜转 讘转 讗砖转 讗讘讬讱 诪讜诇讚转 讗讘讬讱 讗讞讜转讱 讛讜讗

The baraita continues: We heard from that verse (Leviticus 20:17) the punishment for engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 sister with whom he has both parents in common. From where is the prohibition against engaging in those acts of intercourse derived? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淭he nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother鈥you shall not uncover鈥 (Leviticus 18:9). I have derived the prohibition against engaging in intercourse only with the daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, or with the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father. From where do I derive a prohibition against engaging in intercourse with his sister who is both the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淭he nakedness of the daughter of your father鈥檚 wife, born of your father; she is your sister鈥 (Leviticus 18:11), indicating that engaging in intercourse with any sister is prohibited.

注讚 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讬砖 诇讬 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诪讛 讗诐 讛讜讝讛专 注诇 讘转 讗诪讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇讗 讘转 讗诪讜 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讗 诇诪讚转 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讛讬专讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉

The baraita continues: Even if the verse had not stated that engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 sister with whom he has both parents in common is forbidden, I have proof for this from an a fortiori inference: If one was prohibited from engaging in intercourse with the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father, and with the daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, is it not all the more so clear that he is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with his sister who is both the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother? You learn from this that one does not derive a prohibition based on an a fortiori inference.

讞讬讬讘讬 诪诇拽讬讜转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 专砖注 专砖注

The baraita continues: From where is it derived that one does not administer punishment to those liable to receive lashes based on an a fortiori inference, and that the principle is not limited to capital punishment? The verse states a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渨icked鈥 written with regard to those liable to be executed and the term 鈥渨icked鈥 written with regard to those liable to receive lashes. With regard to those liable to be executed, it is written: 鈥淲ho is wicked and deserves to die鈥 (Numbers 35:31). With regard to those liable to receive lashes, it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall be if the wicked is deserving of lashes鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:2).

讞讬讬讘讬 讙诇讬讜转 诪谞讬谉 讗转讬讗 专爪讞 专爪讞

From where is it derived that one does not administer punishment to those liable to be exiled based on an a fortiori inference? It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渕urderer鈥 written with regard to those who kill intentionally (see Numbers 35:21) and the term 鈥渕urderer鈥 written with regard to those who kill unwittingly (see Numbers 35:11). The conclusion is that one does not administer any punishment based on an a fortiori inference.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讟讘讗讬 讗专讗讛 讘谞讞诪讛 讗诐 诇讗 讛专讙转讬 注讚 讝讜诪诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪诇讘谉 砖诇 爪讚讜拽讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛专讙 讛谞讚讜谉

搂 Apropos the dispute between the Sadducees and the Sages, it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai says in the form of an oath: I will not see the future consolation of the Jewish people if I did not as a member of the court kill a single conspiring witness, in order to eradicate this reasoning from the hearts of the Sadducees, who would say: The conspiring witnesses are executed only if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the accused will be killed. Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai killed the conspiring witness while the accused remained alive.

讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讗专讗讛 讘谞讞诪讛 讗诐 诇讗 砖驻讻转 讚诐 谞拽讬 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚 砖讬讝讜诪讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注讚 砖讬讝讜诪讜 砖谞讬讛诐

Shimon ben Shata岣 said to him: I will not see the consolation of the Jewish people if you did not shed thereby innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless both of them are rendered conspiring witnesses, and they are not flogged unless both of them are rendered conspiring witnesses. In this case, only one was rendered a conspiring witness.

诪讬讚 拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讟讘讗讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜专讛 讛讜专讗讛 讗诇讗 诇驻谞讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讜讻诇 讬诪讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讟讘讗讬 讛讬讛 诪砖转讟讞 注诇 拽讘专讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 讛注讚 讜讛讬讛 拽讜诇讜 谞砖诪注 讜讻住讘讜专讬谉 讛注诐 诇讜诪专 拽讜诇讜 砖诇 讛专讜讙 讗诪专 拽讜诇讬 砖诇讬 讛讜讗 转讚注讜 诇诪讞专 讛讜讗 诪转 讗讬谉 拽讜诇讜 谞砖诪注

Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted a commitment upon himself that he would issue a halakhic ruling only when he was before Shimon ben Shata岣, to avoid mistakes in the future. And throughout all of Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai鈥檚 days he would tearfully prostrate himself on the grave of that witness whom he executed, to request forgiveness for having done so, and his voice was heard from a distance. And the people thought to say that it was the voice of the executed witness that was heard. Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai said to them: It is my voice. Know that this is so, as tomorrow, i.e., sometime in the future, he, referring to himself, will die, and his voice will no longer be heard.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚诇诪讗 讘讚讬谞讗 拽诐 讘讛讚讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 驻讬讜住讬 驻讬讬住讬讛

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: The fact that the voice will cease after Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai鈥檚 death is inconclusive as proof that the voice is not that of the executed witness. Perhaps the reason that the voice of the executed person will no longer be heard is that he confronted Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai in trial before the heavenly court, obviating the need for crying from his grave. Alternatively, perhaps Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai appeased the executed witness in the World-to-Come, and there is silence because no grievances remained.

诪转谞讬壮 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 注讚讬诐 讗讜 砖诇砖讛 注讚讬诐 讬讜诪转 讛诪转 讗诐 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讛注讚讜转 讘砖谞讬诐 诇诪讛 驻专讟 讛讻转讜讘 讘砖诇砖讛 讗诇讗 诇讛拽讬砖 砖诇砖讛 诇砖谞讬诐 诪讛 砖诇砖讛 诪讝讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛砖谞讬诐 讗祝 讛砖谞讬诐 讬讝讜诪讜 讗转 讛砖诇砖讛 讜诪谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚讬诐

MISHNA: It is written: 鈥淎t the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he who is to die be executed鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:6). The question is: If the testimony is valid with two witnesses, why did the verse specify that it is valid with three? Rather, it is to juxtapose and liken three to two: Just as three witnesses can render the two witnesses conspiring witnesses, so too, the two witnesses can render the three wit-nesses conspiring witnesses. And from where is it derived that two witnesses can render even one hundred witnesses conspiring witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淭hree witnesses.鈥 Since the verse is obviously discussing witnesses, the term witnesses is superfluous, as it could have stated: Two or three. The term 鈥渨itnesses鈥 teaches that two witnesses can render a set of witnesses conspiring witnesses irrespective of their number.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讗祝 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谞谉 谞讛专讙讬谉 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 砖诇砖转诐 讝讜诪诪讬谉 讜诪谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚讬诐

Rabbi Shimon says that three witnesses are mentioned in the verse in order to teach: Just as two witnesses who testified that a person is liable to be executed are not killed for this testimony unless both of them are found to be conspiring witnesses, so too, three witnesses who testified together are not killed unless all three of them are found to be conspiring witnesses. And from where is it derived that the same halakha applies even to one hundred witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淭hree witnesses.鈥 The superfluous term 鈥渨itnesses鈥 teaches that the status of all witnesses who come to court as a single set of witnesses is that of one testimony with regard to this halakha.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讗 讛砖诇讬砖讬 诇讛拽诇 讗诇讗 诇讛讞诪讬专 注诇讬讜 讜诇注砖讜转 讚讬谞讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讗诇讜

Rabbi Akiva says: The third witness mentioned in this verse does not come for the judges to be lenient concerning him; rather, its mention comes for the judges to be stringent concerning him and to render his halakhic status like that of these two witnesses who testified with him. One could claim that since the testimony of the third witness is superfluous, as the testimony of the other two witnesses sufficed, the third witness and any other witnesses beyond the first two should be exempt. Therefore, the verse teaches that since he testified with them and was rendered a conspiring witness with them, he too is executed.

讜讗诐 讻谉 注谞砖 讛讻转讜讘 诇谞讟驻诇 诇注讜讘专讬 注讘讬专讛 讻注讜讘专讬 注讘讬专讛 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讬砖诇诐 砖讻专 诇谞讟驻诇 诇注讜砖讬 诪爪讜讛 讻注讜砖讬 诪爪讜讛

One can learn a moral from this halakha: And if the verse punished one who associates with transgressors with a punishment like the one received by the transgressors, even though his role in the transgression is ancillary, all the more so will God pay a reward to one who associates with those who perform a mitzva like the reward of those who perform the mitzva themselves, even though his role in performing the mitzva is ancillary.

讜诪讛 砖谞讬诐 谞诪爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽专讜讘 讗讜 驻住讜诇 注讚讜转谉 讘讟诇讛 讗祝 砖诇砖讛 谞诪爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽专讜讘 讗讜 驻住讜诇 注讚讜转谉 讘讟诇讛 诪谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚讬诐

The mishna cites another derivation based on the juxtaposition of two to three: And just as with regard to two witnesses, if one of them is found to be a relative or is otherwise disqualified, their entire testimony is voided, as it is no longer the testimony of two witnesses, so too, with regard to three witnesses who came to testify as one set, if one of them is found to be a relative or is otherwise disqualified, their entire testimony is voided, even though two valid witnesses remain. From where is it derived that the same halakha applies even in the case of one hundred witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淲itnesses.鈥

Scroll To Top