Makkot 1

כֵּיצַד הָעֵדִים נַעֲשִׂים זוֹמְמִין, מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה, אֵין אוֹמְרִים יֵעָשֶׂה זֶה בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה תַחְתָּיו, אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לִגְלוֹת, אֵין אוֹמְרִים יִגְלֶה זֶה תַחְתָּיו, אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁגֵּרַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, וַהֲלֹא בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין לְמָחָר סוֹפוֹ לִתֵּן לָהּ כְּתֻבָּתָהּ, אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ, שֶׁאִם נִתְאַלְמְנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה, וְאִם מֵתָה יִירָשֶׁנָּה בַעְלָהּ. מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ אֶלֶף זוּז עַל מְנָת לִתְּנָן לוֹ מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר מִכָּאן וְעַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים, אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן וְיִהְיוּ בְיָדוֹ אֶלֶף זוּז, בֵּין נוֹתְנָן מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, בֵּין נוֹתְנָן מִכָּאן וְעַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים:

How are the witnesses made zomemin? [This is the intent: Those witnesses who are found to be zomemin ("scheming"), and in whom the law of hazamah is not implemented, i.e., in whom (Deuteronomy 19:19): "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother" cannot be satisfied, how do they become zomemin?] (If they say:) We testify about this man [a Cohein] that he is the son of a divorcée [i.e., his mother was divorced before us before he was born, and he is a challal (unfit for the priesthood)], or the son of a chalutzah, we do not say [if they were proved zomemin, and they were Cohanim], let this one be considered the son of a divorcée or the son of a chalutzah instead of him, [for it is written: "Then you shall do to him as he schemed" — to him, and not to his seed. And if you render him a challal and he is a Cohein, you have rendered his seed unfit (for the priesthood) forever. And if you say let us render him alone unfit and not his seed — we require "as he schemed to do," and this does not obtain, for he schemed to render both the adjudged and his seed unfit], but he receives forty stripes, [it being written (Ibid. 28:1): "…and they vindicate the righteous one and incriminate the wicked one, if liable to stripes be the wicked one, etc.": Now, is it because they vindicate the righteous one and incriminate the wicked one that the wicked one is liable to stripes! It is, rather, (intimated) that if witnesses incriminate one who is (really) righteous, and other witnesses come and vindicate the one who was righteous all along, rendering the (first) witnesses wicked (i.e., zomemin), then: "if liable to stripes be the wicked one" (in the event that what they intended for the righteous one cannot be done to them)]. (If they say:) We testify about this man that he is liable to exile, we do not say let them be exiled in his stead, but he receives forty stripes, [it being written (Ibid. 19:5): "…he shall flee" — he, and not his zomemin.] (If they say:) We testify about this man that he divorced his wife [before us on this and this day] and did not give her her kethubah, [and the other says: I did not divorce her and I do not owe her a kethubah] — now, either today or tomorrow, will he not give her a kethubah? [i.e., What shall they pay him? If you say the entire kethubah, might he not die or divorce her today or tomorrow, in which instance she will receive it anyway, so that they would have caused him no loss whatsoever!] (Rather) We estimate how much one would want to give for the kethubah of this woman [on the possibility that] if she is widowed or divorced, [he will receive the kethubah] and if she dies, her husband will inherit her [and he will lose the money that he gave. And it is this amount that the witnesses give to the husband.] (If they say:) We testify about this man that he owes his neighbor a thousand zuz, which he must pay within thirty days; and he says: within ten years, we estimate how much one would give to have a thousand zuz in his hand for ten years rather than for thirty days.

מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁחַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, לוֹקִין וּמְשַׁלְּמִין, שֶׁלֹּא הַשֵּׁם הַמְבִיאוֹ לִידֵי מַכּוֹת, מְבִיאוֹ לִידֵי תַשְׁלוּמִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, כָּל הַמְשַׁלֵּם אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה:

(If witnesses say:) We testify about that man that he owes his neighbor two hundred zuz, and they were found to be zomemin, they receive stripes and they pay. For it is not the verse that brings one to stripes which brings him to payment. [Stripes, from (Exodus 20:13): "You shall not testify against your neighbor false testimony"; payment, from "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do."] These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: Whoever pays does not receive stripes, [it being written (Deuteronomy 25:2): "according to his wickedness" — For one wickedness you make him liable, and not for two. And since the rabbis say that he pays and does not receive stripes, and not that he receives stripes and does not pay, we infer that wherever there are two, stripes and payment, we do not say that he receives stripes and does not pay, but that he pays and does not receive stripes. And this is the halachah.]

מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב מַלְקוּת אַרְבָּעִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, לוֹקִין שְׁמֹנִים, מִשּׁוּם לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר (שמות כ), וּמִשּׁוּם וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם (דברים יט), דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינָן לוֹקִין אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים. מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בְּמָמוֹן וְאֵין מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בְּמַכּוֹת. כֵּיצַד, הֱעִידוּהוּ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בֵּינֵיהֶם. אֲבָל אִם הֱעִידוּהוּ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב מַלְקוּת אַרְבָּעִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ זוֹמְמִין, כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים:

(If witnesses say:) We testify about that man that he is liable to forty stripes, and they were found to be zomemin, they receive eighty stripes, because of (Exodus 20:13): "You shall not testify against your neighbor false testimony" and because of (Deuteronomy 19:19) "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother." These are the words of R. Meir. [For since when it is not possible to satisfy in the witnesses "Then you shall do to him as he schemed" (as when they testify that one is the son of a divorcée) they receive stripes by reason of "You shall not testify" — here, where there is an exhortation of "You shall not testify," and also one of "as he schemed," he receives eighty stripes. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir.] The sages say: He receives only forty stripes. They "third" in money [Scheming witnesses who are liable for payment pay the money according to the number of witnesses. If they were three and they were rendered zomemin, each pays a third of the sum that they desired to impose], and they do not "third" in stripes. [Each one of the witnesses does not receive a third of the stripes, but each receives forty in order to satisfy "Then you shall do to him as he schemed." For each of the witnesses desired to impose a complete (forty) stripes on the adjudged. Money "adds up," so that when each gives a third, he receives what they wished to make him liable to among all of them; but stripes does not "add up."] How so? If they testified about him that he owes his neighbor two hundred zuz and they were found to be zomemin, they "third" among them. But if they testified against him that he is liable to forty stripes, and they were found to be zomemin, each one of them receives forty stripes.

אֵין הָעֵדִים נַעֲשִׂים זוֹמְמִין עַד שֶׁיָּזוֹמוּ אֶת עַצְמָן. כֵּיצַד, אָמְרוּ מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, אָמְרוּ לָהֶן הֵיאַךְ אַתֶּם מְעִידִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶהֱרָג זֶה אוֹ הַהוֹרֵג הָיָה עִמָּנוּ אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, אֵין אֵלּוּ זוֹמְמִין. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ לָהֶם הֵיאַךְ אַתֶּם מְעִידִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי אַתֶּם הֱיִיתֶם עִמָּנוּ אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ זוֹמְמִין, וְנֶהֱרָגִין עַל פִּיהֶם:

Witnesses do not become zomemin until they themselves are rendered zomemin, [i.e., in respect to what concerns them, and not what concerns the killer or the killed, as explained below. This is derived from (Deuteronomy 19:18): "And, behold, a false witness is the witness" — until the falsehood inheres in the persons of the witnesses themselves.] How so? If they said: We testify about this man that he killed another, and they are refuted — How can you say this when the (alleged) victim or murderer was with us that day in a different place? — they are not rendered zomemin. But if they said: How can you say this when you were with us that day in a different place? they are rendered zomemin, and they are killed by their (the refuters') testimony.

בָּאוּ אֲחֵרִים וְהִזִּימוּם, בָּאוּ אֲחֵרִים וְהִזִּימוּם, אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, כֻּלָּם יֵהָרֵגוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִסְטָסִית הִיא זוֹ, וְאֵינָהּ נֶהֱרֶגֶת אֶלָּא כַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בִלְבָד:

If others came and they (the refuters) rendered them zomemin; if others came, and they rendered them zomemin — even if they were a hundred [sets of witnesses, giving the same testimony one after the other, and all refuted by the same set], they are all killed. R. Yehudah says: "This (refuting) set is istasith" [perverse and devious, having taken counsel between themselves to refute whoever comes to give this testimony. Another interpretation: "Is this (refuting set a vat of) isatis" (a dye), (which dyes all who touch it)]! And only the first set of witnesses is killed. [R. Yehudah holds that after the first set is refuted, the succeeding set is not accepted; and if they do testify and are refuted, they are not killed, not satisfying: "Then you shall do to him, etc.", for he (the adjudged) is not killed by their testimony. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]

אֵין הָעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין נֶהֱרָגִין, עַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַצְּדוֹקִין אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁיֵּהָרֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (דברים יט) וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו, וַהֲרֵי אָחִיו קַיָּם. וְאִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ, יָכוֹל מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ עֵדוּתָן יֵהָרֵגוּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ, הָא אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין:

Scheming witnesses are not killed until judgment has been passed [upon the adjudged to be killed by their testimony, after which they are refuted]. For the Sadducees were wont to say: (Scheming witnesses are not killed) until he (the adjudged) is killed, it being written (Leviticus 24:18): "A life for a life" — whereupon the sages said to them: But is it not already written: "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother" — "his brother" connoting his living brother! If so, how is "A life for a life" to be satisfied? I might think that they could be killed as soon as their testimony was accepted; we are, therefore, apprised: "A life for a life" — They are not killed until judgment has been passed (on the life of the adjudged).

עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת (שם יז), אִם מִתְקַיֶּמֶת הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁנַיִם, לָמָּה פָרַט הַכָּתוּב בִּשְׁלשָׁה, אֶלָּא לְהַקִּישׁ שְׁלשָׁה לִשְׁנַיִם, מַה שְּׁלשָׁה מַזִּימִין אֶת הַשְּׁנַיִם, אַף הַשְּׁנַיִם יָזוֹמּוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁלשָׁה. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, עֵדִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מַה שְּׁנַיִם אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם זוֹמְמִין, אַף שְׁלשָׁה אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן זוֹמְמִין. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, עֵדִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, לֹא בָא הַשְּׁלִישִׁי אֶלָּא לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו וְלַעֲשׂוֹת דִּינוֹ כַיּוֹצֵא בָאֵלּוּ. וְאִם כֵּן עָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה כְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה יְשַׁלֵּם שָׂכָר לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה כְעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה:

(Deuteronomy 17:6): "By the word of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the dead one be put to death." If the testimony stands with two, why does Scripture indicate three? To liken three to two, viz. Just as three can render two, zomemin, so two can render three, zomemin. And whence do we derive [that two can render zomemin] even a hundred? From (Ibid.): "witnesses" (i.e., any number). R. Shimon says: Just as two are not killed until both are rendered zomemin, [it being written (Ibid. 19:18): "And, behold, a false witness is the witness," concerning which the master said: Wherever "witness" is written, two (witnesses) are understood, unless it is explicitly stated "one"], so, three are not killed until the three are rendered zomemin. [This, if each testifies immediately upon the conclusion of the other's testimony. But if two testify and after some time, the others do, they are two distinct sets of witnesses in all respects.] And whence do we derive (that this is so) even (with) a hundred? From: "witnesses." R. Akiva says: The third (i.e., "three witnesses") comes only to (tell us to) be stringent with him and to equate his judgment with that of the others, [that one not say: Since even without the third, the testimony (of the others) would stand, the judgment of hazamah should not apply to him. The verse apprises us (that this is not so) that he, too, is judged.]. If Scripture thus punished the accessory to transgressors as the transgressors themselves, how much more so will the accessories to the doers of a mitzvah be rewarded as the doers of the mitzvah themselves! [For "His measure for good is greater than that for punishment."]

מַה שְּׁנַיִם נִמְצָא אַחַד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה, אַף שְׁלשָׁה נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. מִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, עֵדִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. אֲבָל בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, תִּתְקַיֵּם הָעֵדוּת בַּשְּׁאָר. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִתְרוּ בָהֶן, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא הִתְרוּ בָהֶן, מַה יַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁרָאוּ בְאֶחָד שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנָּפֶשׁ:

Just as with two (witnesses), if one of them were found to be kin or pasul (unfit to testify), their testimony is void, so with three; if one of them were found to be kin or pasul, their testimony is void. Whence is it derived (that this is so) even with a hundred? From "witnesses." R. Yossi said: When is this so? With capital cases, [it being written in that regard (Numbers 35:25): "And the congregation shall rescue, etc." They should seek to find something in his favor.], but in monetary cases, the testimony stands through the others (who are not kin or pasul). Rebbi says: Both in monetary cases and in capital cases [the testimony is void]. When [do we say in capital cases that the testimony is void?] When they warned them [i.e., when the kin or pasul joined (the others) originally to be one of the warners of the transgressors]; but if they did not warn them, [and they had no intent to be witnesses to the deed, the testimony of the others is not voided because of what they saw, for] what should two brothers do who saw one man kill another?

הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וְאֶחָד מַתְרֶה בוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן רוֹאִין אֵלּוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עֵדוּת אַחַת. וְאִם לָאו, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁתֵּי עֵדֻיּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצֵאת אַחַת מֵהֶן זוֹמֶמֶת, הוּא וָהֵן נֶהֱרָגִין וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה פְּטוּרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אֵין נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדָיו מַתְרִין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא סַנְהֶדְרִין שׁוֹמַעַת מִפִּי הַתֻּרְגְּמָן:

If two saw him from one window and two saw him from another, and one warned him in the middle — When some see each other, they become one set of witnesses [The warner combines with the set of witnesses that he sees and who see him at the time of the warning. Therefore, if the two sets in the two windows see him, they combine with each other and all become one set.]; and if not, they are two sets. Therefore, if one of the sets were rendered zomemin, he (the adjudged) and they are killed. [He is killed, for there is still another set who were not rendered zomemin; and they, the refuted ones, are killed, having been rendered zomemin], and the second set are not liable. R. Yossi says: He (the accused one) is not killed unless his two witnesses had warned him, it being written (Deuteronomy 17:6): "By word of two witnesses, etc." Another interpretation: "By word of two witnesses" — that Sanhedrin not hear it from an interpreter [i.e., The judges must understand the language of the witnesses and not find it necessary to place an interpreter between them. And this is the halachah.]

מִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ וּבָרַח וּבָא לִפְנֵי אוֹתוֹ בֵית דִּין, אֵין סוֹתְרִים אֶת דִּינוֹ. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיֹאמְרוּ, מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו, הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג. סַנְהֶדְרִין נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. סַנְהֶדְרִין הַהוֹרֶגֶת אֶחָד בְּשָׁבוּעַ נִקְרֵאת חָבְלָנִית. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד לְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמְרִים, אִלּוּ הָיִינוּ בַסַּנְהֶדְרִין לֹא נֶהֱרַג אָדָם מֵעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אַף הֵן מַרְבִּין שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל:

If one's judgment (for execution) were completed, and he fled, and he came before that beth-din (that had sentenced him), his judgment is not overturned. Wherever two arise and say: We testify about that man that his judgment was completed in that beth-din, and so and so were his witnesses, he is killed. Sanhedrin officiates both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it. [The Sanhedrin ordained in Eretz Yisrael is authorized to adjudicate penalty (knass) cases and capital cases both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it, so long as the great beth-din presides in the chamber of hewn stone, viz. (Deuteronomy 17:12): "not to listen to the Cohein … or to the judge": When there is a Cohein sacrificing upon the altar, there is a judge adjudicating capital cases. When there is no Cohein, there is no judge.] A sanhedrin that performs one execution in seven years is called "destructive." [For they must be patient in judgment and probe all possibilities of acquittal in capital cases.] R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: [Even] one in seventy years. R. Tarfon and R. Akiva say: If we were on the sanhedrin, no man would ever be killed. [For they would cross-examine the witnesses with questions that they could not answer. In murder cases: "What did you see? Did he kill a treifah (one with a fatal organic condition) or a 'whole' man? And if you say a whole man, perhaps there was a hole (making him treifah) in the place of the sword!" In cases of arayoth (illicit relations): "Did you see it 'as a dauber in the tube'?" R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: They themselves multiply spillers of blood in Israel! [For, as a result, the wicked are not eradicated, and they spill more blood.]