Talmud sur Makkot 1:18

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian²¹He is R. Immi (Ammi), the head of the Tiberian academy after R. Joḥanan. His statement is quoted in the Babli (Ketubot 35a) by Abbai, one generation after R. Immi. in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases²²Num. 35:31: “Do not take weregild for the life of a human who is a criminal condemned to death.”, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging²³Deut. 25:2: “If the criminal is condemned to flogging, …”. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah since he could ask him for payment on New Years’s Day. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it⁵⁸One should assume that the loan is not remitted in the Sabbatical since it can never be claimed and the Sabbatical law applies only to loans that can be claimed (Deut. 15:2).. We did state: “If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day,” and Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah⁵⁹Since it is assumed that payment cannot be claimed on New Year’s Day since it cannot be given.. But can he require payment on New Year’s Day? As Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since he could ask him for payment, he can believe him. And since he could believe him, he could pay him⁶⁰The case of the butcher cannot be used to support Rav’s statement; in practice, Rav’s statement is rejected.. And here, because he could have given him but did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan⁶¹This sentence does not belong here but to Mishnah 1, cf. Note 31..

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: If somebody gives a loan to a person on condition that the Sabbatical not remit it, the Sabbatical does not remit⁶²In the Babli (Makkot 3b), Samuel is reported to have declared that the Sabbatical will remit. In the end, a fine distinction is made in the wording. If the contract reads that the debtor will not enforce the remission, that condition is valid. But if the contract reads that the Sabbatical should have no influence, that would mean abrogating a Torah law and the condition is invalid., as we have stated⁶³Mishnah Makkot 1:2, dealing with witnesses who falsely testify that a debtor has promised to pay within 30 days when in fact he is obligated to pay after ten years, they are sentenced to pay the present value of the debt due in ten years.: “Whether he gives it after thirty days or after ten years.” Are there ten years without a Sabbatical? Rav Huna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rav Sheshet disagreed. One of them said, if the loan was given on a pledge⁶⁴As noted in the Mishnah. In the Babli, this explanation is attributed to the later Amora Rava., but the other said, if he writes him a prozbol⁶⁵Explained in the next Mishnah, cf. Note 80..

HALAKHAH: “A person convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses,” etc. ⁴⁵A differently edited text is in Makkot 1:8; the subject of this paragraph is hinted at in Bava batra 3:6. The paragraph refers to Mishnah 3, not Mishnah 4. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, this implies that a perjured witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself⁴⁶In the Babli 72b, Sanhedrin 27a, as opinion of Abbai. The testimony of a proven criminal is invalid since by accepting such testimony the court would become the accomplice of an evildoer, which is forbidden in Ex. 23:1. The question is whether testimony becomes invalid only after the witness has been convicted of a felony or by his felonious act. While in general testimony of a criminal becomes unacceptable only after conviction, perjury carries its own conviction and all testimony rendered after one which was determined to be perjured automatically becomes void.
The argument presented by R. Ze‘ira is based on the end of Mishnah 3: If the first testimony was perjured, the second testimony becomes void. But at the time that the second group of witnesses testified it was not known that the first testimony was perjured. This proves that a later discovery of perjury invalidates testimony retroactively.. Explain it by warning⁴⁷Criminal intent can be proven only if the person was duly warned that his intended action was criminal (cf. Kilaim 8:1 Note 9, Soṭah 7:1 Note 26, Nazir 8:1 Note 46). The court before accepting testimony has to warn the witnesses of the consequences of perjury. If both groups of witnesses were warned simultaneously, there is only one testimony and R. Ze‘ira’s argument does not prove anything., as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified⁴⁸Babli 73a; Tosephta 6:23..” What does it mean that if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified? If they were standing and testifying against him on then tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan. He slaughtered or sold on the tenth of Nisan. They were shown to be perjured on the fifteenth of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the tenth and the fifteenth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: ⁴⁹Tosephta Bava batra 2:9. A person claims ownership of real estate currently in the possession of another person. Neither party has documentary proof. The claimant can show that he was a prior owner or is the heir of a prior owner. The person in possession claims to have bought or otherwise legally acquired the property. If the person can show by testimony that the claimant had failed to protest during three years in which he had undisturbed and continuous possession, the court will declare him the legal owner. (This is one of the many meanings of ḥazaqah, cf. Ketubot 5:5 Note 100). If the same group testifies three times on the possessor’s behalf, covering three years, and one of their testimonies later was found to be perjured, that and all subsequent testimonies arc thrown out by the court.“They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be perjured at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies.” And how is⁵⁰היכי דמי is an expression otherwise known only from the Babli. E and the parallel in Makkot have היכי אמר, idiomatic Galilean Aramaic. that if they give testimony in one group, you cannot infer anything? It comes only based on multiple testimony⁵¹R. Abba bar Mamal’s argument is rejected. Since possession is established by separate testimonies regarding three successive years, it is impossible to explain the Tosephta as referring to a single testimony. R. Ze‘ira’s inference is confirmed..

HALAKHAH: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, her sale is valid,” etc. That is, if she sold them in four contracts⁹⁴The Halakhah deals only with the last case mentioned in the Mishnah, that the widow overstepped her authority only in part of the sale of property. If the legal and illegal contracts were executed separately, there is no reason to invalidate the earlier contracts because of the (necessarily last) invalid contract.. If she sold them in one contract, there is disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as they disagreed⁹⁵The same text is in Giṭṭin 1:1 (43a 1. 54) גי and Makkot 1:16 (31b 1. 26) מ; it is quoted in Alfasi Makkot 1, #1063 and discussed by his commentators R. Nissim Gerondi and Naḥmanides.: If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document⁹⁶His will. and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other⁹⁷Relatives are not admitted as witnesses even in civil proceedings.. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abin specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other⁹⁸He holds that testimony, even if in writing, is one whole; either it is valid or invalid. If it is invalid in one case, it must be invalid in general.; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other⁹⁹The testimony has to be separated from its application. If the witnesses are known not to be felons, their testimony is valid. In the case of a relative, it is not applicable.. Rebbi Elazar said, a Mishnah¹⁰⁰Makkot 1:12. Deut. 17:6 reads: “By the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses the guilty person shall be condemned to death; he cannot be condemned by the testimony of a single witness.” The question is raised, if two witnesses are sufficient, why are three mentioned? The answer given in the Mishnah is that since two witnesses are both disqualified if one of them is disqualified (in which case the remaining witness becomes a single witness), a group of three (or 100) witnesses who all testify to exactly the same effect is disqualified if one of them is disqualified. The witnesses signing a document necessarily all testify to exactly the same facts. (Alfassi #1062 notes that the Geonim restrict the Mishnah to criminal cases.) supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified, so also of three [witnesses] it is invalid if one of them turns out to be related or disqualified. From where even 100? The verse¹⁰¹Deut. 17:6. says, ‘witnesses’”. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is as if there was one testimony about one person. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and disqualified for the other¹⁰²Since practice is not decided either way, the legal heirs can successfully attack the validity of the will, and the guardians of the orphans the validity of the entire sale by the widow..

HALAKHAH: “One who prophesies in the name of foreign worship,” etc. ¹¹²This paragraph is thoroughly corrupt; the meaning can be understood approximately by reference to Tosephta 14:13: “He who prophesies to uproot one of the words of the Torah is punishable. Rebbi Simeon says, if he prophesies to uproot one of the words of the Torah but affirms others he cannot be prosecuted; but about foreign worship, even if he endorses it today but reneges tomorrow he is punishable.”
With Qorban Haˋedah it seems that the quote from the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:16) was induced by the parallel text at the beginning of the next Halakhah and should be replaced by Deut. 18:22. The argument would go as follows: In Deut. 18:20–22, the court is commanded to punish the false prophet by a death sentence. The manner of execution is not specified; this implies that it must be by strangling. But in 13:2–12 the punishment of strange worship (idolatry) is stoning.
A person can be punished as a false prophet only if first he had established his credentials as a prophet by a sign or a miracle (Deut. 13:2, 18:22; Note 106). Then if the prophet argues for idolatry, even if he does not abolish any commandment of the Torah, he has to be punished (even if he propagates foreign worship in the name of the Eternal; Babli 89b). If he tells others not to obey some of the precepts of the Torah, for the Sages he is punishable, but not for R. Simeon. The prophet can be prosecuted only if he induces others to neglect Torah precepts, not if he himself seemingly violates them by Divine Command, as Elijah did on Mount Carmel, sacrificing on an altar which was authorized only for him.
Qorban Haˋedah gives a reconstruction of the paragraph which is not impossible but not supported by any parallel evidence.
In the word פיונטײה the ending יֵהּ is the possessive suffix “his”. For the remaining פיונטי the best available conjecture is Kohut’s, Latin punitio, -onis “punishment” [or poenaria (actiones), punishable (actions) (E. G.)]. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. It came to judge whether by sign, or by miracle, whether about foreign worship or any other commandment. But about foreign worship, whether he intended to uproot the entire body or did not intend to uproot the entire body, by the words of Rebbi Simeon one does not prosecute him, but by the words of the Sages one stones him. For any other commandment by the words of the Sages one stones him, by the words of Rebbi Simeon he should understand his pywnṭ.