POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Makos 5
1) SHARING THE PAYMENT
(a) (Mishnah): Edim Zomemim divide among themselves the
payment of money they tried to make the Nidon pay, they
do not divide lashes:
2) WHAT MAKES WITNESSES ZOMEMIM?
1. If they testified that Ploni must pay 200 Zuz, all
together the witnesses pay 200;
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
2. If they testified that Ploni must receive 40 lashes,
each receives 40 lashes.
(c) Answer #1 (Abaye): We learn from a Gezerah Shavah
"Rasha-Rasha" from Chayavei Misos:
1. Just as half-Misah is not (possible to be) given,
half-sets of lashes are not given.
(d) Answer #2 (Rava): If the lashes would be divided, this is
not "Ka'asher Zamam La'asos l'Achiv".
(e) Question: If so, also when money is divided, this is not
(f) Answer: Money joins (Ploni receives what they sought to
make him lose), lashes do not join.
(a) (Mishnah): Edim only become Zomemim if the Mezimim (the
latter witnesses) contradict what the first ones
implicitly said about themselves (i.e. that they were at
the scene of what they testified about).
3) WHEN ARE WITNESSES HUCHZEKU TO BE LIARS?
1. If two witnesses testified that Ploni killed Shimon,
and other witnesses (David and Moshe) say 'That is
impossible - that day, Ploni (or Shimon) was with us
somewhere else!', the first witnesses are not
(b) If more witnesses testified about Ploni, and David and
Moshe were Mezim them, and again, all the Zomemim
witnesses are killed;
2. But if David and Moshe say 'How can you testify
about this? That day, you were with us in a
different place', the first witnesses are Zomemim,
they are killed based on the testimony of David and
(c) R. Yehudah says, this is a conspiracy to Mezim anyone who
will testify about Ploni, only the first witnesses are
killed (this will be explained).
(d) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of the first law of
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Ada): "V'Hinei Ed Sheker ha'Ed Sheker
Anah" - they must establish the witnesses themselves to
be false (i.e. what they implicitly said about
(f) Answer #2 (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "La'anos Bo *Sarah*"
- the witnesses themselves must be Husru (removed, i.e.
we learn that they were not there).
(g) (Rava): If two witnesses said 'Ploni killed someone to
the east of the building', and others said '(At that
time,) you were with us to the west of the building', we
1. If someone to the west can see what is happening to
the east, they are not Zomemim; if not, they are
(h) Question: This is obvious!
(i) Answer: One might have thought that we suspect that the
witnesses have better eyesight than normal people - the
Mishnah teaches, this is not so.
(j) (Rava): If two witnesses said 'Sunday morning in Sura,
Ploni killed someone', and others said 'Sunday afternoon,
you were with us in Neharda'a', we check:
1. If someone can travel from Sura to Neharda'a in that
amount of time, they are not Zomemim; if not, they
(k) Question: This is obvious!
(l) Answer: One might have thought that we suspect that the
witnesses found camels that run much faster than normal -
the Mishnah teaches, this is not so.
(m) (Rava): If two witnesses said 'On Sunday, Ploni killed
someone (in a certain place)', and others said 'On
Sunday, you were with us elsewhere; on Monday, he killed
someone', the first two (and Ploni) are killed;
1. Even if they said that Ploni had killed on Erev
Shabbos, the first witnesses are killed, because at
the time they testified about Ploni, he was not yet
sentenced to die.
(n) Question: We already learn this from a Mishnah!
1. (Mishnah): Therefore (when they are considered two
Kitos (sets of witnesses), if one Kat was Huzam,
they and the murderer are killed, the other Kat is
(o) Answer: Indeed, Rava's Chidush was the continuation of
his words, which we do not learn from the Mishnah,
(p) (Rava): The law is different regarding the final verdict:
1. (Rava): If two witnesses said (on Tuesday) 'On
Sunday, Ploni was sentenced to die (in a certain
Beis Din)', and others said 'On Sunday, you were
with us elsewhere; on Erev Shabbos he was
sentenced', the first two are exempt;
(q) The same applies to paying a Kenas:
2. Even if they said that Ploni was sentenced on
Monday, the first witnesses are exempt, because at
the time they testified, Ploni was already sentenced
to die, he was (according to Halachah) dead.
1. If two witnesses said 'On Sunday, Ploni stole (flock
or cattle) and slaughtered or sold (for which he
pays a Kenas of three or four times the value (in
addition to the principal (the value of the stolen
animal, which is not a Kenas))', and others said 'On
Sunday, you were with us elsewhere; on Monday, he
stole and slaughtered or sold', the first two pay
the fine (to Ploni, and he pays the full four or
2. Even if they said that Ploni had stolen and
slaughtered or sold on Erev Shabbos, the first
witnesses pay the fine, because at the time the
testified about Ploni, he was not yet obligated to
pay the fine (perhaps he would have admitted, and
3. If two witnesses said (on Tuesday) 'On Sunday, a
certain Beis Din obligated Ploni to pay Kenas (four
or five, because he stole and slaughtered or sold)',
and others said 'On Sunday, you were with us
elsewhere; on Erev Shabbos, Beis Din obligated him
to pay Kenas', the first two are exempt;
4. Even if they said that Beis Din obligated Ploni on
Monday, the first witnesses are exempt, because at
the time they testified about Ploni, he was already
obligated to pay the Kenas.
(a) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): This is a conspiracy...
(b) Question: If it is a conspiracy, also the first witnesses
should not be killed!
4) WHEN ARE EDIM ZOMEMIM KILLED?
(c) Answer #1 (R. Avahu): The case is, the first witnesses
were already killed.
(d) Question: If so (the Mishnah does not teach that they
*should* be killed,) why does it mention that they were
(e) Answer #2 (Rava): The Mishnah teaches, if there was only
one Kat (that testified and was Huzam), the Kat is
killed; if there are more than one Kat, they are not
(f) Question: But it says, *only* the first Kat is killed!
(g) This is left difficult
(h) A woman brought witnesses; they were found to be liars.
She brought more witnesses, they were found to be liars;
she brought more witnesses, they were not found to be
1. Reish Lakish: She is Muchzekes to bring false
(i) A similar case occurred when R. Yochanan was there; Reish
Lakish said as he did above, R. Yochanan said as R.
Elazar had said.
2. R. Elazar: Even if she is Muchzekes to bring false
witnesses, Yisraelim are not Muchzakim to agree to
1. Reish Lakish was angry at R. Elazar - 'You heard the
law from R. Yochanan, why didn't you say it in his
(j) Suggestion: Reish Lakish holds like R. Yehudah, R.
Yochanan holds like Chachamim.
(k) Rejection #1: Reish Lakish can even hold like Chachamim:
1. Chachamim believe the Mezimim because we do not see
someone bringing them to Beis Din to Mezim the
witnesses, but here she is bringing false witnesses!
(l) Rejection #2: R. Yochanan can even hold like R. Yehudah:
1. R. Yehudah does not believe the Mezimim because it
is unreasonable that everyone who comes to testify
was with them - but here, perhaps the first
witnesses did not see the testimony, but the latter
(a) (Mishnah): Edim Zomemim are not killed unless there was a
final verdict to kill the defendant;
5) THREE WITNESSES ARE LIKE TWO
(b) The Tzedukim say, they are not killed unless the Nidon
was killed, for it says "Nefesh Tachas Nafesh";
1. Chachamim: But it says "Va'Asisem Lo Ka'asher Zamam
La'asos *l'Achiv*", implying that the Nidon is still
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa - Beribi (a Tana)): If they did not
kill, they are killed; if they killed, they are not
2. Question: Why does it say "Nefesh Tachas Nafesh"
3. Answer: One might have thought that Edim Zomemim are
liable once they testified - "Nefesh Tachas Nafesh"
teaches, they cannot be killed unless there was a
1. Beribi's father: If when they did not kill they are
killed; all the more so if they killed they should
(d) Question: What is the source that a Lav cannot be derived
from a Kal va'Chomer?
2. Beribi: You taught us, we do not punish based on a
i. (Beraisa) Suggestion: "V'Ish Asher Yikach Es
Achoso Bas Aviv O Vas Imo" - perhaps one is
only liable for a paternal or maternal sister,
but not a sister from both parents!
ii. Rejection: "Ervas Achoso Gilah".
iii. Question: Since one is liable for a half
sister, all the more so he should be liable for
a full sister - why is the verse needed?
iv. Answer: This teaches that we do not punish
based on a Kal va'Chomer.
(e) Answer: "Ervas Achoscha Bas Avicha O Vas Imecha (Lo
1. Question: What is the Lav forbidden relations with a
(f) Question: What is the source regarding lashes (that Edim
Zomemim who tried to Mechayev lashes are not punished
unless there was a final verdict)?
2. Answer: "Ervas Bas Eshes Avicha Moledes Avicha
Achoscha Hi (Lo Segaleh Ervasah)";
3. Question: Since a half sister is forbidden, all the
more a full sister - why is the verse needed?
4. Answer: This teaches that we do not derive a Lav
from a Kal va'Chomer.
(g) Answer: We learn a Gezerah Shavah "Rasha-Rasha" from
(h) Question: What is the source regarding Galus?
(i) Answer: We learn a Gezerah Shavah "Rotze'ach-Rotze'ach"
from Chayavei Misos.
(j) (Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Tabai): I swear, I killed an Ed
Zomem to refute the Tzedukim, who say that Edim Zomemim
are not killed unless the Nidon was killed.
1. Shimon ben Shetach: I swear, you killed improperly!
We do not kill or lash witnesses are unless both are
(k) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): Perhaps it was the
victim's voice - it ceased after R. Yehudah ben Tabai
died, because he had a judgment with his victim, or
2. R. Yehudah ben Tabai immediately resolved that he
would only give rulings in front of Shimon ben
Shetach. The rest of his days, he prostrated in
front of the grave of the man he killed; people
heard a voice, they assumed it was the victim's.
3. R. Yehudah ben Tabai: No, it is my voice - you will
see, after I die, you will not hear it!
(a) (Mishnah) Question: "Al Pi Shnayim Edim O Sheloshah Edim
Yumas ha'Mes" - if the testimony of two witnesses is
valid, all the more so testimony of three witnesses!
(b) Answer #1: The Torah equates the testimony of two
witnesses with that of three witnesses:
1. Just as three witnesses can Mezim two, also two
witnesses can Mezim three.
(c) Answer #2 (R. Shimon): Just as two witnesses are not
killed unless both are Huzmu, also three are not killed
unless all are Huzmu.
2. Question: What is the source that two can Mezim even
3. Answer: "Edim". (This is extra, to teach that two
can Mezim four - since they can Mezim two pairs of
witnesses, they can Mezim even 100.)
1. Question: What is the source that this applies even
(d) Answer #3 (R. Akiva): The Torah did not mention a third
witness to teach a leniency, rather, to be stringent, to
equate his law to the first two (he is also killed):
2. Answer: "Edim".
1. (Even though the testimony of the first two sufficed
to kill the Nidon without him,) he is punished for
joining the wicked like the wicked themselves;
2. All the more so, the Torah will reward those who
join people doing a Mitzvah like those who did the
Mitzvah (because Hash-m's Midah to reward is much
greater than His Midah to punish).