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 6
MAKOS 6 - May the merit of sponsoring today's worldwide Torah study
bring a speedy Refu'ah Shelemah to Gitl bas Golda.
1) ONE WITNESS FOUND TO BE A RELATIVE OR PASUL
(a) Answer #4 (R. Akiva): Regarding two witnesses, if one of
them was found to be a relative (to a party in the case
or the other witness) or Pasul (invalid witness), the
remaining testimony is invalid - likewise, if one of
three witnesses (of a Kat) was found to be a relative or
Pasul, the remaining testimony is invalid.
2) WHEN DO PESULIM INVALIDATE THE TESTIMONY?
1. Question: What is the source that this applies even
2. Answer: "Edim".
(b) R. Yosi says, this only applies to capital cases, but in
monetary cases, the testimony of the Kosher witnesses is
valid. (Rashi - "V'Hitzilu ha'Edah", we seek reasons to
acquit in capital cases; Tosfos - in capital cases, if
one of the two witnesses is Karov or Pasul, the remaining
witness is worthless, but in monetary cases, the
remaining witness obligates an oath.)
(c) Rebbi says, this applies both to capital and monetary
1. This is only if the witnesses warned the
transgressor (i.e. intended to be witnesses) - if
you will not say so, if two brothers see a murder
(even if there are other witnesses) it will be
impossible for Beis Din kill the murderer (because
one of the witnesses is related to another)!
(d) (Gemara - Rava): (They are considered one Kat of
witnesses) only if they all testified Toch Kedei Dibur.
(e) Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Toch Kedei Dibur is the
time needed for a Talmid to greet his Rebbi (to say three
or four words, Shalom Alecha Rebbi (u'Mori)) - 100
witnesses cannot testify within this time!
(f) Answer (Ravina): It suffices if each begins within Toch
Kedei Dibur of the previous one.
(g) (Mishnah - R. Akiva): (...Also if one of three witnesses
was found to be a relative or Pasul, the testimony is
(h) Question (Rav Papa): A murder victim was an invalid
witness, we should say that he disqualifies all the
(i) Answer #1 (Abaye): Yes - according to R. Akiva, the
testimony is valid only if he was killed from the back
(and did not see the murder).
(j) Question (Rav Papa): A Nirva (the 'receiving' party in
Mishkav Zachar (homosexual relations)) is an invalid
witness, he should disqualify the witnesses!
(k) Answer #1 (Abaye): The testimony is valid only if he was
facing away (and did not see the Shochev (the man who had
relations with him)).
(l) Question (Rav Papa): The murderer or the Shochev should
disqualify the witnesses!
(m) Abaye was silent.
(n) Answer (and Answer #2 to the previous questions - Rava):
"Yakum Davar" - witnesses are those who establish (the
truth of) a matter, not the parties that do the matter
(they are not considered witnesses at all).
(a) (Mishnah - R. Yosi): This only applies...(Rebbi says,
this is only if they warned the transgressor...)
(b) Version #1 - Rashi - Question: What do we ask the invalid
witnesses ((Tosfos - in monetary cases) to determine
whether or not they intended to be witnesses)?
(c) Answer (Rava): We ask them if they came to the scene of
the incident just to see, or in order to testify about it
later (Tosfos, R. Chananel; Ritva - we ask them whether
they came to Beis Din to testify, or just to see what the
outcome will be).
(d) Version #2 - R. Chaim Kohen - Question: What do we ask
the valid witnesses?
(e) Answer (Rava): We ask them if they came to Beis Din
intending to testify with the invalid witnesses.
(f) (Rav Yehudah): The Halachah follows R. Yosi.
(g) (Rav Nachman): The Halachah follows Rebbi.
3) EDUS MEYUCHEDES
(a) (Mishnah): If two witnesses saw the murderer from a
window, and two witnesses saw from a different window,
and someone in the middle warned him:
4) AL PI SHNAYIM EDIM
1. If at least one witness in each pair saw one of the
other pair, they are considered one Kat; if not,
they are two Kitos.
(b) R. Yosi says, if both witnesses did not warn him, (he is
exempt, therefore also) the witnesses are not killed -
"Al *Pi* Shnayim Edim".
2. Therefore (when they are two Kitos), if one Kat was
Huzam, they and the murderer are killed, the other
Kat is exempt.
1. This also teaches that Sanhedrin must hear the
testimony of the witnesses themselves, not through a
(c) (Gemara - Rav Zutra bar Tuvya) Question: What is the
source that Edus Meyuchedes (when the witnesses did not
see each other) is invalid?
(d) Answer: "Lo Yumas Al Pi Ed Echad";
1. Question: What does it mean 'Echad'?
(e) Support: (Beraisa): "Lo Yumas Al Pi Ed Echad" - this
teaches that if one witness saw from a window, another
witness saw from a different window, they do not join;
i. Suggestion: There is only one witness.
2. Answer: It means, when the witnesses are one by one,
i.e. they did not see each other.
ii. Rejection: We already know this from "Al Pi
1. Even if they saw from the same window, one after the
other, they do not join.
(f) Question (Rav Papa): The Tana taught that when they see
from different windows, each saw the entire incident,
they do not join - if they saw from the same window, each
only saw part of the incident, all the more so they do
not join (what is the Chidush of the latter clause?)!
(g) Answer (Abaye): The Chidush is regarding Arayos, for each
saw a full act that is Chayav Misah.
(h) (Rava): If the witnesses saw the Masreh (the one who gave
warning), or if the Masreh saw them, the witnesses join.
(Tosfos - in the latter case, we must know through
(other) witnesses that the Masreh saw them.)
(i) (Rava): The warning can be even by himself (Rashi - the
victim warned him; Kesef Mishnah - the transgressor said
'I know that Beis Din will kill me for this') or by a
(j) (Rav Nachman): "Lo *Yumas* Al Pi Ed Echad" - Edus
Meyuchedes is invalid for capital cases, it is valid for
(k) Question (Rav Zutra): (If we find any possible reason to
avoid killing the transgressor, we use it -) if Edus
Meyuchedes is valid in some case, we should validate it
in capital cases when it will save the transgressor! (If
we consider all the witnesses to be one Kat, if even one
is Huzam, all the testimony is invalid!)
(l) This is left difficult.
(a) (Mishnah - R. Yosi): If both witnesses did not warn him
(no one is killed).
(b) Question (Rav Papa): R. Yosi does not require warning of
1. (Mishnah): If Reuven hated Ploni and he (seemingly
accidentally) killed Ploni, he is killed, for surely
he was Mezid!
(c) Answer (Abaye): The Tana of that Mishnah is really R.
Yosi bar Yehudah.
1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): A Chaver need
not be warned, for warning is only to distinguish
whether one is Shogeg or Mezid.
(d) (Mishnah): This also teaches that the Sanhedrin may not
hear the testimony of the witnesses through a translator.
(e) Witnesses (Rambam - two parties) came in front of Rava,
they did not speak a language that the judges knew; he
put a translator between them.
(f) Question: But the Mishnah forbids this!
(g) Answer: Rava could understand what they said, he only
needed the translator to speak to them.