Makkot — Daf 3a

מאי ניהו דלא עשו מעשה היינו דרבה אימא וכן אמר ר"נ

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב עד זומם משלם לפי חלקו מאי משלם לפי חלקו אילמא דהאי משלם פלגא והאי משלם פלגא תנינא משלשין בממון ואין משלשין במלקות

אלא כגון דאיתזום חד מינייהו דמשלם פלגא דידיה ומי משלם והא תניא אין עד זומם משלם ממון עד שיזומו שניהם

אמר רבא באומר עדות שקר העדתי כל כמיניה כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד

אלא באומר העדנו והוזמנו בב"ד פלוני כמאן דלא כר"ע דאי כר"ע הא אמר אף אינו משלם ע"פ עצמו

אלא באומר העדנו והוזמנו בב"ד פלוני וחוייבנו ממון

ס"ד אמינא כיון דלחבריה לא מצי מחייב ליה איהו נמי לא מיחייב קמ"ל:

מתני׳ מעידין אנו את איש פלוני שגירש את אשתו ולא נתן לה כתובתה והלא בין היום ובין למחר סופו ליתן לה כתובתה

אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בכתובתה של זו שאם נתאלמנה או נתגרשה ואם מתה יירשנה בעלה:

גמ׳ כיצד שמין אמר רב חסדא בבעל

רב נתן בר אושעיא אומר באשה

אמר רב פפא באשה ובכתובתה:

מתני׳ מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שהוא חייב לחבירו אלף זוז על מנת ליתנן לו מכאן ועד שלשים יום והוא אומר מכאן ועד עשר שנים

אומדים כמה אדם רוצה ליתן ויהיו בידו אלף זוז בין נותנן מכאן ועד ל' יום בין נותנן מכאן ועד עשר שנים:

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל המלוה את חבירו לעשר שנים שביעית משמטתו

How has this money remained undisturbed? [Obviously] because they had done nothing [tangible]! [But] that is just what Rabbah said! — Then it should be reported thus: And so had also said R. Nahman. Said Rab Judah: Rab said that a zomem-witness pays his quota. What is meant by ‘pays his quota’? If it means that this one pays half and that one half, we learn this already expressly: Monetary impositions are divided proportionately, but [the number of] lashes is not divided proportionately!1 This dictum is applicable where only one of the witnesses was found a zomem, in which case he would be made to pay his half [of the fine]. But does he in such a case pay at all? Is it not taught: ‘No zomem-witness pays money [damages] until the two of them have been found zomemim’? — Said Raba: It has a possible application where one of the zomemim admits, ‘I gave false evidence’. But would we accept such statement coming from him?2 What about [the rule]: A witness, once he has made his depositions [before the Court], cannot retract and testify again? — Hence this dictum can only be applied where one says: ‘We gave evidence and were found zomemim by such and such a Court’.3 Now, with whose view will this explanation accord? — Not with R. Akiba's; for how could this accord with what he said: ‘They also do not pay on their own admission’! Hence Rab's dictum is applicable only when one of the witnesses says, ‘We gave evidence, were found zomemim by such and such a Court and were condemned to pay a sum of money’.4 Now [in such a case] you might presumably expect me to argue that since this fellow cannot [by his sole statement] commit his confederate, he could not commit himself either; therefore Rab teaches us that in this instance a zomem pays his quota. MISHNAH. [IF THEY SAY:] ‘WE TESTIFY THAT N.N. DIVORCED HIS WIFE AND HAS NOT PAID HER KETHUBAH’5 SEEING THAT HER KETHUBAH WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE TO BE PAID, SOONER OR LATER6 THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF HOW MUCH ONE MIGHT BE WILLING TO OFFER THE WOMAN FOR HER KETHUBAH IN THE EVENT OF HER BEING WIDOWED OR DIVORCED OR, ALTERNATIVELY, HER HUSBAND INHERITING HER AFTER HER DEATH. GEMARA. How is it appraised? — Said R. Hisda: The appraisement is made on the basis of the husband's claims.7 R. Nathan b. Oshaia says: On the basis of the woman's claims;8 R. Papa says: On the basis of the woman's claims and strictly on her kethubah.9 MISHNAH. [IF THEY SAY]: ‘WE TESTIFY THAT N.N. OWES HIS FRIEND ONE THOUSAND ZUZ10 WITH AN UNDERTAKING THAT HE WILL RETURN THE SAME TO HIM THIRTY DAYS HENCE’, WHILE THE DEBTOR SAYS ‘TEN YEARS HENCE’, THE ASSESSMENT [OF THE FINE] IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF HOW MUCH ONE MIGHT BE WILLING TO OFFER FOR [THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN] HOLDING THE SUM OF ONE THOUSAND ZUZ TO BE REPAID IN THIRTY DAYS OR IN TEN YEARS HENCE. GEMARA. Said Rab Judah: Samuel said that if one lent his friend a sum of money for ten years, the [end of the] Sabbatical year will cancel that debt; 11 her being divorced by him. V. Glos. The husband presumably contests this statement, and ultimately the witnesses are proved intriguers and have to pay damages as zomemim. expect an award equal to the full amount of the kethubah. some compensation for their attempt to deprive him forthwith of his enjoyment of the usufruct of his wife's property, on which he might likewise have a favourable offer by way of a loan. these witnesses, the estimated ‘advance’ is to be deducted from the actual amount due to her on the kethubah-settlement and the balance is the husband's award, apart from the threatened immediate loss of the usufruct. cognizance, and therefore, not having assailed this item, they are not liable on that account (Rashi).