Makkot

If it seems a conspiracy, even the first witnesses should not be executed? — Said R. Abbahu: [The plot was discovered only] after execution had already taken place. ‘After execution had already taken place’! Then the thing is done [and there is nothing more to be said]?1 But, said Raba, he [R. Judah] means this: if there was only one set, the witnesses are executed;2 but if there be more than one set, they are not executed.3 But does not R. Judah say, THE FIRST SET ALONE IS EXECUTED, [implying that there are more]? This is rather a difficult point. There was a certain woman who brought [her] witnesses and they were discredited; she brought others, and they [too] were discredited;4 she went and brought further witnesses [who were not discredited]. Said Resh Lakish: This woman is suspect.5 Said R. Eleazar to him: ‘Assuming she is suspect, are all Israel to be held as suspects?’ Once as they were both present at the sessions of R. Johanan, there came such a suit before them and Resh Lakish observed: ‘This woman is suspect.’ Thereupon R. Johanan replied to him: ‘If she is suspect, are all Israel to be held as suspects?’ Resh Lakish then turned round and looked askance at R. Eleazar, saying: ‘So you had heard this from [Johanan] bar-Nappaha and did not tell it to me in his name!’6 Is it to be suggested that Resh Lakish sides here with R. Judah [in the Mishnah], while R. Johanan sides with the Rabbis — [Not necessarily, as] Resh Lakish might say: I do hold the view of the Sages,7 but they allow such latitude only because there we have no one running about for his witnesses, whereas here we have this one woman running about and fetching them along.8 And R. Johanan, likewise, might say: My view [in this instance] is in accord even with that of R. Judah, and the reason of his reservation there is only because people ask [in surprise], ‘Was the whole world standing there with them?’9 Whereas in this case [of the woman, obviously], those who came last happened to have knowledge of the [facts in] question, and the former had not. MISHNAH. WITNESSES ARE NOT TO BE PUT TO DEATH AS ATTESTED ZOMEMIM UNTIL [AFTER] THE TERMINATION OF THE TRIAL;10 BECAUSE THE SADDUCEES CONTENDED THAT ZOMEMIM WERE PUT TO DEATH ONLY AFTER THE ACCUSED HAD [ACTUALLY] BEEN EXECUTED, PURSUANT TO THE SCRIPTURAL TEXT, ‘LIFE FOR LIFE’.11 SAID THE [PHARISEE] SAGES TO THEM: BUT DOES NOT THE CONTEXT READ: THEN SHALL YE DO UNTO HIM AS HE PURPOSED TO DO UNTO HIS BROTHER,12 WHICH CLEARLY IMPLIES WHEN HIS BROTHER IS STILL ALIVE? IF SO, WHAT IS THE PURPORT OF LIFE FOR LIFE’? YOU MIGHT ARGUE THAT ZOMEMIM ARE LIABLE TO BE PUT TO DEATH FROM THE MOMENT THEIR [PERFIDIOUS] EVIDENCE HAD BEEN TAKEN, THEREFORE THE WORDS ‘LIFE FOR LIFE’ ARE A POINTED INSTRUCTION THAT ZOMEMIM ARE NOT TO BE PUT TO DEATH UNTIL [AFTER] THE TERMINATION OF THE TRIAL. GEMARA. It is taught: An eminent disciple13 put the principle of [the Mishnah] in this [paradoxical] form: If they have not slain, they are slain; and if they have slain, they are not slain.14 My son, said the father [or Principal],15 is there not an argument a fortiori16 against your rule? Our Master [replied the disciple], have you not taught us: No Penalty is inflicted on the strength of a logical inference?17 For it has been taught: And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter . . . it is a shameful thing, and they shall be cut off18 . . . Here we have it specified, his father's daughter [who is] not his mother's, and, his mother's daughter [who is] not his father's. On what [Scriptural] authority is the same penalty extended to one who is both, his father's as well as his mother's daughter? It is indicated explicitly in the additional instructive words, He hath uncovered his sister's nakedness,’ he shall bear his iniquity.18 Now, even without [having recourse to] this textual addition I could have inferred it, since, if punishment is decreed in the case of [a half-sister] ‘his father's daughter’ not his mother's, or ‘his mother's daughter’ not his father's, is it not all the more evident in the case of [a full sister] the daughter of both his father and his mother? Here, therefore, you learn the rule: No penalty is inflicted on the strength of a logical inference. 19 We have established the principle relative to a penalty; where do we find it in reference to admonition?20 — In the instructive text, The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother thou shalt not uncover.21 Here we have specified, ‘his father's daughter’, not his mother's, and ‘his mother's daughter’, not his father's. On what [Scriptural] authority is the same prohibition extended to one who is both, his father's as well as his mother's daughter? It is indicated explicitly in the additional instructive words, the nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter begotten of thy father, she is thy sister.22 Now even without this textual addition I could have inferred it, since, if a man is admonished about [his half-sister] ‘his mother's daughter’, not his father's, and ‘his father's daughter’, not his mother's, is it not all the more applicable to [his full sister] the daughter of both of his father and mother? Here, therefore, we learn the rule: An admonition inferred by argument is not warranted.23 And what is the [corresponding] Scriptural reference relating to a [retaliatory] flogging of zomemim?24 — It is obtained [by the linking of the law of flogging25 with the law of murder]26 by the term rasha’ [guilty] which they both have in common.27 And what is the reference for such as are liable to banishment? — It is [likewise] obtained [by the linking of the law of banishment28 with the law of murder,]26 by the term rozeah [murderer] which they both have in common.27 It has been taught: R. Judah b. Tabbai said: ‘May I [never] see consolation [of Israel] if I did not have one zomemim-witness done to death to disabuse the mind of the Sadducees, who used to say that zomemim [found guilty] were put to death only after the [falsely] accused person had [actually] been executed.’ Said Simeon b. Shetah to him: ‘May I [never] see consolation [of Israel] if you have not shed innocent blood because the Sages declared that witnesses found to be zomemim are not put to death until both have been proved as such, and are not [juridically] flogged until both have been proved as such.’ Forthwith did Judah b. Tabbai take upon himself a resolve never to deliver a decision save in the presence of Simeon b. Shetah.29 And all through his [remaining] days, Judah b. Tabbai used to go and prostrate himself on the grave of that [slain] witness, and his voice would be heard and people thought that it was the voice of the slain man; but he would tell them, ‘It is my voice! You will be convinced when on the morrow of this man's [his own] death his voice will be heard no more’. Said R. Aha, the son of Raba, to R. Ashi: He might perhaps have answered the summons of the deceased, or else he might have obtained his forgiveness.30 MISHNAH. [IT IS PRESCRIBED:] AT THE MOUTH OF TWO WITNESSES OR THREE WITNESSES SHALL HE THAT IS TO DIE BE PUT TO DEATH.31 IF THE FACT IS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED BY TWO WITNESSES, WHEREFORE DOES HOLY WRIT [FURTHER] SPECIFY THREE? — THIS IS ONLY TO SHOW THEIR COMPARATIVE COMPETENCY, THAT JUST AS THREE ARE COMPETENT TO INCRIMINATE TWO AS ZOMEMIM, SO ARE TWO COMPETENT TO INCRIMINATE THREE. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT [TWO OR THREE] CAN EVEN INCRIMINATE A HUNDRED? FROM THE INSTRUCTIVE CONTEXT WHICH HAS [TWICE] ‘WITNESSES’.32 R. SIMEON SAYS THAT JUST AS TWO WITNESSES ARE NOT PUT TO DEATH AS ZOMEMIM UNTIL BOTH HAVE BEEN INCRIMINATED, SO THREE ARE NOT PUT TO DEATH UNTIL ALL THREE HAVE BEEN INCRIMINATED AS ZOMEMIM. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THIS ALSO APPLIES EVEN IN THE CASE OF A HUNDRED? — FROM THE INSTRUCTIVE CONTEXT WHICH HAS [THRICE] ‘WITNESSES’33 . R. AKIBA OBSERVES THAT THE THIRD WITNESS WAS SUPERADDED HERE [NOT TO MAKE HIS RESPONSIBILITY THE LIGHTER],34 BUT TO RENDER IT AS SERIOUS FOR HIM AND MAKE HIS LEGAL LIABILITY EQUAL TO THAT OF THE OTHERS.35 NOW, IF HOLY WRIT THUS PENALISES ONE WHO CONSORTS WITH MALEFACTORS, AS ONE OF THE MALEFACTORS, HOW MUCH MORE SHALL HE WHO CONSORTS WITH BENEFACTORS RECEIVE A REWARD AS ONE OF THE BENEFACTORS! [AGAIN,] AS IN THE CASE OF TWO WITNESSES, IF ONE OF THEM WAS FOUND TO BE A NEAR KINSMAN36 OR [OTHERWISE] DISQUALIFIED,37 THE WHOLE EVIDENCE IS RENDERED VOID, SO IS IT WITH THREE: IF ONE OF THEM WAS FOUND TO BE A NEAR KINSMAN OR [OTHERWISE] DISQUALIFIED, THE WHOLE EVIDENCE IS VOID.HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THIS IS THE CASE EVEN WITH A HUNDRED? FROM THE INSTRUCTIVE CONTEXT WHICH HAS [THRICE] ‘WITNESSES’. is offered that it was not customary in Babylon always to mention the master's name, v, Hyman Toledoth, I, p. 195. and B1 charge A and A1 with alibi. C ,, C1 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, C ,, C1 ,, ,, D ,, D1 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, D ,, D1 ,, ,, Was the whole world on the day of the murder with B and B1? According to Nahmanides and others A and A1 charge M — B and B1 charge A and A1 with alibi. C ,, C1 ,, ,, D ,, D1 ,, C ,, C1 ,, ,, E ,, E1 ,, ,, F ,, F1 ,, E ,, E1 ,, ,, etc. How was everybody conveniently present to be able to assist his own side? We have obviously a factious feud here. Cf. Han. before sentence is given or after their victim had been executed, they escape retaliative punishment, according to the traditional (Pharisaic) interpretation; v. Maim. Yad, Eduth, XX, 2. done. Rashi (in Deut, a, l. and Mak, 2b, top) stresses ‘as he purposed to do,’ but has not yet done it. Cf. Chajes notes on 5b and Meklenburg (longer commentary) on Deut, a. l. The fact that the judges were themselves involved with the zomemim in the unfortunate miscarriage of justice may be the reason for letting them off post eventum, since the zomemim, as the witnesses, were compelled by the judges’ decision to lay hands on their victim, Cf. also Friedmann's instructive note Sifre, Num, XXXV. ** 160 n. 6 (p. 61a), and Hoffmann's khguvk snkn, III, 142. to senior students under his own Principal, while still at College,’ v. Rashi Hul. 11b s.v. thb,vu and Dictionaries, v. however Ginzberg, L., J.E.II, p. 52. plot had succeeded! and the form of punishment stated’. life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, apply only in cases of the death penalty and (penal compensation) for imputed bodily injuries. Scriptural authority is now sought for the remaining forms of retaliatory punishments, namely, flogging and banishment, (cf, the first Mishnah, 2a), which, like the death penalty, are incurred only after a court sentence (on fictitious evidence) had been enforced. Shawah, v. Glos. Mishnah: Simeon B. Shetah was the brother of Queen Salome (= Shelom-Zion, Alexandra), wife of Alexander Jannaeus; v. Aboth, i. 8-9. Note the phrase, ‘May I (never) see consolation’ (Luke II, 25) which points to troublous times. Political reprisals were rife then. On the cause of the controversy and the treatment of Zomemim, v. Graetz, Hist, (Eng, ed.) ii, chap. 2, and J. Klausner, ,hktrah vhruyxhv ii, 145. slain man calling, as it is likely that Judah would, on death, have appeared before the Heavenly Tribunal with the deceased or obtained pardon from the wronged man, and this silenced his voice calling from the grave. and therefore he might be let off; but the context demands that all witnesses form one inseparable group and must suffer alike, if found zomemim. on account of (the evidence of) the children, and vice versa. Sanh. 27b and Maim.