## Makkot Daf 2a

###### Makkot 2a:1
[Makkot 2a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/2a:1)

מַתְנִי׳ **כֵּיצַד** הָעֵדִים נַעֲשִׂים זוֹמְמִין? ״מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְּאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה״, אֵין אוֹמְרִים: יֵעָשֶׂה זֶה בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה תַּחְתָּיו, אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **How are witnesses rendered conspiring** witnesses? This applies in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: **We testify with regard to so-and-so,** who is a priest, **that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza*,** a *yevama* who performed the rite of *ḥalitza* to free herself from the levirate bond. Those testimonies render him a *ḥalal* (see Leviticus 21:6–7), one disqualified from the priesthood due to flawed lineage. If a second set of witnesses testifies in court and renders the first set conspiring witnesses, **one does not say** with regard to each of the conspiring witnesses: **This** witness **shall be rendered the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza* in his stead. Rather, he receives forty lashes** as punishment for his false testimony.


###### Makkot 2a:2
[Makkot 2a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/2a:2)

״מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְּאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב לִגְלוֹת״, אֵין אוֹמְרִים: יִגְלֶה זֶה תַּחְתָּיו, אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: **We testify with regard to so-and-so that he is liable to be exiled** to a city of refuge for unwittingly killing another (see Numbers 35:11), and a second set of witnesses testifies in court and renders the first set conspiring witnesses, **one does not say** with regard to each of the conspiring witnesses: **This** witness **shall be exiled in his stead. Rather, he receives forty lashes.**


###### Makkot 2a:3
[Makkot 2a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/2a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** הָא ״כֵּיצַד אֵין הָעֵדִים נַעֲשִׂים זוֹמְמִין״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! וְעוֹד, מִדְּקָתָנֵי לְקַמַּן: אֲבָל אָמְרוּ לָהֶם: ״הֵיאַךְ אַתֶּם מְעִידִין, הֲרֵי בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם אַתֶּם הֱיִיתֶם עִמָּנוּ בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ זוֹמְמִין, מִכְּלָל דְּאֵלּוּ אֵין זוֹמְמִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara analyzes the opening question of the mishna: **But** based on the cases discussed in the mishna, the *tanna* **should have** asked: **How are witnesses not rendered conspiring** witnesses? The standard punishment for conspiring witnesses is the punishment that they conspired to have inflicted upon the subject of their testimony. The mishna cites anomalous cases where their punishment does not correspond to the punishment they sought to have inflicted. The Gemara asks: **And furthermore, from** the fact **that** the *tanna* **teaches** in a mishna cited **later** (5a): **But** if the second set of witnesses attempting to render the first set conspiring witnesses **said to them: How** can **you testify** to that incident when **on that day you were with us in such and such place, these** first witnesses **are conspiring** witnesses. One learns **by inference** from the final phrase in the cited passage: These are conspiring witnesses, that **those** enumerated in the mishna here **are not conspiring** witnesses.


###### Makkot 2a:4
[Makkot 2a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/2a:4)

תַּנָּא הָתָם קָאֵי: כׇּל הַזּוֹמְמִין מַקְדִּימִין לְאוֹתָהּ מִיתָה, חוּץ מִזּוֹמְמֵי בַּת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ, שֶׁאֵין מַקְדִּימִין לְאוֹתָהּ מִיתָה אֶלָּא לְמִיתָה אַחֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers both questions: **The *tanna* is standing there** in his studies, at the end of tractate *Sanhedrin*, which immediately precedes *Makkot*, and *Makkot* is often appended to the end of *Sanhedrin*. The mishna there teaches (89a): **All** those **who are** rendered **conspiring witnesses are led to** be executed with **the same** mode of **execution** with which they conspired to have their victim executed, **except for conspiring** witnesses who testified that **the daughter of a priest and her paramour** committed adultery, where the daughter of the priest would be executed by burning (see Leviticus 21:9) and her paramour would be executed by strangulation. In **that** case, they are **not taken directly to** be executed with **the same** mode of **execution** that they sought to have inflicted on the woman; **rather,** they are executed with **a different** mode of **execution,** the one they sought to have inflicted on the paramour.


###### Makkot 2a:5
[Makkot 2a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/2a:5)

וְיֵשׁ עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין אֲחֵרִים, שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן דִּין הֲזָמָה כׇּל עִיקָּר, אֶלָּא מַלְקוֹת אַרְבָּעִים, כֵּיצַד? ״מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְּאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה״, אֵין אוֹמְרִים: יֵעָשֶׂה זֶה בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה תַּחְתָּיו, אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, the *tanna* continues in this first mishna in *Makkot*: **And there are other conspiring witnesses with regard to whom** the court **does not apply the *halakhot*** governing the punishment in standard cases of **conspiring** testimony **at all,** and they do not receive the punishment they sought to have inflicted. **Rather,** they receive **forty lashes. How,** and in what cases, is this applied? This is applied in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: **We testify with regard to so-and-so that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza*, one does not say** with regard to each of the conspiring witnesses: **This** witness **shall be rendered the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza* in his stead. Rather, he receives forty lashes.**


###### Makkot 2a:6
[Makkot 2a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/2a:6)

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם״, ״לוֹ״ – וְלֹא לְזַרְעוֹ. וְלִיפְסְלוּהוּ לְדִידֵיהּ וְלָא לִיפְסְלוּ לְזַרְעֵיהּ! בָּעִינַן ״כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת״, וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where is this matter** derived that the court does not punish the witnesses with the punishment they sought to have inflicted and disqualify them from the priesthood? **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says** that **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:** It is derived from a verse, **as the verse states: “And you shall do to him as he conspired”** (Deuteronomy 19:19), from which the Gemara infers: It is done **“to him,” but not to his offspring.** Rendering the witness a *ḥalal* would disqualify his offspring as well. The Gemara challenges: **Let** the court **invalidate** the witness **and not invalidate his offspring.** The Gemara explains: That too would not accord with the directive in the verse, as based on the verse **we require** that the punishment be **“as he conspired to do”** (Deuteronomy 19:19), **and** that is **not** the case here, as the witness conspired to disqualify the subject of his testimony and his offspring.


###### Makkot 2a:7
[Makkot 2a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/2a:7)

בַּר פְּדָא אוֹמֵר: קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וּמָה הַמְחַלֵּל אֵינוֹ מִתְחַלֵּל, הַבָּא לְחַלֵּל וְלֹא חִילֵּל – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְחַלֵּל? מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: אִם כֵּן בִּטַּלְתָּ תּוֹרַת עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Bar Padda says** that this alternative form of punishment is derived through **an *a fortiori*** inference: **If one who** actually **disqualifies** another from the priesthood, i.e., a priest who fathers a son with a divorcée disqualifies their son from the priesthood, **is not** himself **disqualified** from the priesthood, so too with regard to this witness **who came to disqualify** another from the priesthood but was unsuccessful **and did not disqualify** him because he was rendered a conspiring witness, **isn’t it logical that he should not be disqualified? Ravina objects to this** reasoning: **If so,** that the failure of the conspiring witnesses to achieve their objective is the consideration at the basis of the *a fortiori* inference, **you have** thereby **rendered the *halakha* of conspiring witnesses obsolete,** as one could claim: