## Makkot Daf 3a

###### Makkot 3a:1
[Makkot 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3a:1)

מַאי נִיהוּ, דְּלֹא עָשׂוּ מַעֲשֶׂה? הַיְינוּ דְּרַבָּה! אֵימָא: ״וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara is puzzled by this: **What is** the meaning of the statement: The money remains in the possession of the owner? It means **that they did not perform an action. That is** identical to the reasoning **of Rabba,** and it is not an additional explanation. The Gemara emends the formulation of the presentation of the statement. **Say: And likewise Rav Naḥman says:** Know that it is so, as the money remains in the possession of the owner. Rav Naḥman is not disagreeing with Rabba; he merely formulates the statement differently.


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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: עֵד זוֹמֵם מְשַׁלֵּם לְפִי חֶלְקוֹ. מַאי ״מְשַׁלֵּם לְפִי חֶלְקוֹ״? אִילֵּימָא דְּהַאי מְשַׁלֵּם פַּלְגָא וְהַאי מְשַׁלֵּם פַּלְגָא, תְּנֵינָא: מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בְּמָמוֹן, וְאֵין מְשַׁלְּשִׁין בְּמַלְקוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the statement of Rabbi Akiva in the *baraita*, **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: A conspiring witness pays according to his share.** The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of: **Pays according to his share? If we say** that it means **that this** witness **pays half** of the sum that the set conspired to render another liable to pay with their testimony, **and that** witness **pays** the other **half, we** already **learned** this in a mishna (5a): When punishing conspiring witnesses, **one divides** the punishment of **money** among them, **but one does not divide** the punishment of **lashes** among them; each receives the full thirty-nine lashes.


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

אֶלָּא: כְּגוֹן דְּאִיתַּזּוּם חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, דִּמְשַׁלֵּם פַּלְגָא דִידֵיהּ, וּמִי מְשַׁלֵּם? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: אֵין עֵד זוֹמֵם מְשַׁלֵּם מָמוֹן עַד שֶׁיִּזּוֹמּוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara explains that the expression: Pays according to his share, means that in a case **where** only **one of** the set **was rendered a conspiring** witness, the *halakha* is **that he pays his half** of the sum. The Gemara asks: **And does** he **pay** at all in that case? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **A conspiring witness pays money only when both were rendered conspiring** witnesses? If only one was rendered a conspiring witness, he does not pay.


###### Makkot 3a:4
[Makkot 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3a:4)

אָמַר רָבָא: בְּאוֹמֵר ״עֵדוּת שֶׁקֶר הֵעַדְתִּי״. כֹּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ? כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיד שׁוּב אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וּמַגִּיד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** The statement is not referring to a case of conspiring witnesses; rather, Rav’s statement applies **to** the case of one who **says:** It was **false testimony** that **I testified.** The Gemara asks: **Is it in his** power to have this statement accepted by the court? That runs counter to the principle: **Once** a witness **stated** his testimony **he may not then state** a revision of that testimony.


###### Makkot 3a:5
[Makkot 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3a:5)

אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר: ״הֵעַדְנוּ וְהוּזַמְנוּ בְּבֵית דִּין פְּלוֹנִי״. כְּמַאן – דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הָא אָמַר: אַף אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** Rav’s statement applies **to** the case of one who **says: We testified and were rendered conspiring** witnesses **in such and such a court.** Since he was already convicted as a conspiring witness, it is as though he is admitting an obligation to give monetary restitution, and he is therefore liable to pay his share. The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion is this *halakha*? It is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, since if** it were **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, doesn’t he say:** A conspiring witness **also does not pay based on his own** admission?


###### Makkot 3a:6
[Makkot 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3a:6)

אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר ״הֵעַדְנוּ וְהוּזַמְנוּ בְּבֵית דִּין פְּלוֹנִי וְחוּיַּיבְנוּ מָמוֹן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** Rav’s statement applies **to** the case of one who **says: We testified and were rendered conspiring** witnesses **in such and such a court and we were rendered liable** to pay a specific sum of **money.** In that scenario, Rabbi Akiva would concede that one pays on the basis of his own admission. Once the court rendered him liable to pay a specific sum, his admission is not that he is liable to pay a fine, in which case he would be exempt. Once the court actually instructed them to pay, the debt has the status of any other monetary restitution, and one does pay monetary restitution based on his own admission.


###### Makkot 3a:7
[Makkot 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3a:7)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: כֵּיוָן דִּלְחַבְרֵיהּ לָא מָצֵי מְחַיֵּיב לֵיהּ, אִיהוּ נָמֵי לָא מִיחַיַּיב, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the novel element in Rav’s statement: It might **enter your mind to say** that **since he is unable to render his fellow** witness **liable** to pay based on his admission, as only the testimony of two witnesses is capable of doing so, **he too is not liable** to pay based on that admission. To counter this, Rav **teaches us** that his admission that he owes money renders him liable to pay.


###### Makkot 3a:8
[Makkot 3a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** ״מְעִידִין אָנוּ אֶת אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁגֵּירַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ כְּתוּבָתָהּ״, וַהֲלֹא בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין לְמָחָר, סוֹפוֹ לִיתֵּן לָהּ כְּתוּבָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of witnesses who said: **We testify** with regard to **a man** called **so-and-so that he divorced his wife and did not give her** payment of **her marriage contract,** and they were then rendered conspiring witnesses, the question arises with regard to the manner in which the sum of their payment is calculated. It is not possible to render the witnesses liable to pay the entire sum of the marriage contract, as they can claim: **But isn’t** it so that **either today or tomorrow,** i.e., at some point in the future, he may divorce his wife or die and **ultimately he** will be liable **to give her** payment of **her marriage contract?** That being the case, the witnesses did not conspire to render him liable to pay a sum that he would otherwise not be liable to pay.


###### Makkot 3a:9
[Makkot 3a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3a:9)

אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ, שֶׁאִם נִתְאַלְמְנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה, וְאִם מֵתָה, יִירָשֶׁנָּה בַּעֲלָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The sum of their payment is calculated as follows: The court **assesses how much** money another **person** would be **willing to give in** order to purchase the rights to **this** woman’s **marriage contract,** cognizant of the uncertainty **that if she was widowed or divorced** the purchaser will receive payment of the marriage contract **but if she dies, her husband will inherit** from **her,** and the one who purchased her marriage contract will receive nothing.


###### Makkot 3a:10
[Makkot 3a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3a:10)

**גְּמָ׳** כֵּיצַד שָׁמִין? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בַּבַּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna establishes that the payment of the conspiring witnesses is calculated based on the sum that one would be willing to pay for rights to payment of the marriage contract, taking into consideration the uncertainty whether he will ultimately receive that payment. The Gemara asks: **How does** the court **assess** that sum? **Rav Ḥisda says:** One calculates the sum **in** terms of **the husband:** How much would one be willing to pay for the husband’s rights to the marriage contract based on the likelihood that his wife will die first and he will inherit from her?


###### Makkot 3a:11
[Makkot 3a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3a:11)

רַב נָתָן בַּר אוֹשַׁעְיָא אוֹמֵר: בָּאִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Natan bar Oshaya says:** One calculates the sum **in** terms of **the wife:** How much would one be willing to pay for the wife’s rights to the marriage contract based on the likelihood that the husband will die first or divorce her?


###### Makkot 3a:12
[Makkot 3a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3a:12)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בָּאִשָּׁה וּבִכְתוּבָּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says:** One calculates the sum **in** terms of **the wife,** as Rav Natan bar Oshaya said, **and** the assessment is done **in** terms of the sum of **her marriage contract.** One does not include in the calculation any usufruct property that the wife brought with her into the marriage, the profits of which belong to the husband, despite the fact that as a result of the testimony of the conspiring witnesses the husband would lose his rights to those profits. One calculates the sum only in terms of her marriage contract.


###### Makkot 3a:13
[Makkot 3a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3a:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** ״מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְּאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב לַחֲבֵירוֹ אֶלֶף זוּז, עַל מְנָת לִיתְּנָן לוֹ מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר, ״מִכָּאן וְעַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of witnesses who said: **We testify with regard to a man** called **so-and-so that he owes another** person **one thousand dinars** that he borrowed **on the condition** that he is **to give** the money back **to him from now until thirty days** have passed, **and** the borrower **says** that he borrowed that sum but it was on the condition that he is to give the money back to him **from now until ten years** have passed, and they were rendered conspiring witnesses, here too, it is not possible to render the witnesses liable to pay the entire sum.


###### Makkot 3a:14
[Makkot 3a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3a:14)

אוֹמְדִים כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן וְיִהְיוּ בְּיָדוֹ אֶלֶף זוּז, בֵּין נוֹתְנָן מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, בֵּין נוֹתְנָן מִכָּאן וְעַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, the court **estimates how much** money **a person** would be **willing to give** so that he **would** keep a loan of **one thousand dinars in his possession,** and one calculates the difference **between** that sum in a situation where he would be required to **give** the money back **from now until thirty days** have passed, **and** that same sum in a situation where he would be required to **give** the money back **from now until ten years** have passed. That difference is the sum that the testimony of the conspiring witnesses sought to have the borrower lose; therefore, it is the sum that they must pay.


###### Makkot 3a:15
[Makkot 3a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/3a:15)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ לְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים – שְׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** In the case of **one who lends** money to **another for** a period of **ten years, the Sabbatical** Year **abrogates** the debt (see Deuteronomy 15:1–11) and absolves the borrower of the obligation to repay it.