## Makkot Daf 6b

###### Makkot 6b:1
[Makkot 6b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/6b:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ, מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה, וּשְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה, וְאֶחָד מַתְרֶה בּוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן רוֹאִין אֵלּוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עֵדוּת אַחַת, וְאִם לָאו – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁתֵּי עֵדֻיוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ, אִם נִמְצֵאת אַחַת מֵהֶן זוֹמֶמֶת – הוּא וָהֵן נֶהֱרָגִין, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה פְּטוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case where there **were two** witnesses **observing** an individual violating a capital transgression **from this window** in a house, **and two observing him from that window** in a house, **and one** person was **forewarning** the transgressor **in the middle** between the two sets of witnesses, the *halakha* depends on the circumstances. In a situation **where some of** the witnesses observing from the two windows **see each other,** the testimony of all **these** witnesses constitutes **one testimony, but if** they do **not** see each other, the testimony of **these** witnesses constitutes **two** independent **testimonies. Therefore,** as two independent sets of witnesses, **if one of** the sets **was found** to be a set of **conspiring** witnesses, while the testimony of the other set remained valid, both **he,** the one accused of violating the capital transgression, **and they,** the conspiring witnesses, **are executed, and the second** set, whose testimony remained valid, **is exempt.**


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

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵין נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדָיו מַתְרִין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים״. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים״ – שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא סַנְהֶדְרִין שׁוֹמַעַת מִפִּי הַתּוּרְגְּמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei says:** Transgressors **are never executed unless his two witnesses are** the ones **forewarning him, as it is stated: “At the mouth of two witnesses…**he who is to be put to death shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:6), from which it is derived that it is from the mouths of the two witnesses that the accused must be forewarned, and forewarning issued by someone else is insufficient. **Alternatively,** from the phrase **“at the mouth of two witnesses”** one derives **that** the judges must hear the testimony directly from the witnesses, and the **Sanhedrin will not hear** testimony **from the mouth of an interpreter.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּא אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן לְעֵדוּת מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא פְּסוּלָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יוּמַת עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד״. מַאי אֶחָד? אִילֵּימָא עֵד אֶחָד מַמָּשׁ – מֵרֵישָׁא שָׁמְעִינַן לָהּ, ״עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים״! אֶלָּא מַאי ״אֶחָד״? אֶחָד אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Zutra bar Tuvya says** that **Rav says: From where** is it derived with regard **to disjointed testimony,** in which each of the witnesses saw the incident independent of the other, **that it is not valid?** It is derived from a verse, **as it is stated: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness”** (Deuteronomy 17:6). The exposition is as follows: **What** is the meaning of **“one** witness”? **If we say** that it means **one witness literally, we learn it from the first** portion of the verse: **“At the mouth of two witnesses,”** indicating that the testimony of fewer than two witnesses is not valid. **Rather, what** is the meaning of **“one** witness”? It means that the accused is not executed based on the testimony of people who witnessed an incident with **one** witness here and **one** witness elsewhere.


###### Makkot 6b:4
[Makkot 6b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/6b:4)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״לֹא יוּמַת עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד״, לְהָבִיא שְׁנַיִם שֶׁרוֹאִים אוֹתוֹ אֶחָד מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וְאֶחָד מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה, וְאֵין רוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שֶׁאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה בְּחַלּוֹן אֶחָד – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **This is also taught** in a *baraita*: It is written: **“He shall not die at the mouth of one witness,”** from which it is derived **to include** the *halakha* that in the case of **two** witnesses **who observe** an individual violating a capital transgression, **one from this window and one from that window, and they do not see each other, that they do not join** to constitute a set of witnesses. **Moreover, even** if they witnessed the same transgression from the same perspective, watching the incident not at the same time but **one after the other in one window, they do not join** to constitute a set of witnesses.


###### Makkot 6b:5
[Makkot 6b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/6b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא, וּמָה אֶחָד מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וְאֶחָד מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה, דְּהַאי קָא חָזֵי כּוּלּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְהַאי קָא חָזֵי כּוּלּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה – אָמְרַתְּ לָא מִצְטָרְפִי, בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, דְּהַאי חָזֵי פַּלְגָא דְמַעֲשֶׂה וְהַאי חָזֵי פַּלְגָא דְמַעֲשֶׂה, מִיבַּעְיָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְבוֹעֵל אֶת הָעֶרְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Abaye:** Why is it necessary to mention both cases? **Now if** in the case where **one** witness views the incident **from this window and one** witness views the incident **from that window, where this** witness **sees the entire incident and that** witness **sees the entire incident, you say** that **they do not join** to testify together as two witnesses, if they see the incident **one after the other, where this** witness **sees half** the **incident and that** witness **sees half** the **incident,** is it **necessary** to say that the witnesses do not join together? Abaye **said to him:** It **is necessary** to state this *halakha* **only** with regard **to** a case where they witnessed one who **engages in intercourse with a forbidden relative,** which is a continuing act, and each of the witnesses saw sufficient behavior to render the transgressor liable. The *tanna* of the *baraita* teaches that even in that case, they do not join to constitute a set of witnesses.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: אִם הָיוּ רוֹאִין אֶת הַמַּתְרֶה, אוֹ הַמַּתְרֶה רוֹאֶה אוֹתָן – מִצְטָרְפִין. אָמַר רָבָא: מַתְרֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֲפִילּוּ מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִפִּי הַשֵּׁד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Apropos witnesses joining to constitute a set of witnesses, **Rava says:** Even if the witness in either window is unable to see the witness in the other window, **if** the witness in each window **sees the one who is forewarning** the accused, **or** if **the one who is forewarning** the accused **could see** the two disjointed witnesses, **they join** to constitute a set of witnesses. **Rava says:** The one **forewarning** the accused of **whom** the Sages **spoke** need not be a third witness, but **even** if the victim forewarns the murderer **from his own mouth, and even** if the forewarning emerged **from the mouth of a demon,** meaning the source of the forewarning is unknown, the forewarning is legitimate.


###### Makkot 6b:7
[Makkot 6b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/6b:7)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: עֵדוּת מְיוּחֶדֶת כְּשֵׁירָה בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יוּמַת עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד״ – בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הוּא דְּאֵין כְּשֵׁירָה, אֲבָל בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת – כְּשֵׁירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says: Disjointed testimony** of two witnesses, each of whom observed an incident independent of the other, **is valid in** cases of **monetary law, as it is written: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness”** (Deuteronomy 17:6). This indicates that **it is** only **with regard to** cases of **capital law that** disjointed testimony **is not valid, but with regard to** cases of **monetary law** that testimony **is valid.**


###### Makkot 6b:8
[Makkot 6b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/6b:8)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב זוּטְרָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת תַּצִּיל! אַלְּמָה תְּנַן ״הוּא וָהֵן נֶהֱרָגִין״? קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zutra objects to this: But if that is so,** and disjointed testimony is effective in certain cases, **in** cases of **capital law** disjointed testimony **should spare** the accused from execution. Since one must exploit every avenue possible to prevent executions, in a case where some of the disjointed witnesses were rendered conspiring witnesses, the entire testimony should be voided on their account. **Why,** then, **did we learn** in the mishna that if one set witnessed the capital transgression from one window and one set from the other window, and one set was found to be a set of conspiring witnesses, **he,** the accused, **and they,** the conspiring witnesses, **are executed?** The Gemara comments: Indeed, that is **difficult** according to Rav Naḥman.


###### Makkot 6b:9
[Makkot 6b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/6b:9)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַאי סְבָרָא? וְהָתְנַן רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הַשּׂוֹנֵא – נֶהֱרָג, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמוּעָד וּמוּתְרֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yosei says:** Perpetrators are never executed unless his two witnesses are the ones forewarning him. **Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And is Rabbi Yosei of** the opinion that **this** line of **reasoning** is correct, and forewarning by the witnesses is indispensable? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (9b): **Rabbi Yosei says: An enemy** who commits murder cannot claim that he killed the victim unwittingly. Rather, **he is executed** even if there was no forewarning, **due to** the fact **that his** halakhic status is **like** that of one who is **cautioned and forewarned.** Apparently, Rabbi Yosei does not always require that there be forewarning.


###### Makkot 6b:10
[Makkot 6b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/6b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהוּא – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חָבֵר אֵין צָרִיךְ הַתְרָאָה, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנָה הַתְרָאָה אֶלָּא לְהַבְחִין בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג לְמֵזִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **said to him: That** statement in the mishna you cited that is attributed to Rabbi Yosei **is** actually the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: A *ḥaver* does not require forewarning, as forewarning was instituted only to distinguish between** one who commits a transgression **unwittingly and** one who does so **intentionally.** A *ḥaver*, who is a Torah scholar, does not require forewarning to distinguish between them. Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta, whose opinion is cited in the mishna here, is of the opinion that forewarning is a necessary prerequisite to executing someone who is judged liable, and that forewarning must be issued by the witnesses.


###### Makkot 6b:11
[Makkot 6b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/6b:11)

דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים״ – שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא סַנְהֶדְרִין שׁוֹמַעַת מִפִּי הַתּוּרְגְּמָן. הָנְהוּ לָעוֹזֵי דַּאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אוֹקִי רָבָא תּוּרְגְּמָן בֵּינַיְיהוּ. וְהֵיכִי עֲבִיד הָכִי? וְהָתְנַן: שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא סַנְהֶדְרִין שׁוֹמַעַת מִפִּי הַתּוּרְגְּמָן! רָבָא מִידָּע הֲוָה יָדַע מָה דַּהֲווֹ אָמְרִי, וְאַהְדּוֹרֵי הוּא דְּלָא הֲוָה יָדַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Alternatively,** from the phrase in the verse **“at the mouth of two witnesses”** one derives **that** the **Sanhedrin will not hear** testimony **from the mouth of an interpreter.** The Gemara relates: There were **certain** people who spoke **a foreign** language **who came before Rava** for judgment. **Rava installed an interpreter between them** and heard the testimony through the interpreter. The Gemara asks: **And how did he do so? But didn’t we learn** in the mishna **that** the **Sanhedrin will not hear** testimony **from the mouth of an interpreter?** The Gemara answers: **Rava knew what they were saying,** as he understood their language, **but he did not know** how to **respond** to them in their language. He posed questions through the interpreter but understood the answers on his own, as required by the mishna.