*7.6 Makkos Daf 05 B (2 lines Up)**Summary**Mishna:*Just as a testimony is invalidated when *one of two* witnesses is found to be a relative or a _passul_ ; it is invalidated even when *one of three* witnesses is found _passul_ . (Even though we have two valid witnesses).[There’s a question of what is the issue here; is it that there were _pessulim_ present at the time of the witnessing? This would be the source for the custom of _medakdekim_ that a _chosson_ singles out two witnesses at the _chuppah_ and tells them “Only you are my witnesses”. Or is the problem that a non-kosher witness testified in _beis din_ but the presence of a relative at a _chuppah_ (for instance) would not invalidate a testimony.].[Another question; can the two kosher ones return on a different date without their third partner and restate their testimony?].How do I know that this applies *even to one of a hundred?*The passuk says *_“Eidim”_* (this implies *even many* _eidim_ ).*Rabbi Yosi:* The rules set forth in this mishna apply *only to _dinei nefashos_ but in money matters, the testimony* of valid witnesses *is accepted* even after their partner’s testimony has been invalidated.*Rebbi:* The rules apply to any testimony.An additional witness can *only invalidate* the testimony if he indicates his willingness to *participate as a witness* by joining in in the _hasra’ah_ - warning the murderer. But if he did not participate, what can you do if two brothers happened to be present at a crime? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*7.5 Makkos Daf 05 B (10 lines Up)**Summary**Mishna:*It states “A man can be put to death based on the testimony of *two or three* witnesses”. “Three” is *superfluous* , the Torah wrote it in order to compare two to three. Just as we understand that three witnesses can be _mazim_ two; *two can be _mazim_ three* as well.How do I know that this applies *even to a hundred?*The passuk says *“Eidim - witnesses”* (this implies *even many)* .*Rabbi Shimon:* The words *“or three”* teach that just as *both witnesses* need to be _huzam_ in order for the _hazamah_ to be effective (3.2), so to when there are three witnesses, *all three need to be _huzam_* in order for the _hazamah_ to be effective.How do I know that this applies *even to a hundred?*The passuk says *_“Eidim - witnesses”_* (this implies *even many* ).*Rabbi Akiva:* The third witness *cannot produce a leniency* for the others. He can only *be punished* together with them.This third witness is completely unnecessary for the plot of the first two _zoimemim_ , and yet, the Torah punishes him with the full punishment. This teaches us that *certainly Hashem will reward* anyone who joins in with others doing a mitzvah. (That’s the big story of Yefes [see Toras Avigdor Parshas Shoftim 2 “The Third Witness”], https://torasavigdor.org/parshas-shoftim-2-the-third-witness/Sheim didn’t need Yefes’ help to cover his father, yet he received a bracha for that). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*7.4 Makkos Daf 05 B (19 lines Up)**Summary**Question:* How do we know that the laws of our _mishna_ (7.2) regarding _gemar din_ apply to the *punishment of _malkos_* as well?*Answer:* There is a *_gezeira shaveh - rasha_* (which is written regarding *_misah_* ) and *_rasha_* (which is written regarding *_malkos_* ).*Question:* And how do I know that this applies to the punishment of *_galus_* (for unintentional murder) as well?*Answer:* There is a *_gezeira shaveh - rotzeach_* (which is written regarding *_murder_* ) and *_rotzeach_* (which is written regarding *_unintentional murder_* ).*Beraisa:**Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabai* (a head of the Sanhedrin): I wish to see in our national consolation! (although he lived during the time of the _bayis sheini_ , they longed for the return of the _shechina_ like in the _bayis rishon_ ) Because I (and my Sanhedrin) put to death an _eid zomeim_ to disprove the _tzedukim_ who say an _eid zomeim_ is only killed after the person he accused was killed (7.2).(There is a difficulty here, because it seems that he only killed the _eid zomeim_ to disprove the _tzedukim,_ while in reality Sanhedrin has an obligation to judge _edim zoimemim_ ).*Shimon ben Shatach:* You killed a man for nothing! The _chachamim_ clearly say that “ _Eidim zoimemim_ are only put to death if *both* are found to be _zoimemim,_ (and you only found one of them to be a _zoimeim_ ) and they only receive _malkos_ if both are found to be _zoimemim_ ”.Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabai immediately accepted upon himself *not to render any decisions* without running them by *Shimon ben Shatach.* Additionally, *every day he went to the cemetery,* to the grave of the _eid_ he had ordered killed and spread himself out on the grave, and people would hear *a wailing sound* from the cemetery. The people thought it was *the sound of the dead man crying,* but the rabbi told them *it was his voice* (since he had committed a sin that was known to the people, he wanted to let them know he was doing _teshuva_ ), he told them, you’ll see it’s my voice because *as soon as I die, you will no longer hear wailing.**Rav Acha son of Rava* commented to Rav Ashi: *What proof is that?* Once Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabai is in the next world the dead man can take him to the *heavenly court.* Or they can discuss matters and he’ll *be appeased.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*7.3 Makkos Daf 05 B (7 lines after spreads)**Summary**Gemara: Berebbi* (A great man): If the _zoimemim_ did not kill, they are killed. If they did kill, *they are not killed.**His father:* Isn’t that *illogical?**Berebbi:* You have taught us (he said this to be respectful): *We do not punish based on logic.*This can be learned from a *Beraisa:*“If a man takes his sister the daughter of his father or of his mother” What about a sister who is the daughter of both? The _passuk_ ends “He revealed the _ervah_ of his sister”, this teaches us that even a full sister is also included in the punishment of _kareis._Now, isn’t it obvious? What do we need extra words in the _passuk_ for?We learn from here that *We do not punish based on logic,* rather we need the _passuk_ to state it explicitly.*Question:* This passuk teaches us *the punishment* for such a sister, *where is the _azhara_ ?* (see 5.6 for explanation of the term).*Answer:* There is another _passuk_ that follows the same pattern (The daughter of *your father* , or *your mother, _your sister_* ). This _passuk_ is the _azharas lav._This teaches that *“We cannot learn a lav from logic”.* We need an explicit _passuk._ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*7.2 Makkos Daf 05 B (15 Lines Dn)**Summary**Reish Lakish* : It is already *established that this woman brings false witnesses* and we cannot accept the third testimony.*Rabbi Yochanan (and Rabbi Elazar):* The fact that she is a faker *doesn’t prove that all Jews are fakers* and we must accept the testimony of two kosher Jews.*Suggestion:* It would seem that *Reish Lakish* is following *the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda* (6.2 “A crooked pair cannot be relied upon”), and *Rabbi Yochanan* is following *the Chachomim* (ibid. “They can even be _mazim_ one hundred pairs”).*Response:**Reish Lakish* does not necessarily argue with the Chachomim, because *no one brought these _mazimim_ into _beis din_* - unlike the case of the woman who was the one bringing different sets of false witnesses.*Rabbi Yochanan* does not necessarily argue with Rabbi Yehuda. It is difficult to accept the Chachomim’s view because: Were *all two hundred people* really *with this one set of _mazimim?_* However in our case, there is nothing in the third testimony indicating that it’s false.*Mishna:* _Zoimemim_ are not *put to death* for testifying against somebody unless he was *already sentenced.* (They’re also not punished if the sentence was carried out already).The _Tzedukim_ refused to punish _zoimemim_ until they had actually caused the *death* of their victim, based on the _passuk nefesh b’nefesh_ - “a life for a life”.*The chachamim argued* from the _passuk “Ka’asher zamam laasos l’achiv_ - As he intended to do to *his brother”* - so it seems that the brother is still around. The verse _nefesh b’nefesh_ teaches that they are not punished until their victim’s “life” was in peril because he was sentenced. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*7.1 Makkos Daf 05 A (Bottom Line)**Summary**Mishna* (6.2): The same two eidim can be mazim even a hundred pairs of witnesses. Rabbi Yehuda says this is a crooked pair. Eidim are only believed against the first set of witnesses.*Gemara:* If the witnesses are considered crooked, their words *shouldn’t be accepted against the first set* either!?*Rabbi Avahu:* The _mishna_ refers to a case in which the *first set* was *already put to death.**Challenge:*The mishna is here to teach us _halachos,_ *not to tell us stories* that happened.*Rava:* The _mishna’s_ intention is: If there is *only one set* that is _huzam_ , that’s when the _mazimim_ are believed.*Question:* The _mishna_ speaks of the *first set,* not of *one set* ?*Answer: That’s a good question!* (Something is wrong with the wording of the *mishna* and it needs to be amended).*Story:* A woman brought witnesses who were found to be false. She brought other witnesses who were again found to be false. Finally she brought witnesses who were not found false.*Reish Lakish:* It is already *established that this woman brings false witnesses* and we cannot accept the third testimony.*Rabbi Elazar:* The fact that she is a faker *doesn’t prove that all Jews are fakers* and we must accept the testimony of two kosher Jews.*Another time:* Such a case came before Rabbi Yochanan: *Reish Lakish* repeated his opinion, but *Rabbi Yochanan* countered with Rabbi Elazar’s prior argument. Reish Lakish was upset with Rabbi Elazar for not sharing previously that his source was in fact Rabbi Yochanan. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*6.6 Makkos Daf 05 A (9 Lines Up)**Summary**Rava:* A & B testify that *C murdered D* on *_Sunday._* But E & F testify that A & B were with them on Sunday. Although E & F also testify that *C murdered D* on *Monday; A & B are considered _zoimemim_* and *receive the death penalty.**Moreover,* even if E & F testify that the murder took place on *_Friday,_ A & B still deserve the death penalty,* because C was not yet convicted.If however in addition to testifying that A & B were with them on Sunday, they also testify that *C was already convicted for murder* on *_Friday._* Or even if they claim he was convicted on *_Monday_ (before A & B testified* on Tuesday), A & B are *not put to death.**Knas:* The _din_ is that _modeh b’knas pattur_ - until one is sentenced, he can admit his crime and will be absolved for making any _knas_ payments.Thus the same rule of Rava applies to knas payments. If *A & B testify* that C stole, slaughtered and sold _*(geneivah + tevicha umechira*_ which carries a _knas_ penalty), they must *pay the penalty* when they’re _huzam_ by E & F, even if E & F also accuse C of the *_same actions on a different day._*If however, E & F testify that *C was sentenced* before A & B testified (on *_Tuesday_* ), A & B are not required to pay. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*6.4 Makkos Daf 05 A (7 lines after spreads)**Summary**Rava:* If witnesses allege that a murder took place in *Sura* Sunday *_morning._* Other witnesses then claim that the first set of witnesses were with them Sunday *_evening_* in *Neharde’a,* we check if it is *possible to travel* from Sura to Neharde’a within that time frame. If it is impossible, the first set are considered _zoimemim._*Challenge:* Isn’t that obvious?*Resolution:* We might be inclined to believe that the first set of witnesses possess special camels; *dromedaries.* Rava is telling us that we judge by *ordinary standards* even though there may be extraordinary possibilities.*Rava:* A & B testify that *C murdered D* on *_Sunday._* But E & F testify that A & B were with them on Sunday. Although E & F also testify that *C murdered D* on *Monday; A & B are considered _zoimemim_* and *receive the death penalty.**Moreover,* even if E & F testify that the murder took place on *_Friday,_ A & B still deserve the death penalty,* because C was not yet convicted. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*6.3 Makkos Daf 05 A (2 lines after spreads)**Summary**Gemara:* What is the source?(That _hazamah_ consists of testimony against the witnesses themselves).*Rav Ada:* The _possuk_ says: *“The witness testified falsely,* he testified falsely”, the first words seem to imply that there is a falsity to the witness himself.*Rabbi Yishmael’s Beis Midrash:* The possuk says: “They testify against him and he falls apart”’. The testimony must be *against him.**Rava:* If witnesses allege that a murder took place on the *east side* of a building. Other witnesses then claim that the first set of witnesses were with them at that time on the *west side* of the building, we check if it is *possible to see through* from the west to the east. If it is impossible, the first set are considered _zoimemim_ .*Challenge:* Isn’t that obvious?*Resolution:* We might be inclined to believe that the first set of witnesses possess extraordinary eyesight. Rava is telling us that we judge by what the *ordinary person can see.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate