The Mishna rules that regardless of the number of individuals who testify, they are all considered a single group. Rava qualifies this ruling, limiting it to cases where the witnesses testify in immediate succession (toch k'dei dibbur).

Rabbi Akiva rules in the Mishna that if even one witness is related to another witness, to the defendant, or is otherwise disqualified, the entire group is disqualified. Rav Papa raises three practical difficulties with this ruling. Abaye resolves two of these difficulties but is unable to answer the third, which Rava subsequently resolves.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (Rebbi) rules that only those who explicitly intended to act as witnesses are considered as such. This intent is established if they issued a warning (hatra'ah) to the defendant. The Gemara then explores what additional questions the judges may pose to the witnesses to confirm this intent.

The Mishna discusses a scenario where witnesses observe an event from separate windows while a third party issues the warning. If the witnesses can see one another, they are considered a single group. Consequently, if they see each other and it is later determined that one was a conspiring witness (ed zomem) but the other was not, the conspiring witness does not receive capital punishment. Rabbi Yosi rules that a defendant is only executed if the warning was issued by the witnesses themselves. Therefore, in the aforementioned case, even if they were conspiring witnesses, they would not be executed because their testimony could never have led to a conviction, as they were not the ones who issued the warning.

A judge is prohibited from accepting testimony through a translator.

Rav provides a source for the ruling that two witnesses who did not see one another cannot join together to testify. A braita is cited to support his derivation (drasha); a difficulty raised against the braita is ultimately resolved.

Rava presents rulings regarding the relationship between the witnesses and the person who warned the defendant, as well as the nature of the warning itself. Rav Nachman limits the requirement for witnesses to see each other to capital cases, excluding monetary law. Rav Zutra raises a challenge against Rav Nachman's distinction, which remains unresolved.

A contradiction is raised against Rabbi Yosi's ruling in the Mishna based on a conflicting statement of his in Makkot (9b). Abaye resolves this by explaining that these statements were made by two different individuals with the same name, citing a braita in support.

Given the Mishna's rule against using a translator, the Gemara questions how Rava utilized one in a specific case. The Gemara explains that Rava understood the witnesses' language but used the translator to convey his words to them, as he could comprehend the language but not speak it fluently.

When the conspiring witnesses pay/get lashes do they split the amount or do they each have to pay the full amount or get the full amount of lashes?

The Mishna discusses the definition of conspiring witnesses. What is the difference between conspiring witnesses and contradictory testimony?

What happens in a case where every group that comes to testify is turned into conspiring witnesses by the same group of witnesses - do we assume the group saying "you were with us" to every group of witnesses is lying? Would it be the same if someone keeps bringing false witnesses to testify on their behalf and then brings witnesses who are not proven to be false? Do we suspect they are lying just because they were brought by someone already known to bring false witnesses?

There is a basic argument between the Perushim and Tzedukim - do the conspiring witnesses get killed only if they succeeded in convicting the person but didn't succeed in getting them killed (Perushim) or only if they actually succeeded in getting him killed (Tzedukim)?

The verse in Devarim 17:6 says that one gets killed based on the testimony of 2-3 witnesses. There are several drashot brought in the Mishna explaining what can be derived from the unnecessary mention of "three witnesses" in the verse.

Different statements of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav are brought regarding mikvaot.

The Mishna brings a basic argument between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis about whether or not conspiring witnesses get the punishment of what they conspired to do and also get lashes for the negative commandment of testifying falsely. The Gemara discusses their opinions.

Today's daf is sponsored by Samuel Berlad in honor of Esther Sarah bat Sarah to get good passing grades in the exams and parnassah tova. Also in loving memory of Devorah bat Avraham, for the refuah shleima of Shmuel Lev ben Bracha.

Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey and Jake Levant in honor of Deborah and Michael Dickson. "Wishing you a huge mazel tov on the engagement of Dalia to Yared Posnasky."

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that a conspiring witness pays according to his share. After four unsuccessful attempts to explain the meaning of his statement, they explain it to be a case where the witness said he was convicted and charged money in a court for being a conspiring witness. Based on his testimony, he can be obligated to pay his share, even though his testimony cannot incriminate the other witness.

If conspiring witnesses testify that a man divorced his wife and did not pay her the ketuba money, how is the payment for their punishment assessed, as they tried to obligate him to pay money that he may have had to pay later if he predeceases his wife or divorces her? If conspiring witnesses testify that a debtor who had a ten-year loan had a thirty-day loan, how is the payment for their punishment assessed? Both these cases are explained in the Mishna.

Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav that a ten-year loan is canceled when the shmita year arrives. Rav Kahana raises a difficulty on his statement from the Mishna as it implies that a ten-year loan can be collected. Rava resolves the contradiction.

According to an alternative version of the sugya, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav the opposite - that a ten-year loan is collected. Rav Kahana supported his statement from our Mishna.Rava rejects the support from the Mishna.

Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that if one loans another upon the condition that the shmita year not cancel the loan, the loan is canceled anyway as the condition is invalid. However, this contradicts a different statement of Shmuel regarding ona'ah, that a condition that goes against the Torah is valid if the issue relates to money. How is this resolved?

Two other statements are brought by Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav and Rav Kahana raises a difficulty against them - one about laws of Shabbat and one about laws of mikveh.

Makkot bookmark

Masechet Makkot is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri's father Judge Norman Krivosha, Nachum Meir ben David Beer v'Malka, on his 4th yahrzeit, and in honor of Dr. Judith Hauptman. "Our dad instilled in us a lifelong love of learning and in honor of Dr. Judith Hauptman, their first Talmud teacher and one of the pioneers who opened the doors of Talmud study to women."

There are certain exceptions to the rule when conspiring witnesses (eidim zomemim) do not receive the punishment "that they tried to do to their brother." In those cases, they receive lashes. For example, if they testify about the status of a person (about a kohen that his father married a divorcee) or that a person killed accidentally and should go to the refuge city.

Why does the masechet begin with an exception to the rule, instead of beginning with the basic rule of conspiring witnesses?

From where is it derived that in the two cases in the Mishna, conspiring witnesses do not receive the punishment "as he tried to do to his brother?" For each case, two suggestions are brought - one a drasha from a verse and the other a kal v'chomer argument. In both cases, the kal v'chomer argument is rejected.

Where can one find an allusion in the Torah for the ruling that conspiring witnesses receive lashes in exceptional cases?

A braita is quoted which adds two more exceptions to the rule where the conspiring witnesses do not receive the punishment that they tried to bring upon the defendant.

Siyum Sanhedrin is sponsored in loving memory of Anita Dinerstein by her children and grandchildren on her second yahrzeit. "Her dedication to learning, interpersonal connection and creation of community has been a model for us as we have learned Sanhedrin and the rest of Nezikin."

Siyum Sanhedrin is sponsored by Jeff and Jill Shames in memory of Jill's mother, Seena Baker, שפרה בת ברכה וזאלה. Ten years on, love beyond words from your children, your children's children and your children's children's children.

What happens to all the items in a city of idol worshippers that have some level of sanctity to them? Can the destroyed idolatrous city be used for gardens and fields or can it never be rebuilt for any purpose? The city of Jericho can also never be rebuilt. In the book of Kings, it is told that Chial rebuilt Jericho and his sons were killed, as per Joshua's curse. The Gemara explains that he rebuilt a different city but called it Jericho, which was forbidden as well. This story was a lead-in to the drought in the time of Achav when Eliahu received the "key" for rain from God and brought a drought. How did God manage to get the key back from Eliyahu and end the drought? The masechet ends with a discussion of righteous and evil people and their effects on the world.

Introduction to Masechet Makkot

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina and Shalom Lamm on the occasion of the brit and naming of their new grandson, Naveh Shimshon, born to their children, Peninah and Eitan Kaplansky.

The Gemara delves into various issues regarding an "ir hanidachat," idolatrous city.

Can a city become an idolatrous city if there was no subverted, but they decided on their own?

If individuals get stoned, but if the majority of the city is convicted, they get killed by the sword, how does the court rule on the first half of the inhabitants before it is clear that the majority of the inhabitants will be guilty?

Temporary residents are also considered part of the city, but how long do they need to live there to be considered temporary residents?

Even though the righteous people of the city are not killed, their possessions are destroyed. What is the difference between the possessions of the righteous people and those of the idol worshippers different and how are there laws derived from the Devarim 13:16?

Rav Chisda ruled that deposits of inhabitants are not burned. To what is he referring?

If there is no square in the town, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yismael disagree about whether or not the city can be judged as idolatrous city. How does each derive their position from the verse in the Torah?

The Mishna explained what is done with various sanctified items in the city - whether animals designated for sacrifices, second tithe produce and others. The Gemara brings a braita that expands on this list. What are animals designated for sacrificed left to die and cannot be redeemed and the money used so sacrifices? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish each bring a different answer to this question. The first explanation of Reish Lakish is rejected and an alternative is suggested. Why didn't each one hold by the other's position? In the braita, Rabbi Shimon excludes firstborn animals and tithed animals from the burning. Is this referring to unblemished or blemished animals? Ravina and Shmuel each take a different position on this.

Today's daf is sponsored by Rikki and Alan Zibitt in loving memory of their mothers, Helen Zibitt, Hena bat Yaacov v' Rachel Leah, whose 20th yahrzeit was 28 Adar and Friedl bat Meir v' Rivkah, whose 10th yahrzeit is 9 Nisan. "They were true Women of Valor, who lived lives of hesed, loshon tov and ahavat Yisrael. We miss them every day! May their neshamot have the highest aliyah."

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree about how to understand three different verses relating to Gehenom and the final redemption - Reish Lakish interprets them all harshly and rabbi Yochanan more leniently.

The language of redemption used in the Torah describes both getting out of Egypt and coming into the land of Israel. Rabbi Simai makes a heikesh - just like the Jews entered the land with only two out of the 600,000 that came out of Egypt, they also came out of Egypt with the same percentage of people that were there. If 600,000 came out, it must be that there were 180 billion people there, and they died before the Exodus. The same will hold e for the days of the Messiah, as is derived from Hosea 2:17.

Two situations are described in which Moshe is critical of God.

The people of a wayward city, that were convinced by members of their city to worship idols, do not have a share in the World-to-Come. The halakhic details of this city are discussed.

Today's daf is sponsored by Abby Sosland in loving memory of Rabbi Henry Sosland. "He taught us that daily learning could be the ultimate source of comfort and sipuk nefesh."

Korach's wife convinced him to rebel against Moshe, despite Korach initially arguing against her persuasion. What were her specific complaints against Moshe and Aharon?

Based on inferences from Bamidbar 16:14 and Tehillim 106:16, Rabbi Yochanan explains that they accused Moshe of engaging in relations with their wives.

Moshe approached Datan and Aviram, seeking reconciliation. From this action, Reish Lakish teaches that one should actively work to resolve disputes. Different verses are brought to prove that anyone who challenges their teacher is considered as challenging God directly.

There is a debate regarding Korach's fate: Was he swallowed by the earth or burned with the others who offered incense? This remains unresolved due to different interpretations of the verses. However, the Torah clearly states that Korach's sons survived.

Regarding the generation that wandered in the desert, sages debate whether they will have a share in the World-to-Come. Various verses are cited to support both positions.

Similarly, the fate of the ten tribes is disputed. Will they eventually return to the land or were they permanently exiled? This discussion centers on different interpretations of Devarim 29:27. Scholars also debate whether these tribes will receive a portion in the World-to-Come, with various verses brought as evidence.

In both these controversies, Rabbi Akiva takes the stricter position that they will neither return nor have a share in the World-to-Come. Rabba bar bar Hanna quotes Rabbi Yochanan questioning Rabbi Akiva's stance, noting that Rabbi Akiva typically adopts more lenient positions. What is the source for Rabbi Akiva's general tendency toward leniency?

From what point in development can one merit entry to the World-to-Come: from conception, birth, the ability to speak, or the ability to say "amen"?