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.
Rashi’s Commentary
- MISHNA: How are witnesses made zomemim? etc.: In the Gemarah it will be explained what this is saying.
- Regarding this certain individual: [who is a] kohen.
- That he is he son of a divorcee: In our presence his mother got divorced before he was born, and therefore he is a Challal [Illegitimate Kohen] and disqualified [from kohen services].
- It is not said: If they were made to be plotters and they are Kohanim. Make this one [the plotters] the son of a divorcee or Halutzah: To fulfill "Like they plotted". He takes on forty lashes: in the Gemara the reason will be explained.
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.
רש"י
- מתני' כיצד העדים נעשין זוממין כו' - בגמרא מפרש מאי קאמר:
- את איש פלוני - כהן:
- שהוא בן גרושה - בפנינו נתגרשה אמו קודם שנולד והרי הוא חלל ופסול (יבמות יב):
- אין אומרים - אם הוזמו והן כהנים יעשה זה בן גרשה וחלוצה לקיים בו כאשר זמם אלא סופג את הארבעים ובגמרא מפרש טעמא:
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.
Rashi’s Commentary
- That is ruled for [the penalty of] Exile: That he killed someone negligently.
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.
Rashi’s Commentary
- GEMARAH: This is how we read it: Why! How are witnesses not made zomimen, it should have asked, and forthermore, as we will teach later on, (Makkos 5a) but if they said to him etc.
- How are witnesses not made zomemim we should have asked: In which we can not maintain the requirement of K'asher Zamam [As they plotted].
- Furthermore - Why is the question of the Tanna (author of our Mishne), 'How do they become false witnesses?'. Does it (not) teach further on (5b), how is the law of false witnesses (enacted), as is taught in the Mishne (further on). 'Indeed they say to them, the falsifying witnesses, how are you able to to testify this testimony you have given, were you not with us that day in a certain place etc.':
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!
רש"י
- גמ' ה"ג האי כיצד אין העדים נעשין זוממין מיבעי ליה ועוד דקתני לקמן (מכות דף ה.) אבל אמרו להם כו':
- כיצד אין העדים נעשין זוממין מיבעי ליה - דהא לא מקיימת בהו כאשר זמם:
- ועוד - מאי קא בעי תנא כיצד נעשין זוממין הא קתני לה לקמן כיצד דין זוממין דקתני במתני' אבל אמרו להם המזימים היאך אתם מעידים עדות זה והלא הייתם עמנו אותו היום במקום פלוני כו':
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.
Rashi’s Commentary
- Refers to over there - From (tractate) Sanhedrin (the author has) continued (lit. left off). That we learnt at the end of (chapter) The Following are Strangled, that is the end of (tractate) Sanhedrin, that there are false witnesses that are slightly differentiated from the (standard) laws of false testimony. Like that which is taught, all false witnesses we apply (lit. are introduced) to the very same death (as they which to inflict). That means to say they do not face (lit. look) to any other (method) of being killed, rather we apply (lit. awaken them) to that very death that the (original) accused (lit. judged one) was sentenced to (lit. judgement was completed):
- Except false witnesses testifying against the daughter of a Cohen - (fully) married. That even though her judgement was (for death) by burning through their testimony (lit. mouths), they (the false witnesses) are strangulated. As we learn there (90a) her (death) is burning, but (lit. and) her adulterer (partner) is not (punished) with burning but with strangulation, just like any other adulterer of a married woman, and the false witnesses are (lit.) woken up to the (same) death that they wanted to inflict on the adulterer. As it is written (in scriptures) as they intended to do to their brother, and (we infer) not their sister. And it states here (at the beginning of our tractate as a continuation), there are other false witnesses that we do not establish with them the law of false testimony (as they wanted to do so should be done to them) at all, rather (they are given) lashes. And on this (point) it is explained (the mishne explains, beginning with a question). How are these witnesses that we cannot fulfil with them the (normal) laws of false testimony (lit) made into false witnesses (i.e. how do we apply the law of doing unto them as they intended to do).(Answers and carries on the mishne ) we give testimony etc.:
תַּנָּא הָתָם קָאֵי: כׇּל הַזּוֹמְמִין מַקְדִּימִין לְאוֹתָהּ מִיתָה, חוּץ מִזּוֹמְמֵי בַּת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ, שֶׁאֵין מַקְדִּימִין לְאוֹתָהּ מִיתָה אֶלָּא לְמִיתָה אַחֶרֶת.
רש"י
- התם קאי - מסנהדרין סליק דתנן בשילהי אלו הן הנחנקין דהוא סיומא דסנהדרין דיש זוממין שנשתנו במקצת מדין הזמה כדקתני כל הזוממין מקדימים לאותה מיתה כלומר אין להם לצפות מיתה אחרת אלא משכימין לאותה מיתה שנגמר בה דינו של נדון:
- חוץ מזוממי בת כהן - נשואה שאע"פ שנגמר דינה לשריפה על פיהם הם בחנק כדילפינן התם (דף צ.) היא בשריפה ואין בועלה בשריפה אלא בחנק כשאר אשת איש והזוממין משכימין למיתה שחייבו את הבועל דכתיב כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו ולא לאחותו (שם) וקאמר הכא עוד יש זוממין אחרים שאין מקיימין בהן דין הזמה כלל אלא מלקות ועלה מפרש כיצד אותן העדים שאין מקיימין בהן דין הזמה נעשין זוממין מעידים אנו כו':
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.
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.
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.
Rashi’s Commentary
- And not his seed - If you make him illegitimate (for priesthood) and he is (currently) a priest, his offspring will also be disqualified for evermore:
- We require as they intended (to do to the original accused) - and he (the false witness) was falsely testifying, to disqualify the accused and his offspring:
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.
רש"י
- ולא לזרעו - ואם תעשהו חלל והוא כהן פסלת את זרעו לעולם:
- בעינן כאשר זמם - והוא זמם לפסול את הנדון ואת זרעו:
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:
Rashi’s Commentary
- One who profanes (others) does not himself become profane - A priest who marries a divorcee, that disqualifies his offspring, he himself does not become disqualified:
- One who comes to disqualify and does not (successfully) disqualify - A false witness that wants to disqualify and does not (successfuly) disqualify, how much more so etc. (alt. is it not logical etc.):
- If so - If you come to expound this a fortiori inference with false witnesses, you will have nullified (the application of) the law of false witnesses:
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!
רש"י
- המחלל אינו מתחלל - כהן הנושא את הגרושה שמחלל את זרעו אין הוא עצמו מתחלל מן הכהונה:
- הבא לחלל ולא חילל - עד זומם שרצה לחלל ולא חיללו אינו דין כו':
- אם כן - אם באת לדרוש ק"ו זה בעדים זוממים בטלת תורת הזמתם: