POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
MAKOS 2 - dedicated in memory of Nachum ben Shlomo Dovid Mosenkis
Z"L (whose 63rd Yahrzeit occurred on 23 Teves 5763) by his
son, Shlomo Dovid (Sid) Mosenkis of Queens N.Y.
1) WHEN WE CANNOT PUNISH KA'ASHER ZAMAM
(a) (Mishnah): How are witnesses (punished when found to be)
Zomemim (i.e. when we hear (from other witnesses) that at
the time they claimed to have seen the testimony they
were elsewhere)? (This question will be explained.)
(b) If two witnesses testify that Ploni (a Kohen) is the son
of a Gerushah (divorcee) or Chalutzah (which means that
he is a Chalal (a disqualified Kohen), and they were
Huzmu), we do not say that the witness becomes a Chalal,
rather, he receives 40 lashes. (Whenever we say 40
lashes, it really refers to 39).
(c) If two witnesses testify that Ploni must be in Galus (a
refuge city, for killing someone b'Shogeg, and they were
Huzmu), we do not say that the witness must be in Galus,
rather, he receives 40 lashes.
(d) (Gemara) Question #1: The Mishnah should say 'How are
witnesses *not* punished (with the same judgment they
tried to inflict on Ploni) when found to be Zomemim?
(e) Question #2: A later Mishnah explicitly teaches how
witnesses become Zomemim!
1. (Mishnah): But if the latter witnesses said 'How can
you testify about this? That day, you were with us
in a different place', the former witnesses are
(f) Answer: Our Mishnah is a continuation of the Mishnah at
(according to our text - near) the end of Sanhedrin,
which says 'Edim Zomemim always receive the Misah they
plotted to impose on the Nidon (the one being judged),
except when they falsely testified about a Bas Kohen and
her adulterer', (they are choked, even though she is
1. There are other Edim Zomemim that are not punished
even close to "Ka'asher Zamam (as he plotted)",
rather, they just receive 40 lashes;
(g) Question: What is the source of this?
2. If witnesses testify that Ploni is a Ben Gerushah or
Ben Chalutzah, we do not say that the witness
becomes a Chalal, rather, he receives 40 lashes.
(h) Answer #1 (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): "Va'Asisem *Lo*
Ka'asher Zamam" - to him, not to his descendants (if the
witness would become a Chalal, this would disqualify his
1. Question: We should say that he becomes a Chalal,
but his children are Kesherim!
(i) Answer #2 (Bar Pada): A Kal va'Chomer teaches this - a
Kohen who is Mechalel (by having relations with a
Gerushah, he makes her a Chalalah) does not become a
Chalal - one (i.e. an Ed Zomem) who tried but failed to
Mechalel, all the more so he does not become a Chalal!
2. Answer: This is not "Ka'asher Zamam" (he plotted to
disqualify Ploni *and* Ploni's descendants).
(j) Rejection (Ravina): If so, always (Rashi; Tosfos - often)
we cannot kill Edim Zomemim!
2) EDIM ZOMEMIM ARE LASHED
1. Version #1 - Rashi: Edim Zomemim who stoned Ploni
(through their testimony) are not stoned (they are
exempt)- all the more so, Edim Zomemim who tried to
stone but failed (they were Huzmu before Ploni was
executed) should not be stoned!
(k) We must rely on Answer #1.
2. Version #2 - Tosfos: A murderer who stoned is
(beheaded, a lenient death, he is) not stoned - all
the more so, Edim Zomemim who tried to stone but
failed should not be stoned!
(l) (Mishnah): If two witnesses testify that Ploni must be in
(m) Question: What is the source of this?
(n) Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): "*Hu* Yanus (one who killed
b'Shogeg)" - not Edim Zomemim.
(o) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): A Kal va'Chomer teaches this - a
murderer, who does an action, is not exiled if he was
Mezid (even if he is not killed) - Edim Zomemim, who did
not do an action, all the more so they are not exiled
even though they were Mezidim!
(p) Objection: There, the severity of the case is the very
reason why the Kal va'Chomer does not apply!
1. Because a murderer did an action, he is not exiled
if he was Mezid, for he is not worthy of Kaparah
(atonement) - Edim Zomemim did not do an action,
even though they were Mezidim they are exiled, in
order to get Kaparah!
(q) We must rely on Reish Lakish's answer.
(a) Question (Ula): Where does the Torah hint about Zomemim
3) SPECIAL LAWS OF EDIM ZOMEMIM
(b) Objection: The Torah explicitly discusses them -
(c) Correction: Rather, where does the Torah hint that
Zomemim witnesses are lashed (when we cannot apply to
them what they plotted to do to the subject of their
testimony, e.g. if they testified that he is a
(d) Answer: "V'Hitzdiku Es ha'Tzadik v'Hirshi'u Es
1. Question: Acquitting the innocent is not a condition
for (lashing the Rasha, the continuation of the
verse) "V'Hayah Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha"!
2. Answer: Rather, the case is that (Zomemim) witnesses
caused a Tzadik to be convicted, and other witnesses
(Mezimim) showed that he was truly a Tzadik and that
the first witnesses were Resha'im, "V'Hayah Im Bin
3. Question: Why don't we learn from "Lo Sa'aneh"?
4. Answer: That is a Lav without an action, one is not
lashed for such a Lav.
(a) (Beraisa): These four laws apply to an Ed Zomem:
1. He cannot become a Ben Gerushah or Ben Chalutzah;
(b) R. Akiva adds, he need not pay based on his own
2. He cannot be exiled;
3. He does not pay Kofer (ransom, for the owner of a
Mu'ad animal that killed someone);
4. He is not sold to be a slave.
(c) Above, we gave the source of the first two laws;
(d) The Tana exempts from Kofer - he holds that Kofer is a
Kaparah (for one who did not guard his animal - this does
not apply to Edim Zomemim);
1. Question: Which Tana holds that Kofer is a Kaparah?
(e) (Beraisa): Edim Zomemim are not sold to be slaves.
2. Answer (Rav Chisda): R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan
i. (Beraisa - R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben
Brokah): "V'Nasan Pidyon Nafsho" (he will give
redemption of his soul)" - the value of the
ii. R. Yishmael says, the value of the animal's
(f) (Rav Hamnuna): This is only if (they testified that Ploni
stole, and) Ploni has money (to pay for his theft, so he
would not have been sold) - but if Ploni has no money,
even if they have money, they are sold.
(g) Objection: The Zomemim should be able to say, Ploni would
not have been sold - the same applies to us, since we
have money, we are not sold!
(h) Correction (Rav Hamnuna): Rather, if Ploni or the
witnesses have money, they are not sold - but if neither
of them have money, they are sold.
(i) Rejection (Rava): "V'Nimkar bi'Gnevaso" - not for his
(j) (Beraisa - R. Akiva): He need not pay based on his own
(k) Question: What is R. Akiva's reason?
(l) Answer: He holds that "Ka'asher Zamam" is a ke/, one does
not pay ke/ based on his own admission.
(m) Support #1 (Rabah): It must be a ke/ - they did not do an
action, yet they are killed.
(n) Support #2 (Rav Nachman): It must be a ke/ - the Nidon
did not lose his money, yet they pay.
(o) Question: That is just like Rabah answered, they pay even
though they did not accomplish anything!
(p) Answer: Indeed, it should say that Rav Nachman gave the
same support that Rabah did.