ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Makos 6
MAKOS 6 - May the merit of sponsoring today's worldwide Torah study bring a
speedy Refu'ah Shelemah to Gitl bas Golda.
(a) Rava qualifies the Din in our Mishnah that renders a hundred witnesses
like two, by establishing it - when they testified 'Toch k'Dei Dibur',
otherwise, each pair is considered a separate entity.
(b) 'Toch K'dei Dibur' constitutes - the time it takes to say 'Shalom
Aleichem Rebbi u'Mori'.
(c) Rav Acha from Difti asked Ravina how a hundred witnesses can possibly
testify within such a short space of time. He answered - that what Rava
meant was that each witness must begin his testimony 'Toch k'Dei Dibur' of
the testimony of the previous witness.
(a) Rav Papa asked Abaye that according to our Mishnah, why does the
murdered man not save the murderer from the death-sentence. He is asking -
on Rebbi Yossi, in whose opinion even a witness who does not intend to
testify, invalidates the testimony.
(b) Abaye answered ...
1. ... Rav Papa - that when the Torah declares a murderer Chayav Misah, it
is speaking when he murdered him from behind, and the victim saw nothing.
(c) The murderer and the rapist would otherwise be Patur - because they are
related to themselves, and are therefore Pasul to testify, in which case
they will automatically invalidate all the other witnesses too, according to
Rebbi Yossi (see also Tosfos DH 'Nirva Yatzil').
2. ... him, when he asked him why a man who has been raped does not save the
rapist from the death-sentence - that there too, the Torah is speaking when
he raped him from behind, so that the victim saw nothing.
(a) Abaye was stymied however, when Rav Papa asked him why the murderer and
the rapist do not save themselves from the death-sentence - for the same
reason as the victim (because they are related to themselves).
(b) Rava answered this Kashya (as well as the previous Kashyos) - by quoting
the Pasuk "al-Pi Shenayim Eidim O Sheloshah Eidim *Yakum* Davar", which
indicates that the comparison between two and three witnesses (the basis of
the current discussion) is confined to potential witnesses ('Mekaymei
Davar'), but does not extend to the litigants.
(c) According to Rebbi, Pasul witnesses only negate the testimony if they
are party to the warning. Beis-Din know whether they are or are not - by
asking them before they begin to testify whether they originally arrived on
the scene intending to testify or just to watch.
(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah. Rav
Nachman rules - like Rebbi.
(a) In a case where one pair of Eidim witness a murder from one window,
another pair witness it from another window, and a fifth person warns the
murderer in the middle, the two pairs combine to form one testimony - on
condition that some of them see each other (i.e. the two pairs of witnesses
see the person who is warning, even though they cannot see each other, see
Tosfos Yom-Tov and Tiferes Yisrael).
(b) The ramifications of this ruling, assuming that ...
1. ... both pairs can see the person who is warning are - that a. if only
one pair becomes Zomemin, the Din of Zomemin will not apply (and the other
pair remains Kasher), and b. if one of the witnesses turns out to be a
relation to one of the litigants or Pasul, all four witnesses are
(c) Rebbi Yossi disagrees. He learns from the Pasuk "al-Pi Shenayim Eidim
... " - that the witnesses themselves must issue the warning.
2. ... they cannot see each other are - that each pair is considered a
(d) The Chachamim learn from this Pasuk - that the Sanhedrin must hear the
testimony directly from the mouths of the witnesses (i.e. and not from their
written notes ["mi'Pihem", 've'Lo mi'Pi K'savam'], nor from someone who
heard it from the witnesses ['Eid mi'Pi Eid]).
(a) Rav Zutra bar Tuvya learns from the continuation of the previous Pasuk
"Lo Yumas al-Pi Eid Echad" that Eidus Meyuchedes is Pasul. 'Eidus
Meyuchedes' is - where two witnesses who saw a murder from two different
windows, are unable to see each other.
(b) We cannot take the Pasuk literally to mean that one witness is not
believed - because that we already know from the Reisha, which requires two
(a) The Beraisa adds to the case of Eidus Meyuchedes one where - two
individual witnesses (whose testimony is also Pasul) witnessed the act from
the same window, but one after the other.
(b) Rav Papa asks Abaye that the Tana need not have mentioned that case -
because if Eidus Meyuchedes is Pasul where the two witnesses see the whole
act, how much more so if they see only half!
(c) To answer the Kashya, Abaye establishes the Beraisa - where the
witnesses saw an act of adultery, in which case each witness sees an entire
sin (albeit not the same part of the act), which we might have thought is
(a) Rava presents a case where Eidus Meyuchedes is Kasher - namely, where
the two witnesses are able to see the person who is in the middle warning,
and he is able to see them.
(b) He also validates a warning that is issued by the victim himself - or
where it is issued by a demon.
(c) Rav Nachman validates Eidus Meyuchedes by Dinei Mamonos, and he derives
his ruling from the Pasuk "Lo Yumas al-Pi Eid Echad" - which implies that
Eidus Meyuchedes is confined to Dinei Misah, but not to Dinei Mamonos.
(d) Rav Zutra asks on this from our Mishnah 'Lefichach ... Hu ve'Hein
Neheragin' - because, based on the Pasuk "ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah", any kind of
Eidus that is Kasher by Dinei Mamonos, should certainly be Kasher by Dinei
Nefashos, if it is to save the defendant or the witnesses from death
(bearing in mind that the basic term 'Eidus Meyuchedes' applies not only to
two individual witnesses, but to two pairs of witnesses, too). In that case,
the Tana ought to have combined the two pairs of witnesses (even if they
could not see the person warning in the middle), to disqualify the testimony
and save the lives of all those concerned.
(e) This Kashya remains unanswered?
(a) The problem with Rava using an interpreter when a case involving foreign
witnesses came before him - was 'Eid mi'Pi Eid', which we disqualified in
(b) And we resolve it - by pointing out that Rava understood the witnesses,
only he was unable to reply in their language.
(c) When Ila'a and Tuvya, relations of the guarantor, testified in a case
involving a loan, Rav Papa initially thought - that it didn't matter, seeing
as they were not related to the creditor and the borrower.
(d) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua objected however, on the grounds that in
the event that the borrower would be unable to pay, the creditor would go to
them (rendering the guarantors an intrinsic part of the case).