(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Makos 5


(a) What does our Mishnah mean when it rules ...
  1. ... 'Meshalshin be'Mamon'?
  2. ... 'Ein Meshalshin be'Makos'?
(b) Abaye learns the latter Din from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Rasha" "Rasha" from Chayvei Miysah.
Rava however, learns it from a S'vara. Which S'vara?

(c) Why does the same S'vara not then apply to Mamon?

(a) Our Mishnah states 'Ein ha'Eidim Na'asin Zomemin ad she'Yazimu es Atzman'.
Which case does this come to preclude?

(b) According to the Tana Kama, irrespective of how many pairs of witnesses Reuven and Shimon declare Zomemin, they are believed, and (in a case of Chiyuv Miysah) all the pairs are put to death.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say? What does 'Istatis' mean?

(c) What does Rav Ada (or Rabah or Rava) learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim "ve'Hinei Eid Sheker where'd, Sheker Anah be'Achiv"?

(d) How does de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn it from the Pasuk there "Ki Yakum Eid Chamas be'Ish La'anos Bo Sarah"?

(a) What distinction does Rava draw in a case where Reuven and Shimon testified that Levi killed Yehudah ...
  1. ... on the east side of the palace, and Yisachar and Zevulun claim that Reuven and Shimon were with them on the west side of the palace at that time? When will Reuven and Shimon be Zomemin and when will they not?
  2. ... on Sunday morning in Sura, and Yisachar and Zevulun testified that Reuven and Shimon were with them in Neherda'a on Sunday evening.
    When will Reuven and Shimon be Zomemin and when will they not?
(b) Why is ...
  1. ... the first case not obvious?
  2. ... the second case not obvious?
(a) Rava rules in a case where Reuven and Shimon testify that Levi killed Yehudah, and Yisachar and Zevulun then render them Zomemin, adding that Levi did indeed kill Yehudah but 1. on Tuesday, or even 2. on the Friday before, the first pair are Chayav Misah. Why might we have thought otherwise ...
  1. ... in the first case?
  2. ... in the second case (even after knowing the first ruling)?
(b) Why indeed, are the first witnesses then Chayav Misah?

(c) We ask from the Mishnah later, which expressly declares Reuven and Shimon Chayav Misah, even though Levi is found to be Chayav too (so what is Rava's Chidush?).
What do we answer?

(a) What does Rava rule in the Seifa, in a case where Yisachar and Zevulun render Reuven and Shimon, who testified on Thursday that Levi was sentenced to death for the murder of Yehudah on Monday, and Yisachar and Zevulun, after testifying 'Imanu Heyisem', add that Levi was sentenced on Tuesday (bearing in mind that when Reuven and Shimon claimed that Levi had murdered Yehudah, the murder had not yet taken place)?

(b) Why is that?

(c) What will be the ruling in a parallel case where Reuven and Shimon testify on Thursday that Levi ...

  1. ... borrowed a hundred Zuz from Shimon on Monday, and Yisachar and Zevulun, after testifying 'Imanu Heyisem', add that he borrowed the money on Tuesday?
  2. ... stole a sheep, and Shechted or sold it on Monday, and Yisachar and Zevulun, after testifying 'Imanu Heyisem', add that he stole it ... on Tuesday or even on the Friday before?
(d) Why is the case of K'nas different than that of Mamon in this regard?
Answers to questions



(a) We ask that if, as Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah claims, 'Istatis Hi Zu', why do we sentence the first pair of witnesses to death on their testimony. On what grounds do we reject Rebbi Avahu's answer (that the Tana speaks when they were already put to death)?

(b) So how does Rava explain Rebbi Yehudah's statement?

(c) What Kashya do we ask (and remain with) on Rava from Rebbi Yehudah's Lashon?

(a) What did Resh Lakish rule in a case where a woman brought two pairs of witnesses who were found to be Zomemin, and she produced a third pair?

(b) On what grounds did Rebbi Elazar object to Resh Lakish's ruling?

(c) What happened subsequently, that caused Resh Lakish to become angry with Rebbi Elazar?

(d) After suggesting that Resh Lakish holds like Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yochanan, like the Rabbanan, how do we reconcile ...

  1. ... Resh Lakish with the Rabbanan? Why might even they agree with Rebbi Yehudah in this case?
  2. ... Rebbi Yochanan with Rebbi Yehudah? Why might even Rebbi Yehudah agree with the Rabbanan in this case?
(a) The Chachamim obligate the Eidim Zomemin, only if they became Zomemin after the Din against the litigant whom they obligated was concluded.
What did the Tzedokim say?

(b) If the Tzedokim based their ruling on the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Nefesh Tachas Nafesh", what is the source of the Rabbanan's ruling?

(c) What do the Rabbanan then learn from "Nefesh be'Nafesh"?

(d) What did b'Rivi reply, when his father asked him that if the Eidim Zomemin are Chayav before the Din has been carried out (from "Ka'asher Zamam"), how much more so afterwards?

(a) Now that the Torah writes in Kedoshim "Ish Asher Yikach es Achoso bas Aviv O Bas Imo", why does the Pasuk need to add "Ervas Achoso Gilah"?

(b) Why can we not learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from "bas Aviv O bas Imo"?

(c) And having written in Acharei-Mos "Ervas Achoscha bas Avicha O bas Imecha ... ", why does the Torah need to add "Ervas bas Eishes Avicha Moledes Avicha"?

(a) In connection with the Din in our Mishnah ('Ein ha'Eidim Zomemin Neheragin ad she'Yigamer ha'Din'), what do we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...
  1. ... "Rasha (by Malkos)" "Rasha" (by Misah)?
  2. ... "Rotze'ach (be'Shogeg)" "Rotze'ach"?
(b) Seeing as the witnesses in the latter case also receive Malkos (as we learned above), why can we not learn it from the previous case of Chayvei Malkos?

(c) What did the Chachamim say to Rebbi Yehudah ben Tabai when he related how he killed an Eid Zomem after the G'mar Din but before the defendant had been put to death, to preclude the opinion of the Tzedokim?

(d) What was Rebbi Yehudah ben Tabai's dual reaction to the Chachamim's reprimand? What did he ..

  1. ... undertake from that time on?
  2. ... do to atone for his mistake?
(a) Everyone believed the voice that they heard to be that of the Eid Zomem.
How did Rebbi Yehudah ben Tabai try to prove that it must have been his voice?

(b) How did Rav Acha b'Rei de'Rava refute his proof?

(a) What problem does our Mishnah have with the Pasuk in Shoftim ''al-Pi Shenayim Eidim O Sheloshah Eidim Yumas ha'Meis"?

(b) How does the Tana Kama resolve it?

(c) And what does he learn from the word "Eidim"?

(d) Rebbi Shimon learns from this Pasuk that three, and even a hundred, witnesses do not become Zomemin unless all of them are, just like the Din is by two.
Seeing as the Torah writes "ve'Hinei Eid Sheker ha'Eid" (in the singular), from where do we know, even in the case of two witnesses, that both must be Zomemin?

(a) According to Rebbi Akiva, the third witness comes (not to be lenient, like Rebbi Shimon, but) to be strict.
How does he go on to explain this?

(b) What 'Kal va'Chomer' does he derive from his statement?

(c) What is the source of this 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(d) What second Chumra does he learn from the comparison of three witnesses to two?

(a) How does Rebbi Yossi qualify the previous ruling? What is the reason for the distinction?

(b) Rebbi agrees with Rebbi Akiva, but only under certain conditions. Which conditions?

(c) What is the logical basis for this distinction?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,