Makkot 6a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yosei said: When do these words apply:

that if one of them is found to be a relative or disqualified, the testimony of all of them is void—when they testified

in capital cases,

as it is stated concerning them, “and the assembly shall save,” and therefore they strive to find a reason to acquit him.

But in civil cases—

the testimony shall stand through the remainder of

the witnesses.

But

Rabbi says: Whether civil cases

or capital cases,

the testimony of all the witnesses is void.

And when

is all the testimony void in capital cases when part of the testimony has become disqualified?—

Only

when they warned

all the witnesses, including the relative or disqualified witness,

concerning them,

concerning the defendants about whom they testified—for since there was a warning by all of them, the matter is considered as though all the witnesses testifying participated in one testimony, beginning from the time of seeing. [

All this is according to Rabbi. But according to Rabbi Yosei, they are disqualified even without having warned them, as explained in the Gemara. ]

But when they did not warn them,

the relative or disqualified witness, the testimony of all of them is not void through the disqualification of one of them, since the relative or disqualified person who did not warn did not intend to be a witness as well in the act that he was seeing.

For if we do not say so,

what will they do,

how will

two brothers who saw

together with another witness

one who killed a person testify?

For if we say that the disqualified witness joins the testimony even if he did not warn, they would all become disqualified by seeing together, and one of the brothers would be unable to join with the other witness to testify. And this is not reasonable!

Rather, necessarily, if a disqualified witness does not warn the perpetrator of the offense, he does not join at the time of seeing for purposes of testimony; therefore one of the two brothers can join with the other witness and testify about the act.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The witnesses do not become conspiring witnesses until all of them are refuted, even one hundred; and if one of the witnesses is found to be a relative or disqualified, the testimony of all of them is void, even if they are one hundred.

Rava said: And this is when they all testified within the time of toch kedei dibbur.

But if there was an interruption between the testimony of the witnesses longer than this, they become two separate groups of witnesses, and it is not necessary to refute all of them; rather, each group is refuted by itself. Likewise, they are not all disqualified through the disqualification of one witness.

And now the Gemara assumed that Rava intended to say that within one measure of toch kedei dibbur all one hundred witnesses testified. And concerning this it asks:

He said to him

—he wondered—

Rav Aḥa of Difti to Ravina:

Since,

behold,

“within toch kedei dibbur”—

what are the circumstances?—

Behold, this period of time is

the time required for a student to greet his teacher [“

Peace to you, my teacher.”]. But

one hundred

witnesses—

there are many of them,

the duration of their testimony is far longer than this short period, and how can we find that all of them say their testimony within toch kedei dibbur!?

He said to him,

Ravina said to Rav Aḥa of Difti: Rava intended to say that their testimony joins into one testimony only when

each and every one

of the witnesses testified one after another, without an interruption between the testimony of one and the testimony of the other,

within toch kedei dibbur of

the completion of the words of

his fellow.

Through this they all join to become one testimony. Rava did not intend to say that they must all testify within one measure of toch kedei dibbur.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva says: The third did not come

to be lenient, but rather to be stringent with him, and to make his judgment like that of these.

And if Scripture punished one who attaches himself to transgressors as a transgressor, kal va-chomer, He will reward one who attaches himself to those who perform a mitzva as those who perform a mitzva.

And just as two,

if one of them is found to be a relative or disqualified, their testimony is void, so too three: if one of them is found to be a relative or disqualified, their testimony is void.

Rabbi Yosei said: When do these words apply? In capital cases. But in civil cases, the testimony shall stand through the remainder.

Rabbi says: Whether capital cases or civil cases.

And when? When they warned them.

Up to here are the words of the Mishna.

And it is implicit to the Gemara that “And when? When they warned them” are the words of Rabbi. But Rabbi Yosei disqualifies all of them even if the relative or disqualified person did not warn and did not intend for testimony.

He said

—he wondered—

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If that is so,

according to Rabbi Yosei, who disagrees with Rabbi and disqualifies all of them even if all the witnesses did not warn the defendant, and does not require all of them to intend to testify, this difficulty arises:

The murdered person,

who sees his own murder,

should save

his murderer, like a disqualified witness found among fit witnesses.

For the murdered person is a relative to himself, and because of his relationship to himself he is disqualified for testimony. And since he too sees the act of his murder, then every testimony concerning a murderer should always be disqualified, by the law of “testimony of which part became void, all of it became void”!

And we answer: We find a case in which the murdered person does not see the act, and then the testimony of the others is not void, such as

that they killed

the murderer

from behind him,

and the murdered person did not see him; and all the verses concerning testimony about a murderer were stated regarding this case.

But Rav Pappa still found this difficult:

Any person who was

sexually violated

by another person—

should save

the one who sexually violated him from execution, since the person sexually violated willingly is wicked and disqualified for testimony [see Tosafot], and since the person sexually violated saw the one who sexually violated him together with the other witnesses, he is found to be a relative and disqualified witness participating in the seeing, and thereby disqualifies all the testimony!

And concerning this as well Abaye answered him: The one who sexually violated him becomes liable for execution

when he sexually violated him from behind,

and the person sexually violated did not see him and is not a witness, since he did not see the act and did not see who performed it.

And Rav Pappa still found this difficult:

The murderer and the one who sexually violated—

should save

themselves from execution, for they themselves see the act together with the witnesses, and they are disqualified because they are the litigants, and they should disqualify all the testimony, like the case where one of the witnesses is found to be a relative or disqualified!

Abaye was silent

and found no answer to Rav Pappa’s claim.

When he came,

when Rav Pappa subsequently came

before Rava,

and presented to him the claim that he had made to Abaye, that the murderer and the one who sexually violated should save themselves—

Rava said to him

Rava said to Rav Pappa: Thus one should expound the verse, “By the mouth of two witnesses or by the mouth of three witnesses

shall the matter be established”—

The verse speaks of those who establish the matter!

The fact that Scripture made all the witnesses one group, so that when one of them is disqualified they all become void, was said only concerning witnesses, who are “those who establish the matter,” but it was not said concerning “those who perform the matter”—the murderer or the one who sexually violated—who are “the litigants,” and no designation of witnesses applies to them at all.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yosei said: When do these words apply? In capital cases. But in civil cases—the testimony shall stand through the remainder. Rabbi says: Whether capital cases or civil cases [

if one is found to be a relative or disqualified, the testimony of all of them is void].

And when? When they warned them [at that time we know that they intended to testify].

But when they did not warn them [they did not intend to testify; they do not join, and all the testimony is not disqualified, because otherwise]—

what will two brothers do

who saw one who killed a person?

And we raised the question: According to Rabbi, who disqualifies all of them only when they intended to testify, if so, when they come to examine the relative or disqualified witnesses in capital cases, whether they indeed intended to testify, in which case all the testimony becomes disqualified [and if they indeed intended to testify, then even if they did not warn him they join]—

How do we say it to them?

How do we ask them in order to know whether they initially intended to testify?

Rava said, This is how we say it to them,

this is how we ask the relatives or disqualified persons:

At the time of seeing the act,

did you come to see,

did you come there merely in order to see the act,

or did you come to testify,

did you come there with the intention that you would be able to testify about it in a court?

If they say

that the disqualified or relative witnesses

came to testify,

then since one of them is found to be a relative or disqualified, the testimony of all the witnesses is void.

But if they say

that they

came to see,

then although they now come to testify, they do not disqualify the others, and the testimony stands through the remaining witnesses, because of the reasoning stated in the Mishna: “

What will two brothers do who saw one who killed a person.”

It was stated: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei—

a. A relative or disqualified person disqualifies all the testimony only in capital cases.

b. He disqualifies it even if he did not intend to testify.

And

whereas

Rav Naḥman says: The halakha is according to Rabbi—

a. A relative or disqualified person disqualifies it both in civil cases and in capital cases.

b. But he disqualifies it only if the disqualified witness intended to testify.

б) Однако он делает его недействительным только в том случае, если непригодный свидетель намеревался свидетельствовать.