Makkot 6b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

There were two

of the witnesses who came to testify concerning a person who killed a soul,

seeing him from this window, and two seeing him from that window.

And one

was

warning him

the murderer, and the one warning was standing

in the middle,

standing between the two groups of witnesses—then

when some of them

of the groups of witnesses on both sides of the person giving the warning

see one another, all the witnesses join together into one testimony, even those who did not see the others [Tosafot], and

all the witnesses join together to form one testimony, even those who did not see the others [Tosafot], and

these are one testimony.

The witnesses of one group are not put to death until all the witnesses in both groups are exposed as conspiring witnesses.

But if not,

if some of these do not see the other group—

these are two testimonies.

Therefore, if

one

of them is found to be conspiring—

he,

the defendant about whom they testified,

and

also

they,

the witnesses of the group that was exposed as conspiring witnesses—

are put to death.

And

if the

second group—

is exempt.

Rabbi Yosei says: They are never put to death,

neither the defendant nor the conspiring witnesses,

until his two witnesses warn him.

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 17], “

By the mouth of two witnesses.”

On the testimony of two witnesses.”

The Nimukei Yosef explained: The entire matter—that is, both the testimony and the warning—must be established through the testimony of the two witnesses.

The Nimukei Yosef explained: the entire matter—the testimony and the warning—must stand by the mouth of two witnesses.

And Rabbi Yosei learned that a person is not considered a witness unless the witness himself warned the defendant concerning whom he is testifying.

Alternatively,

another exposition may be derived from this verse: “

By the mouth of two witnesses”—

that the Sanhedrin may not hear through an interpreter.

Rather, the judges must understand the words of the witnesses while they testify before them, and they may not use an interpreter to understand the testimony.

Gemara:

Rav Zutra bar Tuvya said

Rav said: From where

[do we know concerning “special testimony,”

when one witness sees from this window and the second witness sees from another window, and the witnesses did not see one another,

that it is invalid

in capital cases, and they do not put to death on its basis?

Rather, in the case of a murderer, they place him in a cell and he dies [Sanhedrin 81], since their testimony is true, but his death is not entrusted to the court [Rashi there].

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 17], “

He shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.”

And we expound:

What

is “one witness”?

If you say

the verse means to say that they do not put to death on the basis of the testimony of

one witness

alone—

that was already

learned from the beginning

of the verse,

we learn it, that they do not put to death on the basis of the testimony of one witness, for it is written: “

By the mouth of two witnesses

the dead person shall be put to death”!

Rather, what

is “He shall not be put to death on the testimony of

one witness”?

When there were two witnesses,

but they saw the testimony

one—

one. They each saw separately, and they did not join through their seeing to become one group of witnesses; therefore, each of them is considered one witness, and they do not put to death on the basis of the testimony of “one witness,” even if the court heard two such testimonies!

It was taught likewise: “

He shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.” -

—Why was this stated, since the verse had already said that the person to be executed is put to death only on the testimony of two witnesses?

Rather, this verse came

to include

that if there were

two

witnesses

who see him,

the murderer,

one from this window and one from that window, and

the witnesses

do not see one another—

they do not

join

together

into one testimony of one group of two witnesses; rather, each of the witnesses is considered one witness, and their testimony does not join to make the murderer liable to death.

And furthermore, even

if there were two witnesses who saw

one after the other from one window—

they do not join!

Rav Pappa

asked

Abaye:

The wording of the beraita implies that there is a novelty in disqualifying two witnesses who saw through one window one after the other, for concerning this the tanna said, “And furthermore”; the earlier law was more obvious to the tanna: to disqualify the joining of the testimony of two who saw each from a different window at the same time.

Apparently, the reasoning is the reverse!

For

now, if one from this window and one from that window, for this

witness

sees the entire act and this

witness

sees the entire act,

nevertheless

you said

that the two of them

do not join

into one testimony.

If so, when they saw from one window

one after the other, for this

witness

sees,

he saw only

half of the act,

part of the act and not all of it,

and this

witness

sees,

he saw afterward only

half of the act

that occurred after the first part—

is it necessary to say

that they do not join!?

After all, the testimony of the two is not about seeing the entire act; rather, each testifies about part of the act. It is more obvious to disqualify two who saw one after the other, even from one window, than to disqualify two who saw at one time from two windows!

He said

he answered

him,

Abaye to Rav Pappa:

It is necessary only

the novelty of this beraita

for

witnesses who see one after the other from one window a person who

engages in intercourse with a forbidden relation,

since it is one act that continues for a period of time, and each one sees a complete act that is fit to make him liable to death. There was reason to join them because they saw from one window, but the tanna said that even in this case they do not join. And concerning this the tanna said that even here they do not join.

Rava said: If

the two witnesses, each of whom sees from a separate window, but both

were seeing the person giving the warning,

or

the person giving the warning

was seeing them—

then they

join

to become one group of one testimony.

And Rava said: The person giving the warning of whom they said

according to the first tanna in our Mishna, who does not require that the warning come from the witnesses, the warning may be—

even from the mouth of

the murdered person

himself, who warns the murderer not to kill him. The murdered person cannot testify before his death, as stated above.

who warns the murderer not to kill him. The murdered person cannot testify before his death, as stated above.

And even from the mouth of a demon,

who causes the one warned [and the witnesses] to hear a voice from heaven warning him, while he does not see the person giving the warning.

Since the murderer heard a warning, and the witnesses saw the act and heard that he had been warned, there is no need for them themselves or for another person to warn him.

Rav Naḥman said: “

Special testimony”

is valid in monetary law.

For if two witnesses saw the act from two windows,

and neither saw the other, they join to testify as one group.

And its source is

as it is written: “

He shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.”

And it implies that specifically

in capital law [“

he shall be put to death”]

it is that it is not valid

for him to have special testimony;

but in monetary law, it is valid.

Rav Zutra raised an objection to this: But if that is so,

that the witnesses join for monetary testimony even in special testimony, and only in capital law did Scripture reveal that they do not join to make the defendant liable to death, then their joining should be effective with regard to exemption from death, and even

in capital law, it should save

special testimony, as though it were one testimony!

For example, as in our Mishna, where two groups of witnesses testified in a capital case concerning a person who was liable to death, and one group was exposed as conspiring witnesses, for we learned: “He [the person about whom they testified] and they [the group exposed as conspiring witnesses] are put to death,” since another group that made him liable to death still remains.

That is, the second group is not disqualified [together with the first group that was refuted] on account of testimony, part of which has been nullified, since the witnesses of the second group saw the act from another window. Whereas all the witnesses of the first group who were refuted are executed, because through their testimony they were plotting witnesses, and this is so despite the fact that the defendant is indeed executed on the basis of the testimony of the second group.

But if it is possible to combine separate testimony in monetary matters, this is difficult: in capital cases, too, they should all be disqualified, even though each group saw from another window, since there is already reason to judge them as one group, stringently.

For since it is written, “and the congregation shall save,” we should disqualify them because of the joining between them, since we find that this joining is effective with other testimony that is not capital testimony, and thereby save the defendant, by establishing that the testimony of the valid witnesses concerning him is nullified.

And likewise we would save the witnesses of the plotting group, for because of the joining they would all be considered one group, and since they were not all refuted, the refuted ones are not punished until all of them are refuted.

So why, then, do we have it stated

in this manner in the Mishna?

“He and they are executed!”

That is, they are considered two groups even stringently in capital law!?

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is difficult!

We have it stated in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yose says

they are never executed until his two witnesses warn him!

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Does Rabbi Yose hold this opinion

that a warning must specifically be given by the witnesses, and not by another person!?

But we have it stated: Rabbi Yose says: “The hater”

who killed the one he hates, and claims that he killed him unintentionally, is not believed; rather, he

is executed, because he is considered forewarned and warned

about killing him, and he certainly killed him intentionally!

But there was no warning here from the witnesses, for if they had warned him, it would be obvious that he could not claim that he killed him unintentionally. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yose makes him liable!

And we answer:

He said

replied

to him

Abaye to Rav Pappa:

That

which we have stated, “the hater is executed,” was not said by the Rabbi Yose mentioned in our Mishna [who is Rabbi Yose ben Halafta]; rather, this statement is the method of

Rabbi Yose bar Judah.

And likewise we find elsewhere that this is the method of Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yose bar Judah says:

“An expert,”

who is a person well versed in the laws,

does not require a warning,

rather, he is executed when they testify concerning him that he committed a transgression whose punishment is death, even though they did not warn him—

Because a warning was given only to distinguish between

an unintentional act and an intentional act.

For the witnesses cannot testify that the person acted intentionally if he was not warned, since perhaps he does not know the law and its punishment. But an expert cannot say, “I did not know”; therefore testimony concerning his actions is sufficient, even without a warning. And likewise the hater does not require a warning, since he has the presumption of being intentional [and the case concerns an expert who knows the law concerning a murderer].

We have it stated in the Mishna:

Alternatively, “on the testimony of two witnesses”—so that the Sanhedrin should not hear from the mouth of an interpreter.

And the Gemara brings an incident involving

those foreign-speaking ones,

witnesses who spoke in a foreign language that the judges did not know,

who came

to testify

before Rava,

before Rava.

He established

Rava placed

an interpreter between them,

between them and the judges.

And the Gemara assumed that Rava had placed the interpreter so that he would translate and explain the witnesses’ words to the court. Therefore the Gemara asks from our Mishna:

And how did he do

how did Rava do

so?

But we have it stated: “so that the Sanhedrin should not hear from the mouth of

the interpreter!”

And we answer: an interpreter was not needed for that purpose.

Rather,

Rava did know what they were saying,

and

only

he did not know how to respond.

Rava did not know how to speak in their language, and he did not know how to answer them in their language. And in order that the witnesses should understand the judges’ words, he needed to place an interpreter; and concerning this it was not stated, “so that the witnesses should not hear from the mouth of the interpreter.” [

In the glosses of the Bach it was written that the incident below came before Rava together with the law concerning those foreign-speaking ones, and therefore it was established here, although it belongs to the law of a relative and an invalid witness.]