Mishnah.org Logo

המשנה היומית של היום

מכות א׳:ח׳ - א׳:ט׳

The Mishnah Yomi for Thursday, October 24, 2030 is מכות א׳:ח׳ - א׳:ט׳

＜ היום הקודםהיוםלמחרת ＞

משנה א

Mishnayos Makkos Perek 1 Mishnah 8

מכות פרק א׳ משנה ח׳

8
The mishna cites another derivation based on the juxtaposition of two to three: And just as with regard to two witnesses, if one of them is found to be a relative or is otherwise disqualified, their entire testimony is voided, as it is no longer the testimony of two witnesses, so too, with regard to three witnesses who came to testify as one set, if one of them is found to be a relative or is otherwise disqualified, their entire testimony is voided, even though two valid witnesses remain. From where is it derived that the same halakha applies even in the case of one hundred witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Witnesses.” Rabbi Yosei says: In what case is this statement, that if one of the three witnesses is disqualified the entire testimony is voided, said? It is said with regard to cases of capital law, which are adjudicated stringently. But with regard to cases of monetary law, which are adjudicated more leniently, even if one of the witnesses is disqualified, the testimony will be validated with the testimony of the rest of the witnesses, and if it is sufficient the case can be adjudicated on that basis. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees and says: If one of the three witnesses is disqualified the entire testimony is voided in both cases of monetary law and cases of capital law. And when does one disqualified witness void the entire testimony? Only when the witnesses forewarned them before they performed the transgression, thereby demonstrating their desire to fill the role of witnesses in that case. But when they did not forewarn them, what shall two brothers do in a case where they, together with others, saw someone who killed a person? Will the murderer escape punishment because two relatives happened to be there at the time of the murder and their presence voids the entire testimony? No, the testimony is voided by the presence of relatives or disqualified witnesses only when their intent was to testify. If that was not their intent, they do not void the testimony.
מַה שְּׁנַיִם נִמְצָא אַחַד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה, אַף שְׁלשָׁה נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל, עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. מִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, עֵדִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. אֲבָל בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, תִּתְקַיֵּם הָעֵדוּת בַּשְּׁאָר. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִתְרוּ בָהֶן, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא הִתְרוּ בָהֶן, מַה יַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁרָאוּ בְאֶחָד שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנָּפֶשׁ:
ח׳
ברטנורא

What case are we talking about? Capital cases. Since it is written (Numbers 35:25) "And the congregration shall save him.", and we return him to his vindicated status....

Whether monetary cases. The testimony is also nullified.

At a time that they warned him. We're dealing with capital cases. This is to say, when do we say [the testimony] is nullified? When the close relative or invalid [witness] joins in at the beginning, becoming one of the warners against the transgressor. However, if they didn't warn them and they didn't intend to become a witness in the event, the testimony of the others is not nullified just because they saw it. The halacha is like Rebbi.

במה דברים אמורים בדיני נפשות. דכתיב (במדבר ל״ה) והצילו העדה, ומהדרינן אזכותא:

אחד דיני ממונות. נמי עדותן בטלה:

בזמן שהתרו בהן. בדיני נפשות איירי. כלומר, כי אמרינן דבטלה, זהו בזמן שהקרוב או הפסול נשתתף מתחלה להיות מן המתרין בעובר עבירה, אבל אם לא התרו בהן ולא כיון להיות עד בדבר, לא בטלה עדות האחרים בשביל ראייתו של זה. והלכה כרבי:

משנה ב

Mishnayos Makkos Perek 1 Mishnah 9

מכות פרק א׳ משנה ט׳

9
In a case where there were two witnesses observing an individual violating a capital transgression from this window in a house, and two observing him from that window in a house, and one person was forewarning the transgressor in the middle between the two sets of witnesses, the halakha depends on the circumstances. In a situation where some of the witnesses observing from the two windows see each other, the testimony of all these witnesses constitutes one testimony, but if they do not see each other, the testimony of these witnesses constitutes two independent testimonies. Therefore, as two independent sets of witnesses, if one of the sets was found to be a set of conspiring witnesses, while the testimony of the other set remained valid, both he, the one accused of violating the capital transgression, and they, the conspiring witnesses, are executed, and the second set, whose testimony remained valid, is exempt. Rabbi Yosei says: Transgressors are never executed unless his two witnesses are the ones forewarning him, as it is stated: “At the mouth of two witnesses…he who is to be put to death shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:6), from which it is derived that it is from the mouths of the two witnesses that the accused must be forewarned, and forewarning issued by someone else is insufficient. Alternatively, from the phrase “at the mouth of two witnesses” one derives that the judges must hear the testimony directly from the witnesses, and the Sanhedrin will not hear testimony from the mouth of an interpreter.
הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וְאֶחָד מַתְרֶה בוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן רוֹאִין אֵלּוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עֵדוּת אַחַת. וְאִם לָאו, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁתֵּי עֵדֻיּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצֵאת אַחַת מֵהֶן זוֹמֶמֶת, הוּא וָהֵן נֶהֱרָגִין וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה פְּטוּרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אֵין נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדָיו מַתְרִין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא סַנְהֶדְרִין שׁוֹמַעַת מִפִּי הַתֻּרְגְּמָן:
ט׳
ברטנורא

And one warns in the middle. The warner joins with the group of witnesses, he sees them and they see him at the time of warning. Therefore, if the two groups that are in the two windows see him, they all join together and their testimony becomes one.

He and them are killed. He is killed since there is one group that wasn't zommemized, and those that were zommemized are killed.

That the Sanhedrin shouldn't hear through a interpreter. The judges need to understand the language, and not need to place an interpreter between them. And thus this is the halacha.

ואחד מתרה בו באמצע. המתרה מצטרף עם הכת של עדים, שהוא רואה אותם והם רואים אותו בשעת ההתראה. לפיכך אם היו שתי הכתות שבשתי החלונות רואים אותו, מצטרפים אלו עם אלו והם כולם עדות אחת:

הוא והן נהרגין. הוא נהרג דאכתי איכא כת אחת שלא הוזמה, והם הניזמין נהרגין שהרי הוזמו:

שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן. שצריכין שיהיו הדיינים מכירים בלשון העדים. ולא יצטרכו להעמיד מליץ בינותם. וכן הלכה:

שאלות נפוצות על משנה יומית

עדיין יש לכם שאלה? צרו קשר