Study Makkot folio 2B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ומה הסוקל אינו נסקל, הבא לסקול ולא סקל – אינו דין שלא יסקל? אלא מחוורתא כדשנינן מעיקרא.
If one who stones another, i.e., who testified that another is liable to be executed via the death penalty of stoning and was rendered a conspiring witness after that person was executed, is not stoned, as the halakha is that conspiring witnesses receive the punishment that they conspired to have inflicted and not the punishment that they actually had inflicted, then with regard to a conspiring witness who came to stone another and was unsuccessful and did not stone him, as he was rendered a conspiring witness before that person was executed, isn’t it logical that he should not be stoned? The Talmud concludes: Rather, it is clear as we answered initially: “And you should do to him as he conspired”; this should be done to him, but not to his offspring.
מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שהוא חייב גלות כו׳. מנא הני מילי? אמר ריש לקיש: דאמר קרא: ״הוא ינוס אל אחת הערים״ – הוא, ולא זוממין.
§ The Mishnah teaches that in a case where two witnesses came before the court and said: We testify with regard to so-and-so that he is liable to be punished with exile, one does not say that these witnesses should be exiled in his stead; rather, they receive 40 lashes. The Talmud asks: From where is this matter derived? Reish Lakish says: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states with regard to an unwitting killer: “And he should flee to one of the cities” (Deuteronomy 19:5), and the Talmud infers: He should flee, but conspiring witnesses should not.
רבי יוחנן אומר: קל וחומר: ומה הוא, שעשה מעשה – במזיד אינו גולה, הן, שלא עשו מעשה – במזיד אינו דין שלא יגלו?
R' Yoḥanan says: It is derived through an a fortiori inference: If the killer, who performed an action that, had he done so intentionally, he would not be exiled for it even if he were not sentenced to death, e.g., because there was no forewarning, then in the case of the conspiring witnesses, who did not perform an action, as their conspiracy was exposed and their testimony rejected, even if they testified intentionally, isn’t it logical that they should not be exiled?