Study Makkot folio 3A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מאי ניהו, דלא עשו מעשה? היינו דרבה! אימא: ״וכן אמר רב נחמן״.
The Talmud is puzzled by this: What is the meaning of the statement: The money remains in the possession of the owner? It means that they did not perform an action. That is identical to the reasoning of Rabba, and it is not an additional explanation. The Talmud emends the formulation of the presentation of the statement. Say: And likewise Rav Naḥman says: Know that it is so, as the money remains in the possession of the owner. Rav Naḥman is not disagreeing with Rabba; he merely formulates the statement differently.
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: עד זומם משלם לפי חלקו. מאי ״משלם לפי חלקו״? אילימא דהאי משלם פלגא והאי משלם פלגא, תנינא: משלשין בממון, ואין משלשין במלקות!
§ Apropos the statement of R' Akiva in the baraita, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A conspiring witness pays according to his share. The Talmud asks: What is the meaning of: Pays according to his share? If we say that it means that this witness pays half of the sum that the set conspired to render another liable to pay with their testimony, and that witness pays the other half, we already learned this in a Mishnah (5a): When punishing conspiring witnesses, one divides the punishment of money among them, but one does not divide the punishment of lashes among them; each receives the full 39 lashes.
אלא: כגון דאיתזום חד מינייהו, דמשלם פלגא דידיה, ומי משלם? והא תניא: אין עד זומם משלם ממון עד שיזומו שניהם!
Rather, the Talmud explains that the expression: Pays according to his share, means that in a case where only one of the set was rendered a conspiring witness, the halakha is that he pays his half of the sum. The Talmud asks: And does he pay at all in that case? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: A conspiring witness pays money only when both were rendered conspiring witnesses? If only one was rendered a conspiring witness, he does not pay.