Study Makkot folio 5B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אי איסטטית היא זו, אפילו כת ראשונה נמי לא! אמר רבי אבהו: שקדמו והרגו.
The Talmud asks: If R' Yehuda states that this situation is a conspiracy, and there is suspicion that the second set is not truthful, let even the first set of witnesses who were rendered conspiring witnesses based on their testimony also not be executed. R' Abbahu said: The Mishnah is referring to a case where the judges already executed the first set of witnesses. R' Yehuda is saying that no witnesses are executed other than the first set of witnesses, who were already executed.
מאי דהוה הוה! אלא אמר רבא, הכי קאמר: אם אינה אלא כת אחת – נהרגת, אי איכא טפי – אין נהרגין. הא ״בלבד״ קאמר! קשיא.
The Talmud challenges: If so, what was, already was; there is no point in stating it as a halakha. Rather, Rava said this is what R' Yehuda is saying: If it is only one set of witnesses that is rendered conspiring witnesses by the second set, the witnesses are executed; if there is more than one set they are not executed at all. The Talmud asks: But doesn’t R' Yehuda say: It is only the first set alone that is executed? This indicates that contrary to Rava’s explanation, it is a case involving more than one set of witnesses. The Talmud notes: Indeed, this matter is difficult.
ההיא איתתא דאתאי סהדי ואישתקור, אייתי סהדי ואישתקור. אזלה אייתי סהדי אחריני דלא אישתקור. אמר ריש לקיש: הוחזקה זו. אמר ליה רבי אלעזר: אם היא הוחזקה, כל ישראל מי הוחזקו?
Apropos the dispute in the Mishnah, the Talmud relates: There was a certain woman who brought witnesses to testify on her behalf, and they were proven to be liars. She brought other witnesses, and they too were proven to be liars. She went and brought yet other witnesses, who were not proven to be liars. There is an amoraic dispute whether the testimony of the third set of witnesses is accepted. Reish Lakish said: This woman has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty because of her repeated reliance on false witnesses; therefore, the testimony of the third set is rejected. R' Elazar said to him: If she has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty, has the entire Jewish people assumed that presumptive status? Why assume that these witnesses are dishonest?