About this episode
Makkot bookmark Masechet Makkot is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri's father Judge Norman Krivosha, Nachum Meir ben David Beer v'Malka, on his 4th yahrzeit, and in honor of Dr. Judith Hauptman. "Our dad instilled in us a lifelong love of learning and in honor of Dr. Judith Hauptman, their first Talmud teacher and one of the pioneers who opened the doors of Talmud study to women." There are certain exceptions to the rule when conspiring witnesses ( eidim zomemim ) do not receive the punishment "that they tried to do to their brother." In those cases, they receive lashes. For example, if they testify about the status of a person (about a kohen that his father married a divorcee) or that a person killed accidentally and should go to the refuge city. Why does the masechet begin with an exception to the rule, instead of beginning with the basic rule of conspiring witnesses? From where is it derived that in the two cases in the Mishna, conspiring witnesses do not receive the punishment "as he tried to do to his brother?" For each case, two suggestions are brought - one a drasha from a verse and the other a kal v'chomer argument. In both cases, the kal v'chomer argument is rejected. Where can one find an allusion in the Torah for the ruling that conspiring witnesses receive lashes in exceptional cases? A braita is quoted which adds two more exceptions to the rule where the conspiring witnesses do not receive the punishment that they tried to bring upon the defendant.