Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 1:1

משנה: כֵּיצַד הָעֵדִים נַעֲשִׂים זוֹמְמִין מְעִידִים אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא בֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה אֵין אוֹמְרִין יֵיעָשֶׂה זֶה בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה תַחְתָּיו אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. מְעִידִים אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא חַייָב גָּלוּת. אֵין אוֹמְרִים יִגְלֶה זֶה תַחְתָּיו אֶלָּא לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעִים. מְעִידִין אָנוּ בְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁגֵּירַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וַהֲלֹא בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין לְמָחָר סוֹפוֹ לִיתֶּן לָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אֶלָּא אוֹמְדִים כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁל זֹו שֶׁאִם נִתְאַלְמְנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּֽרְשָׁה וְאִם מֵתָה יִירָשֶׁנָּה בַעְלָהּ. MISHNAH: How are plotting witnesses treated¹It is one of the Ten Commandments not to testify falsely. In addition, Deuteronomy.19.16-20">Deut. 19:16–20 prescribes that a “plotting” false witness has to be punished by the penalty which would have been imposed on his victim had his testimony been found true. By rabbinic definition, a “plotting” witness is one whose testimony not only is false but shown to be impossible, in that there are witnesses to the fact that he testified to be eye witness of a fact which he could not have seen since at the time it was supposed to have happened he was at another place (Sanhedrin 5:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.5.1.1">Sanhedrin Chapter 5, Note 3). There are cases when plotting perjury is proven but the penalty cannot be imposed. Then the false witness must be punished for breaking the Eighth Commandment, which is the standard punishment decreed for breaking any prohibition for which the penalty was not specified, fixed in Deuteronomy.25.3">Deut. 25:3 as at most 40 lashes (which, because the court marshal might err in his count, is limited to 39 lashes).
The Makkot.2b">Babli (2b) disagrees with this explanation; it classifies simple perjury as “actionless crime” for which no penalty is possible; this clearly is not the Yerushalmi’s position (cf. Ketubot 4:8:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.4.8.4">Ketubot 4:4 Note 196.)? “We testify about this man that he is the son of a divorcee or a woman who had received ḥalîṣah²The son of a Cohen from a woman he is prohibited from marrying (Leviticus.21.7">Lev. 21:7,Leviticus.21.14">14) is desecrated; he cannot function as a priest and the priestly revenues are forbidden to him. The divorcee is biblically forbidden to the Cohen. The widow receiving halîsah from the former husband’s brother is forbidden rabbinically; her son is rabbinically desecrated, which for practical consequences does not make any difference.” One does not say that he should be decreed to be the son of a divorcee or a woman who had received ḥalîṣah in his stead, but he is flogged 40 [lashes]³If the witness is not a Cohen, declaring him as son of a divorcee would not change his status at all. If he is a Cohen, declaring him as son of a divorcee would punish not only him but also his descendants, against the biblical text as explained in the Halakhah.. “We testify about this man that he is obligated to go into exile⁴The unintentional homicide (Numbers.35.9-34">Num. 35:9–34)..” One does not say, this one should go into exile in his stead but he is flogged 40 [lashes]⁵As explained in the Halakhah, the perjurer is barred from fleeing to a city of refuge.. “We testify about this man that he divorced his wife but did not pay her ketubaḥ.⁶When in fact the woman is still married to her husband. Then the witness could be fined only if in the future the ketubah would not be paid, i. e., if the woman stayed married to her husband and predeceased him. He can be fined the current discounted expected value of such a ketubah.” Would he not finally have to pay her ketubah today or tomorrow? But one estimates how much would a man be willing to pay for the ketubah of this woman in case she would be widowed or divorced, but if she died her husband would inherit from her.

הלכה: כֵּיצַד הָעֵדִים נַעֲשִׂין זוֹמְמִין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. הַכֹּל הָיָה בִכְלָל לֹא־תַֽעֲנֶ֥ה בְרֵֽעֲךָ֖ עֵ֥ד שָֽׁקֶר. יָצָא וַֽעֲשִׂ֣יתֶם ל֔וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר זָמַם֭ לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת לְאָחִ֑יו. אֶת שֶׁאַתְּ יָכוֹל לְקַייֵם בּוֹ וַֽעֲשִׂ֣יתֶם ל֔וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר זָמַם֭ וגו׳ אַתְּ מְקַייֵם בּוֹ (לֹא־תַֽעֲנֶ֥ה) [וַֽעֲשִׂ֣יתֶם ל֔וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר זָמַם֭ לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת]. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל לְקַייֵם בּוֹ וַֽעֲשִׂ֣יתֶם ל֔וֹ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר זָמַם֭ לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת לְאָחִ֑יו (אֵין) אַתְּ מְקַייֵם בּוֹ לֹא־תַֽעֲנֶ֥ה בְרֵֽעֲךָ֖. דָּבָר אַחֵר. וַֽעֲשִׂ֣יתֶם ל֔וֹ. לֹא לְזַרְעוֹ. HALAKHAH: “How are plotting witnesses treated,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. As an exception, do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor. If you can satisfy do to him as he plotted then fulfill (do not testify)⁷Text of the Leiden ms., to be deleted. [do to him as he plotted to do]⁸Text of G, to be accepted.. But if you cannot satisfy do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor then (do not)⁷Text of the Leiden ms., to be deleted. satisfy do not testify against your neighbor¹It is one of the Ten Commandments not to testify falsely. In addition, Deuteronomy.19.16-20">Deut. 19:16–20 prescribes that a “plotting” false witness has to be punished by the penalty which would have been imposed on his victim had his testimony been found true. By rabbinic definition, a “plotting” witness is one whose testimony not only is false but shown to be impossible, in that there are witnesses to the fact that he testified to be eye witness of a fact which he could not have seen since at the time it was supposed to have happened he was at another place (Sanhedrin 5:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.5.1.1">Sanhedrin Chapter 5, Note 3). There are cases when plotting perjury is proven but the penalty cannot be imposed. Then the false witness must be punished for breaking the Eighth Commandment, which is the standard punishment decreed for breaking any prohibition for which the penalty was not specified, fixed in Deuteronomy.25.3">Deut. 25:3 as at most 40 lashes (which, because the court marshal might err in his count, is limited to 39 lashes).
The Makkot.2b">Babli (2b) disagrees with this explanation; it classifies simple perjury as “actionless crime” for which no penalty is possible; this clearly is not the Yerushalmi’s position (cf. Ketubot 4:8:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.4.8.4">Ketubot 4:4 Note 196.). Another explanation: Do to him, not to his descendants³If the witness is not a Cohen, declaring him as son of a divorcee would not change his status at all. If he is a Cohen, declaring him as son of a divorcee would punish not only him but also his descendants, against the biblical text as explained in the Halakhah..

רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. וַֽעֲשִׂ֣יתֶם ל֔וֹ. שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים מְסוּרִין לְבֵית דִּין אַתְּ תּוֹפֵשׂ אֶחָד מֵהֶן. יָצָא דָבָר שֶׁהוּא מָסוּר לַשָּׁמַיִם. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, if two alternatives are presented to the court, one chooses one of them⁹As a general principle, no crime can be punished by more than one punishment. There never can be separate penalties for testifying falsely (Ex.20:13) and plotting (Deuteronomy.19.19">Deut. 19:19). This justifies the alternative presented in the preceding paragraph.
The text is copied from Terumot 7:1:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.7.1.3">Terumot 7:1 Note 14; also Bava qamma 7:2, Note 30.. This excludes matters in the Power of Heaven¹⁰This sentence refers to the topic in Terumot; it is irrelevant here..

כָּתוּב וְלֹֽא־יְחַלֵּ֥ל זַרְע֖וֹ בְּעַמָּ֑יו. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זֶרַע שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַלֵּל. הִיא עַצְמָהּ מְנַיִין. וְדִין הוּא. מָה אִם הַזֶּרַע שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר עֲבֵירָה הֲרֵי הוּא מִתְחַלֵּל. הִיא שֶׁעָֽבְרָה עֲבֵירָה אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּתְחַלֵּל. הוּא עַצְמוֹ יוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵירָה וְאֵינוֹ מִתְחַלֵּל. לֹא. אִם אָמַרְתָּה בְאִישׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְחַלֵּל בְּכָל מָקוֹם תֹּאמַר בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא מִתְחַלֶּלֶת בְּכָל־מָקוֹם. הוֹאִיל וְהִיא מִתְחַלֶּלֶת בְּכָל־מָקוֹם דִּין הוּא שֶׁתִּתְחַלֵּל. וְאִם נַפְשָׁךְ לוֹמַר. לֹא יָחוֹל וְלֹֽא־יְחַלֵּ֥ל. אַף מִי שֶׁהָיָה כָשֵׁר וְנִתְחַלֵּל. ¹¹Babli Qiddušin 77a, Sifra Emor Pereq 2(7–8). It is written¹²Leviticus.21.15">Lev. 21:15. This verse is written for the High Priest, but it is applied to all priests who marry women forbidden to them.: He shall not desecrate his issue in his people. Not only his issue will be desecrated; from where also she¹³In Leviticus.21.7">Lev. 21:7,Leviticus.21.14">14 the “desecrated woman” is mentioned in the list of women forbidden to the Cohen. The verse implies that the daughter of a Cohen from an illicit union is conceived desecrated. There is no verse which spells out the conditions under which a woman otherwise may become desecrated. There is a verse which specifies that the daughter of a Cohen married to anon-Cohen or mother of a non-Cohen child is disqualified from priestly revenues (Leviticus.22.12-13">Lev. 22:12–13), but not desecrated. Since the “desecrated woman” is always mentioned together with the prostitute, it is inferred that sexual offenses of a woman desecrate her.? Is this not a logical inference? Since the issue, which did not sin, is desecrated, should she, who committed a sin¹⁴On the face of it, the verses only imply that the male Cohen who marries an unsuitable woman commits a sin. Since both Leviticus.21.7">Lev. 21:7, addressed to the common priest, repeat the verb “do not marry”, this is read to mean that the first mention is the prohibition for the male to marry, the second the prohibition for the female to agree to be married (Yevamot 9:1:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.9.1.3">Yebamot 9:1 Note 13, Kiddushin 3:12:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.3.12.3">Qiddušin 3:14 Note 243; Sifra Emor Pereq 1(12), Yevamot.84b">Babli Yebamot 84b)., not logically be desecrated? He himself is a counter example, since he committed a sin but was not desecrated¹⁵Since the verse emphasizes that his children will be desecrated, it implies that the father himself is not desecrated (even if he consorts with a Gentile or a slave); Sifra Emor Pereq 2(8). The son of a Cohen from an illicit union is desecrated from conception; he does not become desecrated. This implies that no male Cohen may become desecrated; he may, however, become unfit for his office.. No. If you argue about a man who is not desecrated in any circumstance, what can you say about a woman who is desecrated in many circumstances¹⁶In order to avoid circular reasoning it is necessary to classify “disqualified” with “desecrated”. Then it follows that there exist classes of females desecrated for the priesthood without equivalent among males.? Since she is desecrated in many circumstances, it is logical that she should be desecrated. If you wish you can say “not to desecrate”, not to desecrate, about somebody who was qualified and became desecrated¹⁷The text of this sentence is in doubt. There is no biblical verb חוֹל “to profane” as required by the reading here and in the Babli. In Sifra, most texts read יחלל both times; but from Ravad’s commentary one sees that the first time he read יַחֵל (Numbers.30.3">Num. 30:3), identical in meaning with יְחַלֵּל.
As explained in Makkot 1:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Makkot.1.1.4">Note 16, actively “to desecrate” implies the existence of an object which is not yet desecrated. Since any child of the illicit union of a Cohen is intrinsically desecrated, it cannot be made desecrated. Since the male is not desecrated, the use of the active יְחַלֵּל therefore implies that the female is desecrated..

בַּר פְּדָייָה אָמַר. הַמְחַלֵּל לֹא נִתְחַלֵּל הֵיאַךְ זֶה מִתְחַלֵּל. Bar Pedaya said, the desecrator was not desecrated: how can this one be desecrated¹⁸This refers back to the Mishnah. Since the male is not desecrated by marrying a divorcee, the Cohen who is a perjured witness cannot be declared desecrated.?

עֵדִים שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּמוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. שֶׁקֶר שֶׁקֶר. עֵדִים שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּמוּ וְחָֽזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּקְּרוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. שֶׁקֶר שֶׁקֶר. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. רָשָׁע רָשָׁע. נֶאֱמַר רָשָׁע בִּמְחוּייָבֵי מִיתוֹת וְנֶאֱמַר רָשָׁע בִּמְחוּייָבֵי מַכּוֹת. מַה רָשָׁע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּמְחוּייָבֵי מִיתוֹת אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מִיתָה. אַף רָשָׁע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּמְחוּייָבֵי מַכּוֹת אֵין מָמוֹן אֶצֶל מַכּוֹת. Witnesses found guilty of plotting. Rebbi Joḥanan said, falsehood, falsehood¹⁹Deuteronomy.21.18">Deut. 21:18: Behold, a witness of falsehood is the witness, falsehood he spoke about his brother. The repetition of the term indicates that every single falsehood in testimony subjects the witness to a separate penalty.. Witnesses found guilty of plotting and then found guilty of lying²⁰In the same testimony, the witnesses were found guilty of “plotting”, of rendering impossible testimony, and then of false (but possible) testimony. If this is a civil case, where the witnesses have to pay for “plotting”, can they still be flogged for false testimony? R. Johanan says yes, R. Eleazar and R. Simeon ben Laqish say no, as discussed at length in Terumot 7:1:3-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.7.1.3-6">Terumot 7:1 Notes 7–29, in particular Note 19 (Ketubot 3:1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.3.1.6">Ketubot 3:1 Note 29).. Rebbi Joḥanan said, falsehood, falsehood. Rebbi Eleazar said, evildoer, evildoer. ²¹The text is from Terumot 7:1:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.7.1.5">Terumot 7:1 Notes 21–23. The murderer is called evildoer in Numbers.35.31">Num. 35:31, the person subject to flogging in Deuteronomy.25">Deut. 25. It is said evildoer for death penalty cases, and it is said evildoer for cases of whipping. Since for the evildoer subject to the death penalty there is no fine accompanying the death penalty, so for the evildoer subject to whipping there is no fine accompanying whipping.

בַּר פְּדָייָה אָמַר. ה֗וּא יָנ֛וּס לֹא זוּמְמָיו. Bar Pedaia said, he shall flee²²Deuteronomy.19.5">Deut. 19:5, speaking of the homicide. Cf. Notes 4,5., not his plotters.

וְאֵין מְשַׁלְּמִין כָּל־הַכְּתוּבָּה אֲבָל מְשַׁלְּמִין הֵן טוֹבַת הֲנָייָת כְּתוּבָּה. כֵּיצַד. אוֹמְרִים כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִיתֵּן בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁלָּזוֹ שֶׁמָּא תָמוּת בְּחַיֵּי בַעֲלָהּ וְיִירָשֶׁנָּה בַעֲלָה אוֹ שֶׁמָּא יָמוּת בַּעֲלָהּ בְּחַיֶיהָ וְיִרַשׁ הֲלָה אֶת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. לְפִיכָך הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם. ⁶When in fact the woman is still married to her husband. Then the witness could be fined only if in the future the ketubah would not be paid, i. e., if the woman stayed married to her husband and predeceased him. He can be fined the current discounted expected value of such a ketubah. They do not pay the entire ketubah, but they pay the personal benefit of the ketubah. How? One asks, how much would a person pay for the ketubah of this [woman], maybe she would die during her husband’s lifetime and her husband would inherit from her, or maybe her husband would die during her lifetime and this one would inherit her ketubah. Accordingly²³For לפיכך read לפי כך. he has to pay.