Masechet Makkot, Perek (chapter) Aleph (one), Mishnah Aleph.
This Perek discusses Edim Zomemim. We mentioned Edim Zomemim in the last Mishnah of Masechet Sanhedrin, and we'll continue to elaborate on them in this Perek. Edim Zomemim are witnesses who testified about a certain person, for example, that he committed a certain crime. They testified that they saw the person do it. They testified about the place and the time. They gave clear testimony and put a certain person in a situation where he was going to receive punishment. A second pair of witnesses then emerges and claims that they saw the first pair of witnesses somewhere else during the time when the alleged Avera (crime) took place. So the first witnesses could not have been telling the truth. We believe the second pair of witnesses and say that the first pair were lying.
The Torah tells us about these first witnesses. The punishment for these false witnesses, who are plotting and conspiring to hurt one of their brothers, is whatever punishment they intended to cause the person they were testifying about. For example, let's say they testified about a certain person and claimed that he committed a murder. Other witnesses then come and debunk their claim, saying it was false because they saw the first set of witnesses somewhere else. We give these first witnesses the death penalty because they were trying to impose the death penalty on somebody else. They were trying to get somebody else killed.
Another example: let's say witnesses claim that a certain man owes another man money, that he owes him $1,000. Another set of witnesses emerges and claims, “No, we know these witnesses weren't there at that time. They couldn't have known that the man owed somebody else $1,000. They were somewhere else.” So now the first two witnesses, who gave the false testimony, have to pay $1,000.
This Mishnah, though, is going to give the exceptions to the rule, where the Zomemim witnesses cannot be punished with the punishment they were trying to impose on the person they were testifying about. We're going to talk about how they are punished in those situations.
The Mishnah asks, “How are witnesses punished for being Zomemim?” In other words, if they can't be given the punishment they tried to inflict on somebody else, how do we punish them? For example, let's say two witnesses come forward and testify about a certain person who is a Kohen (priest). They say that he's the son of a divorced woman or the son of a woman who underwent Chalitza. In other words, the father of the person they are testifying about was a kosher, good Kohen, but he married a woman he was not allowed to marry. A Kohen is not allowed to marry a gerusha (a divorced woman) or a chalutza (woman released through Chalitza), a woman who did Chalitza. That means her former husband died and one of his brothers refused to marry her, so she has to go through the whole Chalitza, the removing of the shoe ceremony. These witnesses are claiming that the person in front of us, whom they are testifying about, is the son of that forbidden union and is therefore disqualified from the Kehuna (priesthood).
This pair of witnesses claims they were there when they saw the Kohen's mother get divorced or undergo Chalitza, and they tell us which city it happened in. They give us a clear indication that they know the divorce or Chalitza happened, and therefore they claim that this Kohen is not a kosher Kohen. But then other witnesses emerge and claim, “No, this first pair of witnesses were not in this location at that time. They were somewhere else. They were living in a different country.” So it can't be that they saw the divorce or the Chalitza of this Kohen's mother. They are Edim Zomemim.
So what do we do with them? We have a problem. We don't say that these Zomemim witnesses should be punished with whatever they tried to make happen to the person they were testifying about. We're not going to say that they should be considered the son of a divorced woman or the son of a chalutza if they were a Kohen, because the Pasuk (verse) says, “Do to them as they plotted against somebody else.” The problem is that if we make them Pasul (invalid), they can't serve in the Bet HaMikdash (Temple), receive Terumah (priestly portion), or do Birkat Kohanim (Priestly Blessing). That would also extend to their children. As we said, the Pasuk says, “Do to him as he plotted,” but we can't do something that would extend to their children as well.
So, in the case involving a Kohen, we can't carry out the standard punishment that would have been given to the person they were testifying about if their testimony had been accepted. What do we do? We give the Zomemim witnesses 40 lashes. The punishment for Edim Zomemim who cannot be given the punishment they tried to cause the person they were testifying about is Malkut (lashes).
Next case in the Mishnah: Edim (witnesses) are found to be lying and are Edim Zomemim. Let's say witnesses come and testify that somebody has to go into Galut, into exile, to an Ir Miklat (city of refuge). In other words, the witnesses say they saw somebody kill somebody else by mistake, which would mean that the person who killed has to go to the Ir Miklat. That's their testimony. They claim they were in a certain place at a certain time and saw the murder. But then other witnesses come forward and say, “No, it can't be. We saw you somewhere else during that time. You couldn't have witnessed that murder.” So they tried to cause a man to go to the Ir Miklat. We don't say that they have to go to the Ir Miklat, because the Pasuk, when talking about the Rotzeach, the murderer who killed by mistake, says, “hu yanus?” He has to run to the Ir Miklat. So we learn from here: “Hu?” He has to run to the Ir Miklat, but not the witnesses who testified falsely against him. Therefore, we don't say that the witnesses should go into Galut, into exile, to the Ir Miklat instead of the person they were testifying against. As before, since we can't give them the punishment they tried to cause somebody, we say they receive 40 lashes.
Next case. Here we'll talk about financial obligation. Usually, when Edim Zomemim try to cause somebody else to lose money, they have to pay that amount as their punishment. Here we'll talk about a situation where we're not going to make the Edim Zomemim pay that amount. The witnesses try to obligate a man to pay his wife the Ketubah. The Ketubah is the amount that a husband has to pay his wife under certain circumstances. If he dies, his estate has to pay it. If he gets divorced, he has to pay it. These witnesses come forward claiming that the couple is divorced. They're not claiming anything about the Ketubah, but they claim that they know the husband divorced his wife and that there is no record of a Ketubah being paid. So they're causing the husband to have to pay the Ketubah. That's what they're saying: “We're testifying about this man that he divorced his wife, and it's known that he did not pay her the Ketubah.” When he divorces her, he has to pay her the Ketubah. So the Edim (witnesses) are, in a sense, causing the husband to have to pay her the money.
It's found that these witnesses were Edim Zomemim. They were somewhere else during the time of the divorce. Therefore, we might think that they have to pay the money they intended the husband to lose. Even though they tried to make the husband pay the full Ketubah, that may not be the actual loss they caused him. Why? Because today or tomorrow, he may actually have to pay her the Ketubah. If he dies or divorces her, he'd be obligated to pay her a Ketubah. But, on the other hand, let's say the wife dies first. If she dies before the husband, he would never have to pay her the Ketubah. So the amount the Edim Zomemim are actually causing him to lose is not necessarily the full value of the Ketubah he's being made to pay right now, because he may have to pay her that money later. It's not a loss that's totally unexpected, because he may drop dead tomorrow and then his estate has to pay her the Ketubah, or he may decide a week from now to divorce her and have to pay her the Ketubah. So the fact that they're causing the Ketubah payment to happen now can't be considered fully their fault, because he may pay it at a later time anyway.
So what do we do? We make an assessment. If a person were trying to buy the rights to this Ketubah, how much would he be willing to pay this woman for those rights? What's the valuation? How do you deal with it? If she was widowed or divorced, the buyer who bought the rights to the Ketubah would collect the Ketubah instead of the wife. But if she died before the husband, then her husband would inherit her and there would be no Ketubah payment, and the person who bought the rights to the Ketubah would get nothing. So it's basically a risk analysis: What's the health of this woman? What's the marital status? Do they have Shalom Bayit (peace at home)? If you made an assessment, like an insurance company, what would this woman's Ketubah be worth? What are the odds that the husband is going to die or give her a divorce, versus the odds of the woman dying first? Those are the odds a person has to assess, and that's the amount the Ketubah is worth. He has to take all this into account, and then that's what the Ketubah is really worth right now. That's basically the loss the Edim Zomemim are causing the husband, and therefore that's the amount they'd have to pay.
Next case. A pair of witnesses come forward claiming that a certain person owes his friend 1,000 Zuz (coins). Part of the stipulation was that he was going to pay his friend within 30 days. Then the person they were testifying about says, “No, I admit that I owe the money, but the condition I put into this was that I was going to pay it back in 10 years, not 30 days.” The witnesses are eventually found to be Zomemim. They have to pay the amount they were trying to make the person they were testifying about lose. So that would be 1,000 Zuz. They tried to make him lose 1,000 Zuz, but technically he wouldn't have lost that payment. He admits that he owes the money. If the witnesses had been right and no other witnesses had emerged to show they were lying, he would just have paid his debt earlier. It would only have caused him to lose out on time.
So how do we value this? We make an assessment. How much would a person pay if he had a loan of 1,000 Zuz, but instead of having to repay it within 30 days, he could repay it within 10 years? If he could extend the loan he has right now from a 30-day loan to a 10-year loan, how much would he be willing to pay in interest, for example? That's the value of the loss the Zomemim caused, or tried to cause, to the person they were testifying about, and therefore that's the amount they would have to pay.