Q&A: Makkot 5a
Makkot 5a:
Question
The Talmud asks, “From where do we know about those liable to exile?” and brings a verbal analogy, “murderer” “murderer.” Why is this derivation actually needed? After all, the earlier verbal analogy regarding those liable to lashes (“wicked” “wicked”) is really using the verse on page 2a, which served to teach that the punishment for witnesses who plotted to sentence so-and-so to exile is lashes. And in particular, how does Rashi say that the verse “and they shall declare the wicked man guilty” is speaking about the litigant, when the Talmud there concludes that it is specifically speaking about conspiring witnesses??
I saw that the Ritva asks this as well, but gives an answer that is not so satisfactory.
Does the Rabbi have a convincing answer?
Answer
I don’t understand the question. Here they are looking for a source that they are punished only after the verdict has been concluded on the basis of their testimony. You are asking why we should not learn this from the first verbal analogy regarding those liable to lashes. Because in cases of liability to lashes, the lashes are by the law of “as he plotted” (as Rashi writes), whereas here, in cases of exile, the lashes are by the law of “you shall not bear false witness.” Therefore the verbal analogy of “wicked” “wicked” is of no help here.
As for the question whether the verse is speaking about the litigant or about the witnesses: in exposition, one sometimes departs from the plain meaning of the verse. For example: “Then the two men who have the dispute shall stand” — from here the Talmud in Shevuot disqualified women from testimony. But the “men” in the verse are the litigants, not the witnesses. By the way, in the case of conspiring witnesses regarding exile, they receive lashes like litigants who were falsely convicted, not as witnesses. So when it says, “and it shall be, if the wicked man deserves to be beaten,” that certainly fits them. They are lashed as wicked people.