Study Makkot folio 3A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud is puzzled by this: What is the meaning of the statement: The money remains in the possession of the owner? It means that they did not perform an action. That is identical to the reasoning of Rabba, and it is not an additional explanation. The Talmud emends the formulation of the present
§ Apropos the statement of R' Akiva in the baraita, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A conspiring witness pays according to his share. The Talmud asks: What is the meaning of: Pays according to his share? If we say that it means that this witness pays half of the sum that the set conspired to render
Rather, the Talmud explains that the expression: Pays according to his share, means that in a case where only one of the set was rendered a conspiring witness, the halakha is that he pays his half of the sum. The Talmud asks: And does he pay at all in that case? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: A
Rava says: The statement is not referring to a case of conspiring witnesses; rather, Rav’s statement applies to the case of one who says: It was false testimony that I testified. The Talmud asks: Is it in his power to have this statement accepted by the court? That runs counter to the principle:
The Talmud answers: Rather, Rav’s statement applies to the case of one who says: We testified and were rendered conspiring witnesses in such and such a court. Since he was already convicted as a conspiring witness, it is as though he is admitting an obligation to give monetary restitution, and he