Makos

Amud 3a

תוס' ד"ה באומר

When he said; ‘I presented false testimony’ - באומר עדות שקר העדתי

Summary:
רבא assumed that if the עד recanted he can no longer be liable for the ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם. However, the גמרא concluded that his recanting is meaningless and כאשר זמם applies to him as well. The גמרא did not (ever) mean that the עד should pay (without הזמה) because he recanted.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה כיצד

How do we assess - כיצד שמין

Summary:
The wife’s value in the כתובה is less than the husband’s, because the husband is a מוחזק and is consuming the פירות. We can either assess the lower value of the woman’s right and deduct it from the total value of the field, and that is what the עדים זוממין pay him, or we can assess his value in the field and that is what they pay him.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה מעידין

We are testifying about that person that he divorced his wife, etc. - מעידין אנו באיש פלוני שגירש אשתו וכולי

Summary:
There is no need for the עדים to pay the אשה for שאר כסות, either because her מעשה ידיה is (at least) of equal value, or she forfeits them by claiming גירשתני.

[View / Print]