Shoftim 6th Portion
14 Do
not move [into his land, thus broadening your own] your neighbor’s boundary
stone [if you do so, you violate two negative commandments—this and (Lev
19:13): “Do not . . . rob”] set up by your predecessors in the inheritance you
receive in the land the Lord your God is giving you to possess [outside
of Eretz Yisrael one is in violation only of “Do not . . . rob”].
Witnesses
15 One
witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they
may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or
three witnesses [and not by sending written testimony to the
court, and not by interposing an interpreter between the witnesses and
the judges].
Rashi’s Commentary
One witness shall not rise up
against a man accused of any crime—This is the classic passage from which the general principle is
derived that wherever the term “witness” (עֵד) occurs
in the Law, it means two witnesses, unless it specifically mentions that
one witness is meant (Sanhedrin 30a).
Of any crime or offense—i.e. that his fellow man should be punished on
account of his evidence either by bodily punishment or by a monetary
punishment; but he may rise up against his fellow men to compel him to take an
oath. If, for instance, one says to his fellow, “Return me the maneh which I
lent you,” and he replies “I have nothing of yours in my possession,” and one
witness testifies that he has, he (the defendant) must take an oath to satisfy
him (Shevuot 40a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 188:9).
A matter will be established by the testimony of two . . . witnesses—By their testimony, but not
that they may write their evidence down in a letter and send it to the court,
nor that an interpreter stand between the witnesses and the judges (Sifrei
Devarim 188:10).
Sanhedrin 30a:27
The Gemara explains: And it is
taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “One witness is not
enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have
committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three
witnesses” (Deu 19:15); by inference, from that which is stated
in the verse: A witness is not enough to convict anyone, even without
the word “one,” do I not know that it is referring to one
witness? After all, the verse is written in the singular. Therefore, what
is the meaning when the verse states explicitly: “One witness?”
Shevuot 30a:5
The baraita continues: Do you
say that it is with regard to witnesses, or perhaps it is only
with regard to litigants that the verse is speaking? When it states:
“Involved in the dispute” (Deu 19:17), the litigants are already stated
in the verse. How do I realize the meaning of the phrase “the two
people . . . must stand?” Apparently, it is with regard to witnesses
that the verse is speaking. And if it is your wish to say that this is
not a proof, another proof may be cited. It is stated here: “the two
people,” and it is stated there: “On the basis of two witnesses”
(Deu 19:15); just as there, it is with regard to witnesses that
the verse speaks, so too here, it is with regard to witnesses
that the verse speaks.
Shevuot 40a:10
What is the reason for this distinction? As it is written: “One witness is not
enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense” (Deu 19:15). It
is inferred from here that it is for any crime or offense that he may not
convict, as the testimony of one witness is not enough for this purpose, but
he may convict to render one liable to take an oath. And it is taught
in a baraita: In any place where two witnesses render a
defendant liable to pay money, the testimony of one witness
renders him liable to take an oath. Therefore, since two witnesses
render the defendant liable to pay if the claim is worth at least one peruta,
so too, one witness renders him liable to take an oath with regard to a claim
of this value.
16 If a
malicious witness [i.e., a false set of witnesses] takes the stand to accuse
someone of a crime [i.e., when they were completely removed from having
witnessed the incident (as when other witnesses challenge them: But were you
not with us at this and this place at that time!)],
Rashi’s Commentary
If a malicious witness takes the
stand to accuse someone of a crime, סָרָה—i.e. a
thing which does not exist at all; this term is used because this witness is
far removed (הוּסַר)
from having anything to do with this testimony. How is this?
(Give an example of such a case)?! That two other witnesses say, “But were you
not with us on that day (when you say you saw the defendant committing this
crime) in such and such a place (different from that where the alleged crime,
according to you, has taken place)?!” (Makkot 5a).
Shevuot 30a:4
GEMARA:
The mishna teaches that the oath of testimony is not practiced with regard to
women because they are unfit to testify. The Gemara asks: From where is this
matter, that women do not testify, derived? The Gemara answers: It is as
the Sages taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “If a
malicious witness rises up to accuse someone . . . the two people . . . must
stand” (Deu 19:16-17), it is with regard to witnesses that the
verse is speaking. Apparently, men, not women, may testify.
17 the
two people [the witnesses] involved in the dispute must stand [witnesses must
be men and they must testify standing] in the presence of the Lord [it should
be in their eyes as if they are standing “in the presence of the Lord] before
the priests and the judges who are in office at the time [Jephthah in his
generation is like Samuel in his generation].
Rashi’s Commentary
The two people . . . must stand—Scripture here is referring to the witnesses, and
teaches firstly that no evidence is valid when given by women, and teaches
secondly that they (the witnesses) must submit their testimony while standing (Shevuot
30a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 190:1-3).
Involved in the dispute—This refers to the contestants (Sanhedrin
19a).
Comments
Post a Comment