Komentarz do Makkot 1:7

עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת (שם יז), אִם מִתְקַיֶּמֶת הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁנַיִם, לָמָּה פָרַט הַכָּתוּב בִּשְׁלשָׁה, אֶלָּא לְהַקִּישׁ שְׁלשָׁה לִשְׁנַיִם, מַה שְּׁלשָׁה מַזִּימִין אֶת הַשְּׁנַיִם, אַף הַשְּׁנַיִם יָזוֹמּוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁלשָׁה. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, עֵדִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מַה שְּׁנַיִם אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם זוֹמְמִין, אַף שְׁלשָׁה אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן זוֹמְמִין. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, עֵדִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, לֹא בָא הַשְּׁלִישִׁי אֶלָּא לְהַחְמִיר עָלָיו וְלַעֲשׂוֹת דִּינוֹ כַיּוֹצֵא בָאֵלּוּ. וְאִם כֵּן עָנַשׁ הַכָּתוּב לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה כְעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה יְשַׁלֵּם שָׂכָר לַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה כְעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה:

(Powtórzonego Prawa 17: 6): „Na podstawie słowa dwóch świadków lub trzech świadków umarły będzie skazany na śmierć”. Jeśli świadectwo opiera się na dwóch, dlaczego Pismo wskazuje na trzy? Aby porównać trzy do dwóch, a mianowicie. Tak jak trzy mogą renderować dwa, zomemin, tak dwa mogą renderować trzy, zomemin. I skąd mamy [że dwóch może uczynić zomemin] nawet sto? Od (tamże): „świadkowie” (tj. Dowolna liczba). R. Szimon mówi: Tak jak dwóch nie zostaje zabitych, dopóki oboje nie zostaną uznani za zomemin [jest napisane (tamże 19:18): „A oto świadek fałszywy”, o którym mistrz powiedział: Gdziekolwiek ” Świadek ”jest napisane, rozumie się dwóch (świadków), chyba że wyraźnie określono„ jeden ”], więc trzech nie zostaje zabitych, dopóki trzech nie stanie się zomeminami. [Dzieje się tak, jeśli każdy zeznaje natychmiast po zakończeniu zeznań drugiego. Ale jeśli dwóch zaświadcza, a po jakimś czasie inni to robią, to są to dwa różne zestawy świadków pod każdym względem.] A skąd mamy (że tak jest) nawet setkę? Od: „świadkowie”. R. Akiva mówi: Trzeci (tj. „Trzech świadków”) przychodzi tylko po to, aby (powiedzieć nam, abyśmy) byli wobec niego surowi i zrównał jego osąd z oceną innych, [ten nie mówi: Ponieważ nawet bez trzeciego, świadectwo (innych) będzie trwać, osąd Hazamy nie powinien odnosić się do niego. Ten werset informuje nas (że tak nie jest), że on również jest osądzony.]. Jeśli Pismo Święte w ten sposób ukarało pomocników przestępców jako samych przestępców, o ileż bardziej będzie to nagradzane pomocników dokonujących micwy, tak jak sami sprawcy micwy! [Albowiem „Jego miara dobra jest większa niż miara kary”].

Bartenura on Mishnah Makkot

Where do we know that this is the case for even a hundred. That two can zommemize one hundred that testify together.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot

Introduction Both mishnah seven and mishnah eight which we will learn tomorrow contain midrashim, exegeses, of the verse in Deuteronomy 17:6 which states that a person may be executed by the testimony of “two or three witnesses”. This statement is not a precise legal statement. If two witnesses are sufficient than the Torah should have stated two. If three witnesses are necessary the Torah should not have stated two. Since all of the Sages held that two witnesses were sufficient, they must answer why the Torah also stated three.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Makkot

Just as two aren't killed until you zommemize the both of them. As it is written (Deuteronomy 19:18) "And behold, the witness is a false witness", and the master said, any place it says "witness" behold here it refers to two, unless the verse specifies it's one.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot

This mishnah contains three opinions with regards to a perceived problem in the Biblical verse mentioned in the beginning of the mishnah.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Makkot

Until all three are zommemized. This [refers to the case] where they each testified within a few seconds of the previous speaker finishing. However, if two testified and at a later time others testified, behold they are [considered] two groups in all aspects.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot

“A person shall be put to death only on the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6).
If the testimony is sufficiently established by two witnesses, why does Scripture [further] specify three? This is to compare two to three: just as three are competent to incriminate two as perjurers, so are two competent to incriminate three as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. The first solution is that the Torah teaches that a set of three witnesses can be made into perjurers even by a set of two witnesses. If the Torah had only taught “two witnesses” we might have thought that two was sufficient to incriminate two other witnesses but not three, since they are more numerous. Therefore, the Torah teaches that no matter how large the group of witnesses, even one hundred, they do not have more power than a contradictory set of two. If, therefore, three witnesses were to testify to a capital crime and the person was found guilty and condemned to die and then two witnesses claimed that the three prior witnesses were not present at the time of the alleged crime and rather were with them, the first three are executed as perjurers.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Makkot

Rabbi Akiva says: The third witness in the group only makes the case stricter. So you don't say, since without the third [witness] the testimony would have stood, don't apply to him the rule of hazama, the verse teaches you that even he is judged.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot

Rabbi Shimon says: “Just as two witnesses are not put to death until both have been incriminated as perjurers, so three are not put to death until all three have been incriminated as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred? The Torah states “witnesses”. Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is that just as when a pair of witnesses testify neither can be executed until both are proven to be perjurers, so too when three witnesses testify, none may be executed until all are proven to be perjurers. Without the word “three” in the Torah we might have thought that if three or more testify and two are found to be perjurers they may be executed, even if the third was not a perjurer. After all, the two would have been sufficient to have the accused executed. Therefore the Torah teaches “three” and “witnesses” to teach that none are executed as perjurers until all are proven to be so.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Makkot

All the more so. Since [G-d's] attribute of good is greater than [his] attribute of punishment.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot

Rabbi Akiba says: “The third witness was only mentioned in order to be stringent upon him and make his judgement the same as the other two. And if Scripture thus penalizes one who consorts with those who commit a transgression, as [if he is actually] one of those who commits the transgression, how much more so shall he who consorts with those who perform commandments receive a reward as [if he is actually] one of those who performs the commandments!” According to Rabbi Akiva, if three witnesses testify and two are incriminated as perjurers, the third witness is executed even if he was not a perjurer. He is punished not for his false testimony but for joining in with other perjurers/evildoers. Although this is a harsh sentence, Rabbi Akiva finds in it a ray of hope. If those who merely join with evildoers are punished so harshly all the more so will those who join with those who perform commandments be greatly rewarded.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot

Questions for Further Thought:
• What would be the practical result of the various interpretations on the procedures of the court? What type of psychological effect would they have on the witnesses?

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Poprzedni werset Cały rozdział Następny werset