פירוש על שמות 23:7

ונקי וצדיק אל תהרג AND THE GUILTLESS AND RIGHTEOUS SLAY THOU NOT — Whence may we infer that in the case that one who left the court after being found guilty and one says, “I have something to plead in his favour”, he has to be brought back in order that the court may listen to this? From what Scripture states, “and the נקי thou shalt not slay”. Although he is not a צדיק — for he has not been acquitted by the court — he is however “free” (נקי) from the death penalty, for it is your duty to plead — as far as possible — in his favour. And whence may we infer, on the other hand, that in the case of one who left the court after having been acquitted and one says, “I have something to say against him” he is not to be brought back that the judges may hear this? From what Scripture states: “and the צדיק slay thou not” — and this man is a צדיק since he has been acquitted by the court (Sanhedrin 33b).

מדבר שקר תרחק, the Torah addresses the judge, telling him to stay clear of anything which could create the impression that he has dealings with something corrupt. Our sages enlarge on this, cautioning that the judge must be careful with all his utterances so that a liar cannot exploit his words for his own nefarious purposes. (Avot 1,9)

כי לא אצדיק רשע, "for I will not acquit the wicked." According to Sanhedrin 33 the term נקי refers to someone who testifies that he knows of evidence in favour of a person who has been convicted of a certain misdemeanour. In such a case the trial is re-opened. The expression צדיק in our verse, on the other hand, refers to a person against whom accusations are levelled after he has been acquitted. The Torah states therefore, that once a person has been acquitted of a certain crime he cannot be tried for it a second time. G'd reassures the reader that in the event the acquittal by the court was based on an error, He, G'd, will not allow the person who parades as a צדיק to go scot free. The Torah does not want us to think that seeing a person has been found guilty, "how can the verdict be overturned by fresh evidence?" The Torah answers simply: If the original conviction was fair and corresponded to the facts, I, G'd, will not allow such a person to get away with it even if he is found innocent in his second trial. The testimony on his behalf will not ultimately result in a perversion of justice. If, on the other hand, the original conviction was based on error, why should the person who can offer testimony on behalf of the convicted be ignored? Concerning the person who had been acquitted and against whom fresh evidence has been found, the Torah simply states that the fact that the court declared someone innocent does not necessarily mean that he is innocent in the eyes of G'd too. G'd has His own court and it is quite inconceivable that G'd would seal a decree by a human court which is erroneous. We are taught in Ketuvot 21 that it is forbidden for anyone to sign a document which appears to be fraudulent. You may well ask why we do not apply the same principle, i.e. that a court erred, and re-open the trial of someone who had been freed before new evidence against him had come to light? I believe we can best answer this by recalling that G'd "regrets" something evil on occasion. He does not, however, "regret" a decision which was favourable. As a result of this consideration, if a person has once been acquitted he is not subjected to a trial again for the same alleged offence. When a person has been found guilty in his first trial, the suffering he endured until he was finally exonerated in a second trial may even approximate the suffering experienced while he faced execution for a sin not comitted. He may therefore ultimately be exonerated by a Heavenly tribunal even for sins committed for which he had not been tried at all.

ונקי וצדיק אל תהרוג, “and do not execute the innocent or the righteous.” The word נקי, innocent, refers to a wicked person which the court was unable to convict. Subsequently, evidence turns up on the basis of which this person could be convicted on a second trial. The Torah prohibits a retrial. The Torah assures us that if a guilty person escapes human justice, not to be upset as he will not escape divine justice, i.e. כי לא אצדיק רשע, “I, G’d will see to it that the wicked will not wind up being considered as righteous.”

V. 7. מדבר שקר תרחק, es ist dies der fruchtbarste Satz für die gerichtlichen Pflichten. Er enthält im allgemeinen die Verpflichtung, alles zu vermeiden, wodurch nur im geringsten die Möglichkeit gegeben wäre, dass dadurch die Wahrhaftigkeit des Urteils alteriert werde. So daher: לדיין שלא יעשה סניגרון לדבריו, dass der Richter nicht sein eigener Anwalt zur Aufrechthaltung einer einmal von ihm ausgesprochenen Meinung werde, vielmehr sich nicht scheue, sein Wort zurückzuziehen, sobald ihm dessen Richtigkeit zweifelhaft geworden; daher: שלא ישב תלמיד בור לפניו, dass er über einen ihm vorliegenden Rechtsfall nicht einen Rechtsunkundigen zur Beratung heranziehe, durch dessen Äußerungen er irre geleitet werden könne; daher: לדיין שיודע לחברו שהוא גזלן שלא יצטרף עמו dass er nicht in Gemeinsamkeit mit einem Kollegen, dessen Charakter ihm als für einen Richter unzulässig bekannt ist, ein Zivilgericht bilde; daher: לדיין שיודע בדין שהוא מרומה שלא יאמר הואיל ועדים מעידים לפני אחתכנו ויהא קולר תלוי בצואר העדים, dass kein Richter, der die subjektive Überzeugung von dem Betrügerischen eines ihm zur Entscheidung vorliegenden Falles hat, ohne dies objektiv beweisen zu können, nicht etwa auf Grund der herangebrachten Zeugenbeweise ein Urteil gegen seine Überzeugung abgeben und dabei in seinem Gewissen den Zeugen die Verantwortung zuschieben dürfe, sondern in solchem Falle die Entscheidung von sich weisen müsse; daher: לשנים שבאו לדין אחד לבוש סמרטוט ואחד לבוש איצטלית בת מאה מנה שאומר לו לבוש כמותו או הלבישהו כמותך dass selbst bis auf die Kleidung der Richter die Parteien völlig gleich vor sich erscheinen lassen und es nicht dulden soll, dass der eine in Lumpen und der andere in luxuriöser Kleidung vor Gericht auftrete usw. usw. (Schebuoth 31 a u. b). Und wie für den Richter, so fließen auch für die Parteien und Zeugen aus diesem Satze die bedeutsamsten Verpflichtungen (siehe das.).

Distance yourself from a false matter - put distance between yourself and those who speak lies, and gossipers, since on this the text already warned: 'you must not carry false rumors' (Exodus 23:1) and then 'do not bring death on those who are innocent and in the right' (Ex. 23:7) because liars cause the killing of the ones in the right and of the innocent.

ונקי וצדיק, “and the ones free from sin, and the “just,” i.e. the ones who have been acquitted by the court;” according to the translation it is hard to see the difference between the נקי and the צדיק in this commandment. Our author understands the word נקי as applying to someone who had been free from sin, as opposed to the צדיק, someone who had committed the sin but could not be convicted through lack of witnesses acceptable by the Torah, or who had not been legally warned before committing the sin he had been accused of.

כי לא אצדיק רשע FOR “I” WILL NOT JUSTIFY THE WICKED — It is not your duty, in the latter case, to bring the man back to the court, for if he is really guilty, “I” will not acquit him in My court. Altough he has left your hands as innocent “I” have many agents (many means) to inflict upon him the death to which he has made himself liable (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:7:2).

נקי ,ונקי וצדיק אל תהרוג ist der objektiv Unschuldige, צדיק erklärt sich aus dem folgenden כי לא אצדיק רשע als der vom Gerichte Freigesprochene. Der Sinn ist: wenn nach gefällter Verurteilung noch ein neuer Verteidigungsgrund vorgebracht wird, so ist mit der Ausführung des Urteils innezuhalten und die Verteidigung anzuhören, damit kein נקי hingerichtet werde. Dagegen, wer einmal vom Gerichte freigesprochen, als צדיק erklärt worden ist, darf, selbst wenn sich hinterdrein seine Schuld als evident herausstellen sollte, deshalb nicht wieder zur Verurteilung gezogen werden, כי לא אצדיק רשע, das eigentliche Gericht ist Gottes, המשפט לאלקי׳ הוא. Das menschliche Gericht hat nur das ihm von Gott gleichsam Delegierte zu leisten. Hat es einen Schuldigen nach den ihm im Momente vorliegenden Beweismitteln frei sprechen müssen, so wird Gott in seinem Gerichte schon den Schuldigen zu treffen wissen.