Talmud su Deuteronomio 19:19

It is written: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth¹⁰Lev. 24:20, speaking of payment for either animal or man..” At another place, He says: “Do not be softhearted.¹¹Deut. 19:21, 25:12.” One refers to inadvertent acts, the other to intentional ones¹²Cf. Sifry Deut. 293. The quote Deut. 19:21 refers to the punishment of the perjured witnesses. Since in injury cases the false accuser wanted to extort money and therefore would have to pay money, it is concluded that Deut. 25:12 which prescribes punishment for intentional injury also must mean payment of money. Therefore Lev. 24:20 refers to payment for unintentional injury.. He could mention the inadvertent but not mention the intentional. But if the inadvertent had been mentioned but not the intentional, I would have said that for the inadvertent act he shall pay money, for the intentional [have his hand cut off. Therefore it was necessary to mention the intentional. Or if the intentional had been mentioned but not the inadvertent, I would have said that for the intentional act he shall pay money, for the inadvertent]¹³Text missing in the Leiden ms., supplied from E and supported by the Genizah text. he should not pay at all. Therefore it was necessary to mention both inadvertent and intentional. And if he blinded a blind man or cut off the arm of an amputee, how could one fulfill: “Do to him as he intended to do to his brother”¹⁴Deut. 19:19, referring to the punishment of perjured witnesses. The quote is confirmed by all three ms. sources but probably the reference should be to Lev. 23:19: “As a person injures another, so should be done to him”. The Babli, 84a, in quoting a similar baraita refers to Lev. 24:22: “A uniform law shall it be for you”; cf. also Sifra Emor Pereq 20(7).? This indicates that he only pays money.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: Even if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, does the verse agree with Rebbi Meïr? Is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to pay money; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to pay money.

MISHNAH: One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on their testimony; if they are found perjured they pay everything³¹Deut. 19:19 requires that the punishment of a perjured witness be the statutory punishment which would have been imposed on the accused. Testimony can be shown to be perjured only by other testimony which establishes that the witness was not in a position to see the act which he testifies about; cf. Ketubot 2:11, Note 199. to him. If he was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on the testimony of two others who all were found perjured, the first group pays double restitution and the second group triple³²As pointed out at the end of the Mishnah, everybody is permitted to sell or slaughter his livestock. The act becomes criminal only if the animal was stolen. Therefore the testimony of the second group is predicated on that of the first group; they only have to pay the difference their testimony would make in the sentence imposed on the defendant had their testimony been true. For the imputed sale of a stolen sheep they pay double, for that of a stolen ox triple damages.. If the second group were found perjured, he pays double restitution³³For the valid conviction of theft. while they pay triple³⁴Or double, as the case may be.. If one of the second group was found perjured, the second testimony is invalidated³⁵A single witness in a criminal proceeding is disregarded, Deut. 19:15.. If one of the first group is found perjured, the entire testimony is invalidated since if there is no theft there is no slaughter or sale³⁶No possibility to prosecute for sale or slaughter..