신명기 17:6의 주석

שנים עדים או שלשה [BY THE MOUTH OF] TWO WITNESSES OR THREE [WITNESSES, SHALL HE THAT IS WORTHY OF DEATH BE PUT TO DEATH] — But if evidence can be established by two witnesses to what end does it (Scripture) mention to you explicitly that it may be established by three? Scripture does so in order to compare the evidence of three witnesses to that of two (to make the same law apply to both cases). How is it in the case of two? Their evidence forms one testimony; so, too, does the evidence of three (or many) witnesses form one testimony and they cannot be declared “plotting witnesses” unless all of them are proved to be “plotting witnesses” (Makkot 5b).

AT THE MOUTH OF TWO WITNESSES, OR THREE WITNESSES, SHALL HE THAT IS TO DIE BE PUT TO DEATH. “If the evidence can be sustained by two witnesses, why did Scripture specify ‘three?’ It is to liken three to two: just as the evidence of two witnesses forms a single unit of testimony, so does the evidence of three, constitute a single unit of testimony and they are not subject to the law of plotting witnesses [which declares that whatever they plotted to do to their brother should be done to them]⁷⁶See further, 19:19. unless all three are proven to be plotters.”⁷⁷But if only one or two of the three witnesses were proven to be false, the evidence is void, and both, the accused and the witnesses are free, and the punishment for plotting witnesses is not imposed, provided all witnesses form a single unit of testimony. The same principles apply even to one out of a hundred witnesses (Makkoth 5b). This is Rashi’s language. So also the principle [of a single unit of testimony] applies if one of the witnesses is found to be a kinsman [and hence ineligible to testify] or to have some other disqualification — the testimony of all is void. If they are proven to have been plotting witnesses, [in which case] all of them are subject to the death-penalty or payment of money [as the case may be, and the third witness cannot claim immunity because of his argument that even had he not testified the evidence of the first two witnesses was sufficient to sustain the charge], since the main intent of Scripture was to liken the evidence of three witnesses to that of two in every respect, according to the opinion of our Rabbis.⁷⁸Makkoth ibid.
And the Gaon Rav Saadia⁷⁹On Rav Saadia see Vol. II, p. 99, Note 230. On the title Gaon see ibid., p. 521, Note 74. Rav Saadia’s comment is quoted here by Ibn Ezra. said, by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, that the interpretation of the verse is as follows: “two witnesses, or three judges who [officially] accept the testimony of the two witnesses.”⁸⁰Rav Saadia holds that even in capital cases which require a court of twenty-three judges, witnesses need not testify in the presence of all the judges; it is sufficient that they testify in the presence of three judges who may receive their testimony on behalf of the full court. The phrase at the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses thus means: “upon the testimony of two witnesses who appear before the entire court of twenty-three judges, or by the word of the three judges who officially accepted the testimony of the witnesses and later relayed it to the entire court — shall the one that is to die be put to death. Ramban will refute this interpretation of the Gaon, for there is in the verse etc. But there is in the verse no mention of acceptance of the testimony; instead, it refers explicitly to witnesses. But it seems to me that the Gaon erred in his [statement of this] law, for testimony in capital cases cannot be accepted except in the presence of a Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges [and not, as Rav Saadia holds, before only three judges]! Rather, the plain meaning of the verse is that the condemned man shall be put to death at the mouth of two witnesses if no more are there, or at the mouth of three witnesses if three witnesses are to be found there. Scripture thus states: when it will be told thee, and thou hear it⁵⁸Verse 4 here. you are to inquire diligently into the matter by means of the testimony of all the witnesses found there. Thus if we heard that he transgressed in the presence of three people, we should send for them and have them all come to court and testify. The same law applies to a hundred, for by hearing the words of them all, the truth will become clear. But if not more [than two] were present, or they [the others] left and are not to be found, then two are sufficient.

על פי שנים עדים או שלושה, even if the charge is idolatry, the entire testimony is disqualified if one of the witnesses is found to be inadmissible. We do not rule that seeing there are a sufficient number of reliable and legally admissible witnesses left, we proceed with the trial on that basis.

יומת המת, "the condemned person will be executed." The reason the Torah repeats the reference to the condemned being dead is to alert us that if no witnesses could be found or that the warning was not legally valid for some reason, the fact that the terrestrial court could not execute the sinner does not make him any less guilty of death in the eyes of G'd. The word יומת applies when the legal proceedings here on earth could be completed.

על פי שנים עדים, “based on the testimony of not fewer than two eye-witnesses;” Ibn Ezra explains that seeing the words והוגד לך ושמעת in verse 4 sound as if the first verse speaks about information obtained clandestinely, whereas the word ושמעת refers to openly received information, but not information by eye-witnesses, etc., I might have concluded from the wording in verse 5 וסקלתם באבנים ומת, “you shall stone the party in question to death,” that this is sufficient to convict such people. The Torah had to state that no matter what, without two reliable eye-witnesses against the accused no conviction, and certainly no execution can take place. Rav Saadyah gaon explains the words על פי שנים עדים או על פי שלשה עדים to mean that the testimony of the two witnesses must be submitted to no fewer than three judges. [This has not been found in Rav Saadyah gaon’s writings, and in my edition of Ibn Ezra, he does not attribute it to him, but to some unnamed scholars. Ed.] Nachmanides questions the validity of such an interpretation seeing that the text does not remotely refer to the people who are supposed to accept this testimony and to act upon it. Besides, seeing that the Torah discusses capital offences, we have a rule that no court composed of fewer than 23 judges may deal with cases involving capital punishment. The plain meaning of the text, according to Nachmanides, is that if there are no more than 2 eye witnesses to the offence mentioned, this suffices to hand down a death penalty, provided the testimony of the two witnesses is above reproach. Some commentators say that the meaning of the verse is that if one set of two witnesses contradicts what a set of three witnesses testifies, two of the testimonies cancel each other out and the remaining witness is decisive. This works either in favour of the accused or against him or her..

None are liable as “conspiring witnesses” unless all are convicted as conspirators. You might ask, why does Rashi write, “And none are liable, etc.”? He should have written, “Hence none are liable, etc.,” because he is explaining what came before! The answer is that this is what Rashi means: Just as two “comprise a single testimony entity” and if one of them was found to be a relative or personally disqualified, their testimony [of both] is disqualified, so too, three “comprise a single testimony entity” and if one of them was found to be a relative or personally disqualified, their whole testimony is disqualified. [Rashi then concludes:] And also, “none are liable as conspiring witnesses unless all are convicted as conspirators.” I.e., just as two are not liable as conspiring witnesses until they are both found liable, so too, three are not liable as conspiring witnesses until all three of them are found liable.

V. 6. על פי שנים עדים וגו׳. Sanhedrin 37 b wird zuerst auf unseren Text hingewiesen, um darzutun, dass überhaupt nur auf Grund von Augenzeugen der verbrecherischen Tat eine gerichtliche Prozedur möglich sei und dass ein Indizienbeweis אומד, selbst wenn er fast eine Gewissheit begründet, wie der dortige Vorgang als Beispiel dient, in keinem Falle zu einem richterlichen Einschreiten genügt.

או שלשה עדים, “or three witnesses.” Seeing that in Exodus 23,2, the Torah had decreed that a majority opinion in disputes is to be accepted, it was necessary to tell us that when it comes to testimony, numbers do not count. In practice this means that if one of the three witnesses in litigation has been found as not trustworthy according to Jewish law, we do not use the fact that the remaining two witnesses are trustworthy as believable, seeing that they form a majority. The entire testimony is declared as null and void because one of the witnesses was disqualified. The same applies if there were 100 witnesses and only one of them was disqualified. If however, two witnesses had come forward concerning a certain court-case, and some relatives of the accused wanted to join these two witnesses,-presumably in order to make the two witnesses useless,- this is not allowed as the relatives had never meant to accuse their kin in the first place of the sin he is accused of. Unless we applied this rule, we would never find two qualified witnesses that could testify to the validity of a marriage ceremony. There are always numerous relatives of the couple present, and anyone could succeed in invalidating that marriage if he so chose.

Es heißt ferner: על פי שנים או שלשה עדים יומת המת, und ist es klar, dass, nachdem das Gesetz zwei Zeugen für hinreichend erklärt, ein dritter Zeuge, wie überhaupt eine größere Anzahl von Zeugen weder notwendig noch hindernd sein kann, vielmehr will nach Mackot 5 b die Beifügung: oder drei Zeugen, feststellen, einerseits: dass die Glaubwürdigkeit einer Zeugenaussage nicht mit der Zahl der Zeugen wachse, sondern zweien Zeugen ganz dieselbe Beweiskraft wie dreien und hunderten innewohne und zwei Zeugen hunderten gegenüber treten können; andererseits: obgleich zwei Zeugen vollkommen genügen, dennoch eine größere zu einem Zeugnis vereinigte Anzahl, ebenso wie zwei also eine einzige unteilbare Einheit bilden, dass auch bei dreien und mehreren Zeugen die הזמה-strafrechtliche Folge (siehe Kapitel 19, 19) für jeden nur eintritt, wenn sie alle des הזמה-Verbrechens überführt worden; dass auch der dritte und folgende, an sich überflüssige Zeuge, wie die beiden erstvernommenen die הזמה-Folge zu tragen hat, und dass endlich, wenn unter dreien, ja hunderten zu einem Zeugnis vereinigten Zeugen auch nur einer durch Verwandtschaft oder sonstigen Mangel untüchtig zum Zeugen befunden wird, das ganze Zeugnis ebenso nichtig ist, als ob von zwei Zeugen einer untüchtig befunden. על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים יומת המת אם מתקיימת העדות בשנים למה פרט הכתוב בשלשה אלא להקיש שנים לשלשה מה שלשה מזימין את השנים אף השנים יזימו את השלשה ומנין אפילו מאה ת׳׳ל עדים ר׳ שמעון אומר מה שנים אינן נהרגין עד שיהיו שניהם זוממים אף שלשה אינן נהרגין עד שיהיו שלשתן זוממין ומנין אפילו מאה ת׳׳ל עדים ר׳ע אומר לא בא השלישי להקל אלא להחמיר עליו ולעשות דינו כיוצא באלו וכו׳ ומה שנים נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול עדותן בטלה אף שלשה נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול עדותן בטלה מנין אפילו מאה תלמוד לומר עדים (מכות ה׳ ב׳).

(Dies ת׳׳ל עדים אפילו מאה scheint für das Verständnis unseres Textes zu ergeben: Hieße es: על פי שנים או שלשה עדים, auf den Ausspruch zweier oder dreier Zeugen, so wäre mit der Zahl: drei die gleichstellende Bestimmung geschlossen und wäre man nicht berechtigt, weiter zu gehen. על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים lässt aber שלשה עדים ebenso wie שנים עדים nur den Anfang einer ins infinitum fortschreitenden Reihe beginnen.)

יומת המת, “he that has to die shall be executed;” we find similar constructions in Genesis 48,21, concerning Yaakov and Joseph, הנה אנכי מת, “here I am dead;” and in Deuteronomy 31,27, where Moses describes a situation after his death,ואף גם אחרי מותי, “and also after my death.”

Über die Momente, welche die korporative Einheit mehrerer Zeugen einer Rechtssache mit den hier bezeichneten Folgen bedingen, ob die gleichzeitige Wahrnehmung mit Zeugenabsicht (ראיה), oder die gleichzeitige Aussage (הגדה), ob jedes dieser Momente für sich oder nur beide zusammen, darüber gehen die Auffassungen auseinander. Bei Fällen, in welchen die Wahrnehmung von Zeugen gar nicht zu einer gerichtlichen Aussage führen soll, sondern die Rechtsgültigkeit eines Aktes, wie קדושין und גטין (siehe zu Kap. 24, 1) durch die Gegenwart zweier tüchtiger Zeugen bedingt ist, da ist es jedenfalls geboten, durch spezielle Bestellung zweier Zeugen von unanfechtbarer Zeugentüchtigkeit zu dem Akte alle anderen auszuschließen, damit durch die etwaige Gegenwart von Verwandten oder sonstigen zum Zeugnis Untüchtigen die Rechtsgültigkeit des Aktes nicht zweifelhaft gemacht werden könne (siehe תוספו׳ daselbst und Ch. M. Kap. 36).

לא יומת על פי עד אחד, “he must not be executed on the basis of the testimony of only one witness.” If you were to ask what news this verse contains, after all a single witness cannot bring about a conviction even if the case involves only a possible fine! [something reversible if proven to have been based on a false testimony. Ed.] How much more impossible is it to convict someone of a capital crime based on the testimony of only one witness! We would have to answer that seeing that the crime carrying a death penalty is so severe, surely the testimony of one witness is sufficient, if the penalty is to be a deterrent. The Torah does not accept this kind of reasoning and insists on at least two eye witnesses.והוגד לך ושמעת, since in verse 4 the Torah had written that the commission of the crime of idolatry had been so well known that you had heard about it, and it had been accepted as fact, the Torah insists that this is not the basis of convicting someone.[One of the reasons that the Torah insists on this is that even if no witnesses were prepared to testify to what they are known to have seen, G-d will punish the accused sinner for what he did, even if a panel of human judges was unable to do so for technical reasons. Ed.]

יומת המת daran, dass hier der Verbrecher bereits vor der Hinrichtung, ja vor der Verurteilung, da es sich erst um das Zeugenvernehmen handelt, מת genannt wird, knüpft sich (Sanhedrin 41 a) die bereits oben (zu V. 2) erwähnte Halacha, dass im Momente der Tat nicht nur das Verbot, sondern auch die darauf erfolgende Todesstrafe müsse vorgehalten worden sein und er ausdrücklich unter solcher eventueller Voraussetzung das Verbrechen begangen habe, התיר עצמו למיתה. Er trägt also schon ein vollendetes Todesurteil, indem er vor Gericht erscheint, und die Aufgabe des Gerichtes ist vielmehr zu untersuchen, ob sein Fall keine freisprechenden Gründe zulässt, ושפטו העדה והצילו העדה (Bamidbar 35, 24-25 sowie Jeschurun Jahrgang XII). Berachot 18b wird auch auf diesen Ausdruck zur Begründung des Spruches hingewiesen, dass רשעים בחייהן קרויין מתים, dass während der Gerechte selbst im Tode noch lebend heißt, Bösewichter schon im Leben "tot" zu nennen seien; ein verbrecherisches Dasein entspricht dem Begriffe "Leben" nicht.

לא יומת על פי עד אחד. Nachdem bereits durch die Bestimmung על פי שנים ׳וגו die Zulässigkeit eines Zeugen verneint ist, wird nach Mackot 6 b durch den ferneren Ausspruch: לא יומת על פי עד אחד auch schon das bloß vereinzelte Zeugnis, עדות מיוחדת ausgeschlossen. Es genügt nicht, dass überhaupt das Verbrechen von zwei zeugenfähigen Menschen wahrgenommen worden, es müssen die beiden im Augenblicke der Wahrnehmung auch gegenseitig voneinander Bewusstsein haben, es jeder im Momente der Wahrnehmung wissen, dass er nicht allein Zeuge des Vorganges sei, sie müssen sich einander sehen, oder durch einen dritten, der den Verbrecher warnt und den sie beide sehen oder (nach רמ׳׳בם: und) der sie beide sieht, zu einem Zeugenkörper verbunden werden. Sonst bleiben sie עדות מיוחדת, vereinzelt im Zeugnis und können nicht zusammen als Zeugen auftreten. שנים רואים אותו אחד מחלון זה ואחד מחלון זה ואין רואין זה את זה אין מצטרפות אם היו רואין את המתרה או (גי׳ הרמבם והמתרה) עדות מיוחדת .המתרה רואה אותן מצטרפין ist nur in kriminalrechtlichen Fällen, nicht aber בדיני ממונות untauglich (daselbst).

In dem Ausdruck על פי שנים עדים liegt nach Mackot (daselbst) zugleich die Weisung, dass der Gerichtshof die Aussage unmittelbar aus dem Munde der Zeugen vernehme, somit die Sprache der Zeugen verstehen müsse, nicht aber sich dazu eines Dolmetschers bedienen dürfe, שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן. Sprechen braucht der Gerichtshof die Sprache der Zeugen nicht zu können und kann seine Mitteilungen an die Zeugen durch einen Dolmetscher vermitteln (daselbst).

Siehe ferneres über die Institution der Zeugen (zu Kap. 19, 15).