Komentarz do Powtórzonego Prawa 25:1

כי יהיה ריב IF THERE BE A QUARREL [BETWEEN MEN] they will in the end have to approach the judges (because of a bodily injury inflicted by one on the other, since Scripture goes on to state, “and if the wicked man be worthy of lashes”, a punishment that can only follow, in the case of a quarrel, upon one of the parties receiving a blow). You must thus come to the conclusion that nothing good can come out of a quarrel. Just think: what was it that caused Lot to leave the righteous man (Abraham)? You must admit it was a mere quarrel (cf. Genesis 13:7—11; Sifrei Devarim 286:1).

IF THERE BE A QUARREL BETWEEN MEN. According to the tradition of our Rabbis that stripes are administered to those who are guilty of having violated negative commandments³⁶⁶Makkoth 13b. [and not in civil cases, the question arises] what is its [the stripes’] connection with a quarrel between two people? He who eats n’veilah (carrion) in his home is liable to stripes! So also he who sows his field or his vineyard with diverse seeds, or he who cohabits with any of the women forbidden by a plain prohibitive law [i.e., one not involving the court-imposed death-penalty], and all the rest of the negative commandments [are all typical of the transgressions punishable by stripes. All involve negative commandments, not civil suits as is the case in the verse before us.] Additionally, what is the meaning of the phrase and they shall justify the righteous³⁶⁷In Verse 1 before us. [since a civil case does not involve questions of wickedness and righteousness]? Therefore, the Rabbis have interpreted³⁶⁸Makkoth 2b. the verse as referring to plotting witnesses. Scripture says: “In case, If there be a quarrel between two men, and they come high unto judgment and they will judge them through the testimony of two witnesses, as we have been commanded.³⁶⁹Above, 19:15. [Afterwards, two other witnesses came to court and testified that the first pair of witnesses were elsewhere at the time when the event they testified about allegedly took place. Thus the person found guilty as a result of the original testimony is shown to be ‘righteous’ while the plotting witnesses have been proven ‘wicked.’] Then the judges will justify the righteous [through the second pair of witnesses] and condemn the wicked contrary to the first judgment; then it shall be if the wicked man [i.e., the first pair of witnesses] deserve to be beaten. ”³⁷⁰Verse 2. This applies to where the command and ye shall do unto him, as he had purposed to do unto his brother³⁷¹Above, 19:19. There are cases, however, as the text continues, where this law cannot be applied, for example if they testified that a priest is the son of a divorcee, thus disqualifying him from the priesthood. If the witnesses were non-priests, that punishment is obviously inapplicable. And even if they were priests the punishment cannot be inflicted because their intent was to disqualify not only the priest himself but his offspring as well, but Scripture implicitly excludes the offspring from liability [for it says, and ye shall do unto him, but not to his offspring] as he had ‘purposed to do unto his brother.’ Therefore the witnesses are scourged for their false testimony (Makkoth 2 a-b). cannot be carried out upon them — such being the case if they testified [against a priest] that he is the son of a divorced woman [and therefore not qualified to be a ministering priest in the Sanctuary], or that he is a slave or a bastard [who is prohibited from the priesthood or from marriage to a Jew], or if they testified against someone that he transgressed one of the negative commandments [which are punishable by stripes] — in all these cases they [the plotting witnesses] are punishable by stripes.
It is possible that there be a quarrel between men resulting in stripes — such as where someone assaulted his fellow [causing a damage of] less than a perutah,³⁷²If the assault did result in a significant damage, he is liable on five counts: for injury, for pain, for medical expenses, for loss of wages, and for humiliation. The rule is that wherever the damages have a monetary value greater than a prutah [a small coin], there are no stripes. But if the damages are less than a prutah, he is punishable by stripes. (Kethuboth 32b). or that he cursed his fellow with the Name of G-d,³⁷³Shebuoth 36a. or that someone exacted a utensil necessary for the preparation of food as security for a loan, and similar cases. Scripture speaks of the common occurrence that the party to a dispute [with his fellow] will bring him to court and he will be punished with stripes because of him.
Now, the reason for the forty stripes, according to the Midrash,³⁷⁴Tanchuma (Buber), Bamidbar 28. is because he transgressed against the Torah which was given in forty days and he caused death upon himself who was formed in the forty days following conception; let him, therefore, be given forty stripes, and be freed of his punishment [of death].
I have already mentioned the subject of levirate marriage and the secret thereof, as well as of Chalitzah (the loosening of the shoe) and its reason.³⁷⁵Genesis 38:8 (Vol. I pp. 469-470).

כי יהיה ריב בין אנשים, “if an argument between two men results in their taking their case to the court;” Nachmanides writes, basing himself on a long standing tradition, that the penalty of 39 lashes is administered for deliberate transgressions of negative commandments when no specific penalty has been decreed by the Torah. Why would the Torah expand on this penalty when speaking about a fight between two people, when the same penalty is applied for people who eat meat that has not been slaughtered, or who indulge in a number of other forbidden activities? Furthermore, what law did these two people break when they engaged in a fight? The whole structure of our verse, which speaks about exonerating someone after judgment had been given and labeling the second party as “wicked” is problematic. Why do we need a verse telling us that the person found “justified” be so declared as such by the judges? Such considerations prompted our sages to understand the whole paragraph as dealing with a scenario involving a second set of witnesses appearing after initial judgment having been given. This second set of witnesses challenges the witnesses on the basis of whose testimony the guilty party has been convicted by claiming that those witnesses had been with them in a different location at the time the fight was supposed to have occurred, so that they could not have witnessed that fight at all. Normally, in such a case the first set of witnesses would be given the penalty that they had intended to be applied to their victim. (Deut. 19,19) When this is impossible, such as when they claimed that seeing the accused party was the son of a legally forbidden union and could not partake of certain privileges reserved for children of legitimate unions, then the court will impose the penalty of 39 lashes, as it is impossible to change those witnesses’ legal status in the community. The judges, when reversing the conviction, will have to make a public statement that the party originally convicted of the crime in question had in fact been righteous and had remained righteous throughout. According to a homiletic approach the reason why the number of lashes is described as being “40,” (excluding the 40th), is that the guilty party had violated a commandment that Moses had been given during the 40 days he had been on Mt Sinai without food and drink. Moreover, by sinning, the guilty party had condemned himself to death as it takes 40 days in the womb of its mother for the embryo to begin to evolve into a living human being. The 40 lashes are intended to absolve the sinner from further guilt.

They will ultimately approach the court of justice, etc. Meaning: It should have [simply] said, “And the two people who have the judgment come.” This indicates that the verse is saying that if men have a quarrel, they will ultimately bring it to court and be unable to reach a compromise except through judgment.

Kap. 25. VV. 1 u 2. כי יהיה ריב. Fasste man diesen Vers 1 als Vordersatz zum Vers 2 in dem Sinne: wenn zwei eine Streitsache vor Gericht haben (V. 1) und (V. 2) der eine der Schlagstrafe verfällt, so usw. so ergäbe sich eine schwer zu lösende Schwierigkeit. Die allermeisten Streitsachen vor Gericht betreffen das Mein und Dein oder Körperverletzungen. In beiden Fällen tritt מלקות, Schlagstrafe, nicht ein. Geld- oder Geldeswertleistung oder Entschädigung in Geld ist der Gegenstand der Klage, wie ja auch bei Körperverletzungen Schmot 21, 18 f. ausgesprochen; für מלקות, Schlagstrafe, ist aber keine Veranlassung. Nur in höchst seltenen Fällen könnte bei solchen Prozessen auf מלקות erkannt werden, z. B. wenn die Verwundung so geringfügig ist, פחות משוה פרוטה, dass auf gerichtlichen Ersatz nicht erkannt werden kann (Ketubot 32 b), oder allenfalls bei Übertretung des Pfändungsverbotes (Kap. 24 b), wenn dasselbe durch Rückgabe nicht wieder gut gemacht werden kann (B. M. 115 a; — siehe ׳תוספו daselbst und ל׳׳מ zu הל׳ מלוח ולוה רמב׳׳ם II, 2). Es wäre aber kaum denkbar, dass das Gesetz die Lehre über מלקות-Strafe an so seltene Ausnahmsfälle knüpfen sollte.

והרשיעו את הרשע THEY SHALL CONDEMN THE WICKED — One might think that all who are found guilty in a law-suit are punished with lashes; Scripture, however, goes on to state, והיה אם בן הכות הרשע AND IT SHALL BE, IF THE WICKED MAN BE WORTHY TO BE BEATEN, [… THAT THE JUDGE SHALL SMITE HIM] — “if”: you learn, therefore, that sometimes he receives lashes and sometimes he does not receive lashes. Who it is that may be punished with lashes can be learnt from the context: (v. 4) “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn” — which is לאו שלא נתק לעשה a prohibition which is not attached to a positive command (cf. Sifrei Devarim 286:4; Makkot 13b).

“Should the wicked one deserve flogging” (בן הכות), etc. Like its Targum [בר חיבא לאלקאה, that בן means “son”]. Some explain that it is an expression of בינה, understanding, because the person must have discernment. This excludes a deaf person, an insane person, or a minor. Some explain that it refers to the judge. I.e., if the judge understands that the person transgressed and deserves flogging (I found this interpretation).

Sehen wir aber die Stellung, in welcher hier die Bestimmung über die -מלקותStrafe vorkommt, und den engen Zusammenhang, in welchem sie mit dem unmittelbar darauf in einen Absatz ausgesprochenen לא תחסום וגו׳ zusammen gefasst ist, so dürfte wohl — wie uns scheint — die Tendenz dieser Lehre hier überall nicht sowohl auf die Bestimmung der מלקות-Strafe, als auf deren Begrenzung gerichtet sein, so dass, wie in den vorangehenden Gesetzen, eine rücksichtsvolle Milde gegen sozial gedrückte Menschen, und in dem unmittelbar folgenden לא תחסום eine rücksichtsvolle Behandlung selbst eines uns dienenden Tieres gefordert wird, so hier gegen einen durch verbrecherische Empörung gegen das Gesetz momentan zum Tier herabgesunkenen und demgemäß zu züchtigenden Menschen eine vom Gericht zu übende schonende Rücksicht geboten wird.

A negative commandment unattached to a positive commandment. But if it is attached to a positive commandment, one is not flogged. The same applies to a negative commandment that involves no physical action, or that is subject to warning of death by court, or that is subject to financial restitution, or a general negative commandment that includes many things, as stated in maseches Makos (13a).

Demgemäß — glauben wir — steht Vers 1 vielmehr in einem sehr zu beachtenden Gegensatz zu Vers 2. Vers 1 spricht, wie ja auch der Wortlaut ergibt, von דיני ממונות, von Mein- und Deinstreitigkeiten, mit welchen Kläger und Verklagter vor Gericht treten, auf dass das Gericht Recht zwischen ihnen spreche. Da haben sie — wie das ja schon wiederholt zur Pflicht gemacht ist (Wajikra 19, 15 und Dewarim 1, 17) — rücksichtslos Recht zu sprechen, da ist das והצדיקו את הצדיק des einen durch das והרשיעו את הרשע des andern bedingt, da kann man nicht eine Schonung des einen eintreten lassen, ohne dem Rechte des andern zu nahe zu treten, da muss der Richter das Recht in äußerster Schärfe zum Ausspruch bringen.

Allein, wo es sich nicht um den Rechtsanspruch des einen an den andern handelt, wo nur das Verhalten eines Angeklagten gegen das Gesetz in Frage steht, und auf eine Disziplinarstrafe zu erkennen ist, als welche wir die מלקות-Institution bereits zu Wajikra 19, 20 erkannt haben, da zieht allerdings das Gesetz dem Gerichte Schranken und statuiert innerhalb derselben eine durchaus individuell zu bemessende Behandlung.

והיה אם בן הכות הרשע. Diese hypothetische Fassung setzt die bereits — wie ja das ganze Gesetz — mündlich festgestellte Institution der מלקות-Strafe voraus und wird hier nur, wie bereits bemerkt, im Zusammenhange mit dem Vor- und Nachfolgenden, die rücksichtsvolle Beschränkung des Gerichts hervorgehoben.

בן הכות wie בן הכות .יהושע בן נון so auch בן מות (Sam. I. 20, 31). Der Ausdruck der Straffälligkeit mit בן dürfte die Strafe nicht als etwas Vernichtendes, vielmehr als ein solches Moment betrachten, dessen Verwirklichung die ganze moralische Fortexistenz des Verbrechers, sei es sühnend oder erziehend, bedingt. Er ist fortan nur ein "Sohn" der Strafe. Und wenn dieser Ausdruck im Gesetze nur hier bei der מלקותStrafe vorkommt, so dürfte dies nur umsomehr begründet sein, da, wie bereits im Wajikra (daselbst) bemerkt, dies die einzige Strafe ist, welche disziplinärer Natur ist, und dem Bestraften auch noch eine gesühnte physische Fortexistenz eröffnet (siehe zu Vers 3). Ähnlich kommt dieser Ausdruck auch in Verbindung mit Charaktereigentümlichkeiten vor: בן בליעל ,בן עולה ,בן חיל und dürfte auch dort den Charakterzug des Guten oder Schlechten nicht als eine Akzidenz, sondern als ein solches Moment bezeichnen, das die ganze Persönlichkeit beherrscht, von welchem der Mensch in der Erscheinung als das Produkt zu begreifen ist.

הפיל ,והפילו השפט ist nicht gerade ein Zubodenwerfen. ותפל מעל הגמל (B. M. 1, 24 u. 64) übersetzt Onkelos: ואתרכינת מעל גמלא, sie beugte sich vom Kamele nieder, und auch hier lehrt die Halacha, dass er vom Gerichtsdiener über eine Säule vorwärts übergebeugt wurde, כופת שתי ידיו על העמוד (Mackot 22 b; — siehe רשי׳ (daselbst).

כדי רשעתו במספר, so viel als er auf einmal vertragen kann, so viel ist für seine Verschuldung genug, und diese Zahl ist durch das Gericht sachkundig festzustellen. Die מלקות-Strafe wird Wajikra (daselbst) בקרת genannt und damit als eine der genau zu prüfenden Individualität anzupassende Disziplinarstrafe bezeichnet (siehe daselbst). Diese sachkundige Feststellung heißt אומד.