Powtórzonego Prawa 19:16 Odniesienia do Talmudu: Jerusalem Talmud Makkot, Jerusalem Talmud Gittin, Makkot & Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

MISHNAH: How are plotting witnesses treated¹It is one of the Ten Commandments not to testify falsely. In addition, Deut. 19:16–20 prescribes that a “plotting” false witness has to be punished by the penalty which would have been imposed on his victim had his testimony been found true. By rabbinic definition, a “plotting” witness is one whose testimony not only is false but shown to be impossible, in that there are witnesses to the fact that he testified to be eye witness of a fact which he could not have seen since at the time it was supposed to have happened he was at another place (Sanhedrin Chapter 5, Note 3). There are cases when plotting perjury is proven but the penalty cannot be imposed. Then the false witness must be punished for breaking the Eighth Commandment, which is the standard punishment decreed for breaking any prohibition for which the penalty was not specified, fixed in Deut. 25:3 as at most 40 lashes (which, because the court marshal might err in his count, is limited to 39 lashes).
The Babli (2b) disagrees with this explanation; it classifies simple perjury as “actionless crime” for which no penalty is possible; this clearly is not the Yerushalmi’s position (cf. Ketubot 4:4 Note 196.)? “We testify about this man that he is the son of a divorcee or a woman who had received ḥalîṣah²The son of a Cohen from a woman he is prohibited from marrying (Lev. 21:7,14) is desecrated; he cannot function as a priest and the priestly revenues are forbidden to him. The divorcee is biblically forbidden to the Cohen. The widow receiving halîsah from the former husband’s brother is forbidden rabbinically; her son is rabbinically desecrated, which for practical consequences does not make any difference.” One does not say that he should be decreed to be the son of a divorcee or a woman who had received ḥalîṣah in his stead, but he is flogged 40 [lashes]³If the witness is not a Cohen, declaring him as son of a divorcee would not change his status at all. If he is a Cohen, declaring him as son of a divorcee would punish not only him but also his descendants, against the biblical text as explained in the Halakhah.. “We testify about this man that he is obligated to go into exile⁴The unintentional homicide (Num. 35:9–34)..” One does not say, this one should go into exile in his stead but he is flogged 40 [lashes]⁵As explained in the Halakhah, the perjurer is barred from fleeing to a city of refuge.. “We testify about this man that he divorced his wife but did not pay her ketubaḥ.⁶When in fact the woman is still married to her husband. Then the witness could be fined only if in the future the ketubah would not be paid, i. e., if the woman stayed married to her husband and predeceased him. He can be fined the current discounted expected value of such a ketubah.” Would he not finally have to pay her ketubah today or tomorrow? But one estimates how much would a man be willing to pay for the ketubah of this woman in case she would be widowed or divorced, but if she died her husband would inherit from her.

HALAKHAH: “How are plotting witnesses treated,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness. As an exception, do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor. If you can satisfy do to him as he plotted then fulfill (do not testify)⁷Text of the Leiden ms., to be deleted. [do to him as he plotted to do]⁸Text of G, to be accepted.. But if you cannot satisfy do to him as he plotted to do to his neighbor then (do not)⁷Text of the Leiden ms., to be deleted. satisfy do not testify against your neighbor¹It is one of the Ten Commandments not to testify falsely. In addition, Deut. 19:16–20 prescribes that a “plotting” false witness has to be punished by the penalty which would have been imposed on his victim had his testimony been found true. By rabbinic definition, a “plotting” witness is one whose testimony not only is false but shown to be impossible, in that there are witnesses to the fact that he testified to be eye witness of a fact which he could not have seen since at the time it was supposed to have happened he was at another place (Sanhedrin Chapter 5, Note 3). There are cases when plotting perjury is proven but the penalty cannot be imposed. Then the false witness must be punished for breaking the Eighth Commandment, which is the standard punishment decreed for breaking any prohibition for which the penalty was not specified, fixed in Deut. 25:3 as at most 40 lashes (which, because the court marshal might err in his count, is limited to 39 lashes).
The Babli (2b) disagrees with this explanation; it classifies simple perjury as “actionless crime” for which no penalty is possible; this clearly is not the Yerushalmi’s position (cf. Ketubot 4:4 Note 196.). Another explanation: Do to him, not to his descendants³If the witness is not a Cohen, declaring him as son of a divorcee would not change his status at all. If he is a Cohen, declaring him as son of a divorcee would punish not only him but also his descendants, against the biblical text as explained in the Halakhah..

If somebody contests the signature of the witnesses or the signature of the judges¹²²A debtor whose property is attached following a decree of a court in another jurisdiction claims that the document is counterfeit and the signatures of the witnesses and the judges are fake.. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he wants to certify it from the handwriting of the witnesses it is certified, from the handwriting of the judges it is certified¹²³The creditor can prove the document genuine either by proving the validity of the signatures of the witnesses or that of the judges.; I am saying¹²⁴R. Abba adds that only two signatures have to be verified; they can also be those of one witness and one judge. that even from one witness and one judge it is certified. If he gave permission to the scribe to write and to the witnesses to sign, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The witnesses have to write: “This loan is from the first of Nisan but we wrote at a later date.”¹²⁵The debtor told the scribe and witnesses to execute a document of indebtedness. If it was not written on the same day, the fact has to be noted on the document even though a postdated document is valid (only a predated one is invalid). The Babli, Baba batra 170b, confirms the statement but notes that it is not enforced. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: The confirmation of the judges is valid even if it is at some distance¹²⁶Judicial confirmation of the genuineness of a document does not have to be written immediately below the signatures of the witnesses; it can be anywhere on the document. The Babli, Baba batra 163b, forbids any space between signatures and confirmation, not even one line.. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? Could he then not certify from one handwriting¹²⁷R. Mana’s argument is that of the Babli: If there is an empty space, the creditor could insert text in between and create a fake document with genuine signatures.? Rav said: The judges have to write: We certified this in the presence of X and Y. Why? So they can be convicted of perjury¹²⁸The root זמם, used to describe perjury, really means “to devise (a plot)”. It is used in Deut. 19:16–21 to characterize the perjurer. In Talmudic theory, a wrong testimony is not usually perjured testimony; it is up to the court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Perjury is impossible testimony, i. e., the witnesses pretend to have seen things they could not have seen since they were not present at the place at the time indicated. This leads to the notion that the validity of a document could be tested only if the exact time and place of the signing were indicated in the document.. But then also on which date, at which time, at which place? A judgment was given before Rav and this was not written¹²⁹It was executed by the signatures of the judges alone.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said: The judges have to know the parties. It happened that they falsified¹³⁰A case of identity theft, where the signatures of the witnesses and the judges were all genuine but the presumed debtor gave a false identity, so that an innocent third party was hit with a decree of payment..