פרשת שופטים תש"ו - הלכות שונות

primogenitors those who parceled out the land. This passage is juxtaposed to the previous one because land encroachment leads to arguments, to blows, and to murder. Accordingly, Scripture says later on, “a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth…” [: 21]. Moreover, someone who accuses his fellow of encroaching on his property must bring witnesses, hence the passage one witness will not stand — whether testifying against a murderer, or a batterer, or an encroacher upon property, or anything else. the testimony of two [Hebrew: shney] witnesses Here Scripture employs the short form of the word. Elsewhere, Scripture reads “the testimony of two [Hebrew: shnayim] witnesses” [17: 6].

Moreover, someone who accuses his fellow of encroaching on his property must bring witnesses, hence the passage one witness will not stand — whether testifying against a murderer, or a batterer, or an encroacher upon property, or anything else. the testimony of two [Hebrew: shney] witnesses Here Scripture employs the short form of the word. Elsewhere, Scripture reads “the testimony of two [Hebrew: shnayim] witnesses” [17: 6].

But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die; and he flee into one of these cities;

וכי יהיה איש שנא לרעהו BUT IF A MAN HATE HIS FELLOW [AND LIE IN WAIT FOR HIM] — It is through his hatred that he comes to such a point as to “lie in wait for him”. From here they (the Rabbis) derived their statement: If a man transgresses a light command he will in the end transgress a weighty command; — because he transgressed the command (Leviticus 19:17) “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart”, he will in the end come to such a point as to shed blood. It is for this reason that it is stated here, apparently redundantly, “but if a man hate his fellow [and lie in wait for him]”, for it ought to have written only: “But if a man rise up and lie in wait for his fellow and smite him mortally” (Sifrei Devarim 186:2).

Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the blood of the innocent from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the blood of the innocent from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set, in thine inheritance which thou shalt inherit, in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.

לא תסיג גבול THOU SHALT NOT REMOVE [THY FELLOW-MAN’S] LANDMARK — תסיג is of the same meaning as (Isaiah 42:17) “they are turned back (נסגו אחור)”. The meaning is, that one moves the mark that shows the division of the land (i.e. the division between two adjoining fields) backwards into the field of his neighbour in order thereby to enlarge his own. — But does it not already state. (Leviticus 19:13) “Thou shalt not rob”, why, then, is it also commanded “Thou shalt not remove the landmark”? It teaches that one who obliterates his neighbour’s border line transgresses two negative commands (לא תגזול and לא תסיג). One might think that this is the case also if one does so outside the Land of Israel! Scripture, however, states, “in thine inheritance which thou shalt inherit [in the land]”;— thus in the Land of Israel one who does this transgresses two negative commands, whilst outside the Land he transgresses only the command of לא תגזול (Sifrei Devarim 188:1-2).

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be establishment

על פי שני עדים [AT THE MOUTH OF TWO WITNESSES ... SHALL THE MATTER BE ESTABLISHED] — at their mouth, but not that they may write their evidence down in a letter and send it to the court, nor that an interpreter stand between the witnesses and the judges (Sifrei Devarim 188:10).