"the two men": This tells me only of men (as being required to stand). Whence do I derive (the same for) a man (contending with) a woman; a woman with a man; two women with each other? From "who have the contention" — in any event. If so, why is it written "men"?
Because it is written (Ibid. 15) "By word of two witnesses, etc.", I might think that a woman, too, may testify; it is, therefore, written here, "two," and there "two." Just as "two" here are "men," and not women, so, "two" there.
"before the Cohanim and the judges who shall be in those days": This is as R. Yossi Haglili said: Would it enter your mind that they (should stand before) a judge who is not in your days! (The reference is) rather, to (a judge) who had been kin (to one of the litigants [e.g., married to his sister, in which instance he would not be fit for judging his case]), and who had become "distant" (by her death — his present status [thus, "in your days"] permitting him to judge the case.) Variantly: (The reference is) to one who was certified (to judge you) in those days, in keeping with (Koheleth 7:10) "Do not say: What has happened that the former days were better than these, etc."
(Devarim 19:18) "And the judges shall inquire well. And elsewhere, (Ibid. 13:15) "And you shall inquire, and you shall search out, and you shall ask well," and elsewhere (Ibid. 17:4) "And it be told to you, and you hear, and you shall search it out well" — "well" - "well," for an identity (gezeirah shavah ). We are hereby taught that he is subject to seven inquiries (chakiroth, cross-examinations). Whence is it derived that there are also bedikoth ("examinations," factual review)? From (Ibid.) "and, behold, true and correct is the thing." Whence is it derived (that through his testimony) he is branded as "false"? From (Ibid. 19:18) "and, behold, a false witness is the witness."
Whence is it derived that (through his testimony) he brands his neighbor (witness) as "false"? From (Ibid.) "'false' has he testified against his brother."
I might think that even if their testimony has been cross-examined (and accepted) in beth-din (and other witnesses come to refute the refuters, that the latter are rendered "edimzomemin"); it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "And the judges inquire well, and behold, (i.e., the case is "closed") — (The first refuters are detained) only so long as beth-din needs them, and not after their testimony has been cross-examined in beth-din. "a witness" — two (i.e., the minimum of "witness" is two); "the witness" — even one hundred.
(Ibid. 19:19) "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother": If money (i.e., if he schemed to make his brother liable for money), money (i.e., then he pays money); if stripes, stripes; if (other) punishments, punishments.
We "hear" the punishments (for edimzomemin.) Where do we find the exhortation (against it)? In (Shemoth 20:13) "you shall not testify against your neighbor false testimony."
"to do to his brother": From here they ruled: Edimzomemin are not killed unless the verdict has been pronounced (to kill the defendant). For the Sadducees were wont to say: Scheming witnesses are not killed unless the defendant is killed, it being written (Ibid. 21) "a soul for a soul" — to which the sages replied: But is it not written "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother" — but his brother is (still) living? If so, why is it written "a soul for a soul"? For I might think that they are killed as soon as their (the refuters') testimony is accepted. It is, therefore, written "a soul for a soul" — they are not killed unless the verdict has been pronounced (to kill the defendant).
R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother"? We find in all the (capital) punishments of the Torah that the penalty of the man is like that of the woman, and that of the edimzomemin like theirs. But in the instance of one who fornicated with the daughter of a Cohein, the penalty of the man is not the same as that of the woman, that of the man being strangulation, and that of the woman, burning. But we have not heard what is to be done with their zomemin (in such an instance). It is, therefore, written "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother." As the death of his brother is his death, and not as the death of his sister.
And whence is it derived that one who shamed another pays money? It is written here (19:21) "your eyes shall not pity," and elsewhere (in an instance of shaming) (Ibid. 25:12) "your eyes shall not pity." Just as here monetary payment (is being referred to), so, there, monetary payment.
R. Yehudah says: It is written here (19:21) "hand" and "foot," and elsewhere (Shemoth 21:24) "hand" and "foot." Just as "hand" and "foot" here refer to monetary payment, so, "hand" and "foot" there.
R. Yossi Haglili says: Whence is it derived that one should not go out to war unless he has hands, feet, eyes, and teeth? From (the juxtaposition of (19:21) "Your eyes shall not pity; a soul for a soul, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" with (20:1) "when you go out to war against your foes."
"horse and chariot": Now do they have only one horse? Is it not written "a great host"? (The meaning is that) when Israel do the L-rd's will, they are all reckoned as one horse. Similarly, (Shemoth 15:1) "Horse and its rider He has cast into the sea." Was there only one horse? Is it not written (Ibid. 14:7) "And he (Pharaoh) took six hundred choice, chariots, etc."? (The meaning is that) when Israel do the L-rd's will, they are all reckoned as one horse. (Devarim, Ibid.)
"Do not fear them, for the L-rd your G-d is with you, who brought you up from the land of Egypt": He who brought you up from the land of Egypt will stand up for you in a time of trouble.
(דברים יט יז) וְעָמְדוּ, הַדַּיָּנִים יוֹשְׁבִים וּבַעֲלֵי דִינִים עוֹמְדִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר: אַזְהָרָה לְבַעַל דִּין, שֶׁלֹּא יַשְׁמִיעַ דְּבָרָיו לַדַּיָּן קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּבֹא בַּעַל דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ. וְעָמְדוּ – מִצְוָה בַּנִּדּוֹנִים שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ.
(Devarim 19:17) "Then the two men shall stand": It is a mitzvah for the litigants to stand.
שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים; אִישׁ עִם אִשָּׁה, וְאִשָּׁה עִם אִישׁ, שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים זוֹ עִם זוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם הָרִיב״, מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
"the two men": This tells me only of men (as being required to stand). Whence do I derive (the same for) a man (contending with) a woman; a woman with a man; two women with each other? From "who have the contention" — in any event. If so, why is it written "men"?
יָכוֹל אַף אִשָּׁה תְּהֵא כְּשֵׁרָה לְעֵדוּת? – נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״שְׁנֵי״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (דברים יט טו) ״שְׁנֵי״, מַה שְׁנֵי הָאָמוּר כָּאן, אֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא נָשִׁים – אַף שְׁנֵי הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן אֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא נָשִׁים.
Because it is written (Ibid. 15) "By word of two witnesses, etc.", I might think that a woman, too, may testify; it is, therefore, written here, "two," and there "two." Just as "two" here are "men," and not women, so, "two" there.
אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם הָרִיב, יָבוֹא בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר וְיַעֲמֹד עַל שׁוֹרוֹ.
"who have the contention": Let the owner of the (disputed) ox come and stand by his ox.
לִפְנֵי ה׳ – הֵם סְבוּרִים לִפְנֵי בָּשָׂר וָדָם הֵם עוֹמְדִים, וְאֵינָם אֶלָּא לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם!
"before the L-rd": They think they are standing before flesh and blood — they are standing before the L-rd!
לִפְנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַשּׁוֹפְטִים אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: וְכִי עָלְתָה עַל דַּעְתֵּנוּ שׁוֹפֵט שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְיָמֶיךָ? אֶלָּא שׁוֹפֵט שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר וּמֻחְזָק לְךָ בְּאוֹתָם הַיָּמִים. הָיָה קָרוֹב וְנִתְרַחֵק – כָּשֵׁר, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (קהלת ז י): ״אַל תֹּאמַר מֶה הָיָה״.
"before the Cohanim and the judges who shall be in those days": This is as R. Yossi Haglili said: Would it enter your mind that they (should stand before) a judge who is not in your days! (The reference is) rather, to (a judge) who had been kin (to one of the litigants [e.g., married to his sister, in which instance he would not be fit for judging his case]), and who had become "distant" (by her death — his present status [thus, "in your days"] permitting him to judge the case.) Variantly: (The reference is) to one who was certified (to judge you) in those days, in keeping with (Koheleth 7:10) "Do not say: What has happened that the former days were better than these, etc."
(דברים יט יח) וְדָרְשׁוּ הַשֹּׁפְטִים הֵיטֵב, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים יז ד): ״וְהֻגַּד לְךָ וְשָׁמַעְתָּ וְדָרַשְׁתָּ הֵיטֵב״ – הֵיטֵב הֵיטֵב לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבּוֹדְקִים אוֹתוֹ בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חֲקִירוֹת, בְּדִיקוֹת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים יג טו): ״וְהִנֵּה אֱמֶת נָכוֹן הַדָּבָר״.
(Devarim 19:18) "And the judges shall inquire well. And elsewhere, (Ibid. 13:15) "And you shall inquire, and you shall search out, and you shall ask well," and elsewhere (Ibid. 17:4) "And it be told to you, and you hear, and you shall search it out well" — "well" - "well," for an identity (gezeirah shavah ). We are hereby taught that he is subject to seven inquiries (chakiroth, cross-examinations). Whence is it derived that there are also bedikoth ("examinations," factual review)? From (Ibid.) "and, behold, true and correct is the thing." Whence is it derived (that through his testimony) he is branded as "false"? From (Ibid. 19:18) "and, behold, a false witness is the witness."
מִנַּיִן שֶׁהָעֵד עוֹשֶׂה עַצְמוֹ שַׁקָּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְהִנֵּה עֵד שֶׁקֶר הָעֵד.
Whence is it derived that (through his testimony) he brands his neighbor (witness) as "false"? From (Ibid.) "'false' has he testified against his brother."
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ שַׁקָּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְהִנֵּה עֵד שֶׁקֶר הָעֵד. יָכוֹל אַף מִשֶּׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָם בְּבֵית דִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שֶׁקֶר עָנָה בְאָחִיו. אֱמֹר מֵעַתָּה: כָּל זְמַן שֶׁבֵּית דִּין צְרִיכִים לָהֶם, וְלֹא מִשֶּׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָם בְּבֵית דִּין. כְּשֶׁתִּמְצָא אוֹמֵר זוֹמֵם מִזּוֹמֵם וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵם מֵאָה.
I might think that even if their testimony has been cross-examined (and accepted) in beth-din (and other witnesses come to refute the refuters, that the latter are rendered "edim zomemin"); it is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "And the judges inquire well, and behold, (i.e., the case is "closed") — (The first refuters are detained) only so long as beth-din needs them, and not after their testimony has been cross-examined in beth-din. "a witness" — two (i.e., the minimum of "witness" is two); "the witness" — even one hundred.
(דברים יט יט) וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו, אִם מָמוֹן – מָמוֹן; אִם מַכּוֹת – מַכּוֹת; אִם עוֹנָשִׁים – עוֹנָשִׁים.
(Ibid. 19:19) "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother": If money (i.e., if he schemed to make his brother liable for money), money (i.e., then he pays money); if stripes, stripes; if (other) punishments, punishments.
עֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ, אַזְהָרָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר [(שמות כ יג): ״לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר״].
We "hear" the punishments (for edim zomemin.) Where do we find the exhortation (against it)? In (Shemoth 20:13) "you shall not testify against your neighbor false testimony."
וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ, מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: אֵין עֵדִים זוֹמְמִים נֶהֱרָגִים עַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין, שֶׁהֲרֵי צַדּוּקִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁיֵּהָרֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יט כא): ״נֶפֶשׁ בְּנֶפֶשׁ״.
"to do to his brother": From here they ruled: Edim zomemin are not killed unless the verdict has been pronounced (to kill the defendant). For the Sadducees were wont to say: Scheming witnesses are not killed unless the defendant is killed, it being written (Ibid. 21) "a soul for a soul" — to which the sages replied: But is it not written "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother" — but his brother is (still) living? If so, why is it written "a soul for a soul"? For I might think that they are killed as soon as their (the refuters') testimony is accepted. It is, therefore, written "a soul for a soul" — they are not killed unless the verdict has been pronounced (to kill the defendant).
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו? לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּכָל עוֹנָשִׁים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁהִשְׁוָה מִיתַת הָאִישׁ לְמִיתַת הָאִשָּׁה – וְזוֹמְמֵיהֶם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶם. אֲבָל בַּת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ – לֹא הִשְׁוָה מִיתַת הָאִישׁ לְמִיתַת הָאִשָּׁה, אֶלָּא מִיתַת הָאִישׁ בְּחֶנֶק וּמִיתַת הָאִשָּׁה בִּשְׂרֵפָה. אֲבָל זוֹמְמִים, לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ מַה יֵּעָשֶׂה לָהֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו – כְּמִיתַת אָחִיו מִיתָתוֹ, וְלֹא כְּמִיתַת אֲחוֹתוֹ!
R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother"? We find in all the (capital) punishments of the Torah that the penalty of the man is like that of the woman, and that of the edim zomemin like theirs. But in the instance of one who fornicated with the daughter of a Cohein, the penalty of the man is not the same as that of the woman, that of the man being strangulation, and that of the woman, burning. But we have not heard what is to be done with their zomemin (in such an instance). It is, therefore, written "Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother." As the death of his brother is his death, and not as the death of his sister.
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהַמְבַיֵּשׁ מְשַׁלֵּם מָמוֹן? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן (דברים יט כא) ״לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ״ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (דברים כה יב) ״לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ״, מַה ״לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן – מָמוֹן, אַף ״לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ״ הָאָמוּר כָּאן – מָמוֹן.
And whence is it derived that one who shamed another pays money? It is written here (19:21) "your eyes shall not pity," and elsewhere (in an instance of shaming) (Ibid. 25:12) "your eyes shall not pity." Just as here monetary payment (is being referred to), so, there, monetary payment.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״יָד וְרֶגֶל״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (שמות כא כד) ״יָד וְרֶגֶל״, מַה ״יָד וְרֶגֶל״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן – מָמוֹן, אַף ״יָד וְרֶגֶל״ הָאָמוּר כָּאן – מָמוֹן.
R. Yehudah says: It is written here (19:21) "hand" and "foot," and elsewhere (Shemoth 21:24) "hand" and "foot." Just as "hand" and "foot" here refer to monetary payment, so, "hand" and "foot" there.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ לוֹ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם וְעֵינַיִם וְשִׁנַּיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים יט כא-כ א): לֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ נֶפֶשׁ בְּנֶפֶשׁ וְג׳ כִּי תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה.
R. Yossi Haglili says: Whence is it derived that one should not go out to war unless he has hands, feet, eyes, and teeth? From (the juxtaposition of (19:21) "Your eyes shall not pity; a soul for a soul, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" with (20:1) "when you go out to war against your foes."
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּמִלְחֶמֶת מִצְוָה, אֲבָל בְּמִלְחֶמֶת חוֹבָה הַכֹּל יוֹצְאִים, אֲפִלּוּ (יואל ב טז) ״חָתָן מֵחַדְרוֹ וְכַלָּה מֵחֻפָּתָהּ״. [(דברים כ א) סוּס וָרֶכֶב,] כְּשֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂים רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם – כָּל הַגּוֹיִם נַעֲשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם כְּסוּס אֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות טו א): ״סוּס וְרֹכְבוֹ רָמָה בַיָּם״. וְכִי סוּס אֶחָד הָיָה כו׳.
(Devarim 20:1) "when you go out to war against your foes": Scripture here speaks of a non-obligatory (optional) war.
כִּי תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל אוֹיְבֶיךָ – בְּמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
"against your foes": (Remember that) it is against your foes that you are warring.
עַל אוֹיְבֶיךָ – כְּנֶגֶד אוֹיְבֶיךָ אַתָּה נִלְחָם.
"and you see horse and chariot": Just as they go out against you with horse and chariot, so, you go out against them with horse and chariot.
וְרָאִיתָ סוּס וָרֶכֶב, מָה הֵם יוֹצְאִים עָלֶיךָ בְּסוּס וָרֶכֶב – אַף אַתָּה צֵא עֲלֵיהֶם בְּסוּס וָרֶכֶב. מָה הֵם יוֹצְאִים עָלֶיךָ בְּעַם רַב – אַף אַתָּה צֵא עֲלֵיהֶם בְּעַם רַב.
"horse and chariot": Now do they have only one horse? Is it not written "a great host"? (The meaning is that) when Israel do the L-rd's will, they are all reckoned as one horse. Similarly, (Shemoth 15:1) "Horse and its rider He has cast into the sea." Was there only one horse? Is it not written (Ibid. 14:7) "And he (Pharaoh) took six hundred choice, chariots, etc."? (The meaning is that) when Israel do the L-rd's will, they are all reckoned as one horse. (Devarim, Ibid.)
לֹא תִירָא מֵהֶם כִּי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ עִמָּךְ הַמַּעַלְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם, מִי שֶׁהֶעֱלָךְ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם הוּא עִמָּךְ בְּעֵת צָרָה.
"Do not fear them, for the L-rd your G-d is with you, who brought you up from the land of Egypt": He who brought you up from the land of Egypt will stand up for you in a time of trouble.