Page 5:
The Gemara asks “Who is responsible for exiles from where?” and brings a similar ruling: “A murderer is a murderer.” Why is this study actually required? After all, the previous similar ruling regarding those responsible for malakiot (“evil evil”) actually uses the verse on page 2: It was used to teach that the punishment for witnesses who conspired to punish so-and-so in exile is flogging. In particular, how does Rashi say that the verse “And they convicted the wicked” speaks of the condemned when the Gemara there concludes that it is precisely the conspiring witnesses who are being referred to?
I saw that the Ritva asks about this as well, but gives a not-so-satisfactory excuse.
Does the rabbi have a convincing excuse?
I don’t understand the question. Here we are looking for a source for why they are punished only after the judgment is over for them. You ask why we don’t learn this from the first GAZASH regarding those who are liable for malkoyt? Because in the case of malkoyt debtors, the whippings are from the law when they are intended (as Rashi says), whereas here in the GAZASH the whippings are from the law, you will not answer. Therefore, the GAZASH of the wicked wicked will not be useful here.
Regarding the question of whether it is the defendant or the witnesses, the Darsh sometimes leans towards the simplistic meaning of the verse. For example, “And the two people who have a quarrel stood up” – hence the Gemara disallowed women from testifying in oaths. But the people in the verse are the Ba’ad, not the witnesses. Incidentally, witnesses who plot to exile are punished as Ba’ad who were convicted of lying, not as witnesses. Therefore, when they say, “And the mother of the wicked son of the whip,” this certainly applies to them. They are punished as wicked.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
