Deuteronomy 19
16 If an unrighteous witness rise up against
any man to bear perverted witness against him; 17 then
both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD,
before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days. 18
And the judges shall inquire diligently; and, behold, if the witness be a false
witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19
then shall ye do unto him, as he had purposed to do unto his brother; so shalt
thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. 20 And
those that remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any
such evil in the midst of thee. 21 And thine eye shall
not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
foot.
The Talmud discusses an alleged dispute between the Sadducees and the
Pharisees, on the above verses. They claim that the Sadducees ruled the death
sentence for a case where the false witnesses succeeded in having an innocent
man executed, whereas the Pharisees ruled that it was only in the case where
the sentence was passed but the execution had not yet taken place, i.e. the
framed defendant would be saved by new witnesses for example. In this case, say
the rabbis, the false witnesses would suffer the fate they planned for their
“brother” (v.18) who if he had been killed would no longer be referred to as
their brother.
There is more than one problem here.
The first is whether or not this was actually the position of the
Sadducees. Since there is no independent record of the rulings of the
Sadducees, we rely on the written record of their outspoken enemies – the
Talmud.
On the surface, the verses do support the claim of the Rabbis. V18 is about the Judges enquiring, and
finding the witnesses to be false. And v 19 is about the intent of the false
witness not the completed deed.
However, what happens in the case of the Judge carrying out the
execution, and then finding out later the witnesses to have been false? There
are various rabbinic opinions on this, some say that the execution would only
take place if the defendant was guilty (Divine intervention) and others refute
this, saying that if such a travesty of justice takes place, then no worldly
punishment is good enough for the witnesses, and let them be punished in the
next world!
However, these contradictory positions are far fetched, and not in
accordance with the purpose of the Law. V20 clearly says that punishment is
carried out in this world as a deterrent to others, and 21 gives measure for
measure punishments. So even if the defendant was falsely fined 10 shekels,
that would be the punishment of the false witness.
So the Sadducees – if the position attributed to them is accurate – did
have a point, and in the case of a wrongful execution or punishment, the same
punishment should logically be applied to the false witnesses.
The whole subject of impeachment of witnesses takes up a large area of
Talmudic discussion, and this is only looking at the basic debate between the
two parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment