What are the implications of "Al-Pi Shenayim Eidim ... Yumas ha'Meis"?
Rosh Hashanah, 21b: It rules out the opinion of Koheles (Sh'lomoh ha'Melech), who wanted to judge on the basis of clear circumstancial evidence, 1 without witnesses and without warning. 2
Ba'al ha'Turim: It teaches us that the witnesses testimnony must be verbalized and not given in writing. 3
Such as the case cited in Sanhedrin where Shimon ben Shetach followed a would-be murderer into a ruin, where he found him holding a sword dripping with blood and a man who had been stabbed gasping his last breath. See Torah Temimah, citing Sanhedrin, 37b, and note 20, where he elaborates.
See Ba'al ha'Turim.
Seeing as the testimony of two witnesses is valid, why does the Torah need to add "O Sheloshah Eidim"?
Rashi #1 (citing Makos, 5b): To compare three witnesses to two, to teach us that, just as two witnesses do not become 1 Zom'mim unless both witnesses are implicated 2 , so too, do three witnesses not become Zom'mim unless all three are implicated.
Rashi #2 (in Vayikra 5:17, citing R. Akiva in Makos, 5b) and Ramban #3: To teach us that, if all the witnesses become Zom'min, the third witness receives the death-sentence, or [in a monetary case] pays, together with the other two. 3
Ramban #1: To teach us that, although two witnesses are sufficient to implicate the sinner, if there are more witnesses, they should be called to testify. 4
Ramban #2 (citing Makos, 5b) and Seforno: To teach us that, just like if one of two witnesses turns out to be a relative or Pasul le'Eidus, the entire Eidus is disqualified, the same applies to three witnesses (we do not accept the testimony of the other two). 5
Hadar Zekenim and Rosh: To teach us that, even though, regarding Dayanim, we follow the majority opinion, this is not the case by witnesses - where, the testimony is Bateil even if two are Mazim a hundred - like when one of the witnesses is found to be a relative or Pasul.
Refer to 19:15:5:1-4 and notes.
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word "Yumas ha'Meis"?
Sifri: To teach us that the current Halachah is not confined to someone who worshipped Avodah Zarah, but extends to other Chayvei Misah as well. 1
Sanhedrin, 41a: To teach us that a person is only Chayav Misah if he specifically states that he accepts the warning and the fact that he will put to death. 4
Sifri: To teach us that all the Dinim that are written extend to anyone who is Chayav Misah.
See Torah Temimah, note 24.
See Torah Temimah, note 21. Da'as Zekenim: Others learn it from "Chalal Rasha" in Yechezkel 21:30.
B'rachos (Ibid.): Wheresas Tzadikim are called alive even after their death, like we find in Shmuel 2 23:20 "Ben Ish Chai".
See Torah Temimah, note 22. See also Torah Temimah, citing the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin, 5a.
Having written "al-Pi Shenayim ... Eidim Yumas ha'Meis, why does the Torah need to add "Lo Yumas al-Pi Eid Echad"?
Makos, 6b: What the Torah means is that Beis-Din cannot sentence a person to death on the basis of Eidus Meyuchedes - where the two witnesses witnessed the cime from two different windows and did not see each other, or did not see each other, 1 or who saw it from th same window, but one after the other.
Makos, 6b: See answer #1: "Lo Yumas ..." also implies that the P'sul of Eidus Meyuchedes does not apply to Eidus regarding Dinei Mamonos. 2
The Gemara in Sotah, 2a learns from "Lo Yakum Eid Echad be'Ish" (19:15), that elsewhere, "Eid" refers to two witnesses. Why don't we learn via a Binyan Av that it always means one witness? Moreover, we can learn it from our Pasuk "Lo Yumas al-Pi Eid Echad", from "ve'Eid Echad Lo Ya'aneh" in Mas'ei Bamidbar, 35:30, and from "Lo Sa'aneh Eid Shaker" in Yisro Sh'mos, 20:13) ? since surely one witness is not permitted to lie?
Moshav Zekenim (in Bamidbar 5:13) In "Lo Yakum?", the word "Echad" is superfluous, 1 If "Eid" always meant one witness, the Torah should have omitted it! We cannot learn from our Pasuk, which is needed to disqualify Eidus Meyuchedes 2 for capital cases. 3
Refer to Bamidbar 5:13:153:2.
