The Mishnah (3:6) teaches that prior to interrogating the witnesses, the Beit Din would threaten or scare them. The intention was to deter the witnesses from providing false testimony. We shall try to address what was said.
The Gemara (29a) explains as follows. Rav Yehuda says that they explain that due to false testimonies, the rains cease, and famine is brought to the world. Rava however rejects this as being a deterrent since "a famine can last seven years and a worker can be unaffected". In other words, a person may have another source of income to see through the difficult time. Therefore, the witnesses might not see this a being personally threatening.
Rava suggests that the dayanim explain that plagues or disease spread because of the sin of false witnesses. Rav Ashi rejects this suggesting that they might understand that plagues can last seven years, yet a person does not die before their time. Consequently, this too would not be a deterrent.
Rav Ashi therefore finally suggests that the dayanim tell them, that false witnesses are considered lowly even in the eyes of those that hired them. It would seem that the dayanim are explaining that if they are lying, they are destroying their own character through the processes. They will lose the respect of even those that hire them. If they were seeking approval or respect (aside from money) that would not be achieved.
Indeed, the Torat Chayim explains that the potential shame of losing the respect of everyone is itself the deterrent. He explains that that is why everyone was present at the time this was communicated, and it was only after, that everyone was asked to leave for the interrogation.
The Ben Yohayada however explains that this even more threatening. Considering that the people that hired them think very lowly of the witnesses, they will not hesitate to talk about them amongst their friends. Once they become a topic of conversation, it will not be long before word reaches back to the dayanim, and the witnesses will have to face the consequences of their actions. In other words, given the nature of the crime and its effect it has on their own stature, it is secret that will not be kept for long.
It seems that only Rav Ashi's explanation stood at the end of the Gemara. The Tur (CM 28:7) however rules that the dayanim inform the witnesses of their punishment, if they are lying, and that they would be considered lowly to those that hired them. The Rambam also rules that they are informed of the power of a false testimony and the shame that they face in this world and the next. The Beit Yosef therefore understands that the opinions of Rav Yehuda and Rav were not completely rejected. It was only how the negative consequences were portrayed as affecting the general population, that were rejected since the witnesses might assume that they could avoid it. After Rav Ashi explains that the consequences need to be directed specifically to him, that the opinions of Rav Yehuda and Rava are reframed. Consequently, all three explanations were accepted in halacha.
One might suggest that Rav Ashi's explanation makes Rav Yehuda and Rava's explanations more threatening. The Mishnah (Avot 3:10) explains that "anyone who is pleasing to others, is pleasing to Hashem". The Bartenura explains that if one is well liked, it is a strong indication that is he liked from above as well. The original weakness in the answers of Rav Yehuda and Rav was that if their actions brought about broad devastation, they would be able to avoid it. Once Rav Ashi explained that through their actions, they would lose respect from everyone on earth and above, it made their likelihood of escaping unscathed remote.
Receive our publication with an in depth article and revision questions.