מגבלות הסמכות האנושית

By: Nathan Kotler

background
Rabbi Chiya also listed the false witnesses among the 24 fathers of harm: "Rabbi Chiya gave twenty-four fathers of harm... and false witnesses" (BK 4:2). The Sages demand that the false witnesses be killed only before the verdict, since it is said, "And you did to him as he had said" and not "And you did to him as he did" (Rashi, Makot 2:2, i.e., "And what is the stone" and more). In the Tosafot (i.e., "The false witnesses"), a discussion appears on the question: "Why did Rabbi Chiya list the false witnesses as "fathers of harm"? And what actual harm did the false witnesses do? And surely it is not permissible to kill the false witnesses after the verdict (Makoto 5:2)!"
Due to the brevity of space, we cannot bring here the entire fascinating discussion between Riba and Ri, but we will be content with the conclusion of Ri's words, which teach us that in the law of souls "there is no punishment from the law [=there are no punishers by 'aggravation']". That is, in the law of souls, it is impossible to renew through human logic a punishment that is not mentioned in the Torah. The Torah permitted the killing of the witnesses who called in only before the verdict, and therefore it is impossible to use a logical inference such as aggravation and claim that if the Torah permitted the killing of the witnesses who called in even if they did not succeed in killing the defendant, much less if they succeeded in killing the defendant (after the verdict), it would be permissible to kill them. However, in the law of property, it is possible to use a logical inference such as aggravation and therefore 'a punishment from the law'. Therefore, Ri explains that if in the law of property, there is 'a punishment from the law', then the witnesses who called in can be held liable even after the verdict. And if so, this is actual damage that they caused to the defendant and they should be considered a 'damager'.
We must try to understand the depth behind the words of the Lord that in the case of souls, 'there is no punishment beyond the law.'
The different approaches
We cite various reasons why 'there is no punishment from the law' (we will mention two of them):
The human mind may err - the reason for 'there is no punishment from the law' is because 'the greater the lesser' is a mental inference and may have a fallacy, and therefore it is impossible to rely solely on the human mind to punish with corporal punishment (flogging, death). Therefore, since the human mind may err, it is impossible to rely on it when the punishment is not explicitly stated in the Torah (Aharon's Sacrifice).
The punishment is an atonement - the reason that 'there is no punishment from the law' is because part of the purpose of the punishment is to atone for his actions, but when he is punished based on the law, the light punishment does not atone because he committed a more serious offense (Maharsha Sanhedrin 77:2).
Rabbi Hirsch's Approach: God is the Source of Conscience
Rabbi Hirsch teaches us that the rule 'There is no punishment from the law' does not only apply when the human mind is liable to error and a trivial explanation can be found, but this rule also applies in cases where the logical conclusion is self-evident and clear. The depth of the rule 'There is no punishment from the law' is to teach us humility. The court derives its authority from God, the Almighty, and it is permitted to punish and take life only in cases expressly stated in the Torah. However, when the Torah has not explicitly written the punishment in certain cases, the court is prohibited from exceeding the scope of its authority and using rational reasoning to determine the