ואם ירחיב ה׳ את גבולך, "And if the Lord your G'd will expand your boundary, etc." The Torah assures the Israelites that if they will observe all the Lord's commandments not only out of fear but out of love for Him the time will come when He will include the lands of the other 3 tribes in the boundaries of ארץ ישראל, the lands of the Kenite, the Kenizzite and the Kadmoni, all of whose lands were included in G'd's first promise to Abraham in Genesis 15,19. Our sages in Sanhedrin 99 confirm that the redemption in the future depends on our serving G'd out of love.

וכי יהיה איש שנא לרעהו, "And if there will be a man who hates his fellow, etc." This paragraph alludes to what is taught in Makkot 12 that the guardian angel of Esau, i.e. Samael, will make three errors of judgment in the future. One of them is that although the cities of refuge will provide refuge only for someone who kills inadvertently, this guardian angel is under the impression that such cities also provide refuge for intentional murderers. [The Talmud deals with an interpretation of Isaiah 63,1 assuming the prophet refers to the guardian angel of Edom, i.e. Samael who also mistakes the city Bazrah for Betzer (spelled similarly in Hebrew) and tries to take refuge there. Ed.] כי יהיה לאיש שונא, the worst enemy a person has is his evil urge, he is the root cause of all feelings of enmity. לרעהו, "against his fellow," i.e. that he represents himself as man's friend whereas in reality he means to harm you. He uses the pretense of loving you as a means to harm you. וארב לו, "and he ambushes him," i.e. he causes him to sin. You must remember that the first sin a person commits is considered as if it had been inadvertent. Having committed that sin, however, he thereby provides the evil urge with access to his soul as we know from Genesis 4,7 "that sin crouches at the entrance (to your soul)." As long as man has not sinned the evil urge is till outside the entrance. Not only that, but Satan tries to convince you that what you thought was evil is actually good. This is the worst kind of ambush one can be exposed to. The Torah continues וקם עליו, "and he rises up against him," i.e. once he has caused you to sin he now confronts you openly whereas previously he was treading very carefully, so that you almost did not notice his presence (compare Sukkah 52).

והכהו נפש, "and he kills someone, etc." the reference is to Samael who injures man's soul because sinning leads to the death of not only the body but eventually to the death of the soul. ונס אל אחת הערים האל, "and he flees to one of these cities;" if he flees to one of these cities of refuge, i.e. Betzer which is one of them, ושלחו זקני עירו, "and the elders of his town have to send messengers there" (to bring him to justice). This is a reference to the Celestial Court which is known as the city of the guardian angel of Esau. ולקחו אותו And they will take him from there and hand him over to the redeemer of blood, i.e. to G'd Himself.

ומת, "and he shall die." Here the Torah alludes to a mystical aspect of Sanhedrin 38 that G'd pointed His small finger at several groups of the angels who opposed the creation of man, and that He burned them. ביד גואל הדם ומת, "in the hand of the redeemer of blood and he will die." This means that G'd will strike him dead, not the relative of the deceased. Seeing that our sages have said that Samael [the angel of death, -compare the Chad Gadyah song in the Haggadah shel Pessach Ed.] will be killed also by the Israelites who will combine with G'd to kill him, the Torah adds לא תחוס עינך עליו, "you must not have pity on him." Although the righteous have derived benefit from the existence of the angel of death [having received credit for resisting his temptations to sin. Ed.], they have to counterbalance this benefit against the many occasions when the angel of death spilled the blood of innocent people through making them guilty by lying in ambush for them. As a result of his death, וטוב לך, "it will be good for you;" once the spirit of impurity is abolished the good on earth can become complete in the proper place, i.e. within the hearts of the Israelites.

ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם, "and you will do to him in accordance with what he had planned to do." Our sages in Makkot 5 derive from this word that if the party falsely accused had already been executed on the strength of this fabricated testimony, the court cannot execute the witnesses. This seems a problematical exegesis. Perhaps what the Torah wanted here by writing the word כאשר זמם was to incriminate the false witnesses for merely planning to testify falsely even if they had not yet done so before a court? Once the victim of such testimony has been executed the witnesses had become guilty not only of כאשר זמם, "as he [they, as the singular is used by the Torah for a halachically valid witness, i.e. a minimum of two witnesses. Ed.] had planned," but also of כאשר עשה, "as he had done!" In that case one could not use the argument that we do not condemn somebody to be executed based only on a logical argument, i.e. if we execute them even if they did not succeed with their testimony it is only logical that we must execute them if they did succeed with the intention behind their false testimony. In the scenario we presented this principle of אין עונשין מן הדין would not apply and therefore would not stop us from executing these witnesses.

However, the fact is that the principal exegetical argument is derived from the fact that the Torah should have written כאשר ענה על אחיו, in which event it would have referred to what the Torah wrote in verse 18 שקר ענה באחיו. Had the Torah written these words I would have known that it intended to do to the witnesses as they had done. The fact that the Torah does not use the more comprehensive word ענה, but writes the word זמם shows that it wishes to limit the parameters which enable the court to apply the death penalty to these witnesses. We have a Baraitha in Makkot 5 which goes as follows: "The son of the scholar who interpreted that the word כאשר זמם means that we do not execute the false witnesses if their victim had already been executed as a result of their testimony, said to his father: 'father, why should they not be executed? We have logic on our side; if we execute such witnesses even if their testimony did not result in their victim's death then surely we must exceute them when it did result in their victim's death!' His father replied that the sages taught that אין עונשין מן הדין, that logic does not suffice as a reason to apply a death penalty in situations where the Torah did not specifically request that a death penalty be imposed. This is not the case here." You must not deduce from this that but for the ruling that in order to apply a death penalty the Torah must state so specifically, the logic of the son would have been unassailable and I would have executed these עדים זוממים, "spurious witneses." The reason is that the distinction between the Torah writing זמם instead of ענה would not suffice to cancel the strength of the logical argument cited in the Baraitha. This is why we also needed the principle of אין עונשין מן הדין, in order not to arrive at a faulty ruling.