Deuteronomy 17:6

Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Ver. 8. Too hard for thee in judgment,] i.e., For thee, O judge, who art thereupon to consult with the priests, and by them to be informed of the true sense and meaning of God’s law. For apices iuris non sunt ius. And the Rabbins have a saying, Nulla est obiectio in Lege, quae non habet solutionem in latere. Now the priest’s lips should preserve knowledge, and the law should be sought at his mouth; the high priest also, in some cases, was to inquire, and answer after the judgment of Urim, before the Lord. {Num 27:21} This the Pope cannot do, and therefore cannot claim the final determination of all causes and controversies, though his parasites tell him,

“ Oraclis vocis mundi moderaris habenas:

Et meritb in terris diceris esse Deus. ”

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Deu 17:6. Witnesses — Namely, credible and competent witnesses. The Jews rejected the testimonies of children, women, servants, familiar friends, or enemies, persons of dissolute lives or evil fame.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Hebrew, of two witnesses or three witnesses.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 6. Two witnesses] ONE might be deceived, or be prejudiced or malicious; therefore God required two substantial witnesses for the support of the charge.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses] So Sam. and LXX, as in Deu_19:15, where the law, here applied to a particular case, is more generally stated. Cp. P, Num_35:30.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death,.... The idolater found guilty was to be stoned; two witnesses were sufficient to prove a fact, if three the better, but, on the testimony of one, sentence might not be pronounced. Aben Ezra observes, that some say, if two witnesses contradict two other, a third turns the scale and determines the matter; and others say, that two who are wise men will do, and three of others; and because it is said "at the mouth" of these witnesses, it is concluded, that a testimony should be verbal and not written; should not be recorded, neither in pecuniary cases nor in capital ones, but from the mouth of the witnesses, as it is said "at the mouth", &c. at their mouth, and not from their handwriting (e):

but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death; so careful is the Lord of the lives of men, that none should be taken away but upon full and sufficient evidence, even in cases in which his own glory and honour is so much concerned.

(e) Maimon. Hilchot Eduth, c. 3. sect. 4.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Slain. When the action was public, this formality was not requisite, chap. xiii. 9. --- Him. One witness was never admitted to prove any crime; neither would the Jews receive for witnesses, women, infants under thirteen, slaves, publicans, thieves, &c. (Josephus, [Antiquities?] iv. last chapter.) The Rabbins also reject other notorious offenders, enemies, relations, and those who had not a competent knowledge of the law, &c. (Ap. Selden, Syn. ii. 13. 11.; and Grotius) --- But we could wish for some authors of more credit. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

At the mouth, i.e. upon the testimony delivered upon oath before the magistrates.

Three witnesses, to wit, credible and competent witnesses. The Jews rejected the testimonies of madmen. children, women, servants, familiar friends, or enemies, persons of dissolute lives and evil fame.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 6, 7. Only on the testimony of more than one witness could the accused be condemned; (of Num_35:30) and the hand of the witnesses was to be first against him to put him to death a rule which would tend to prevent accusations being lightly adduced, as none would venture to witness against any one unless so deeply convinced of his guilt that they were willing to assume the responsibility of inflicting on him the last penalty with their own hands. Worthy of death be put to death; i.e. adjudged or appointed to death; literally, the dead man shall die. tme, the part. of tWm, to die, is here equivalent to twm B, son of death, (1Sa_20:31) or tw,m; vyai, a man of death, (1Ki_2:26) i.e. one assigned to death, already the property of death, and so as good as dead.

Put the evil away; literally, consume or sweep away the evil. The verb rB; means primarily to consume by burning.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Witnesses - Namely, credible and competent witnesses. The Jews rejected the testimonies of children, women, servants, familiar friends or enemies, persons of dissolute lives or evil fame.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

שנים עדים או שלשה [BY THE MOUTH OF] TWO WITNESSES OR THREE [WITNESSES, SHALL HE THAT IS WORTHY OF DEATH BE PUT TO DEATH] — But if evidence can be established by two witnesses to what end does it (Scripture) mention to you explicitly that it may be established by three? Scripture does so in order to compare the evidence of three witnesses to that of two (to make the same law apply to both cases). How is it in the case of two? Their evidence forms one testimony; so, too, does the evidence of three (or many) witnesses form one testimony and they cannot be declared “plotting witnesses” unless all of them are proved to be “plotting witnesses” (Makkot 5b).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

AT THE MOUTH OF TWO WITNESSES, OR THREE WITNESSES, SHALL HE THAT IS TO DIE BE PUT TO DEATH. “If the evidence can be sustained by two witnesses, why did Scripture specify ‘three?’ It is to liken three to two: just as the evidence of two witnesses forms a single unit of testimony, so does the evidence of three, constitute a single unit of testimony and they are not subject to the law of plotting witnesses [which declares that whatever they plotted to do to their brother should be done to them] unless all three are proven to be plotters.” This is Rashi’s language. So also the principle [of a single unit of testimony] applies if one of the witnesses is found to be a kinsman [and hence ineligible to testify] or to have some other disqualification — the testimony of all is void. If they are proven to have been plotting witnesses, [in which case] all of them are subject to the death-penalty or payment of money [as the case may be, and the third witness cannot claim immunity because of his argument that even had he not testified the evidence of the first two witnesses was sufficient to sustain the charge], since the main intent of Scripture was to liken the evidence of three witnesses to that of two in every respect, according to the opinion of our Rabbis. And the Gaon Rav Saadia, p. 521, Note 74. Rav Saadia’s comment is quoted here by Ibn Ezra. said, by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, that the interpretation of the verse is as follows: “two witnesses, or three judges who [officially] accept the testimony of the two witnesses.” thus means: “upon the testimony of two witnesses who appear before the entire court of twenty-three judges, or by the word of the three judges who officially accepted the testimony of the witnesses and later relayed it to the entire court — shall the one that is to die be put to death. Ramban will refute this interpretation of the Gaon, for there is in the verse etc. But there is in the verse no mention of acceptance of the testimony; instead, it refers explicitly to witnesses. But it seems to me that the Gaon erred in his [statement of this] law, for testimony in capital cases cannot be accepted except in the presence of a Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges [and not, as Rav Saadia holds, before only three judges]! Rather, the plain meaning of the verse is that the condemned man shall be put to death at the mouth of two witnesses if no more are there, or at the mouth of three witnesses if three witnesses are to be found there. Scripture thus states: when it will be told thee, and thou hear it you are to inquire diligently into the matter by means of the testimony of all the witnesses found there. Thus if we heard that he transgressed in the presence of three people, we should send for them and have them all come to court and testify. The same law applies to a hundred, for by hearing the words of them all, the truth will become clear. But if not more [than two] were present, or they [the others] left and are not to be found, then two are sufficient.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.