Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses the famous principle that “eidim zommemim” (perjured witnesses) who testified in a capital case only receive the death penalty if they were caught after the court’s verdict but before the accused was executed. If the accused was executed though, the witnesses do not receive any punishment.  

Commentaries have offered various explanations for this seemingly unfair law. Some suggest that if God allowed the matter to go all the way to execution, the person must have been guilty of some other infraction equal or worse, so the witnesses inadvertently did a good thing. Others add that it would simply create societal chaos to execute the witnesses too, as trust in the court would be eroded, and it would seem like murder and mayhem on all sides.  

The Maharal (Gur Aryeh 19:19, and Be’er Hagolah 2:2) offers a metaphysical answer that requires reflection on its philosophical depth. He states that if one curses someone undeserving of the curse, it will rebound upon him. Maharal compares this to throwing a projectile against a surface: if the surface is hard and unyielding, the object will bounce back against the thrower; however, if the surface yields somewhat and absorbs the blow, it will not bounce back.

The physical and spiritual worlds share the same Designer, and therefore certain patterns repeat themselves both spiritually and physically. In this case, there seems to be a profound truth to the idea that when a malignant force is directed at another, but that recipient is not susceptible—meaning they are not deserving of this malignancy—it will inevitably fall back upon the initiator.

False witnesses receive the punishment they conspired to impose on their victim only if their evil scheme is exposed before the accused is executed, as then their malicious intent boomerangs back upon them. However, if the victim was already executed, the evil intentions of the false witnesses do not fall back upon them in the same way.

This speaks to a deep concept in Jewish theology. Though the Jewish court and Jewish law focus on action and behavior on a practical level to enforce societal functions and norms, in truth, there is basis to say that thoughts are more significant than actions in the spiritual world. (We touched upon this in Psychology of the Daf Makkos 3.) Gemara Yoma (29a) states: “Thoughts of transgression are worse than transgression itself, and your mnemonic is the odor of meat. The smell of roasting meat is more appetizing than actually eating the meat.” 

Reishis Chochma says (Gate of Holiness 16): 

When a person dwells on wicked and impure matters, his thoughts become attached to impurity in the upper realms, and his soul becomes accountable to Heaven, as it is spiritually defiled through contact. However, if he were to commit a sin in the physical realm without his thoughts reaching the heavens, his judgment would be lighter than that of sinful contemplation. Such a person is close to "cutting down the saplings" (a phrase referring to spiritual destruction or heresy).

Similarly, Derashos Haran (5) states:

It thus emerges that thought in Divine service and fulfillment of mitzvos is the fruit of mitzvos and the source of Divine service; and correspondingly, the thought root in transgression is the root of rebellion. This is the intent of the statement of our sages (Yoma 29a): "Thoughts of transgression are worse than the transgression itself." 

It is clear, then, that the major element in mitzvos and transgressions is intent. This being so, the thoughts of the heart are the root of Divine service and of rebellion…. Now the greatest possible cleaving of a man to his Creator is his being invested with the Shechinah, and this cleaving must be generated by a prompting of the heart. The reason for this is that the prophetic faculty requires a bodily faculty, that of imagination, and this faculty is strengthened by pleasing and pleasurable sensations (and rejoicing in God, not resenting.)

Nefesh Hachaim (Gate I:14) states:

Also, two people’s punishment won’t be equal by reason that their thoughts weren’t equivalent at the time they performed the sin, and the blemish drawn through the worlds is also according to the thought at the time it was performed. And if one attached his thoughts more to the sin, it is certain that he is worthy of a greater punishment, for then the blemish reaches (heaven forefend) to still higher worlds. And for this reason, one who unintentionally performs a sin receives a lesser punishment than one who does it purposely. And therefore they said (Yoma 29) that thoughts about sin are more severe than the sin.

And finally, we have the words of the Shalah (Asara Ma’amaros, Ninth Ma’amar):

Even though, regarding the Jewish people, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not consider an evil thought as equivalent to an action, nevertheless, this is not the approach of the pious. The verse states (Tehillim 66:18), "If I had seen iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened." The term "would not have listened" (lo yishma’) can be understood in the sense of the Talmudic phrase (Eruvin 102b) "lo shemi’a," meaning "it is not accepted" or "it is not regarded as valid." This implies that while God does not judge such a thought as an actual deed, He nevertheless perceives it—though not with complete scrutiny.

This is the meaning of "If I had seen iniquity"—that is, when a person entertains sinful thoughts in a passing manner, like seeing rather than gazing intently. However, if a person deeply immerses himself in sinful contemplation—dwelling on how to commit the sin, exerting effort in such thoughts, becoming inflamed with desire, and strategizing ways to carry it out—our Sages said (Yoma 29a), "Sinful thoughts are worse than the sin itself."

The reason for this is that the act of sin is performed with physical faculties, whereas sinful thoughts operate on a spiritual level, within the realm of intellect and contemplation. When sinful thoughts remain at the level of mere seeing, they are not judged with full severity, but they are still perceived. Even though the verse says "iniquity He will not hear"—meaning He does not regard it as a deed—there is still a level of hearing in the literal sense, meaning that the thought creates a kind of spiritual preparation.

From the above sources, we see that Jewish philosophy has a nuanced way of understanding culpability for thoughts. On the one hand, in technical, practical, and enforceable matters, behavior is the focus, not thoughts. Yet, in the deeper spiritual reality, thoughts count—both because they lead to action and because, in some sense, they are deeper and more penetrating in their effects. This is why some people are in a paradoxical state of being miserable and emotionally unhealthy when they constantly battle desires, perhaps resisting physically succumbing but still being drained and distorted by relentless, preoccupying thoughts. This leads us to an age-old ethical conundrum: What is better—a person who committed an occasional sin and gave in to his desires but otherwise was engaged religiously, or a person who never actually gave in to his lusts and desires but spent his life preoccupied fighting his fantasies and was bitter and less engaged religiously, worn out, drained, and depressed? The real answer is neither. The physical acts of sin are forbidden and destructive and must be avoided. However, our sages were wise to warn that merely battling the behavior is a pyrrhic victory, and the thoughts can be just as destructive.

This leads to a related topic: Can a person be presented with a religious test that he cannot overcome? We will discuss this on the next daf.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.

Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com