Ba'al ha'Turim: Because it i ommon for Aniyim to squabble over Leket

Rashi: What begins with a quarrel, ends in Beis-Din. This teaches us that Shalom does not come out of quarrels. ¹

Sifri: To incorporate in the Din of Mishpat ¹ two women or a woman and a man who are quarelling. ²

Rashi: "Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha" (in Pasuk 2) implies that it is only sometimes - where he transgressed a La'av that is not Nitak la'Asei (rectifiable by performing an Asei) ¹ - that he is Chayav Malkos.

Sanhedrin, 10a: It implies that two Dayanim are required to adjudicate - and based on the principle that a Beis-Din can never comprise an even number of judges, three are required. ¹

Refer to 25:1:3:1.

Sifri: It implies that Beis-Din do their utmost to find a point in the defendent's favor to prevent him from receiving Malkos ¹ .

Refer to 25:1:3:1.

Sanhedrin, 33b: The Torah inserts it in order to learn, via a Gezeirah Shavah "Rasha" "? Asher Hu Rasha La'mus" - in Bamidbar 35:31 - that, in cases of Malkos, like by Misah, ¹ if the defendant is declared guilty, and, as he is being taken to receive Malkos, someone finds a point in his favor, he is returned to Beis-Din, whereas if he is declared innocent and, as he is leaving the court, someone finds finds a point that would render him guilty, it is forbidden to call him back.

Makos, 5a: See answer 2: Based on the same Gezeirah Shavah, we learn that, just as Misah cannot be divided into two, and each witness is sentenced to death, so too, if for example, there are three witnesses, each witness receive thirty-nine Malkos, and not thirteen each. ²

Ramban (citing Makos, 2b): The Torah is teaching us the Din of Eidim Zomemin, where two witnesses testify against Shimon, and a second pair of witnesses disprove them ¹ , vindicating Shimon ("Vehitzdiku es ha'Tzadik") and proving that the first witnesses are guilty ("Vehirshi'u es ha'Rasha"). ²

Sifri: "Vehitzdiku es ha'Tzadik" denotes a Mitzvah to try and save the defendant from Malkos. ³