Testimony in Jewish law

Last updated

Testimony in Jewish law consists of testimony by eligible witnesses to a Beit Din (court) authorized to render decisions according to halakhah (Jewish law). Eligible witnesses must in almost all cases be free men who are not deaf, mentally or morally unsuitable, or too young for Bar Mitzvah; in particular, women are in most cases not eligible. The principles of testimony in halakhah have been applied to Mishpat Ivri (Hebrew jurisprudence).

Contents

Criteria for valid testimony

A valid witness to an event in halakhah must have seen the event with his eyes or heard it with his ears. Generally hearsay from another person is inadmissible, except in rare cases such as confirming that a missing husband has died (see Agunah). A Beit Din may accept testimony only from a witness who speaks directly to the judges, not from a written deposition. A witness may not recant his testimony.

Two witnesses

The Torah says (Deuteronomy 19:15): "One witness shall not arise against a man for any sin or guilt that he may commit; according to two witnesses or according to three witnesses a matter shall stand." Thus, two witnesses provide conclusive proof of reality, but one witness does not. (However, the testimony of one witness can require a defendant to swear to his innocence or else pay the debt alleged against him.)

In monetary law two witnesses may absolutely require someone to pay a debt or absolve them from that obligation. In capital cases two witnesses may testify that a person has committed a crime punishable by the death penalty in Jewish law, and the Sanhedrin may execute the person on their word; however capital punishment is no longer applied.

The testimony of two witnesses is equal in its force to the testimony of three or more witnesses. Thus if two witnesses say an event occurred, and one hundred witnesses say it did not occur, the groups of witnesses are considered to contradict one another, but no more weight is given to the larger group; other evidence is needed to reach a judgment. If one of the witnesses is disqualified, his entire group is disqualified, even if the other witnesses are themselves qualified and could present a valid testimony without his assistance. (Source: Makkot chapter 1.)

In monetary law examination of witnesses is less stringent than in capital law, and testimony is accepted even despite minor contradictions that may exist in the testimony of two separate witnesses. (If one witness says a defendant owes 100, and the other says the sum is 200, the judges accept that both witnesses agree to the existence of a 100 lien, even though only one witness testifies to each individual lien. Similarly, if one witness says a defendant owes 100 based on a loan granted on Monday, and another witness says the debt is 100 based on a loan granted on Thursday, the defendant is considered to owe 100 by the combined testimony of the two witnesses even though they disagree as to the source of the obligation.) In contrast, in capital cases the judges threaten the witnesses by warning of the consequences of perjury (source: Mishnah Sanhedrin chapter 4), and they ask many questions and will invalidate testimony even for minor inconsistencies, even if the contradiction seems substantively irrelevant to the case at hand. The purpose of these stringencies is to prevent the killing of an innocent defendant.

Ceremonial versus evidentiary witnesses

In some instances two witnesses are required to perform a certain action, such as kiddushin (betrothal). If there are not two valid witnesses, the kiddushin does not take effect. These are ceremonial witnesses (Hebrew: eidei kiyum). Likewise, a shtar requires two witnesses, and in particular a get requires two witnesses to sign the document or see the delivery.

Witnesses in monetary cases are evidentiary: even if they do not witness a robbery, the robber is still obligated to compensate the owner for damages (although there may be no way to prove this fact)[ clarification needed ]. Evidentiary witnesses are known in Hebrew as eidei beirur.

Invalidation of a pair of witnesses

A pair of witnesses may be invalidated if:

Powers of a lone witness

A lone witness cannot give testimony in capital cases. His testimony is useless unless there is a second witness to join him. In monetary cases a lone witness has limited powers. He can require a defendant to take an oath stating that the defendant is in the right, and if the defendant refuses to take the oath he must pay instead[ clarification needed ]. (In most cases, it is at the defendant's discretion whether to swear but, in rare instances, the court may require the defendant to pay without the option of swearing [Shevu'ot chapter 7].)

In the case of a classical Agunah, a woman whose husband has disappeared and it is not known whether the husband is still alive, a single witness (even a woman or slave, normally invalid as witnesses) may testify that the husband has died, and on that basis the woman may remarry.

Ineligible witnesses

Testimony of a deaf, mentally incompetent or young person (before Bar Mitzvah) is excluded. Testimony from women is also generally excluded. [1] Anyone who is caught guilty of a sin which demonstrates greed, i.e. who sins in order to acquire money, is also disqualified.

Tractate Sanhedrin lists other categories of witnesses who are disqualified.

The Talmud, in the third chapter of Sanhedrin, delineates the rules governing who may provide written or oral testimony. A valid witness in a Jewish Beit Din must be an adult (see Bar Mitzvah) free man, not a woman or a slave, and not be related to any of the other witnesses or judges. The witness must be an honest person who can be trusted not to lie.

The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 24b) states: "The following people are disqualified: a gambler with dice, a lender who collects interest, a chaser of doves, and a merchant who profits from produce of Shemittah." The Talmud explains that each of these four activities falls within an expanded definition of theft because people who violate Torah laws or social norms in pursuit of money cannot be trusted to tell the truth. "Chasers of doves" are those training them for races (or to lure other people's birds away), as well as those who bet on them; it includes pigeons, and by extension the use and luring of any animals in such fashion, domesticated or otherwise.

Additionally, "one who eats in the street is comparable to a dog, and there are those who say that he is disqualified from serving as a witness." (Talmud, Kiddushin 40b)

Reinstatement

However, anyone who has engaged in these forbidden activities may be reinstated upon undertaking a complete reversal to demonstrate especially honest conduct by renouncing a permitted activity.

  • Gamblers with dice...when are they reinstated? When they destroy their dice and completely reverse themselves, so that they do not play even for free.
  • Lenders who collect interest...when are they reinstated? When they tear up their promissory notes and completely reverse themselves, so that they do not collect interest even from a non-Jewish lender.
  • Chasers of doves...when are they reinstated? When they destroy their tools for chasing and completely reverse themselves, so that they do not chase doves even in the desert [where there is nobody from whom to steal].
  • Merchants who profit from produce of Shemittah...when are they reinstated? When the next Shemittah year arrives [seven years later] and they withdraw.
    • Rabbi Nehemiah said: They required not only a reversal of words, but also a reversal of money. How so? A person proclaims, "I, John Doe, profited 200 Zuz from selling fruits of Shemittah, and I am now giving this money to charity." (Sanhedrin 25b)

Related Research Articles

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution Article of amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as part of the Bill of Rights, enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied most of the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter.

A subpoena or witness summons is a writ issued by a government agency, most often a court, to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure. There are two common types of subpoenas:

  1. subpoena ad testificandum orders a person to testify before the ordering authority or face punishment. The subpoena can also request the testimony to be given by phone or in person.
  2. subpoena duces tecum orders a person or organization to bring physical evidence before the ordering authority or face punishment. This is often used for requests to mail copies of documents to requesting party or directly to court.

Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Capital and corporal punishment in Judaism

Capital and corporal punishment in Judaism has a complex history which has been a subject of extensive debate. The Bible and the Talmud specify capital punishment by the "Four Executions of the Court," — stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation — for the most severe transgressions, and the corporal punishment of flagellation for intentional transgressions of negative commandments that do not incur one of the Four Executions. According to Talmudic law, the authority to apply capital punishment ceased with the destruction of the Second Temple. The Mishnah states that a Sanhedrin that executes one person in seven years — or seventy years, according to Eleazar ben Azariah — is considered bloodthirsty. During the Late Antiquity, the tendency of not applying the death penalty at all became predominant in Jewish courts. In practice, where medieval Jewish courts had the power to pass and execute death sentences, they continued to do so for particularly grave offenses, although not necessarily the ones defined by the law. While it was recognized that the use of capital punishment in the post-Second Temple era went beyond the biblical warrant, the rabbis who supported it believed that it could be justified by other considerations of Jewish law. Whether Jewish communities ever practiced capital punishment according to rabbinical law, and whether the rabbis of the Talmudic era ever supported its use even in theory, has been a subject of historical and ideological debate.

A beth din is a rabbinical court of Judaism. In ancient times, it was the building block of the legal system in the Biblical Land of Israel. Today, it is invested with legal powers in a number of religious matters both in Israel and in Jewish communities in the Diaspora, where its judgements hold varying degrees of authority in matters specifically related to Jewish religious life.

Masei

Masei, Mas'ei, or Masse is the 43rd weekly Torah portion in the annual Jewish cycle of Torah reading and the 10th and last in the Book of Numbers. The parashah constitutes Numbers 33:1–36:13. The parashah discusses the stations of the Israelites' journeys, instructions for taking the land of Israel, cities for the Levites and refuge, and the daughters of Zelophehad.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that cross-examination is required to admit prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable.

Self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself generally, by making a statement, "to an accusation or charge of crime; to involve oneself or another [person] in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof". Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; or indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person.

An agunah is a Jewish woman who is stuck in her religious marriage as determined by halakha. The classic case of this is a man who has left on a journey and has not returned, or has gone into battle and is MIA. It is used as a borrowed term to refer to a woman whose husband refuses, or is unable, to grant her a divorce.

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.

Abba ben Joseph bar Ḥama, who is exclusively referred to in the Talmud by the name Rava, was a Babylonian rabbi who belonged to the fourth generation of amoraim. He is known for his debates with Abaye, and is one of the most often cited rabbis in the Talmud.

Shevu'ot or Shevuot is a book of the Mishnah and Talmud. It is the sixth volume of the book of Nezikin. Shevu'ot deals primarily with the laws of oaths in halakha.

Shofetim (parsha) 48th weekly Torah portion in the annual Jewish cycle of Torah reading

Shofetim or Shoftim is the 48th weekly Torah portion in the annual Jewish cycle of Torah reading and the fifth in the Book of Deuteronomy. It constitutes Deuteronomy 16:18–21:9. The parashah provides a constitution — a basic societal structure — for the Israelites. The parashah sets out rules for judges, kings, Levites, prophets, cities of refuge, witnesses, war, and unsolved murders.

Conservative Judaism views halakha as normative and binding. The Conservative movement applies Jewish law to the full range of Jewish belief and practice, including thrice-daily prayer, Shabbat and holidays, marital relations and family purity, conversion, dietary laws (kashrut), and Jewish medical ethics. Institutionally, the Conservative movement rules on Jewish law both through centralized decisions, primarily by the Rabbinical Assembly and its Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, and through congregational rabbis at the local level. Conservative authorities produced a voluminous Responsa literature.

Judah ben Tabbai was a Pharisee scholar, Chief Justice of the Sanhedrin, one of "the Pairs" (zugot) of Jewish leaders who lived in first century BCE.

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution, federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour One of the Ten Commandments

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" is the ninth commandment of the Ten Commandments, which are widely understood as moral imperatives by Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant scholars.

A Law given to Moses at Sinai refers to a halakhic law for which there is no biblical reference or source, but rather was passed down orally as a teaching originating from Moses at Sinai. Such teachings have not been derived from any Talmudical hermeneutics, but known solely from the Jewish tradition.

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of the defendant.

References

  1. "Witness". www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org. Retrieved 2020-06-12.