Anyone who says I did not borrow is like someone who says I did not repay.
Hello Rabbi,
I would appreciate a response on the issue of everyone who says “I am not a Levite” in the event that two witnesses came forward who said “peace and quiet.”
We studied the issue in the yeshiva, and I still haven’t been able to understand how we overcome the internal contradictions and how the words of the litigant overcome the witnesses. The things there seem complicated and paradoxical to me.
Thank you very much.
.
I don’t see an internal contradiction here. What we have here is a confession in evidence against two witnesses. The problem is how the loyalty is stronger than two witnesses. But this is the very innovation in the law of confession in evidence.
A person’s loyalty to himself is absolute. Therefore, Muharibal (cited in Tzvah 33:44) writes that it is a matter of a vow or a gift. But this is clearly not plausible, and this case is one of the overwhelming pieces of evidence against it. I explained in the past that this refers to a person’s absolute loyalty in matters that concern himself and his sphere.
See this in column 306, and for a broader view in the article Mida Tovah for Parashat Mikkat 567:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BwJAdMjYRm7IY0xlc1dmYTMweVE
What is really difficult here is how these words of the judge can even be seen as an admission. Regardless of the witnesses against him. He did not admit that he did not default, but claimed that he did not borrow. Although when he now changes his mind and claims peace, his initial claim remains only regarding the fact that he did not default. If a person claims in the court that he did not borrow, from our perspective, he did not default. This is not necessarily our assessment of reality, but we do not claim more from a person than he himself claimed.
Of course, there is also justice here, that a person cannot change his claim every time, and what he said in court is what binds him. But, as mentioned, I do not think that this law is for the sake of justice (a rule designed to knock liars out), but rather it is truly the main law for this case.
One can offer an explanation for the method of Raba in the Shavuot, which is that he believes that since the parties agree on a certain fact - that there was no repayment - and the entire dispute is about another fact - whether there was a loan - the discussion is "closed" on this matter. There is no reason to believe (or rather, to follow) the witnesses on this point, since there is agreement between the parties regarding it. Therefore, when the witnesses testify that there was a loan and a repayment, we ignore what they said about a repayment (since there is agreement that there was no repayment, as stated by Dameran) and refer only to their statement that there was a loan. In other words, the entire financial discussion in the court revolves around a single factual question - whether there was a loan (and therefore it must be paid) or not (then no). The witnesses are brought in so that they can answer this question and that's it.
I completely agree. This is adversarial. Discuss what the jury is putting before the court.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
