Q&A: Testimony
Testimony
Question
Hello,
1. What is meant by witnesses who are disqualified due to an intrinsic personal disqualification? Why disqualify witnesses if we are not concerned that they are lying?
2. I saw that Sha'arei Yosher wrote in Gate 7, chapter 1, that witnesses are not only there to clarify reality but also to give power to the religious court. What does that mean?
3. Some went even further and said that this is the witnesses' only purpose. They explained on this basis the view of Rivash in Sanhedrin 30a, that even if they testify about different loans, that is still enough, because in the final analysis both witnesses testify that he owes him one maneh. If so, this proves that the main point of testimony is not the story they tell but the result, in that they give power to the religious court. Isn't that extremely puzzling?
Answer
1. There can be other reasons to disqualify a witness. For example, the disqualification of a wicked person may be intended to create a situation in which a wicked person has no social standing. If his testimony were accepted, he would attain the status of a credible person on whom the religious court relies. That is just one example of additional considerations that may exist. Of course, at the root of many very numerous laws there are considerations we do not understand, and there is no reason this case should be any different. The consideration of arriving at the truth is not the only consideration in the laws of testimony. For example, regarding the disqualification of relatives, it is stated explicitly that this is not because they are considered unreliable. That is stated in the Talmud, and brought by Maimonides and in the Tur and Shulchan Arukh.
2. He means to say that testimony is not only a clarification of reality so that the religious court can issue a ruling based on it. The ruling also emerges on the basis of the witnesses themselves through the religious court. They have a part in creating the judgment itself. According to the views that in criminal law (as opposed to civil law) excellent circumstantial evidence is not effective, and only witnesses are effective (see Maimonides, beginning of chapter 20 and beginning of chapter 24 of the Laws of Sanhedrin), that is apparently the explanation.
3. In monetary law, that is indeed the accepted reasoning. But one need not go so far as Rabbi Shimon's innovation in order to understand it. It is enough to say that in monetary cases the discussion is not about the factual reality but about the question whether Reuven owes Shimon, and how much. And if there are two witnesses that he owes him 100 shekels, that is enough to extract the money from him. Especially according to Netivot HaMishpat, that the force of two witnesses is based on the fact that not accepting the testimony means deciding that both of them lied, and that is not likely (as opposed to one witness, where the likelihood that he is lying is not negligible). This certainly exists also in the case of separate testimony. But that is only in monetary law.