Q&A: Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial Evidence
Question
Rabbi Michael, hello,
In the lesson on Friday at Ohel Ari you mentioned that Tosafot disagree with Maimonides that they did not execute him based on estimation / circumstantial assessment. In my opinion this is difficult, since the incident of Shimon ben Shetach and many other Talmudic passages indicate that there is no proof in capital cases other than testimony.
Which Tosafot? Do you mean Tosafot, s.v. "de-i it lei," Shevuot 34a?
If you have written about this topic, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the relevant place.
One more comment, seemingly regarding conversion: the process of conversion through the emancipation of a Canaanite slave or maidservant is apparently not bound up with acceptance of the yoke of the commandments.
Thank you.
Answer
Indeed, Tosafot there. The proofs have already been discussed at length, but in my humble opinion there is not much proof for this. In many places we see that "we are witnesses" is like actual witnesses, and some have applied this even to witnesses required for the legal validity of marriage, and certainly to monetary cases.
Regarding the conversion of a slave: he accepts the commandments like a woman when he enters slavery, even against his will (and some say that if he is unwilling, he does not become a slave). Therefore, when he is emancipated he becomes a Jew against his will. As I recall, my friend Nadav Shnerb argues that this is the way to convert without acceptance of the commandments, but I disagree.
Discussion on Answer
Mainly because it still requires acceptance of the commandments, except that this happens at the first stage (when he is made into a slave). And certainly so if they make him a slave as a fiction for the sake of conversion.
Why do you disagree with that? (That this is the way to convert without commandments.)