Q&A: Miracle Witnesses
Miracle Witnesses
Question
Witnesses who testify in all seriousness that a miracle occurred—for example, they testify that a certain murdered person was lying there without a head, and then suddenly his head grew back and he rose to life and walked in on his own feet—would seemingly be disqualified from testimony because of this. For if not, then any contradiction of testimony could be explained away by miracles. And likewise, in the case of conspiring witnesses, we do not take into account a flying camel.
If so, from a purely halakhic standpoint, would people who testify seriously that they saw with their own eyes all kinds of outright wonders performed by people considered righteous be disqualified from testimony on that basis? (Or is this left to the judge to weigh whether a given righteous person or prophet has the power to perform such a wonder or not? Or are we effectively certain that such testimony does not imply unreliability in other areas—perhaps because they truly believe themselves and their heart compelled them, or for some other reason—and therefore in other matters they are trusted as usual to extract money or validate a marriage?)
Answer
In Jewish law there is a situation of “the murdered man came on his own feet.” And nevertheless, this is not counted as a case of hazamah, regarding “as he plotted.” But it certainly is a contradiction. I assume that testimony about a miracle would also count as contradicted testimony, according to the religious court's best judgment. Testimonies of this kind that are given outside of court, of course, do not disqualify people from testimony—both because there is no lie here but rather misunderstanding (a mistaken impression does not disqualify witnesses, only testimony), and also because this is not testimony but merely recounting events. The disqualification applies to someone who lied in testimony.
This raises interesting questions about the biblical testimonies and testimonies about miracles in the past, of course.
Discussion on Answer
I didn't understand the question. If you see an idiot judge, don't go to him.
1- The law is that where we are effectively certain, that is stronger than witnesses contradicting it, and here one could discuss whether they would be disqualified because they are contradicted, or whether they simply would not be accepted in court, since witnesses are accepted only where there is doubt.
2- The testimonies of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) are trustworthy because they are not merely testimony, but testimony that constitutes the founding myth of a nation!
Sometimes the question is even harder.
The judges' judgment isn't great in a wide range of areas, and neither is their interpretation of reality…
I run into this a lot with rabbis and private questions.
When I hear their opinions on various topics, I get the impression that some of them aren't exactly great at understanding and analyzing reality.
They tend toward conspiracies and craziness, feed on unreliable sources, ignore true reports, and have plenty of other such virtues.
What am I supposed to do?