Hot answers tagged edim-witnesses
14
Ari Zivotofsky and I have worked hard to collect tens of testimonies from Yemenites and North Africans on the ID and traditions of which chagav (locust-like insect) is kosher. There is no question, as there are still many people alive who can remember them from their countries of origin.
Birds as the paradigm
As mentioned in Isaac Moses' response above, ...
9
Rambam (Mishna Torah, Hil. Edim 18:3) notes that this rule is a g'zeiras hakasuv and gives no reason.
According to Ramban (Devarim 19:18)(as expounded upon by Ralbag and Abarbanel), the logic is as follows: When we have two pairs of witnesses in contradiction (i.e. "Reuven did X" vs. "Reuven did not do X") then we have no reason to believe one pair over ...
7
No the disqualification does not apply. The Rambam in Hilchot Edut Chapter 11 Paragraph 7 writes:
עד אחד נאמן באיסורין, אף על פי שהוא פסול לשאר עדייות
(my translation) A single witness is beleived regarding forbidden matters even if he is disqualified for other testimonies.
The Rambam makes similar statements regarding the validity of the testimony of one ...
6
No, eidim are witnesses, not lawyers. Their function is to give testimony as to what they observed, not to serve as a partisan defender of one side or another.
Nevertheless, in a criminal case it might be argued that the eidim who witnessed the crime are effectively the prosecutors, but I think it is more accurate to simply call them accusers.
6
We need direct witnesses.
Oh by the way, a simple "yes" is not enough of a response to a warning, it must be "yes I am aware of the punishment and prepared to do anyway." (Rambam Sanhedrin 12:3, אפילו אמר יודע אני, פטור: עד שיתיר עצמו למיתה, ויאמר על מנת כן אני עושה)
As for the warning, the Gemara says "even if a demonic voice said don't do that or you'll ...
5
The author of Or HaChayim writes (Pri To'ar 85) that he discouraged the members of his city from eating them for a few reasons, one of them being because their tradition was not completely reliable.
I later happened to come across this article which discusses this topic more extensively.
5
I think you're confused.
If someone stole and then confessed, they just pay it back.
If one FALSELY SWORE after stealing something, then felt guilty, then in addition to a guilt sacrifice, one must pay it back plus "a fifth" (actually a quarter, but that's a story for another day). See Leviticus 5:20.
Gezel HaGer (Numbers 5:5) is simply a special case of ...
5
The main point of Smicha is to prove that you know Halacha. Many famous poskim (who didn't work as official city Rabbonim) didn't have Smicha until needed (by government etc.) Therefore, if one is knowledgeable enough to pasken, he should be able to pass a rudimentary Smicha test. If he doesn't, he can't pasken even if he has Smicha.
4
Probably each example you cite above could be answered separately; here are some thoughts:
Gen. 31:48: The Alshich asks your exact question and explains that גלעד is equivalent in Mispar Koton (a form of Gematria) to 17 - Hashem's Great and Holy Name - in order to hint that the true witness in this case is Hashem (see Rashi to 31:44).
Alternatively, ...
4
Chewing gum is not halachic eating.
It is less than a Kzayit
You do not swallow it.
It does not nourish you.
So chewing gum and walking in the street would not disqualify you.
As for candies and the like, this is really talking about the Marketplace. The gemora says that a person who eats in the Shuk is like a dog. The person has no patience and can ...
3
The Shalo Hakadosh (Parshas Vayeshiev) writes that from the words "ויבא יוסף את דיבתם רעה" (Yaakov brought evil reports to his father), it seems that Yosef did not fabricate these stories (otherwise it should have said he "made up" the reports).
The Midrash relates that Yosef would tell his father that his brothers were guilty of eating meat that was not ...
3
It doesn't seem to have a fixed formal definition, but perhaps reading Maimonides' description of it will help you get the right picture. At the end of the fifth chapter of Yesodei haTorah (which discusses mostly the laws of "dying al kiddush hashem"), he writes (5:10-11):
כל העובר מדעתו בלא אונס על אחת מכל מצוות האמורות בתורה, בשאט בנפש להכעיס--הרי זה ...
3
If you're referring to the Biblical case of "motzee shem ra": Deuteronomy 22:13--19; see Rabbi Kaplan's translation and notes, The Rambam explains (in Hilchos Na'ara Besula 3:6) that the case is in fact that the husband has two witnesses falsely testify against his wife; the witnesses are indeed "zamam"-ified and potentially executed.
The husband arranged ...
3
Killing by accident does not make one invalid for testimony. It is not listed among those who are invalid for testimony in Maseches Sanhedrin (nor in Rosh Hashanah).
The general rule for invalidation for testimony is record of actions that involve dishonesty. There are exceptions even for that according to some.
2
It doesn't make a difference that according to him the Eidim are Posul as Beis Din needs to believe the Eidim.
We also can not stop him from bringing the Eidim, as Shavye Anafshei Chaticha De'isura is only applicable by someone prohibiting something on himself. (See the Sheeta Mekubetzes on Ksubos 9a who says that it is derived from the Din of Neder)
2
Maybe this?
From a Danish professor's page on epilepsy:
Hallucinations
People with temporal lobe epilepsy, more often than others, may develop a mental condition which resembles schizophrenia. This manifests itself most often when the person has had complex partial seizures with convulsions for about 15 years. The person gets the feeling that they ...
2
Their are different explanations given. Some give the technical reason that the zomemin are being testified against directly, while their testimony is on some other matter. The 2nd group's testimony falls directly on the 1st group, and they can't defend themselves from a an edus against them. (Compare this with regular contradicting testimonies, where both ...
1
Based on the answer to this question May one chew gum in the bathroom? that one may chew gum in the bathroom, then it is obviously not called eating and therefore it would not disqualify one from being a witness.
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
