There's a concept in halacha when there are two sets of witnesses who contradict each other, we "throw out" the testimony of both witnesses as they cancel each other out (see Rambam, Hilchos Eidus 18:2)

Obviously we would've wished Calev and Yehoshua would be believed, but even if they weren't- at the very least these should be considered opposing testimonies that disqualified one another.

Does anybody address why in the case of the Meraglim there was no application of the principle of eidei hachasha?

  • 2
    they didn’t say anything differently factually, it was in the interpretation of those facts that they disagreed. – mroll Jun 30 '19 at 17:14
  • 3
    Who says this was testimony in a Jewish Court, such that there would be this rule? Also, they all gave equivalent facts. They differed on their interpretation, which I don't think witnesses give... – robev Jun 30 '19 at 18:10
  • 2
    Why would you assume they would follow these rules in the middle of committing the sin of the spies? It almost sounds like asking "Reuvain killed Shimon. How could Reuvain kill Shimon if it says Lo Tirtzach?" – Salmononius2 Jul 1 '19 at 16:09
  • 1
    @Salmononius2 you're right- I think I'm asking this more from a halachic/ learning perspective than from what actually happened – alicht Jul 1 '19 at 16:16

The reason being that the Meraglim were never tried in a bet Din and therefor at no point was there any giving testimony.

The Meraglim were divinely punished; no testimony, no witnesses, no Bet Din. At what point would you want the laws of eidei hachashato kick in?

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .