הלכות עדות
7 halachot · Hebrew + English
כָּל מִי שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה מֵעיד לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל קְרוֹבָתְךָ. אִם מֵתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִנִּיחָה לוֹ בָּנִים הֲרֵי זֶה נִתְרַחֵק וְכָשֵׁר:
Whenever a witness is disqualified from testifying on behalf of a colleague because he is married to the witness' relative, if that relative's wife dies, even if she left him sons, he is considered to have been released from any connection and is acceptable as a witness.
מִי שֶׁהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ לַחֲבֵרוֹ עֵדוּת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה חֲתָנוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה חֲתָנוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁיָּדַע הָעֵדוּת וְהוּא פִּקֵּחַ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְחָרֵשׁ. פָּתוּחַ וְנִסְתַּמֵּא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְכַוֵּן מִדַּת הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁהוּא מֵעִיד בָּהּ וּמְסַיֵּם מְצָרֶיהָ. שָׁפוּי וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה. הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ לוֹ עֵדוּת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה חֲתָנוֹ וְנַעֲשָׂה חֲתָנוֹ וּמֵתָה בִּתּוֹ. פִּקֵּחַ וְנִתְחָרֵשׁ וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּקֵּחַ שָׁפוּי וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה פָּתוּחַ וְנִסְתַּמֵּא וְחָזַר וְנִתְפַּתֵּחַ כָּשֵׁר. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁתְּחִלָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ בְּכַשְׁרוּת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּפְסַל בֵּינְתַיִם כָּשֵׁר. תְּחִלָּתוֹ בְּפַסְלוּת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ בְּכַשְׁרוּת פָּסוּל. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ בְּעֵדוּת וְהוּא קָטָן וּבָא וְהֵעִיד בָּהּ כְּשֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל אֵינָהּ כְּלוּם:
When a person knew of evidence concerning a colleague before he became his son-in-law, and then became his son-in-law, he is not acceptable. The same law applies if a person was in control of his senses and then became a deaf-mute, was able to see and became blind - even though he is aware of the measure of land concerning which he testifies and can define its boundaries, or was intellectually and emotionally sound and then lost control of his faculties. If, by contrast, a person knew of evidence concerning a colleague before he became his son-in-law, became his son-in-law, and then that colleague's daughter died, the witness is acceptable. Similar laws apply if a person was in control of his senses, became a deaf-mute, and then regained control of his senses, was intellectually and emotionally sound, lost control of his faculties, and then regained control of them, or was able to see, became blind, and then regained his sight. The general principle is: Whenever a person is an acceptable witness at the initial and the final stages, he is acceptable even though in the interim, he was not acceptable as a witness. If, however, initially he is unacceptable, even though ultimately, he would be acceptable, he is disqualified. Therefore when a person is aware of evidence as a child, it is of no consequence for him to testify with regard to it when he attains majority.
וְיֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁסּוֹמְכִין בָּהֶן עַל עֵדוּת שֶׁמֵּעִיד כְּשֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל הוֹאִיל וְהֵם דְּבָרִים שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם נֶאֱמָן לְהָעִיד בְּגָדְלוֹ עַל מַה שֶּׁרָאָה בְּקָטְנוֹ. נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר זֶה כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁל אָבִי אוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אוֹ שֶׁל אָחִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקִּיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. זָכוּר אֲנִי בִּפְלוֹנִית שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת וְנַעֲשָׂה לָהּ מִנְהַג הַבְּתוּלוֹת. הוֹאִיל וְרֹב נָשִׁים בְּתוּלוֹת נִשָּׂאוֹת וּכְתֻבָּה מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. שֶׁהַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה בֵּית הַפְּרָס מִפְּנֵי שֶׁטֻּמְאָתוֹ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְעַד כָּאן הָיִינוּ בָּאִין בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁצִּמְצוּם הַתְּחוּם עַד אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה בִּלְבַד מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. שֶׁהָיָה אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי יוֹצֵא מִבֵּית הַסֵּפֶר לִטְבּל וְלֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָתוֹ לָעֶרֶב. וְשֶׁהָיָה חוֹלֵק עִמָּנוּ תְּרוּמָה. וְשֶׁהָיִינוּ מוֹלִיכִים חַלָּה וּמַתָּנוֹת לִפְלוֹנִי כֹּהֵן עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְאָמַר לִי אַבָּא מִשְׁפָּחָה זוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה מִשְׁפָּחָה זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְאָכַלְנוּ בַּקֳצָצָה שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהֶאֱכִילוּנִי אֶחָיו כְּדֵי לְהוֹדִיעַ שֶׁאֲחִיהֶם פְּלוֹנִי נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינָהּ הוֹגֶנֶת לוֹ. שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים לְהַחֲזִיק זֶה הַכֹּהֵן לֶאֱכל בִּתְרוּמָה שֶׁל דִּבְרֵיהֶם אוֹ לִדְחוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּה:
There are matters concerning which we rely on the testimony which a person gives after he attains majority with regard to events that he observed when he was a child. The rationale is that these are matters of Rabbinical origin. The matters are as follows; a person's word is accepted when he states: a) "This is the signature of my father," "...my teacher," "...or my brother," the rationale is that the validation of legal documents is a Rabbinic requirement; b) "I remember that when so-and-so was married, they performed the customs performed for a virgin"; since most women marry when virgins and a ketubah is a Rabbinic institution; c) "This place is a beit hapras," for the ritual impurity associated with such a place is a Rabbinic safeguard; d) "We would proceed until this point on the Sabbath," because the restriction of the Sabbath limits until only 2000 cubits is a Rabbinic restriction; e) "So-and-so would leave school to immerse himself in a mikveh and eat terumah in the evening" or "he would receive a portion of terumah with us;" f) "We would bring challah and presents of meat to so-and-so, the priest"; this applies when the presents were sent with the person himself; g) "My father told me, 'This family is acceptable; this family is not acceptable"; h) "We ate from the fruit-barrel brought by the brothers of so-and-so to inform others that their brother, so-and-so, married a woman that was not appropriate for him. All of the latter four points involve establishing a person as a priest to enable him to partake of terumah that is separated at present because of Rabbinic decree or to prevent him from partaking of it.
כָּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁמֵּעִיד בָּהֶן הַגָּדוֹל בְּמַה שֶּׁיָּדַע כְּשֶׁהָיָה קָטָן. אִם הָיָה עַכּוּ"ם אוֹ עֶבֶד כְּשֶׁרָאָה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ וְהֵעִיד אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר וְנִשְׁתַּחְרֵר אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן:
The leniency granted in all these situations to accept the testimony of a person who reached majority with regard to what he knew when he was a minor is not granted when a gentile or a servant witnessed such matters and gave such testimony after he converted and was freed.
מִי שֶׁהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּעֵדוּת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה גַּזְלָן וְנַעֲשָׂה גַּזְלָן. הוּא אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד עַל כְּתַב יָדוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הֻחְזַק כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁבִּשְׁטָר זֶה בְּבֵית דִּין קֹדֶם שֶׁיֵּעָשֶׂה גַּזְלָן הֲרֵי זֶה שְׁטַר כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם נַעֲשָׂה חֲתָנוֹ הוּא אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד עַל כְּתַב יָדוֹ אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים מְעִידִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֻחְזַק בְּבֵית דִּין אֶלָּא אַחַר שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה חֲתָנוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה הַפָּסוּל בַּעֲבֵרָה לְפָסוּל בִּקְרִיבָה. שֶׁהַפָּסוּל בַּעֲבֵרָה חָשׁוּד לְזַיֵּף:
If, before becoming a robber, a person knew of evidence concerning a colleague and recorded that evidence in a legal document and then became a robber, he cannot testify with regard to his signature. If, however, his signature to the legal document was validated in court before he became a robber, the legal document is acceptable. Similarly, if a witness becomes a person's son-in-law, he may not testify concerning his signature on a legal document involving his father-in-law. Others, however, may testify concerning the son-in-law's signature. Even though the document is not validated by the court until after the witness becomes a person's son-in-law, it is acceptable. The disqualification of a witness because of a transgression is not the same as the disqualification of a witness because of a family connection, for a person disqualified because of a transgression is suspected of forging the document.
שְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים בִּלְבַד וּשְׁנֵיהֶם קְרוֹבִים זֶה לָזֶה אוֹ אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם פָּסוּל בַּעֲבֵרָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ הַשְּׁטָר בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים כְּשֵׁרִים הֲרֵי הוּא כְּחֶרֶס מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְזֻיָּף מִתּוֹכוֹ:
When a legal document has only two witnesses signed upon it and they are related to each other or one of them is disqualified because of a transgression, even if the document was transferred in the presence of acceptable witnesses, it is worthless, like a shard, because of the invalid signatures inside it.
הַכּוֹתֵב כָּל נְכָסָיו לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם בְּעֵדוּת אַחַת וְהָעֵדִים קְרוֹבִים לְאֶחָד מִמְּקַבְּלֵי הַמַּתָּנָה וּרְחוֹקִים מִן הַשֵּׁנִי. הֲרֵי הַשְּׁטָר פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא עֵדוּת אַחַת. אֲבָל אִם כָּתַב בִּשְׁטָר אֶחָד שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לִרְאוּבֵן חָצֵר פְּלוֹנִית וְשֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְשִׁמְעוֹן שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית. נִמְצְאוּ הָעֵדִים קְרוֹבִים לָזֶה וּרְחוֹקִים מִזֶּה. זֶה שֶׁהֵם רְחוֹקִים מִמֶּנּוּ מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּמֶת שֶׁאֵלּוּ שְׁתֵּי עֵדוּיוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בִּשְׁטָר אֶחָד. לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְאוֹמֵר הֱיוּ עָלַי עֵדִים שֶׁנָּתַתִּי לִרְאוּבֵן כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְשֶׁנָּתַתִּי לְשִׁמְעוֹן כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְשֶׁלָּוִיתִי מִלֵּוִי כָּךְ וְכָךְ שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב בִּשְׁטָר אֶחָד וְהַמַּקְנֶה אִישׁ אֶחָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ עֵדֻיּוֹת שֶׁאֵינָן תְּלוּיוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ:
The following rule applies when a person composes one legal document including testimony that he is granting all of his property to two people and the witnesses to the document are related to one of the recipients of the present, but not related to the other. The document is not acceptable, because it is one statement of testimony. If, however, he writes in one legal document that he is giving this-and-this courtyard to Reuven and this-and-this field to Shimon, and the witnesses are related to one, but not to the other, the present given to the recipient to whom the witnesses are not related is binding. Even though the two statements are included in one legal document, they are considered as separate testimonies. To what can the matter be compared to a person who says: "Serve as witnesses that I gave Reuven this-and-this, that I gave Shimon this-and-this, and that I borrowed such-and-such from Levi." Although they were all included in the same legal document and there is only one person transferring the property, they are considered as three distinct statements.