Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain
Is Edut Like Dominoes? Does Disqualifying One Witness Topple the Entire Group?
Bava Batra 162b
The Gemara in Bava Batra makes a strange assertion: namely that invalid witnesses (e.g,
relatives) signed on a shtar do not invalidate the two valid witnesses that are signed onto the
shtar. This is surprising because the Gemara in Makkot specifically discusses the domino effect
of edut – namely that if one in the group is invalid, the whole testimony is invalidated! In this
shiur we will examine when and how unified we consider various edim.
Dr. Elana Stein Hain – dinanddaf@hadran.org.il
Listen here:
Watch here:
Sources:
- תוספתא גיטין ז:יא
הרחיק את העדים מן הכתב מלא שתי שיטין, פסול, פחות מיכן, כשר…גט שחתמו עליו חמשה עדים, ונמצאו שלשה הראשונים פסולין, תתקיים עדות בשאר עדים.
If he distanced the signature of the witnesses two full lines from the body of the contract, it is invalid. And if fewer, it is valid…a writ of divorce which 5 witnesses signed, and the first three were invalid, the contact is upheld via the testimony of the others.
- תוספתא בבא בתרא יא:יא
הרחיק את העדים מן הכתב מלא שני שיטין פסול פחות מכאן כשר…שטר שחתמו עליו חמשה עדים ונמצאו שלשה הראשונים קרובין או פסולין תתקיים עדות בשאר עדים
If he distanced the signature of the witnesses two full lines from the body of the contract, it is invalid. And if fewer, it is valid…a contract which 5 witnesses signed, and the first three were relatives or invalid, the contact is upheld via the testimony of the others.
- מכות ה:-ו. משנה
״עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת״ – אִם מִתְקַיֶּימֶת הָעֵדוּת בִּשְׁנַיִם לָמָּה פָּרַט הַכָּתוּב בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה?
…וּמָה שְׁנַיִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה, אַף שְׁלֹשָׁה נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה. מִנַּיִן אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֵדִים״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, אֲבָל בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת – תִּתְקַיֵּים הָעֵדוּת בַּשְּׁאָר. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. וְאֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִתְרוּ בָּהֶן. אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא הִתְרוּ בָּהֶן, מַה יַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁרָאוּ בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ?!
MISHNA: It is written: “At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he who is to die be executed” (Deuteronomy 17:6). The question is: If the testimony is valid with two witnesses, why did the verse specify that it is valid with three?…
The mishna cites another derivation based on the juxtaposition of two to three: And just as with regard to two witnesses, if one of them is found to be a relative or is otherwise disqualified, their entire testimony is voided, as it is no longer the testimony of two witnesses, so too, with regard to three witnesses who came to testify as one set, if one of them is found to be a relative or is otherwise disqualified, their entire testimony is voided, even though two valid witnesses remain. From where is it derived that the same halakha applies even in the case of one hundred witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “Witnesses.”
Rabbi Yosei says: In what case is this statement, that if one of the three witnesses is disqualified the entire testimony is voided, said? It is said with regard to cases of capital law, which are adjudicated stringently. But with regard to cases of monetary law, which are adjudicated more leniently, even if one of the witnesses is disqualified, the testimony will be validated with the testimony of the rest of the witnesses, and if it is sufficient the case can be adjudicated on that basis. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees and says: If one of the three witnesses is disqualified the entire testimony is voided in both cases of monetary law and cases of capital law.
And when does one disqualified witness void the entire testimony? Only when the witnesses forewarned them before they performed the transgression, thereby demonstrating their desire to fill the role of witnesses in that case. But when they did not forewarn them, what shall two brothers do in a case where they, together with others, saw someone who killed a person? Will the murderer escape punishment because two relatives happened to be there at the time of the murder and their presence voids the entire testimony? No, the testimony is voided by the presence of relatives or disqualified witnesses only when their intent was to testify. If that was not their intent, they do not void the testimony.
- מכות ו. גמ’
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. כּוּ׳ מַה יַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִים וְכוּ׳. הֵיכִי אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ?
- The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: In what case is this statement said…what shall two brothers do in a case where they, together with others, saw someone who killed a person? Rabbi Yosei says that it is only with regard to cases of capital law that one disqualified witness voids the entire testimony, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that this is the halakha even with regard to cases of monetary law. The mishna continues and says that it is only if the witnesses forewarned the perpetrators that they are classified as witnesses capable of voiding the entire testimony. The Gemara poses a question: How do we, the members of the court, formulate what we say to the witnesses in order to ascertain whether their intent was to testify?
אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ: לְמִיחְזֵי אֲתִיתוּ אוֹ לְאַסְהוֹדֵי אֲתִיתוּ? אִי אָמְרִי לְאַסְהוֹדֵי אֲתוֹ, נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵלָה, אִי אָמְרִי לְמִיחְזֵי אֲתוֹ, מַה יַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִין שֶׁרָאוּ בְּאֶחָד שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ?
Rava says: This is what we say to the witnesses who come to the court: Did you come to observe the proceedings or did you come to testify? If the witnesses say they came to testify, then if one of them is found to be a relative or otherwise disqualified, their entire testimony is voided. If the witnesses say that they came to observe, in that situation, what shall two brothers do in a case where they saw someone who killed a person? It is certainly unusual for those who witnessed the murder to not even attend the court hearing.
- רמב”ם משנה תורה, הלכות עדות ה׳:ג׳-ה’
…עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלֹשָׁה כִּשְׁנַיִם מַה שְּׁנַיִם נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל בָּטֵל הָעֵדוּת אַף שְׁלֹשָׁה וְהוּא הַדִּין לְמֵאָה. נִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל בְּטֵלָה הָעֵדוּת בֵּין בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בֵּין בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת:
…Deuteronomy 19:15 states: “On the basis of the testimony of two witnesses or on the basis of the testimony of three witnesses…,” establishing an equation between three witnesses and two witnesses. Just as when there are two witnesses, if one of them is discovered to be a relative or unfit to deliver testimony, the entire testimony is nullified; so, too, if there are three – or even 100 – witnesses and one of them is discovered to be a relative or unfit to deliver testimony, the entire testimony is nullified. This applies both in matters involving financial law and in cases involving capital punishment.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּנוּ כֻּלָּם לְהָעִיד. אֲבָל אִם לֹא נִתְכַּוְּנוּ כֻּלָּם לְהָעִיד מַה יַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁנֵי אַחִים בִּכְלַל הָעָם וְרָאוּ הָעָם כְּשֶׁהָרַג זֶה אֶת זֶה אוֹ כְּשֶׁחָבַל בּוֹ אוֹ כְּשֶׁחָטַף חֵפֶץ מִיָּדוֹ:
When does the above apply? When all of the potential witnesses had the intent of delivering testimony. If, however, they did not all intend to deliver testimony, the testimony will not be nullified. What should two brothers do when they are together with other people and they and the others see a person murder a colleague, injure him, or grab an article from his hand?
וְכֵיצַד בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הַדָּבָר. כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לְבֵית דִּין עֵדִים מְרֻבִּין. כַּת אַחַת אוֹמֵר לָהֶם כְּשֶׁרְאִיתֶם זֶה שֶׁהָרַג אוֹ חָבַל לְהָעִיד בָּאתֶם אוֹ לִרְאוֹת. כָּל מִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר לֹא לְהָעִיד עָלָיו אֶלָּא לִרְאוֹת מָה הַדָּבָר וּבִכְלַל הָעָם בָּאתִי מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר לֹא הָיִיתִי עוֹמֵד אֶלָּא לְהָעִיד וּלְכַוֵּן הָעֵדוּת מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצָא בְּאֵלּוּ שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּנוּ לְהָעִיד קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל עֵדוּת כֻּלָּם בְּטֵלָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה בָּהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל. אֲבָל אִם כֻּלָּם כְּשֵׁרִים אֶחָד שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן לְהָעִיד אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהָעִיד הוֹאִיל וְרָאָה הַדָּבָר וְכִוֵּן עֵדוּתוֹ וְהָיָה שָׁם הַתְרָאָה חוֹתְכִין הַדִּין עַל פִּיו. בֵּין בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בֵּין בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת:
How do we investigate the matter? When many witnesses come to the court as a single group, we ask them: “When you saw this person kill or injure was your intent to serve as a witness or merely to observe?” All those who say that their intent was not to serve as a witness, but they came merely to observe the matter as part of people at large are set aside. And all those who say: “I stood and took notice solely for the purpose of serving as a witness and being precise in my testimony,” are set aside. If a relative or an unacceptable witness is found among those who intended to deliver testimony, the entire testimony is nullified.
When does the above apply? When a relative or an unacceptable witness was present. If, however, they are all acceptable to serve as witnesses, their testimony is taken into account whether they intended to serve as witnesses or not. Since they observed the matter, related the particulars of the testimony, and a warning was given the transgressor, the matter is adjudicated on this basis. This applies both in matters involving financial law and in cases involving capital punishment.
- רשב”ם ב”ב קסב: ד”ה שהרי סוכה For honor rather than testimony
…ורב יהודאי גאון נמי מוקי לה להא דחזקיה בהלכות עדות שלו כגון דהוה קרוב חתים ברישא כי היכי דלא תקשי אדרב נחמן דאמר במסכת מכות אפילו בדיני ממונות נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול עדותן בטילה דהיכא דחתים קרוב ברישא מוכחא מילתא דלכבוד עביד ולא לעדות חתמיה ובהא כ”ע מודו והכי תניא בתוספתא (פ”ז דגיטין) שטר שחתמו עליו חמשה ונמצאו שלשה הראשונים קרובים או פסולים תתקיים העדות בשאר:
…And R. Yehudai Gaon also fits in what Chizkiyah says in his Laws of Testimony in a situation where the relative signed first, so that there is no questioning of Rav Nachman’s statement in Makkot that even in a case of finances, if one witness is found to be related or invalid, the whole testimony is invalid; because where a relative signed first, it is patently obvious that it was for honor rather than for testimony that he signed. And this case, all admit that there is no problem with the testimony of the others. And likewise it is taught in the Tosefta: a contract on which 5 witnesses signed, and the first three were relatives of invalid, the contact is upheld via the testimony of the others.
- מרדכי על בבא בתרא שם In writing, we make different assumptions
…ור”ת ור”י פסקו דבכל השטרות היכא דחתימין הקרובים או הפסולים למעלה כשרים דאמרינן למלוי חתמו והא דאמר רבי עקיבא בפ”א דמכות מה שנים נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול עדותן בטלה [*אף ג’] כו’ ה”מ בעדות ע”פ אבל בשטר א”צ לחקור לשם מי חתמו דהעדים החתומים על השטר הרי כמי שנחקרה עדותן בב”ד דמי וכאילו נחקר דלמילוי חתמו…
…R”T and R”I ruled that in all contracts, where the related or invalid witnesses signed above, it is kosher because we say that they signed to fill the empty space; and that which Rabbi Akiva said in the first chapter of Makkot that just as if one of two witnesses is found to be related or invalid, their testimony is invalid [*so to with 3 witnesses] etc.- this refers to oral testimony. But on a contract there is no need to inquire why the witnesses signed, because witnesses signed on a contract, it is as though their testimony was interrogated in a courtroom. And it is as though they have already been interrogated to say that they signed to fill the gap…
- ר”י מיגאש ב”ב שם
Maybe the invalid witness just put their name on there without other people’s permission.
היו ארבעה וחמשה חתומין על השטר ונמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול תתקיים עדות בשאר כו’ וההיא דתנן במכות מה שנים נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול עדותן בטלה אף שלשה וכו’ דוקא בידוע דנתכוונו להעיד או לחתום כאחד הוא אבל אם אין ידוע שנתכוונו שניהם לחתום או להעיד כאחד השטר כשר ותתקיים עדות בשאר שאם הפסול לבסוף יש לנו לומר שהוסיף חתימתו שלא מדעת הכשרים ואי בתחלה חתם יש לומר הנך כשרים רווחא שבקו למאן דקשיש מינייהו:
If there were four or five signatories on the contract and one of them was found to be related or invalid, the testimony of the rest will be valid, etc. And which was stated in the mishnah in Makkot that if one of the two is found to be related or invalid, their testimony is invalid, even if three, etc. – that is only if it is known that they intended to testify or sign as one group, but if it is not known that both of them intended to sign or testify.witness as one, the bill is valid and the testimony of the rest will be valid. If the invalid one signed last, we assume that he added his signature without the knowledge of the valid ones, and if he signed first, perhaps the kosher witnesses left space for someone older.
- משנה תורה, הלכות עדות ה׳:ו׳
שְׁטָר שֶׁהָיוּ עֵדָיו מְרֻבִּין וְנִמְצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָּסוּל אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהֶם שְׁנַיִם קְרוֹבִים זֶה לָזֶה. וַהֲרֵי אֵין הָעֵדִים קַיָּמִין כְּדֵי לִשְׁאל אוֹתָן. אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם עֵדוּת בְּרוּרָה שֶׁכֻּלָּם יָשְׁבוּ לַחְתֹּם שֶׁהֲרֵי נִתְכַּוְּנוּ לְהָעִיד הֲרֵי זֶה בָּטֵל. וְאִם לָאו תִּתְקַיֵּם הָעֵדוּת בַּשְּׁאָר. וְלָמָּה מְקַיְּמִין הָעֵדוּת בַּשְּׁאָר שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁחָתְמוּ הַכְּשֵׁרִים וְהִנִּיחוּ מָקוֹם לַגָּדוֹל לַחְתֹּם וּבָא זֶה הַקָּרוֹב אוֹ הַפָּסוּל וְחָתַם שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּם:
A contract with many witnesses and one of them is found to be close or invalid, or two of them are related to each other. And if there are no witnesses present to question them. If there is clear evidence there that all of them have agreed to testify, then this is null and void. And if not, the testimony will be valid with the other witnesses. And why does the testimony of the rest work? Because it’s possible that the valid witnessed signed and left space for someone of greater stature to sign, and then some relative or invalid witness came along and signed without their knowledge.
Hadran’s Beyond the Daf shiurim are also available by podcast on
Beyond the Daf is where you will discover enlightening shiurim led by remarkable women, delving deep into the intricacies of Talmudic teachings, and exploring relevant and thought-provoking topics that arise from the Daf.
