Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day - Daily Torah Study

The Laws of Witnessesהִלְכוֹת עֵדוּת

These laws contain 8 mitzvot: Three positive commandments and five negative commandments. They are:יֵשׁ בִּכְלָלָן שְׁמוֹנֶה מִצְוֹת - שָׁלוֹשׁ מִצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה, וְחָמֵשׁ מִצְוֹת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה; וְזֶה הוּא פְּרָטָן:

1. For a person who knows testimony to testify in court,(א) לְהָעִיד בְּבֵית דִּין לְמִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לוֹ עֵדוּת,

2. To question and interrogate the witnesses,(ב) לִדְרֹשׁ וְלַחְקֹר הָעֵדִים,

3. For a witness who testified in a case involving capital punishment not to serve as a judge,(ג) שֶׁלֹּא יוֹרֶה הָעֵד בְּדִין זֶה שֶׁהֵעִיד עָלָיו, בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת,

4. Not to carry out a judgment based on the testimony of one witness,(ד) שֶׁלֹּא יָקוּם דָּבָר בְּעֵדוּת אֶחָד,

5. Not to accept a person who is a transgressor as a witness,(ה) שֶׁלֹּא יָעִיד בַּעַל עֲבֵרָה,

6. Not to accept a relative as a witness,(ו) שֶׁלֹּא יָעִיד קָרוֹב,

7. Not to testify falsely,(ז) שֶׁלֹּא לְהָעִיד בְּשֶׁקֶר,

8. To punish an ed zomaim1 in the manner he wished to have the defendant punished.(ח) לַעֲשׂוֹת לְעֵד זוֹמֵם כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם.

These mitzvot are explained in the coming chapters.וּבֵאוּר מִצְוֹת אֵלּוּ בִּפְרָקִים אֵלּוּ.

1A witness is commanded to testify in court2 with regard to all pertinent testimony that he knows.3 This applies both to testimony that will cause his colleague4 to be held liable or testimony that will vindicate him.5 With regard to financial cases,6 this applies only when he is summoned to testify.7 The source for this commandment is Leviticus 5:1: “And should he witness, see, or know of the matter, if he does not testify, he will bear his sin.”8אהָעֵד מְצֻוֶּה לְהָעִיד בְּבֵית דִּין בְּכָל עֵדוּת שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ, בֵּין בְּעֵדוּת שֶׁיְּחַיֵּב בָּהּ חֲבֵרוֹ, בֵּין בְּעֵדוּת שֶׁיְּזַכֵּהוּ בָּהּ. וְהוּא, שֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ לְהָעִיד בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ" (ויקרא ה, א).

2If the witness was a wise man of great stature and the judges of the court did not possess the same degree of wisdom, he may refrain from testifying.9 The rationale is that it is not becoming to his dignity for him to go to testify before them. Hence, the positive commandment of honoring the Torah10 takes precedence.בהָיָה הָעֵד חָכָם גָּדוֹל, וְהָיָה בֵּית דִּין פָּחוּת מִמֶּנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם - עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל כְּבוֹד תּוֹרָה עָדִיף, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְהִמָּנַע.

When does the above apply? With regard to testimony concerning financial matters. With regard to testimony that safeguards a person from a prohibition,11 by contrast,12 or testimony in cases involving capital punishment or lashes,13 he must go and testify. This is derived from Proverbs 21:30: “There is no wisdom or understanding... before God.” Implied is that whenever the desecration of God’s name is involved,14 honor is not granted to a master.בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּעֵדוּת מָמוֹן. אֲבָל בְּעֵדוּת שֶׁמַּפְרִישׁ בָּהּ מִן הָאִסּוּר, וְכֵן בְּעֵדוּת נְפָשׁוֹת אוֹ מַכּוֹת - הוֹלֵךְ וּמֵעִיד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אֵין חָכְמָה וְאֵין תּבוּנָה... לְנֶגֶד ה'" (משלי כא, ל) - כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ חִלּוּל הַשֵּׁם אֵין חוֹלְקִין כָּבוֹד הָרָב.

3A High Priest is not obligated to testify.15 An exception is made only with regard to matters involving a king.16 In such an instance, the High Priest should go to the Supreme Sanhedrin and testify. With regard to other testimony, he is not obligated.גכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל - אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהָעִיד. אֶלָא עֵדוּת שֶׁהִיא לְמֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְבַד - הוֹלֵךְ לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל וּמֵעִיד בָּהּ. אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר הָעֵדֻיּוֹת, פָּטוּר.

4It is a positive commandment17 to question the witnesses and to interrogate them, asking many questions and weighing their replies exactingly.דמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לִדְרֹשׁ הָעֵדִים וּלְחָקְרָן, וּלְהַרְבּוֹת בִּשְׁאֵלָתָן.

They should divert their attention from one matter to another while questioning them, so that they will refrain from speaking or retract their testimony if then appears to be flaws in it, as Deuteronomy 13:15 states: “And you shall inquire and research thoroughly.”וּמְדַקְדְּקִין עֲלֵיהֶן, וּמַסִּיעִין אוֹתָן מֵעִנְיָן לְעִנְיָן בְּעֵת הַשְּׁאֵלָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁתְּקוּ אוֹ יַחְזְרוּ בָּהֶן אִם יֵשׁ בְּעֵדוּתָן דֹּפִי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְחָקַרְתָּ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ הֵיטֵב" (דברים יג, טו).

The judges must show extreme care when questioning the witnesses, lest from their questions the witnesses learn to lie. וּצְרִיכִין הַדַּיָּנִים לְהִזָּהֵר בְּעֵת חֲקִירַת הָעֵדִים, שֶׁמָּא מִתּוֹכָן יִלְמְדוּ לְשַׁקֵּר.

They ask them seven questions:18 a) In which seven year cycle the event occurred? b) In which year? c) In which month? d) On which day of the month? e) On which day of the week? f) At what time? g) In which place? Even if a witness says: “He killed him today,” or “He killed him yesterday,” we ask him all the above questions.19בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת בּוֹדְקִין הָעֵדִים – בְּאֵי זֶה שָׁבוּעַ? בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁנָה? בְּאֵי זֶה חֹדֶשׁ? בְּכַמָּה בַּחֹדֶשׁ? בְּאֵי זֶה יוֹם מִיְּמֵי הַשַּׁבָּת? וּבְכַמָּה שָׁעוֹת בַּיּוֹם? וּבְאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם? אַפִלּוּ אָמַר הַיּוֹם הֲרָגוֹ, אוֹ אֶמֶשׁ הֲרָגוֹ - שׁוֹאֲלִין לוֹ בְּאֵי זֶה שָׁבוּעַ? בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁנָה? בְּאֵי זֶה חֹדֶשׁ? בְּכַמָּה בַּחֹדֶשׁ? בְּאֵי זֶה יוֹם? בְּאֵי זוֹ שָׁעָה?

In addition to these seven questions which are asked universally, the judges inquire into the fundamental issues involved. For example, if the witnesses testify that a person worshipped false deities, the judges ask them: “Which deity did he worship?” “What service did he perform?” If they testified that he desecrated the Sabbath, the judges ask them: “Which forbidden labor did he perform?” “How did he perform it?” If they testify that he ate on Yom Kippur, the judges ask them: “Which food did he eat?” “How much did he eat?”20 If they testified that he killed someone, the judges ask them: “With what did he kill him?” Inquiries of this type are considered as fundamental questions (chakirot).וּמִכְּלַל הַחֲקִירוֹת, יָתֵר עַל הַשֶּׁבַע הַשָּׁווֹת בַּכֹּל: שֶׁאִם הֵעִידוּ עָלָיו שֶׁעָבַד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה - שׁוֹאֲלִין לָהֶן אֶת מַה עָבַד? וּבְאֵי זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה עָבַד? הֵעִידוּ שֶׁחִלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת - שׁוֹאֲלִין אוֹתָן אֵי זוֹ מְלָאכָה עָשָׂה? וְהֵיאַךְ עָשָׂה? הֵעִידוּ שֶׁאָכַל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים - שׁוֹאֲלִין אוֹתָן אֵי זֶה מַאֲכָל אָכַל? וְכַמָּה אָכַל? שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ - שׁוֹאֲלִין אוֹתָן בְּמַה הֲרָגוֹ? וְכֵן כֹּל כַיּוֹצֵא בְּזֶה, הֲרֵי הוּא מִכְּלַל הַחֲקִירוֹת.

5The derishot and the chakirot involve the matters that constitute the essence of the testimony. On their basis, the person will either be held liable or released. They include defining the deed that was performed, the time when it was performed, and the place where it was performed. On this basis, the testimony of the witnesses will or will not be refuted through hazamah.21 For we cannot refute the testimony of the witnesses unless they define the time and place of the deed involved.22ההַחֲקִירוֹת וְהַדְּרִישׁוֹת הֵם הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן עִיקַר הָעֵדוּת, וּבָהֶן יִתְחַיֵּב אוֹ יִפָּטֵר. וְהֵן כַּוָּנַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָשָׂה, וְכִוּוּן הַזְמַן, וְכִוּוּן הַמָּקוֹם - שֶׁבָּהֶן יָזוֹמוּ הָעֵדִים אוֹ לֹא יָזוֹמוּ; שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יְכוֹלִין לְהָזֵם הָעֵדִים, עַד שֶׁיְּכַוְּנוּ הַזְּמַן וְהַמָּקוֹם.

6In addition, the judges question the witnesses exceedingly with regard to matters that do not involve the fundamental aspects of the testimony and their testimony is not dependent on them. These questions are called bedikot.23 The more a judge questions the witnesses with bedikot, the more praiseworthy it is.ווְעוֹד מַרְבִּין לִבְדֹּק אֶת הָעֵדִים בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן עִיקַר בָּעֵדוּת, וְאֵין הָעֵדוּת תְּלוּיָה בָּהֶן. וְהֵם הַנִּקְרָאִים 'בְּדִיקוֹת'. וְכָל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִּבְדִיקוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח.

What are examples of bedikot? Witnesses testified that a person killed a colleague. The witnesses were questioned with the seven chakirot which we mentioned which define the time and the place of the act. Similarly, they were interrogated with regard to the deed and they defined the deed and the murder weapon. The judges continue to interrogate them. They ask: What were the murderer and the victim wearing, white clothes or black clothes? Was the earth where he was killed white or red? These and similar questions are called bedikot.כֵּיצַד הֵן הַבְּדִיקוֹת? הֲרֵי שֶׁהֵעִידוּ עָלָיו שֶׁהָרַג, וְנֶחְקְרוּ בְּשֶׁבַע הַחֲקִירוֹת שֶׁמָּנִינוּ, שֶׁהֵן בְּכַוָּנַת הַזְּמַן וְכַוָּנַת הַמָּקוֹם, וְנִדְרְשׁוּ בְּכַוָּנַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה, וְכִוְּנוּ הַמַּעֲשֶׂה וְכִוְּנוּ הַכְּלִי שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ בּוֹ - בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָן עוֹד, וְאוֹמְרִין לָהֶן 'מַה הָיָה לוֹבֵשׁ הַנֶּהֱרָג אוֹ הַהוֹרֵג, בְּגָדִים לְבָנִים אוֹ שְׁחוֹרִים?' 'עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ שֶׁנֶּהֱרַג עָלֶיהָ, לָבָן אוֹ אָדֹם?' אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֵם הַבְּדִיקוֹת.

An incident once occurred when witnesses stated that a murder took place under a fig tree. The judges questioned the witnesses: “Were the figs black or white?”, “Were their stems long or short?’’ The more a judge questions the witnesses with bedikot like these, the more praiseworthy it is.מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאָמְרוּ הָעֵדִים 'הֲרָגוֹ בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי תַּחַת הַתְּאֵנָה', וּבָדְקוּ הָעֵדִים וְאָמְרוּ לָהֶם 'תְּאֵנִים שֶׁלָּהּ שְׁחוֹרוֹת הָיוּ אוֹ לְבָנוֹת'? 'עֻקְצִין שֶׁל אוֹתָם הַתְּאֵנִים אֲרוּכוֹת הָיוּ אוֹ קְצָרוֹת'? וְכָל הַמַּרְבֶּה בִּבְדִיקוֹת אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן, מְשֻׁבָּח.

Footnotes

See the definition of this term in Chapter 18.

I.e., it is statements made in court that are significant. Statements made outside the court, by contrast, are of no consequence (Kessef Mishneh).

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 178) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 122) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

I.e., one’s fellow Jew. If, however, one knows of testimony that will benefit a gentile, one is not obligated to testify in court (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 28:2). See Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 28:3) which discusses the concept of testifying on behalf of a gentile at length.

If a person does not testify and as a result, his colleague loses money, the recalcitrant witness has a moral and spiritual obligation (chayav bidinei shamayim) to reimburse his colleague for his loss [Bava Kama 55b; Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 28:1)].

With regard to testimony involving the Torah’s prohibitions and cases involving capital punishment or lashes, by contrast, a witness is obligated to testify even when he is not summoned (Kessef Mishneh).

If, however, the litigant does not summon him, he is not required to volunteer the information on his own initiative. Sh’vuot 35a derives this concept from the exegesis of the verse from Leviticus which the Rambam cites.

From the Rambam’s wording, it can be implied that even when there is only one witness, he is obligated to testify in court (Kessef Mishneh). Although his testimony does not have the power to cause money to be expropriated from the litigant, it may require him to take an oath or intimidate him into admitting his obligation. See also Chapter 21, Halachah 10.

The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 28:5) states that the court should send three representatives to him and he should testify in their presence. In that manner, the testimony is delivered in the presence of a court and the scholar’s honor is preserved.

10.

See Hilchot Talmud Torah 6:1 which describes the mitzvah to honor the Sages.

11.

E.g., a woman who seeks permission from the court to remarry and the witness knows whether or not her husband is alive (Rashi, Sh’vuot 30b). The scholar is obligated to testify if the court wishes to grant leniency and he knows that there is a prohibition involved. If, however, the court seeks to rule stringently and he knows that there is no need for a prohibition, he is not required to testify (Kessef Mishneh). The Sefer Me’irat Einayim 28:28 explains that there are even times when the court seeks to be stringent that the person should testify, because the stringency may lead to leniency indirectly.

12.

When there is only one witness, he is obligated to testify only when his testimony will prevent a person from transgressing (or continuing to transgress). If, however, the transgression has been performed and his testimony will be of no consequence, he should not testify. Indeed, doing so resembles malicious gossip (Hagahot Maimoniot to Chapter 5, Halachah 1).

13.

He must testify regardless of whether his testimony will lead to conviction or acquittal (Kessef Mishneh).

14.

And every transgression involves the desecration of God’s name.

15.

For being forced to testify would represent a deprecation of his honor (see Sanhedrin 18b).

16.

I.e., the kings of the House of David. The kings of the Kingdom of Israel and the like, by contrast, should not be brought to court (Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:5). Alternatively, it could refer also to the King of Israel and be referring to a case involving the king’s son (Radbaz).
Note the gloss of Rav Moshe HaCohen who asks why the Rambam does not mention an instance where the High Priest’s testimony is necessary to prevent a transgression, for in such an instance, even the High Priest is required to testify. For it appears that the Rambam would not require a High Priest to testify in such circumstances.

17.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 179) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 463) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 1, according to Scriptural Law, this obligation applies with regard to all matters brought to court, cases involving financial matters as well as those involving capital punishment.

18.

Sanhedrin 40a derives the need for these seven fundamental questions from the exegesis of three verses (Deuteronomy 13:15, 17:4, and 19:18) which deal with the judges’ examination of the witnesses.

19.

The reason for these questions is to divert the witnesses' attention and cause them to let down their guard, lest they have prepared false testimony (Rashi, Sanhedrin 32a).

20.

I.e., did it have the minimum amount necessary for him to be liable (see Hilchot Sh’vitat Asor 2:1-5).

21.

See the definition of this term in Chapter 18. As explained there, hazamah involves other witnesses stating that these witnesses were with them in another place at the time they claim to have observed the transgression taking place.

22.

Sanhedrin 41 a states: “Whenever there is no possibility of refuting testimony through hazamah, the testimony is of no consequence.” For testimony must include the definition of the essential factors involved in a case. Otherwise, there is no way of proving its authenticity.

23.

See the following chapter which elaborates on the differences between the bedikot and the chakirot.

Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Edut - Chapter 1

Edut - Chapter 1

Quiz Yourself on Edut Chapter 1