Admissions in Evidence Adonai
JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
TlIK
chamctcr; Iience sclfiulniission. or voluntary confession, is not gooti (.vidcucc. and is not admissible except ill the cas<'S mentioned below. Admission in criminal In Criminal Cases cases is eiiliielv ixrliidcd. and is not even considered Applying the Talniudic ma.xims DIX in evidence.
1DVV
("Each man
2^^^p
h'iii
own
his
is
near rela-
— relatives can not bear witness against one an-
tive ")
I'X (" One can not inthe Jewish legislators probably thought by this means to prevent the methods prevailing in their times of extorting confessions by tor-
other—and yen ipvy D'CTS Onx criminate hiniscll
").
The Talmud, endeavoring the conviction of Achan on
ture.
to give a legal aspect his own confession
to (Josh. vii. 10-24), has the following haggadic explanaLord tion " Joshua pleaded before the Almighty of the universe, tell me who is the man? God answered I do not divulge the secret of any person '
O
'
'
furthermore, I am no informer. But go and make investigation among the tribes and families.' When Achan, the son of ('arnii, was 'taken he protested against such a method of conviction: lias not Moses our master taught us, "at the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death "? (Deut. xvii. G). Joshua then spoke persuasively to Achan: .My son, I pray '
'
200
restitution for the stolen property, but need not pay the fine of double, four, or five times the amount of the theft, as the case might otherwise re(|uire (Ex. xxi. 37, xxii. 3): provided, however, that the admissi(m was made before the bet din, or court, and before he was sued and evidence was ]>ro(luced against him; otherwise his subse<iuent admission is of no avail to release him fnmi the fine(Maimouides,"IIil-
kot Genebah,"
iii.
8.
il).
Admission of a debt must be made before two men expressly requested to serve as witnesses on this particular point; otherwise, if slated in the absi'nce of the creditor, the debtor can claim that the statement was made for the purpose of making ])eiiple believe he was poor. Then, again, if the creditor was present, the debtor can claim that Ihe statement was made in fun, 'n"n nCK'D (" I have been joking"). In fact, the debtor's silence to the creditor's demand, before witnesses, is a better indication Of a Debt, of hisconsent than his admis.sion tinder these circumstances. The best safeguard for the creditor is to have the debtor admit his indebtedness after due demand in court, when the debtor can not have recourse to any such excuses
(Sanh.
iii.
6, 29rt; "
Shulhan 'Aruk, Ho.shen Mishpat,"
'
'
make confession.' Achan finally confessed, Thus and thus have I done and when his confession was substantiated by the finding of the property thee, '
'
concealed 'in his tent and the silver under it,' this made the conviction legal " (Yer. Sanh. vi. 23i). Regarding admission in perjury, the Rosh (Asher ben Jehiel) wrote the following responsum " Replying to your Inquiry AoeordlnR to our laws, one who has sworn tliat he will do a certain Ihinff and afterward admits, ' which I have broken my oath and not done as I have sworn fact could not be established by witnesses, but Zn Perjury, solely by his own admission— does not l)ecome thereby'a disqualified witness for future cast^, as the rule is, 'a man cannot incriminate himself.' and this person who took an oath tocntcr the accounts in thelxxik justly, truthfully, and to the best uf Iiis ability, and now admits false and fraudulent eutries. is not to he reffarded a perjurer by law, inasmuch as itcan not otherwise be proved that he has presumptuously broken his oath. However, should you think it advisable and propertoinhicta punishment on him for contempt and barefacedness for sayinp that he has broken his oath, you may act in accordance with your discretion. "Attested by the writer, " AsHKR, son of Jehiel of blessed memory."
—
(Rosh,
"Responsa" No.
5,
nile
ii.)
Admission involving the guilt of another person is valid, though not operative against the person making it, as in the case of unnatural offenses (>Saidi. 96
Rjiba's rule in this case is NIUT p'J^S split the testimony"), the first pait Ixing ex-
ct seg.).
("We
cluded; otherwise the
n^Da
ni'13
ntilled
("
maxim is HDVpO
^i^D3C' nnj?
Testimony partly annulled
is all
an-
effecting one's own loss is regarded as good evidence, the maxims concerning ciiminal cases being reversed: anp DTK I'N
131DO SvX ("One is iiof related to one's money": Sanh. lUii c^^nmni), and therefore man may testify against himself in civil cases and jn pya nXlin 'D1 W"1V nSD3 ("The admission of the defendant is as good as a hundred witnes.ses"; Tosef. B. Jt. i. The only benefit one can derive liy 10 ct pasuhii). one's admission is to save an extra fine: as in the case of a person admitting seduction, who must pay
damages for degradation and impairment, but need not pay as a tine the amount of the legal dowry (Ex. 16,
Admission of a debt by a person on the point of death, however, is valid in any event, as IJ'X DIX nn-D nVL'O nDL"?3 (" One is not likel v to joke on his " Hoshen Mishpat," 5- 81, 2). writing must be made bj' the debtor dictating the contents, apiiointing the witnes.ses (DHX ny). and fullering them to write and sign Ihe note (lonm 13)13 which makes it a recordeil document pledged liy the debtor's landed property, which can be seized for the payment of the note even from subsequent purchasers; otherwise the note has no more value than an unsecured debt, and his property subsequently sold can not be held for the payment of the Hence the witne,s.ses must not act without note. special instruction from the debtor (Maimonides,
death-bed
'
Admission
B. B. ITrw/
in
>.
"Ililkot Malweh." xi. S 1). If there are two partners,
Shebu.
case of a thief;
if
Similarly, "in the Ket. i2n). he admits his guilt, he must make
v. 4,
A
and I>, in a firm, adof the iiayment of a debt from (', a debtor of the firm, due the i)arlnership, .1 claiming to have received the money and put it in the partnership treasury is not binding on partner B, who disputes the fact. However, Cis relea.sed of his debt by the admission of -1, who must prove (Maimonides," Ililkot his statement or reimburse mission
made by partner A
B
Sheluhin,"
x. 6).
Admission by a debtor of part payment, if made stiit has begun, subjects the debtor to an oath; whereas a ilebtor, Ijy general denial, is legally exempt from the oath. 'The Talmud reasons thr.t in Ihe latter case a man having the elfrontery to deny outright will not shrink from swearafter
Of Part
").
In Civil Cases: Admission
xxii.
§ 32).
ing falsely.
Payment
to the full
In case witnesses testify is administered to the debtor who admits only part payment; but purchasers of his property can claim that they rely on the testimony of the witnesses as to the full payment of the note (Mishnah Shebu. vii. 1; Maimonides, "Ililkot To'cn," iii. § 1, iv. § 1 ct stq.).
payment the oath
BiDLiOGRAPnT: Hal Gaon, .Virfipffc Sdfbu'of, pp. 1-3, Hambure. 17SS; Sigmund Mayer, FAnlcilvnfi in i)ie tjc»etz{ichini(i itufi ^[f^ltwin (hti Talnui'lfi (translated from the French of J. .M. Itabhinowltzl. 'lYeve.s. lss;i: Fninkel, Dcr GerichtUche
pp. 331>-:m, Berlin, ISttJ: Ulumenstein, Die VrrEiiif^artcti uach Mofnisr}! - Talmudischfm Frankfort-on-the-Main. iwi; M. Bloch, />iV Ca-fiProccff-Onlnuny narh Mosaiscli-Iidhljinuicheiii liccMe, pp. 41-tt, Budapest, li««: J. Klein, Da» OerielitliclK Beucificrfahniu p. IJ, Halle, WHa.
BcHcis.
.^chifdt'nfii i?cf)i(c, p.8,
J.
D. E.
