Parshas Shoftim - when do we bring an eglah arufah?


The passuk says in this week’s sedrah (דברים כ"א א')

כִּי יִמָּצֵא חָלָל בָּאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ לְרִשְׁתָּהּ נֹפֵל בַּשָּׂדֶה לֹא נוֹדַע מִי הִכָּהוּ

“If a slain person is found in the land which Hashem gives you to inherit, fallen in the field, and it is not known who smote him.”

Since the passuk says that the עגלה ערופה is brought because it is not known who the murderer is, it is evident that if it is known who the murderer is, then an עגלה ערופה is not brought.

The mishna in Sotah (דף מ"ז ע"א) discusses this halacha and says

עד אחד אומר ראיתי את ההורג ועד אחד אומר לא ראית אשה אומרת ראיתי ואשה אומרת לא ראית היו עורפין

“If one witness says, ‘I saw the murderer,’ and one witness says, ‘You did not see.’ Or if a woman says, ‘I saw the murderer,’ and another woman says, ‘You did not see,’ then they would bring an עגלה ערופה.”

The gemara (ע"ב) explains

טעמא דמכחיש ליה הא לא מכחיש ליה עד אחד מהימן מנהני מילי דת"ר (דברים כ"א, א') לא נודע מי הכהו הא נודע מי הכהו אפילו אחד בסוף העולם לא היו עורפין

“The reason that you bring an עגלה ערופה is because the second witness contradicted the first witness, however if the second witness had not contradicted the first witness then you would believe the first witness and you would not bring an עגלה ערופה (because we know who the murderer is). How do we know that a single עד is believed regarding עגלה ערופה?

The passuk says – לא נודע מי הכהו – it is not known who killed him. Which implies that if anyone at all does know who killed him, even if this were to be one person at the end of the world, then they would not bring an עגלה ערופה.”

The Rambam brings down this halachah in הלכות רוצח ושמירת נפש (פרק ט', הלכה י"ב)

אפילו ראה ההורג עד אחד אפילו עבד או אשה או פסול לעדות בעבירה לא היו עורפין...

“Even if only one witness saw the murderer, and even if this witness was a slave or a woman or someone who is פסול לעדות (because they had done an עבירה), they would not bring an עגלה ערופה…”

In הלכה י"ג the Rambam explains that a single עד who testifies regarding the obligation to bring an עגלה ערופה has the status of two עדים.

עד אחד אומר ראיתי את ההורג ועד אחד הכחישו ואמר לו לא ראית היו עורפין. במה דברים אמורים כשבאו שניהם כאחת אבל אם אמר אחד אני ראיתי את ההורג הרי זה נאמן כשנים לענין זה. ואם בא אחר כך עד אחד והכחישו ואמר לו לא ראית אין משגיחין על דברי האחרון ואין עורפין.

“If one witness says, ‘I saw the murderer,’ and one witness contradicts him and says, ‘You did not see the murderer,’ then they would bring an עגלה ערופה. When is this halachah stated? When the two witnesses came to בית דין and testified at the same time. However, if one witness came to בית דין and said, ‘I saw the murderer,’ and the בית דין accepted his עדות and decided not to bring an עגלה ערופה, in this case the single עד has the נאמנות of two עדים in this matter (since the Torah accepts the testimony of a single עד regarding an עגלה ערופה.) Therefore, if subsequently a single עד comes and says to the first עד, ‘You did not see the murderer,’ you ignore the second עד (and you still do not bring an עגלה ערופה), because the first עד is considered as two עדים, and the second עד remains as only one עד, ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים כלום.”

In הלכה י"ד the Rambam says that we only consider the single עד as two עדים when the single עד is a man, however if the single עד is a woman then, even although we accept her עדות and we do not bring an עגלה ערופה, nevertheless we do not consider her עדות to have the status of two עדים.

...אשה אומרת ראיתי את ההורג ואשה אחרת מכחשת אותה ואומרת לא ראית היו עורפין בין שבאו שתיהן כאחת בין שבאו זו אחר זו...

“…If one woman says, ‘I saw the murderer’, and another woman contradicts her and says ‘You did not see the murderer,’ then they would bring an עגלה ערופה regardless of whether they came together or they came one after the other…”

According to the Rambam, if a woman came and said that she saw the murderer, whereupon בית דין accepted her עדות, and then another woman came and contradicted her, then they would bring an עגלה ערופה. In this we do not say that the עדות of the first woman is like the testimony of two עדים since it was accepted in בית דין. Instead the עדות of the first woman always remains merely the עדות of an עד אחד and a second woman may later contradict the first woman, whereupon we bring an עגלה ערופה because we now do not know who the murderer is.

It is evident from this halachah, that when the Torah says that we accept the
עדות of one עד in the case of an עגלה ערופה, this is not because the Torah considers the testimony of one עד as that of two עדים, for in the case of an עד אחד who is a woman, whose testimony we do not accept as that of two, we still accept her עדות and do not to bring an עגלה ערופה (since we now know who the murderer is).

If so, why does the Rambam say that if one man testified that he knows who the murderer is, and then later another man comes and contradicts him, that since we have already accepted the
עדות of the first man, he is considered as two עדים, and the second עד is inconsequential, because אין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים כלום? Since we can furnish the halachah that one עד is capable of stopping the bringing of an עגלה ערופה without saying that we consider their testimony as that of two (as is evident in the case where a woman testifies that she saw the murderer), in that case there is no הכרח to say that the עדות of one man should be considered as the עדות of two (if he testifies that he knows who the murderer is), since we do not bring the עגלה ערופה even if we only know who the murderer is according to one עד?

Rabbi Chaim Soloveichik z”l explains as follows:

If an עד אחד who is a man says that he knows who the murderer is, then we apply the general rule that appears in the gemara Kesuvos 22b

דאמר עולא כל מקום שהאמינה תורה עד אחד הרי כאן שנים

עולא said, wherever the Torah believed one עד, he has the status of two עדים.

If so, the question is, if an אשה or an עבד or someone who is פסול לעדות say that they know how the murderer is, why do we not apply this general rule?

It would seem that the explanation of this halachah rests on a Moreh Nevuchim which is brought in the Ramban (דברים כ"א ד')

אבל הרב אמר במורה הנבוכים (ג' מ') כי הטעם לגלות על הרוצח ולבער דמו בעבור שברוב הפעמים יהיה הרוצח מן העיר אשר סביבות החלל וכשיצאו הזקנים ויתעסקו במדידה ההיא וזקני העיר ההיא יעידו לפני הבורא שלא התרשלו בתקון הדרכים ושמירתם ושאינם יודעים מי הרג את זה וכשיחקר הענין יאספו הזקנים ויביאו העגלה ירבו בני אדם לדבר בו אולי יגלה הדבר וכבר אמרו (ירושלמי סוטה פ"ט ה"א) שאפילו תבוא שפחה ותאמר פלוני הוא הרוצח לא תערף. ואם יודע הרוצח ויחרישו ממנו ויעידו הבורא על נפשותם כי לא ידעוהו יהיה בזה זדון גדול. וכל השומע שמץ דבר בענין יבוא ויגיד ויתפרסם הדבר ויהרג או על ידי ב"ד או המלך או גואל הדם ויתחזק הענין בהיות המקום אשר תערף בו העגלה לא יעבד בו ולא יזרע לעולם יכירו בו רואיו וידברו בו

The Rambam says in Moreh Nevuchim that the reason for the mitzvah of עגלה ערופה is to reveal the murderer, because the murderer is probably from the nearest city to the victim. When the זקנים go out from that city and measure the distance to the victim and testify that they were not negligent with mending and guarding the roads and bring the עגלה ערופה, many will talk about what happened, through which people will find out what happened. As the Yerushalmi says, ‘Even if aשפחה  comes and says that so-and-so is the murderer then you do not bring an עגלה ערופה.’

And if the murderer is known and people are silent about this matter, and they testify before Hashem that they do not know who the murderer is, there would be in this a great wantonness.

And anyone who hears anything at all would come and say, and the matter would become publicised, so that the murderer would be killed either by beis din or by the king or by the goel ha’dam.

Because the place where the עגלה ערופה is killed may not be worked on sown forever, people who see the place will recall the murder and talk about what happened.”

According to the Rambam, the עגלה ערופה is brought when no-one at all knows who the murderer is, the purpose of bringing the עגלה ערופה is to get people to talk about the murder so that some information may be provided to beis din or to the king or to the goel ha’dam. Subsequently if even aשפחה  says that she knows who the murderer is, then since we now have the faintest idea of who the murderer was, the reason for bringing the עגלה ערופה no longer applies.

In other words, the reason that beis din accept the עדות of aשפחה  (or anyone else who is פסול לעדות) to say that she knows who the murderer is, is not because we consider this as valid עדות להלכה, but is only because the information that she supplies removes the reason for which an עגלה ערופה is brought. Subsequently, in this case, we do not apply the general rule that כל מקום שהאמינה תורה עד אחד הרי כאן שנים.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Parshas Devarim - Why did Moshe hint at his rebuke?

Parshas Shoftim - upholding the halacha

Parshas Ekev - chukim and mishpatim