JEWISH WEDDING: Can a relative be a witness?

We have explained in previous weeks  (see this)  that Jewish Law requires the presence of two witnesses in a marriage ceremony.  Not anyone is competent to act as a witness.   Biblical Law disqualifies, for example, the testimony of a relative. This is learned from the verse in Deut. 24:16  "Parents are not to be put to death for their children.... nor children put to death for their parents". Jewish law exposes this verse more or less as follows: "Parents, or any other close relatives, might not be sentenced to death and for any crime by their children or by any other close relatives's testimony".  Once we know that close relatives are disqualified as witnesses we need to clarify what is the degree and nature of the closeness which would disqualify a person from bearing testimony (of any kind, not just in a  wedding ceremony).  For example: is a second or a third cousin considered a close relative? Is a brother in-law considered a relative to this effect? etc.  The law that explains which relatives are qualified and which are disqualified as witnesses is very complex and they can be found in the Shulhan 'Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat chapter 33). We are going to see now just a few illustrations: The Mishna in Sanhedrin 3:4 lists as disqualified witnesses the following relatives: father, brother, uncle, brother-in-law, stepfather, father-in-law, and their sons and sons-in-law. The rule was extended to cover nephews, cousins and many other in-laws.  Additionally, witnesses who are related to one another are incompetent to attest or testify together even when they are not related to the bride and groom.  The rabbis classified the different cases in groups, according to the immediacy of the family relationship.  For example, the first group of family members (rishon) includes parents, siblings and children.  Members of the first group cannot not act as witnesses together, even though they are not related to the bride or groom. This disqualification  is known in Halakhic terminology "rishon berishon", witnesses with a first degree family closeness.   (To be continued)

SHABBAT: Carrying an object outdoors

 Last Friday we began our overview of the melakha (=an activity which is forbidden to perform on Shabbat) named "hotza-a", i.e., carrying, transferring an object from one domain to another domain.   The Rabbis distinguished between four different domains. 1. reshut ha-yahid a private domain , 2. reshut ha-rabbim, a public domain, 3. karmelit , the semipublic domain, and  4. meqom petor,  the exempted domain.  They specified case by case, in detail and at length all the different situations and laws pertaining to each category. 

There is one particular case on which we will focus our attention first, because in our days and our urban reality, this is probably the most practical case: carrying an object within a public domain, which is also considered part of this melakha (MT Shabbat,  12:8).   

But why would carrying an object in the public domain be considered as transferring it from one domain to another domain? Although this is classified as a legal axiom (Halakha leMoshe miSinai), the reasoning behind it is the following:  according to Jewish law a person standing in the public domain is deemed to create around himself a sort of a personal private domain in the area around his body. It is an abstract  perimeter of authority and liability. Jewish Law defines the area of this domain as a square of approximately six feet by six feet, each side (visually, and to be more precise,  it is the length of the person when he lays down on the floor with his arms extended. Thus, this square is slightly different in size from person to person).  Now, if for example two people, Mr A and Mr B, see a lost object in the street and both claim possession on that object, if the object happens to be within six feet of Mr A, he has the legal right to keep this object.  

So, the six feet perimeter around me is an abstract reshut hayahid, i.e., my private domain within the public domain.  Now, this area is re-created anew every time the person rests on another spot of the public domain.  Therefore, if I carry an object from my present perimeter (Area 1) into an area more than  six feet away (Area 2) it is like transferring an object from one domain to another domain.  Consequently, for example, I am permitted to transport an object in the street within my own six feet: if I take my glasses off, I can carry them within my six feet but not beyond six feet.    

(to be continued...)

Shabbat Shalom. 

  

Candle lighting in NYC:  7.19 pm

Shabbat Ends in NYC:  8.20 pm

Pirqe Abot, 2:8: Rabbi Magriso on overeating

He [Hillel] used to say  "the more meat [i.e., food] the more maggots".

  

In this Mishna we are taught that excess in the satisfaction of our basic needs is not necessarily good. On the contrary, it hurts us.  Anticipating the modern medical view on the destructive consequences of overeating Rabbi Ytzhaq Magriso (18th Century Turkey) writes: "Hillel explains that all wordily things are meaningless, fleeting and impermanent. One may expect pleasure from these vices, but the effect is often the opposite. The first vice [mentioned by Hillel] is overeating...  one feels good and strong after a large meal, and feels that he can go in this manner forever. But the net result is often obesity... Overindulgence in eating and drinking can bring about many sicknesses, an much human illness is the result of not keeping one's mouth closed.  If one eats too much, he ends up shortening his life span." 

  

Judaism does not preach to suppress our basic needs. But when we indulge in excesses, these needs turn into vices or what we call today addictions. Overeating; the insatiable craving for wealth; excessive laziness; excessive attention to sex. etc. are all self destructive     

  

Rabbi Magriso concludes:

  

"Thus, the more a person indulges in worldly vices believing that this will lead to a good life, the more the opposite becomes true.  A man should get along with the minimum required to live a respectable life, and not seek more. The opposite of the vice of overindulgence in eating and drinking which shortens one's life, is the increase in the study of Torah. As the master says, 'The more Torah the more life' ." 

  

The Tora we learn "is not merely an external gain, but it becomes an integral part of a person. It is thus something that one carries with him even after death. In this respect it is the exact opposite of worldly vices, which are entirely external. Nothing of these [food, material wealth, etc] can be taken along when one dies.  No matter how much one gains of the worldly, everything is left behind".