Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/437

 402

by one of the judges, or by each of them separately, if they were so disposed : — "Perhaps you are speaking from guess? Or from hearsay? Witness from witness? Or from a trustworthy man you heard it? Or perhaps you don't know that at the last we shall proceed to inquire into your own character and investigate it. Have a knowledge that the judgments of money are not as judgments of souls. In judgment for money, when the man pays the money he has atoned. Tn judgment for souls, his blood and the blood of his posterity are suspended till the end of the world. So we find it with Cain when he slew his brother. It is said of him, ' The voice of thy brother's bloods crieth.' It does not say thy brother's blood, but bloods of thy brother, — his blood and the blood of his posterity. Another thing is also meant, that thy brother's bloods are spattered on wood and on stones. Therefore man is created single, to teach thee that every one who destroys one soul from Israel, to him is the verse applicable, as if he destroys a full world. And every one who supports one soul from Israel, to him is the verse applicable as if he supports the full world. And it is also said, for the peace of creation, that no man may justly say to his com panion, ' My father is greater than thine,' and that the Epicurean should not say that there are more creators in the heavens, and it is also said to show forth the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He! When man stamps many coins with one stamp, all are alike. But the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He! stamped every man with the stamp of the first Adam, and no one of them is like his companion : therefore every one is bound to say, ' For my sake the world was created.' But perhaps the witnesses will say, ' What is this trouble to us? ' But is it not already said? And is a witness whether he has seen or known of it : if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. But perhaps the witnesses will say : ' What is it to us to be guilty of this man's blood? ' But is it not already said, when the wicked perish there is shouting? God will demand of thee an account as He demanded of Cain an account of the blood of Abel. Speak."

No tribunal of modern times has ever by any system of practice brought to the mind of the witness such a sense of the awful

responsibility which weighs upon him when he speaks words upon which hangs the thread of a human life like this. Who can doubt but that such examination makes the witness careful to speak of a fact only of which he absolutely knew the truth? The judges also inquired with severe investiga tion as to when the crime was committed, by asking " In what Sabbatical year? In what year? In what month? What date in the month? What day? What hour? What place? Did you know him? Did you warn him? " Failure to warn a person often excused the criminal, for ignorance of the law was a defence : there was no presump tion, as with us, that he knew the law. Not only must he be warned, but he must ac knowledge it, and express a desire to commit the crime notwithstanding it. Every judge was considered praiseworthy who extended examinations. They also made a distinction between examination and investigation. In investigation, if the witness said, " I don't know," he was set aside as worthless; that is, if he did not know the year, month, day, hour, or place of the occurrejice or person who committed the offence, he was regarded as not sufficiently accurate to make it safe to take his testimony as a basis for judicial condemnation, and this for the reason that only direct testimony was permissible. But if upon examination or caution he said, " I don't know," or the two witnesses so say, their testimony was taken, if qualified in other respects, as it related rather to information possessed regarding the penalty for false or mistaken testimony, and might be explained to them; but if upon examination or investigation the witnesses contradicted each other, upon any material question, both were declared worthless. This rule was applied with great strictness; for the Mishna declares : —• "One witness said on the second of the month, and another witness said the third of the month; their witness stands, because one knows of the intercalary month, and another does not know of the intercalary month. One said on the third, and