According to the rabbis, a man is not allowed to serve as a witness in a case involving a close relative, like a father, brother, son or direct in-law. This makes sense: A close relative is likely too invested in the outcome to be an unbiased witness. But today’s daf explores one particular edge case that shows just how strange this ruling can be.
One testified (in writing) with regard to another before he became that person’s son-in-law, and then he became his son-in-law.
When a man (let’s call him Isaac) testified about something involving another person (Bethuel, say), they were not yet related. But by the time the case comes to court, Isaac has married Bethuel’s daughter Rebecca, and now they are related. What is the court to do with Isaac’s written testimony?
He may not testify as to his handwriting. But others may testify.
If Isaac acknowledges in court that the written testimony was his, then he is actually serving as a witness for his father-in-law. But other people, like the court scribe, can presumably testify that they saw Isaac write out his testimony, and their testimony can be entered into the court record. Isaac’s testimony before his marriage can thus be used to support or damage Bethuel’s case, without Isaac being directly involved.
If Isaac is not deemed credible, then why are others deemed credible to affirm his testimony? After all, that affirmation is built on a belief that Isaac is an honest person who was telling the truth.
And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is the king’s edict that he is not deemed credible, and others are deemed credible, and not that he is lying.
The Talmud explains that Isaac isn’t prohibited from testifying because he is thought to be lying but because of a “king’s edict” (stay tuned for more on what this is). And indeed, it can’t be that sons-in-law are all thought to be lying about or for their fathers-in-law, because some of the most important, honest and upright figures of Jewish history are still prohibited from testifying for their in-laws:
As if you do not say so, (were) Moses and Aaron (permitted to testify) for their fathers-in-law? Because their testimony is not deemed credible? Rather, it is the king’s edict that they shall not bear witness for him. Here too, it is the king’s edict that he shall not testify as to his handwriting for his father-in-law.
But what is a king’s edict? It is a relatively rare rabbinic expression that only shows up in two contexts in the Babylonian Talmud (though it does appear in a few early midrashim as well), here and Yoma 10a. There, we read:
Rav said: Persia is destined to fall into the hands of Rome. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: The builders will fall into the hands of the destroyers? He said to them: Yes, that is the king’s edict. Some say he said to them: They, too, are destroyers of synagogues.
Rav Kahana and Rav Asi ask a very reasonable question: How is it fair that the empire which allowed the rebuilding of the Temple would eventually fall to the empire that destroyed it? The Talmud preserves two possible answers. The second answer explains that the Persians were not perfect, but in fact deserve their fate because though they did not destroy the Temple, they did destroy synagogues in an unspecified episode.
The first answer, however, explains that it’s a “king’s edict.” In context, it’s clear that the king is God. According to this answer, Rav seems to be agreeing with his students that Persia’s eventual destruction at the hands of Rome appears unfair, but God has decreed it, perhaps for reasons beyond human understanding.
Seeing how the phrase is used in Yoma can help us understand what is happening on today’s daf. The Talmud asks how it is fair or reasonable that Isaac cannot testify, but others can testify about his testimony. And the Talmud’s response is that that’s what God decreed, regardless of what we think about it.
The rabbis usually present the world of law as something that can be understood by human minds. But once in a while they throw their hands up and say that things are the way that they are because that’s what God wants, without offering further opportunities to interrogate that claim. If we take seriously the rabbinic belief that God is king of the world, that metaphor means that, at least sometimes, kings don’t have to explain themselves.
Read all of Bava Batra 159 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on December 1, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
