Knowing G-d’s will is, of course, one of the biggest questions, if not the greatest of all. And I will not presume to answer it here. But sometimes we know, for certain, what His will is, and no doubt about it. This could only be, I believe, through our Holy Torah, and I wish to demonstrate it.
Two Jews come before a Dayan (Jewish judge). One says the other owes him a sum of money, the other – denies it flatly .
What could be done?
Logic says that some kind of testimony by unbiased witnesses, could solve this, and reveal the truth: was there or wasn’t there a loan.
If the witnesses are well interrogated, and clearly identified as having no family relation with any of the sides, there’s a good chance that Truth will come out.
But, a fraction of chance always remains that the witnesses are crooks, and that they’re lying. Nevertheless, the Torah says that we must believe them. Because “the Dayan has naught to judge by, but that which is before his eyes“.
We live in a Relative world, and we must bring the Absolute dimension into it, through the Torah.
If the two Edim, witnesses, passed all our checks and double checks, all our interrogations, even if they are villains, it is obviously the will of G-d, that this side and not the other should win the trial.
There is Logic in the concept of two witnesses’ testimony, but there’s also a Metaphysical aspect to it.
And this doesn’t stop here…
What if another pair of witnesses comes right after the first pair, and testifies exactly the opposite?
Then – we “send everybody home”. There’s no testimony here. Because metaphysical as it may be, there’s also a Logical side to Din Edut, the laws of Jewish testimonies, and logically there’s no reason to prefer one testimony over the other. We believe the 1st pair because HaShem told us to believe, and then we believe the 2nd pair. And as that brings us into a logical cul de sac – we drop it:
HaShem does not wish for us to be in certainty about this case.
But listen yet to this:
What if the second pair comes and says that it was impossible for the 1st pair to bear witness to the loan, as they were with them in a café in another part of the Globe at the moment of their reclaimed testimony?
Then we punish the first pair with whatever damage they could have caused one of the sides if their testimony was accepted, were it not for the 2nd pair. Because they have now been revealed as Scheming Witnesses – Edim Zomemim.
The question is – what’s the difference?!
Why is it that when the two pairs of witnesses contradicted each other’s testimony we’ve dismissed the case, and now we choose to believe the 2nd pair, even though the same contradiction is still there?
The answer is that in the 1st case the two testimonies are about the same subject – whether or not money was passed here, and believing both pairs is a logical cul de sac.
But in the 2nd case, each pair testifies a different thing: the 1st pair testifies there was a loan (and we believe them), and the second pair testifies that the 1st pair are crooks, Edim Zomemim (and we believe them too).
Again, right, it may still be that the second pair are liars and the 1st pair are saintly. But here metaphysics comes into the picture: HaShem told us to believe a testimony made by two witnesses so we believed the first couple. And then, equally, we believed the second couple, in their testimony that the first couple are liars. We are systematic, and go by our logic, but we take into account G-d’s will, in believing two witnesses, no matter what. As long as we come not into a logical contradiction.