102 Selected Reform Responsa
not permitted in court, and it did not matter whether these relatives retained any ties with the accused or not(Yad, Hil. Edut 13.6; Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 33.3).
Jewish tradition, therefore, very clearly eliminated all relatives from this kind of judicial involvement in contrast to other legal systems. The ancient Greek legal system had no qualms about the testimony of relatives(W. Smith, A Dictionary of Greck and Roman Antiquities, p. 626). In Rome, such testimony was not excluded, but it was given little weight. In English common law, relatives, except husband and wife, may testify against or for each other(H. Roscoe, A Digest of the Law of Evidence, pp. 112ff).
It is clear, therefore, that from the point of view of a Jewish court, such an individual should not testify against any member of his family, but he must testify(1) if a criminal act endangers the community, or(2) if the law of the land demands such testimony in accordance with the principle“dina d'malkhuta dina” this may restrain bitter family feelings which might arise from such circumstances(Gulak, Hamishpat Ha-Ivri IV.1).
Informing on Others in
Walter Jacob
QUESTION: A prisoner has asked whether he is, according t© Jewish law, duty-bound to inform on others in criminal matters with which he is charged. This will probably be part of“plea bargaining.” What is his duty according to our tradition?(Rabbi W. J. Leffler, Lexington, Kentucky )
ANSWER: Jewish tradition states that information which, if withheld, would harm individuals or the community, either
me fuga SEE mt EE ta me OB pu puget SE omen
fn Sung aa gen TT a, a en