Self-incrimination in rabbinic law and US constitutional law TB Yevamot 25

Starting with daf TB Yevamot 24b until the end of the second chapter, the Gemara leaves the topic of yibum, levirate marriage and deals with a variety of other topics. In the course of discussing a case today’s daf TB Yevamot 25 highlights the difference between rabbinic law and US constitutional law concerning self-incrimination.

The Mishnah sets the case up for our deliberation. “MISHNA: An agent who brought a bill of divorce from a country overseas and said: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, as required in order to establish the bill of divorce as valid, may not marry the wife, i.e., the divorcée. Since the validity of the bill of divorce is based upon his testimony, marrying the divorcée creates the impression that he had an ulterior motive for his testimony. Similarly, a witness who testified that a certain man died, or testified: I killed him, or: We killed him, may not marry that man’s wife. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he testified: I killed him, his wife may not be married at all based on that evidence, as his testimony is unreliable, but if he said: We killed him, his wife may be married to anyone other than those witnesses. (Later on the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda reinterprets the phrase ‘we killed him’ to mean I was there when he was murdered.-gg) ” (Sefaria.org translation) We are only interested in the second half of the Mishnah. The man testifies that he killed the woman’s husband. Why the widow who is not a co-conspirator would want to marry her husband’s murderer is a mystery to me.

Rava teaches the rabbinic principal against self-incrimination. “Rava disputed Rav Yosef’s opinion and said: Even if one said that he was willingly (participated in a sin like murder-gg), he is not believed concerning his own actions, because a person is his own relative. Consequently, he may not testify about himself, just as the testimony of any relative is disqualified. And furthermore, a person does not make himself wicked. His testimony with regard to his own actions is inadmissible because he is his own relative…” (Sefaria.org translation) A close relative cannot testify against his accused relative. Since the accused is his closest own relative, that part of his testimony which incriminates him is deleted as if it was never said.

United States constitutional law also has the principal against self-incrimination; however, this means that the accused has the right to remain silent and doesn’t have to testify. If the accused does testify, whatever he says may be held against him.

Rashi ד"ה אֵין אָדָם מֵשִׂים explains that a person’s self-incrimination only in monetary matters is a strong as 100 witnesses (הודאת פיו כמאה עדים) and accepted based upon the Gemara daf TB baba Metzia 3b and doesn’t apply to cases concerning fines, the punishment of stripes with a whip, and invalidation of personal status.