One Murder. No Witness - Rabbi Shlomo Horwitz

You would not believe what the briskerv asks about paraspacius. Cayenne killed he. Why didn't Adam Harishon bring him to justice and put him to death? That's the law. Perhaps you'll say Adam didn't know that Kane did it. But of course he did. When Kava names her son Chase, she says that Hashem gave her another child in place of Heo Kihara Cayenne because Cayenne killed him. So if Benet Noah have this responsibility to establish courts and administer justice, why didn't Adam carry that out on Cayenne? The Gomorrah says in Sanhedrin Zion that a Benoah can be judged by one dion on the testimony of one witness without Hassra without warning. The question is what is the point of that witness? Is the witness simply establishing the facts guili or is there actually a requirement for actual formal testimony? Here's the difference. If we only need to know what happened, Adam already knew. But if we need formal knowledge is not enough. You need a witness. That says the brisker of is why Adam could not put K to death. Even though he knew what had happened, he had not received testimony from an eyewitness. And the brisker proves this from Tarum Unkus. The puzz says the death penalty for a murderer and uncle says if somebody sheds a person's blood through witnesses or a witness then and only then shall his blood be shed. The key words are sad. It's through witnesses. So even for a Benoak true testimony is required. One is enough but at least it has to be a formal witness. Isn't that amazing? Adam knew the truth but what he lacked to carry out justice was the the formal testimony needed to pass judgment. Honestly, in my life, I never thought to ask this question, but now that I see the question, I don't know how I lived without it. A brilliant insight from the brisker of wishing everybody a good job.