Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day - Daily Torah Study

1The following law applies when a person who signed on a promissory note comes to testify with regard to his signature in a court of law. If he recognizes that the signature is definitely his, but does not remember the matter of concern at all and does not have any recollection that this person ever borrowed from the other, it is forbidden for him to testify with regard to his signature in court. For a person is not testifying about his signature, but instead about the money mentioned in the legal document, that one person is obligated to the other. His signature serves merely to remind him of the matter. If he does not remember, he may not testify.1אמִי שֶׁחָתַם עַל הַשְּׁטָר, וּבָא לְהָעִיד עַל כְּתַב יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין, וְהִכִּיר כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁזֶּהוּ בַּוַּדַּאי, אֲבָל אֵינוֹ זוֹכֵר הָעֵדוּת כְּלָל, וְלֹא יִמְצָא בְּלִבּוֹ זִכָּרוֹן שֶׁזֶּה לָוָה מִזֶּה מֵעוֹלָם - הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר לְהָעִיד עַל כְּתַב יָדוֹ זֶה בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מֵעִיד עַל כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁהוּא זֶה, אֶלָא עַל הַמָּמוֹן שֶׁבַּשְּׁטָר הוּא מֵעִיד שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּב לְזֶה, וּכְתָב יָדוֹ הוּא כְּדֵי לְהַזְכִּירוֹ הַדָּבָר, אֲבָל אִם לֹא נִזְכַּר, לֹא יָעִיד.

2Whether a person remembers his testimony at the outset, remembers it after seeing his signature, or remembers it after being reminded by others - even if he is reminded by the other witness - if he in truth remembers, he may testify. If, however, it is the plaintiff who reminds him,2 he may not testify. For it appears to the other litigant that he is testifying falsely concerning a matter about which he does not know.באֶחָד הַזּוֹכֵר אֶת הָעֵדוּת מֵעַצְמוֹ אַחַר שֶׁרָאָה כְּתָב יָדוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהִזְכִּירוּהוּ אֲחֵרִים וְנִזְכַּר, וְאַפִלּוּ הִזְכִּירוֹ הָעֵד הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁהֵעִיד עִמּוֹ, אִם נִזְכַּר - הֲרֵי זֶה מֵעִיד. אֲבָל אִם הִזְכִּירוֹ הַתּוֹבֵעַ עַצְמוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּזְכַּר - אֵינוֹ מֵעִיד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזֶּה דּוֹמֶה בְּעֵינֵי בַּעַל דִּין כְּאִלּוּ הֵעִיד לוֹ בְּשֶׁקֶר בְּדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא יָדַע.

3Accordingly, if the plaintiff was a Torah scholar and the plaintiff reminded the witness of the matter, he may testify. The rationale is that a Torah scholar knows that if the witness did not remember the matter, he would not testify.3 This is a leniency which was granted with regard to cases involving financial law.4 Even though a witness forgot a matter for many years and it was the written record that reminded him, he may testify.גוּלְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיָה הַתּוֹבֵעַ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, וְהִזְכִּיר הַתּוֹבֵעַ הַזֶּה אֶת הָעֵד וְנִזְכַּר - הֲרֵי זֶה יָעִיד לוֹ; שֶׁתַּלְמִיד חָכָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאִלְמָלֵי לֹא זָכַר הַדָּבָר - לֹא הָיָה מֵעִיד. וְקַל הוּא שֶׁהֵקִילוּ בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁכַח הַדָּבָר מִכַּמָּה שָׁנִים, וְהַכְּתָב הוּא שֶׁהִזְכִּירוֹ הַדָּבָר - הֲרֵי זֶה מֵעִיד.

4Since this is true, the following law applies when a legal document is presented to the court and the witnesses come and say: “These are our signatures, but we never knew anything about this matter. We do not remember that this person borrowed anything from the other or sold anything to him.” The legal document is not validated; the legal document is like a useless shard5 unless they remember their testimony. Whoever does not rule in this manner does not know between his right hand and his left hand with regard to matters of financial law.6דהוֹאִיל וְהַדָּבָר כֵּן, שְׁטָר שֶׁיָּצָא לְבֵית דִּין, וּבָאוּ עֵדָיו וְאָמְרוּ 'כְּתָב יָדֵינוּ הוּא זֶה, אֲבָל מֵעוֹלָם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ עֵדוּת זוֹ, וְאֵין אָנוּ זוֹכְרִין שֶׁזֶּה לָוָה מִזֶּה אוֹ מָכַר לוֹ' - לֹא נִתְקַיֵּם הַשְּׁטָר, וַהֲרֵי הוּא כַּחֶרֶס עַד שֶׁיִּזְכְּרוּ עֵדוּתָן. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דָּן כְּזֶה - לֹא יָדַע בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בֵּין יְמִינוֹ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ.

If, however, there was other evidence of their signatures or there were other witnesses who recognize their signatures, we pay no attention to their statements that they do not remember the matter stated in the document. We suspect that they may desire to retract their testimony7 and they say: “We don’t remember,” in order to nullify the legal document. This is just as if they said: “We were minors,” or “We were not acceptable witnesses.”8 Their testimony is not accepted, and the legal document is validated independent of their testimony. For this reason, we validate all legal documents without calling the witnesses and asking them if they remember the matter or not. Even if they say: “We do not remember the matter,” we do not heed their statements since it is possible to validate the legal document without their testimony.אֲבָל אִם הָיָה כְתַב יָדָם יוֹצֵא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה כְתַב יָדָם - מְקַיְּמִין אֶת הַשְּׁטָר. וְאֵין מַשְׁגִיחִין עַל דִּבְרֵיהֶן שֶׁאָמְרוּ 'אֵין אָנוּ זוֹכְרִין עֵדוּת זוֹ' - שֶׁמָּא חָזְרוּ בָּהֶן, וְזֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ 'אֵין אָנוּ זוֹכְרִין', כְּדֵי לְבַטֵּל הַשְּׁטָר; וּכְאִלּוּ אָמְרוּ 'קְטַנִּים הָיִינוּ', 'פְּסוּלֵי עֵדוּת הָיִינוּ' - שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִין, הוֹאִיל וְמִתְקַיֵּם הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁלֹּא עַל פִּיהֶם. וּמִפְּנֵי טַעַם זֶה מְקַיְּמִין כָּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת, וְאֵין אָנוּ צְרִיכִין לְהָבִיא עֵדִים וְלִשְׁאֹל אוֹתָם, אִם הֵם זוֹכְרִין עֵדוּת זוֹ אוֹ אֵינָם זוֹכְרִין אוֹתָהּ; שֶׁאַפִלּוּ בָּאוּ וְאָמְרוּ 'אֵין אָנוּ זוֹכְרִין אוֹתָהּ' - אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן, הוֹאִיל וְאֶפְשָׁר לְקַיְּמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִפִּיהֶן.

5The following laws apply whether a person writes his testimony as a legal document or merely finds a note in his records in his handwriting,9 stating: “So-and-so had me observe testimony concerning him on this-and-this date with regard to these-and-these matters.” If he remembers the matter on his own initiative or if others remind him and he remembers, he may testify. If not, he may not testify. The situation is comparable to one in which a trustworthy person tells him: “So-and-so owes so-and-so such-and-such an amount,” and the listener goes and testifies that one borrowed from the other although he has no firsthand knowledge of the matter, but instead merely hears from another person and testifies.האֶחָד הַכּוֹתֵב עֵדוּתוֹ עַל הַשְּׁטָר, אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא כָּתוּב אֶצְלוֹ בְּפִנְקָסוֹ וּבִכְתָב יָדוֹ 'פְּלוֹנִי הֵעִיד אוֹתִי עָלָיו בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי בְּכָּךְ וְכָּךְ': אִם זָכַר מֵעַצְמוֹ, אוֹ הִזְכִּירוּהוּ אֲחֵרִים וְנִזְכַּר - מֵעִיד; וְאִם לָאו - אָסוּר לְהָעִיד; שֶׁאֵין זֶה דּוֹמֶה אֶלָא לְמִי שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ אָדָם נֶאֱמָן 'פְּלוֹנִי יֵשׁ לוֹ אֵצֶל פְּלוֹנִי כָּךְ וְכָּךְ', וְהֵעִיד הוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְזֶה אֵצֶל זֶה, וְהוּא אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מִן הַדָּבָר כְּלוּם, אֶלָא מִפִּי אַחֵר שָׁמַע וְהֵעִיד.

Footnotes

Rashi, Ketubot 20a, explains that this concept is derived from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 19:15: “The matter will be established on the basis of the testimony... of two witness.” Al pi, translated as “on the basis of the testimony,” literally means “on the mouth.” Testimony must come from the mouths of the witnesses and not from their written statements.
The Rambam’s principle is not accepted by all authorities. The Ra’avad (gloss to Halachah 4) and Rabbenu Asher state that if there is another witness who recognizes the signature of the first witness, the two of them may testify that the signature is authentic and the legal document is validated. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 46:10) quotes both of these views without saying which is favored. The Siftei Cohen 46:32 elaborates in support of the Rambam’s position. See also Halachah 4 and notes.

According to the Rambam, this applies even if the witness is a Torah scholar. See the notes to the following halachah.

After discussing the question of reminding witnesses, Ketubot 20b states: “If he is a Torah scholar, even [the litigant] himself may remind him.” The Rambam interprets the pronoun “he” as referring to the plaintiff. Rashi, by contrast, interprets it as referring to the witness; if the witness is a Torah scholar, even the litigant may remind him. For we assume a Torah scholar will not lie. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 28:14) quotes Rashi’s view. The Sefer Me’irat Einayim 28:46 also mentions the Rambam’s view.

Implied is that in cases involving capital punishment, such testimony is not acceptable.

Who are unacceptable as witnesses (Chapter 9, Halachah 1). Others interpret the words as meaning “the legal document is like a useless shard.”

The Ra’avad responds just as caustically, stating: “There are those who rule in this manner who are just as knowledgeable in law as he.” As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 1, there is a difference of opinion among the later authorities which opinion should be followed.

Which is not acceptable. As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 6, once witnesses sign a legal document, their testimony is binding.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 7.

With this halachah, the Rambam is emphasizing that there is no difference in this regard between a private note a person records for himself and an official legal document signed by another witness as well. If he remembers the matter, he may testify; if he does not, he may not.

Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Edut - Chapter 8

Edut - Chapter 8