Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
Edut - Chapter 17
Edut - Chapter 17
Sh’vuot 33b interprets testimony that is acceptable which involves sight, but not knowledge as referring to an instance where the plaintiff told the defendant: “I lent you money in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so,” the defendant asks him to bring the witnesses to testify and the witnesses testify that they saw the plaintiff give the defendant the sum mentioned, but they did not know why he gave it to him. An instance where the witnesses know without seeing is when the defendant admits the debt in their presence.
I.e., with regard to cases involving capital punishment or lashes, by contrast, the witness must both see and know.
Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 258) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 37) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. I.e., this command does not involve only a prohibition against telling an outright lie, but also against delivering any testimony that should not be given.
See Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:3 which discusses the warning issued to witnesses in cases involving capital punishment.
Although the witnesses testify in private, they are given a warning in public to create a greater sense of shame and embarrassment if they are in fact lying (Radbaz).
Sanhedrin 29a relates that famine and bloodshed come to the world because of the sin of delivering false testimony.
Sanhedrin, loc. cit., cites the example of the false witnesses hired by Izebel to testify against Nabot. Izebel herself referred to the witnesses as “unscrupulous men” (I Kings 21:10), implying that even she who hired hem looks down at them with scorn. Needless to say, in the world to come, the world of truth, they will be overwhelmed with shame.
This does not include the litigants themselves. For the witnesses must testify in their presence. See Sefer Me’irat Einayim 28:37.
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Toen ViNitan 6:1, we always ask a plaintiff and a defendant to clarify the claims they make. Similarly, the witnesses are asked to clarify their testimony.
But did not do so with the assurance necessary for a statement to be considered as an admission of debt. See Hilchot Toen ViNitan 6:7 which states that a person may admit owing other people money so that he does not appear wealthy. Such an admission is not binding in court.
For he must have direct knowledge of the matter, as explained above.
As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Toen ViNitan 6:7, the defendant can excuse himself saying: “I was only jesting with you.” Since he was not aware of the presence of the witnesses, we do not know whether or not he was speaking sincerely.
I.e., witnesses whom he sees.
In these instances, since the plaintiff was present and the defendant made these statements with a serious intent, we cannot accept the argument that he was jesting, speaking facetiously, or made the statement so as not to appear wealthy, as the Rambam explains in Hilchot Toen ViNitan 7:1-2.
If, however, he remained silent, but appeared to mock the lender, he is not considered to have accepted them as witnesses (Radbaz).
This statement serves as a legal record for the loan. It does not have the strength of a promissory note unless the borrower specifically requests that it does, as stated in Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh 11:1.
As stated in Halachah 1.
I.e., the student does not transgress the prohibition against giving false testimony, because he does not testify. Nevertheless, creating a false impression is also forbidden.
Since he himself did not cause his colleague financial loss - for the loss was caused by the witnesses who actually testified falsely, and they are responsible for their own conduct - he has no liability. His act is considered a secondary cause of damage (Bava Kama 56a and commentaries).
The literal translation of the Rambam’s words is “He is obligated according to the laws of heaven.” The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 32:2) adds several qualifications to the Rambam’s ruling. Among them: a) If the plaintiffs claim is valid, although the person who hired the witnesses was forbidden to have done so, that person does not have even a moral and spiritual obligation to the defendant. b) If the person did not hire the false witnesses, but merely convinced them to testify, that person does not have even a moral and spiritual obligation to the defendant. c) The Rambam is speaking about a situation where a person hired witnesses to testify on behalf of a colleague. If he hired witnesses to testify on his own behalf and expropriated money not due him by law, he is liable to make financial restitution.
The Sefer Me’irat Einayim 28:10 rules that this law applies even if two witnesses do not deliver testimony. By mentioning one witness, the Rambam (and Bava Kama 56a, his source) are emphasizing that even in such a situation, the witness has a responsibility. Although his testimony would not obligate the defendant to make financial reimbursement - for financial responsibility is established only on the basis of the testimony of two witnesses - he would obligate the defendant to take an oath. And since it is possible that the defendant would rather pay than take the oath, the witness could have caused the plaintiff a loss.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.

