Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ramban · Torah

Ramban on Leviticus 5:1/רמב"ן על ויקרא ה׳:א׳

אוְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אֵינָם שְׁלֹשָׁה עִנְיָנִים, כִּי אֵין עֵד בְּלֹא רְאִיָּה וּבְלֹא יְדִיעָה, אֲבָל יֹאמַר אִם שָׁמַע קוֹל אָלָה שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ עָלָיו לְהַאֲלוֹתוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁהוּא עֵד, בֵּין בִּרְאִיָּה בֵּין בִּידִיעָה, אִם לֹא יַגִּיד יֵשׁ עָלָיו עָוֹן. וְהִנֵּה לֹא יִתְחַיֵּב בַּקָּרְבָּן הַזֶּה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יוֹדֵעַ עֵדוּת שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ הַמַּשְׁבִּיעַ בְּדִינוֹ, וּלְכָךְ פֵּרְשׁוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ (שבועות לג) כִּי יֵשׁ עֵדוּת שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בִּרְאִיָּה בְּלֹא יְדִיעָה וְיֵשׁ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בִּידִיעָה בְּלֹא רְאִיָּה, כֵּיצַד, מָנֶה מָנִיתִי לְךָ בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, וְטוֹעֵן לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם, יָבוֹאוּ וְיָעִידוּ, זוֹ הִיא רְאִיָּה בְּלֹא יְדִיעָה. מָנֶה הוֹדֵיתָ לִי בִּפְנֵי פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, יָבוֹאוּ וְיָעִידוּ, זוֹ הִיא יְדִיעָה בְּלֹא רְאִיָּה. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ הַפְּשָׁט אֵין צָרִיךְ לִרְאִיָּה בְּלֹא יְדִיעָה, אֲבָל "אוֹ רָאָה" שֶׁהוּא רָאָה הַהַלְוָאָה אוֹ הַמִּקָּח לְגַמְרֵי, "אוֹ יָדַע" שֶׁשָּׁמַע אוֹתָם מוֹדִים בַּמַּעֲשֶׂה הַהוּא בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים וְלֹא רָאָה הַמַּעֲשֶׂה. וְלֹא אָמַר כָּאן "וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ" כִּי הוּא חַיָּב בְּמֵזִיד אוֹ בְּשִׁגְגַת הַשְּׁבוּעָה עִם זְדוֹן הָעֵדוּת, אֲבָל אִם הָיָה שָׁכוּחַ בָּעֵדוּת בִּשְׁעַת שְׁבוּעָה אֵין עָלָיו כְּלוּם:

1AND HE IS A WITNESS, WHETHER HE HATH SEEN OR KNOWN³³². These are not three separate matters, for it is impossible that one be a witness without seeing and knowing. Rather, Scripture is stating that if one hear the voice of adjuration that a party to a law-suit adjures him, concerning a matter in which he is a witness either by seeing or knowing of it, if he does not tell it he has committed an iniquity. Now the witness is not obligated to bring this offering unless he knows such a testimony that the party in suit who adjured him [to give witness] would have legally won his case because of it [and the witness nonetheless withheld his evidence]. It is for this reason that our Rabbis³³³ interpreted [on the basis of the verse before us] that there is testimony which is valid by seeing without knowing, and [testimony which is valid] by knowing without seeing. How so? [Reuben says to Shimon:] “I have delivered to thee a maneh³³⁴ [as a loan] in the presence of such-and-such persons,” and [Shimon] claims “this never happened,³³⁵). let the witnesses [you claim to have], come and testify.” This is a case of seeing without knowing [since although they saw Reuben handing the money to Shimon, they do not know the nature of this delivery, whether it was as a loan, or repayment of a loan that Shimon had originally made to him].³³⁶ Reuben giving Shimon money is sufficiently valid to obligate Shimon to pay Reuben, although they did not know the nature of that transaction. If therefore they withhold their testimony, they are liable to bring the offering dealt with here. [If Reuben says to Shimon:] “You have admitted to owing me a maneh,³³⁴ in the presence of such-and-such persons,” [and Shimon replies]: “let them come and testify,” this is a case of knowing without seeing [and even though they did not see, they must testify what they know, and hence are liable if they withhold their evidence].But in line with the plain meaning of Scripture, we need not [explain] the “seeing” here [to mean seeing] without knowing. Rather, the sense of the verse is as follows: whether he hath seen, meaning that he saw the loan or the sale completely [i.e., with knowledge], or known, i.e., that he heard [the defendants to the suit] admitting that transaction in the presence of witnesses, but he did not see it.Now He does not state here: “and it is hidden from him,” [as He does in the following verse], because in this case [where the witness swears that he knows of no testimony for the party that adjures him to come and testify before the court], he is obligated to bring the offering [mentioned here in these verses] whether he swore [entirely] wilfully, or was in error on the oath whilst wilfully denying his knowledge of evidence. If, however, at the time of giving the oath he had forgotten the testimony, there is no guilt upon him.