💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ramban%20on%20Leviticus%20… captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:34:33. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 [1] AND HE IS A WITNESS, WHETHER HE HATH SEEN OR KNOWN 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 Rabbis 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 maneh [as a loan] in the presence of such-and-such persons,” and [Shimon] claims “this never happened, 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Shimon, they do not know the nature of this delivery, whether it was as a loan, or repayment of a loan that Shimon had originally made to him]. [If Reuben says to Shimon:] “You have admitted to owing me a maneh, 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.
Version: Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108945/NLI
License: CC-BY