Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

When many men of great wisdom and fear of God testify to a person and tell him that they saw so-and-so commit a particular transgression or borrow money from a colleague, although the listener believes the matter in his heart as if he saw it actually transpire, he may not deliver testimony unless he actually sees the matter or the borrower acknowledges the debt verbally to him, saying: "Be a witness for me that so-and-so lent me a maneh." These concepts are derived from Leviticus 5:1 which states: "And should he witness, see, or know of the matter...." There is no testimony that can be established through sight or knowledge alone except testimony involving financial matters.

Whenever a person delivers testimony on the basis of the statements of others, he is a false witness and transgresses a negative commandment, as Exodus 20:13 states: "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Therefore, we issue a warning also to witnesses who testify regarding financial matters.

How do we warn them? We issue this warning in the presence of all onlookers, telling them the severity of bearing false testimony and the shame suffered by those who deliver such testimony in this world and in the world to come.

Afterwards, we order all other people to go outside and leave the witness of the greatest stature inside. We say to him: "Tell us the basis on which you know that this person owes money to that." If he says: "He told me that the borrower said that I owe him the money," or he says: "So-and-so told me that he owed him money," his statements are of no consequence. He must say: "In our presence, the defendant admitted to the plaintiff that he owes him the money."

Afterwards, we bring in the second witness and check his testimony in this manner. If their testimony corroborates each other's, the judges deliberate over the matter and conclude the judgment.

The following rules apply if a person hid witnesses against his colleague and that colleague acknowledged his obligation to him in private. The witnesses saw and heard him tell him: "Certainly, I owe you this and this amount, but I am afraid you will call me to judgment tomorrow." This is not valid testimony unless he makes the acknowledgment in the presence of witnessess.

Whether a person acknowledged a debt to a colleague, making the admission in a sincere manner that he owes him such-and-such an amount, he told the witnesses: "You are my witnesses," or he told them "Serve as witnesses for me," they are valid witnesses. This applies whether the statement is made by the borrower or whether it is made by the lender and the borrower remains silent as if he is accepting his words. Needless to say, it applies if he affirmed the appointment with an act of contract, telling them: "Compose a legal document stating that I owe so-and-so this-and-this amount," or the like, his statement is considered as an admission and the witnesses may testify on this basis.

When a teacher tells a student: "You know that if they would give me all the money in the world, I would not lie. So-and-so owes me a maneh. I have one witness against him. Please, join him." If he joins him, he is a false witness.

If he tells him: "Come and stand together with the witness. You do not have to testify, but the borrower will become frightened and panic, thinking that you are two witnesses and he will admit the debt on his own volition," the student is forbidden to stand and make it appear that he is a witness even though he does not deliver testimony. With regard to this and similar matters, Exodus 23:7 states: "Keep distant from words of falsehood."

A person who hires false witnesses to testify against a colleague is not liable according to mortal law, but does have a moral and spiritual obligation. Similarly, one witness who refrains from testifying is not liable according to mortal law, but does have a moral and spiritual obligation.

When a person delivered false testimony and witnesses testify to that fact, he is called an eid zomeim, "a conspiring witness."

It is a positive mitzvah to requite him in the manner in which he desired through his testimony to effect his colleague. If witnesses testify with regard to a transgression for which one is liable to be stoned to death and it is proved that they testified falsely, they are all stoned. If the transgression was punishable by being burned to death, they are burned to death. Similar laws apply with regard to other forms of capital punishment.

If they testified falsely with regard to a transgression punishable by lashes, each one of them is lashed as are all those obligated to be lashed. We estimate their capacity to bear the lashes and they are lashed. If they testified falsely to obligate the defendant to make a financial payment, we divide that amount according to the number of lying witnesses. Each witness must pay his share. The lying witnesses do not receive lashes when they are required to make financial reimbursement.

When does the above apply? When the witnesses were disqualified through hazamah. When, however, the testimony of two pairs of witnesses contradict each other, both testimonies are of no consequence, but neither of them receives punishment, because we do not know which pair is lying.

What is the difference between testimony which is contradicted and testimony which is disqualified through hazamah? A contradiction concerns the testimony itself. One pair states: "This is what took place," and the other pair states: "It never took place," or that conclusion was obvious from his statements. Hazamah, by contrast, focuses on the witnesses themselves. The witnesses who disqualify them do not know whether the event happened or not.

What is implied? Witnesses come and say: "We saw so-and-so kill a person..." or "...lend money to so-and-so on this-and-this date in this-and-this place." After they testified and the testimony was investigated, two other witnesses came and said: "On that day, we were with you and with those people the entire day and those things never happened. He never killed him," or "...He never lent him." This is considered a contradiction.

Similarly, if witnesses say: "How can you testify in this manner. Either the murderer - or the victim or the borrower or the lender - were with us on that day in another city," the testimony is considered to be contradicted. This is as if they said: "So-and-so did not kill him..." or "So-and-so did not lend him, for they were together with us and this thing did not happen." Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

If, however, the second pair of witnesses say: "We do not know if so-and-so killed so-and-so on this day in Jerusalem as you say or not. We are, however, testifying that you yourselves were with us in Babylon on that date," the first pair of witnesses are considered as zomeimim and they are executed or required to make financial restitution. The rationale is that the witnesses who disqualified them did not concern themselves with the testimony itself whether it was true or false, but with the presence of the witnesses in the place mentioned.

The fact that the Torah accepted the word of the latter pair of witnesses instead of that of the first pair of witnesses is a Scriptural decree. Even if there were 100 in the first group of witnesses and two witnesses came and disqualified them all through hazamah, saying: "We testify that all 100 of you were together with us on this date in this place," the 100 witnesses are punished on the basis of their testimony. For two witnesses are equivalent to 100 and 100 are equivalent to two. Similarly, when two groups of witnesses contradict each other, we do not follow the majority instead, we nullify the testimony of both.

There is no need for lying witnesses to be given a warning.

When the testimony of witnesses was first contradicted and ultimately, disqualified through hazamah, the lying witnesses are executed, lashed, or forced to make financial restitution. The rationale is that a contradiction is the first stage of hazamah. It is not, however, completed.

The testimony of witnesses can be disqualified through hazamah only in their presence. It can, however, be contradicted outside their presence.

When the testimony of witnesses has been disqualified through hazamah outside the presence of the witnesses, it is considered to have been contradicted. Therefore if the witnesses who have been disqualified through hazamah die before the testimony disqualifying them is delivered in their presence, their testimony is nullified, for the two testimonies contradicted each other.

When the testimony of witnesses in cases of capital punishment was contradicted, but was not disqualified through hazamah, they do not receive lashes. This is true, even if the person they testified was killed comes himself to court to prove the suspected murderer's innocence. The rationale is that the prohibition is punishable by execution. Hence, lashes are not given because of it. Nevertheless, the court has the witnesses beaten with stripes for rebellious conduct according to their perception of the severity of the matter.

A public announcement must be made with regard to lying witnesses. What type of announcement is made? A proclamation is written and sent throughout every city: "So-and-so and so-and-so testified in this manner. They were disqualified through hazamah and executed," "...lashed in our presence," or "fined so-and-so many dinarim." The necessity for this is derived from Deuteronomy 19:20: "Those who remain shall hear and become fearful."

The obligation of lying witnesses to make financial restitution when required is considered as a fine. Therefore, they are not required to pay when they admit their own guilt.

What is implied? The witnesses delivered testimony and their testimony was investigated by the court. Afterwards, they both admitted: "We delivered false testimony. This person does not owe the other person anything." Or they said: "We gave testimony concerning so-and-so with regard to this-and-this amount and we were disqualified through hazamah." They are not required to make restitution because of their own statements.

If, however, they said: "We gave testimony concerning so-and-so, we were disqualified through hazamah in the court of so-and-so and we were obligated to give him this-and-this amount," they are required to make financial restitution. For this is an admission of debt with regard to money that they were already sentenced to pay.

If one witness makes such statements, he is obligated to pay his portion.

The following rules apply when two witnesses testify, saying: "So-and-so murdered a person in the eastern portion of the hall at this-and-this time," two other witnesses came and said: "You were together with us in the western portion of the hall at that time." If a person standing in the western portion could see what transpires in the eastern portion, they are not disqualified through hazamah. If, however, it is impossible to see what transpires, they are disqualified through hazamah. We do not say perhaps the eyesight of the first pair is very powerful and they can see things which transpire at a greater distance than all other men.

Similar principles apply if two people testified saying: "In the morning, so-and-so committed murder in Jerusalem," and two others come and tell them: "On that day, in the evening, you were together with us in Lod." If it is possible for a person to travel, even on horseback, from Jerusalem to Lod from the morning to the evening, they are not disqualified through hazamah. If not, they are disqualified through hazamah. We do not say perhaps they found a speedy camel and were able to travel the route faster than usual. Instead, we always calculate the matter according to the known standards and disqualify them through hazamah.

The following rules apply when two witnesses state: "On Sunday, so-and-so murdered a person in this-and-this place," and two other witnesses came and said: "On that date, you were together with us in another far removed place, but so-and-so certainly murdered the victim on the following day," the murderer and the first pair of witnesses are executed. Even if the second pair of witnesses testify that he committed the murder several days previously, the above laws apply. The rationale is that at the time they delivered testimony, the murderer had not yet been sentenced to death.

If, however, two witnesses come on Tuesday, and say: "On Sunday, so-and-so was sentenced to death," and two others come on Tuesday and say: "On Sunday, you were together with us in this distant place, but so-and-so was sentenced to death on Friday or on Monday," these witnesses are not executed. The rationale is that at the time they testified, the person had already been sentenced to death.

Similar principles apply with regard to the payment of a fine. What is implied? Two people came on Tuesday and said: "On Sunday, so-and-so stole, slaughtered the animal he stole, and was sentenced to pay a fine of four or five times the animal's worth." Two other witnesses come and testify: "On Sunday, you were with us in a distant place, but he was sentenced on Friday" - or even if they said: "On Sunday, so-and-so stole, slaughtered the animal he stole, and was sentenced on Monday," the witnesses who were disqualified through hazamah are not required to make financial restitution. The rationale is that at the time they testified against him, the defendant was obligated to make financial restitution. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

The witnesses to a legal document may not be disqualified through hazamah unless they testify in court, saying: "We composed the legal document at the time stated. We did not delay the dating of it." If they did not say this, even though a document composed in Jerusalem is dated the first of Nisan and witnesses come and testify that the witnesses to the legal document were in Babylon on that date, the legal document is acceptable and the witnesses are acceptable. For it is possible that they composed the legal document and postdated it, i.e., they were in Jerusalem on the first of Adar and composed the legal document and postdated it, dating it the first of Nisan.

The following rules apply when, by contrast, they said: "We signed the document on the date stated," and they were disqualified through hazamah. If there are witnesses who know the day they signed the legal document or witnesses saw the legal document with their signatures on it on this-and-this date, once they are disqualified through hazamah, they are disqualified retroactively from the date on which it is known that they signed the legal document. The rationale is that witnesses who sign a legal document are considered as if their testimony was delivered in court from the time they signed.

If, however, there are no witnesses who saw them sign, giving testimony, nor did any see the signed document beforehand, the witnesses are disqualified only from the time they testified in court that the signature was theirs, saying: "We signed it on that date." The rationale is that it is possible that on the date that they testified in court, they signed a legal document that had existed for many years and they lied by saying: "We signed it on the day it was dated."