Q&A: The Plain Meaning in Nachmanides on “Do Not Bear False Witness”
The Plain Meaning in Nachmanides on “Do Not Bear False Witness”
Question
On the verse, “Do not bear false witness against your fellow,” Nachmanides says in his commentary on the Torah that the verse also includes someone who testifies about his fellow regarding something with no practical legal significance, for example, that Reuven obligated himself to give Shimon money, but no formal act of acquisition was made.
I was unsure whether this means that even regarding such testimony one violates “do not bear false witness” if the testimony is false, or whether regarding such testimony one violates it in any case even if it is true, because the verse forbids testimony of “vanity”—that is, something with no consequence, even if it is true.
Answer
The wording of Nachmanides there is:
(17) “And the explanation of ‘Do not bear false witness against your fellow’ is that it forbids testifying about one’s fellow even regarding something that is of no consequence and creates no liability in a religious court, for example, if one testifies: ‘So-and-so said he would give this person a maneh,’ but no formal act of acquisition was made, for ‘shav’ means a worthless matter.”
The word “even” apparently indicates that he means false testimony, and it is forbidden even though it has no significance. But at the end of his words it seems that this is not what he means, since he defines the prohibition as applying to ‘vain testimony.’ With some difficulty, one could perhaps say that even regarding a worthless matter there is a prohibition of falsehood.
But logically it is not clear what prohibition there would be here if he is speaking the truth. Is this a matter of burdening the religious court for no reason? Or perhaps this is malicious speech, like the case of one witness who testifies against his fellow when the testimony of a single witness is not accepted—about which all the halakhic decisors rule that it is forbidden משום malicious speech. True, that is said regarding a criminal matter, where he brings out malicious speech about his fellow, but perhaps saying that he obligated himself to pay money, even though he has not paid, is not malicious speech.
Afterward I saw in Haamek Davar there that he explained it in the second way—that this is a prohibition of malicious speech in ordinary testimony, just as with one witness (though he did not mention Nachmanides).
Discussion on Answer
Because even if no formal act of acquisition was made, there is still a moral obligation to pay. Everything is judged, and the one who chooses will choose.
What does the interpretation itself mean?
??
1. Indeed, the word “even” points to the first interpretation, but I didn’t understand where you saw at the end of his words that the prohibition applies even without lying. All he says is that his interpretation (that it is forbidden to lie even about a worthless matter) is based on the fact that the word “shav” means (also?) “a worthless matter,” and therefore, if the verse forbids giving false testimony (which is the plain sense of the verse), and expresses this with the term “shav,” that implies that false testimony about a worthless matter is also included in the prohibition.
But I find this interpretation difficult, because he uses the term “shav” in two meanings in the very same comment. “Shav” here means both falsehood and a worthless matter, and from this he concludes that it is forbidden to lie even about a worthless matter. But those are already difficulties discussed by the medieval authorities (Rishonim).
2. On what basis would there be a prohibition of malicious speech in saying that he did not pay on an obligation that is not legally valid?