Admon says that a person can claim that he signed onto a shetar only to make it easier for him to claim the field from the buyer even though he knows that the field does not belong to the seller.
Doesn't this make him into a rasha for signing onto a shetar that he knows is mezuyaf mitocho and therefor we should say ain adam oseh atzmo rasha? Even on a shetar amunah a witness is not believed because it is asur to sign onto that shetar even though it is with the full knowledge and agreement of both sides. Here I would think he is definitly a rasha for doing this. besides for the shetar being mezuyaf, he is making the buyer lose money since he will probably not be able to recoup his money since the seller is a "strong" man by the witnesses own admission
Efraim, Brooklyn NY
This is a strong question and has bothered me for a long time. The most perplexing thing about this question is that I have not found anybody who discusses it at all.
Possibly there is no prohibition of Lo Sa'aneh b'Re'acha Ed Shaker because the thief and the buyer asked the witness to sign on the Shtar that he is selling the field. Perhaps it is only forbidden to falsify testimony if it is against the wishes of the person who loses through the testimony. However, this does not seem to be true. The Torah tells us that it is prohibited to testify falsely about someone even when the testimony does not damage anyone at all (Ed Shav - see Ramban to Devarim 5:17).
As far as fooling the buyer is concerned, perhaps the witness is not responsible to inform the purchaser of the situation if he himself will incur a loss through passing on this information. After all, it is not as if the purchaser is relying on the witness as to the ownership of the field.
Dov Freedman
I think that the witness is not signing that the field belongs to the seller. He is only signing that the purported seller has agreed to sell a field to a purported buyer. His testimony does not include information as to whether or not that field indeed belongs to the seller - even if he happens to have information regarding that point. (If it would, every witness would be required to make extensive research before signing any Shtar at all.)
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Dear Rabbi Freedman and Rabbi Kornfeld,
Thank you very much for your responses. I was also surprised that I couldn't find anyone who discusses this question. Rabbi Freedman doesn't like his own answer so I would have to go with Rabbi Kornfeld's answer, although I don't fully understand the reasoning. There seems to be a big difference between a witness being responsible to make extensive research into the ownership of the field and knowing beforehand that the shetar is false and signing anyway.
Sincerely,
Efraim
If the signature is bearing testimony on the ownership of the field, it mkaes no difference whether he knows that this isn't the true owner, or whether he is unsure. In either case, it would be prohibited for him to sign an attestment to something he does not know to be true.
Be well,
Mordecai Kornfeld