Hodaas Baal Din - Kinunya

Question

Generally הודעת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, MiGzeiras Hakosuv. However, in a case of שחב לאחרים, where his admission to debt or the like would cause others some loss, the baal din still has Neemonus, unless there is a חשש קנוניא, a suspicion that the Tovea and the Nitba have colluded together to gain money of לקוחות.

I am trying to grasp the definition of חשש קנוניא. Is that simply a situation which would permit the possibility of a קנוניא, thus automatically the Baal Din cannot be Modeh anymore, or conversely, is it just a situation which the Bes Din has solid rational to believe that they may be plotting, but generally without reason to suspect them, even if the case could allow a possibility of plotting, but Min Hastam without any based suspicion he is believed?

Reuven, amongst others, invested money into Shimons project, which לקוחות baught into. The project reached some diffulties and did not see through. Reuven wants to claim his money back from Shimon, and shimon, is Modeh to Reuvens claim, and least from some of the money. However, Reuven getting his money back would mean it being collected from לקוחות that the money was invested into.

That case could be a possibility of colluding, but the Bes Din has no basis to suspect them of such. Is Shimons Hodoah that he indeed owes Reuven money, automatically invalid due to such a possibility, and it is regarded by the Bes Din as חשש קנוניא, or not.

I would appreciate any sources to do with the above question or case. Many thanks in advance!

Answer 1

At least according to the Rambam (Hilchos Gzeilah Vaaveidah 18:13), seems like it's anytime there's even a possibility of a plot. He says:

וְאִם הָיָה הַחַיָּב מוֹדֶה וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהוֹדָה כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת קְנוּנְיָא עַד שֶׁיַּפְסִיד אֶת הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹ מְקַבֵּל מַתָּנָה שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ אַחַר זְמַן הַשְּׁטָר כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּפְרְעוּ מִיָּדָם שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחְזִיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים. וְכָל שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ צַד לַחֲשָׁשׁ לֹא לְפֵרָעוֹן וְלֹא לִקְנוּנְיָא יַחְזִיר לִבְעָלָיו:

Even when the debtor admits that the debt is outstanding, if it is possible that he is making that admission to deceive a purchaser or a recipient of a present who acquired the debtor's property after the date mentioned on the document, so that the creditor could expropriate the property from them dishonestly, the document should not be returned although both the creditor and the debtor acknowledge the debt.

When, however, there is no reason to suspect that a monetary obligation has been repaid or that deception is being perpetrated, a legal document should be returned.

Also note that if the dayanim have specific reasons to believe that a party to the case is arguing fraudulently, then in principle* they can override the normal rules of evidence anyway (Hilchos Sanhedrin ch. 24). So if the concerns about קנוניא were only when there's reason to suspect fraud, there wouldn't have to be general rules set out for it.

* Though he goes on to say that in post-Talmudic times that's not applied in practice.