The Gemara (Bava Basra 31a) says that one can change his claim (somewhat) as long as he didn't leave court, since we suspect that someone taught him new claims:

ומודי עולא היכא דא"ל של אבותי ולא של אבותיך דאינו טוען וחוזר וטוען והיכא דהוה קאי בי דינא ולא טען ואתא מאבראי וטען אינו חוזר וטוען מאי טעמא טענתיה אגמריה The Gemara clarifies their respective opinions: And Ulla concedes that in a case where he had initially said to him: The land belonged to my ancestors and did not belong to your ancestors, that he cannot state a claim and return and state a modified version of his claim, as Ulla allows the litigant only to reinterpret his initial claim, not to replace it with a contradictory claim. And Ulla also concedes that in a case where he was standing in court and did not state a particular claim, and he later came in from outside and back into the court and he stated that claim, that he cannot return and state that claim. What is the reason for this? It is because it is apparent that these claims of his were taught to him by someone after he left the court.

And the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 80:1) rules likewise:

מִי שֶׁטּוֹעֵן בְּבֵית דִּין טַעֲנָה אַחַת וְנִתְחַיֵב בָּהּ, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן טַעֲנָה אַחֶרֶת שֶׁסוֹתֶרֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ יֵשׁ עֵדִים עַל טַעֲנָה שְׁנִיָּה לֹא מְהַנֵּי (נִמּוּקֵי יוֹסֵף פֶּרֶק ח''ה וע''פ) כְּדִלְעֵיל רֵישׁ סִימָן ע''ט. אֲבָל אִם בָּא לְתַקֵּן טַעֲנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְלוֹמַר: כָּךְ נִתְכַּוַּנְתִּי, וְיֵשׁ בְּמַשְׁמָעוּתָהּ לָשׁוֹן שֶׁסוֹבֵל זֶה הַתִּקּוּן, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא מִבֵּית דִּין; אֲבָל אִם יָצָא מִבֵּית דִּין, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, דְּשֶׁמָּא לִמְּדוּהוּ לִטְעֹן שֶׁקֶר.

Nowadays, many courts allow plaintiffs to use the services of a To'en. As there's no need for someone to go "out of court" to get help making claims, if a defendant made a claim, can he retract at all, since his Toen could teach him right there?

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .