4

Case 1

Plaintiff Reuvein made a claim against Shimon that Shimon owes $100 to Reuvein through a loan.

Shimon said: "I never borrowed anything from you".

Reuvein brought two witnesses (Pair A) that the loan happened. Shimon brought two witnesses (Pair B) that the loan never happened (the defendant was with them somewhere else at the time the loan was supposed to have been made). The witnesses cancel each other, and Shimon keeps his money.

The Halacha is that all witnesses are kosher because we have no evidence that either pair isn't kosher. However, one witness of pair A cannot testify with one witness of pair B because one of them is definitely lying.

Case 2

Plaintiff Reuven made a claim against Shimon that Shimon owes $100 to Reuven through a loan.

Shimon said: "I never borrowed anything from you".

Reuven brings two witnesses who say they saw the loan. Shimon loses the case and must pay.

Yet, Shimon can use those witnesses of Reuven, even though according to him they are lying.

Question:

Why don't we say, in Case 2, "Meshave Lei Chaticha D'isurah" (One could forbid something to himself)?

Improve this question
2

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

It doesn't make a difference that according to him the Eidim are Posul as Beis Din needs to believe the Eidim.

We also can not stop him from bringing the Eidim, as Shavye Anafshei Chaticha De'isura is only applicable by someone prohibiting something on himself. (See the Sheeta Mekubetzes on Ksubos 9a who says that it is derived from the Din of Neder)

Improve this answer
2
  • Your saying ne'emanus is a din klapei beis din. (that was a lot of jargon!)
    – Double AA ♦
    Jan 24, 2012 at 17:20
  • 1
    @DoubleAA Yes, perfectly put. (I hadn't realized that it was possible to say that in pure English :))
    – CB01
    Jan 24, 2012 at 17:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .