- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
393
Ruling:Despite the aforementioned, beit din decided to hear the witness’ testimony even if it were determined that it does not have the standing of kosher testimony. Beit din just has to be careful not to accept the testimony as direct grounds to decide the monetary issue.
The basis for this approach is the idea we see in the poskim that there is no prohibition to hear testimony from one who is not fit. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 28:2) cites two opinions on whether one can force a relative to testify. The context is when one makes a cherem (ban) to make all witnesses testify, and the question is whether a relative or even a litigant must testify. Admittedly, the opinion that they are not required is the main one. However, it is apparent that the only question is whether they are required to come, but clearly if they step forward, there is no problem to listen to them. This is despite the fact that their testimony could not possibly be directly responsible for apportioning payment to one side or the other.
What, then, can be gained by the testimony? The Rambam (Sanhedrin 21:10) writes, in explaining that a dayan should not help a litigant, that when one witness testifies against a litigant, beit din should not say that beit din does not accept one witness [for payment]. Rather they should say: "The witness testified against you," with the hope that the litigant will admit that the witness testified accurately or not challenge him. The Haghot Oshri also describes the practice of having unfit witnesses testify as a special rule of batei din to uncover the truth (see Halacha Psuka (Eidut p. 54)).
Our experience shows that there is a lot to be gained from bringing such witnesses, as it helps greatly to uncover the truth. It forces the litigants to relate to details of the case in light of the testimony in a manner that beit din and the other litigant would not succeed to do without the testimony.
In this case, the witness actually confirmed much of the defendant’s, not the plaintiff’s, version of the story, and in many of the points, the plaintiff did not question that which was said.
In summary, whatever the exact benefit that can come out of it, beit din may allow the sides to call people to testify, even when they are halachically unfit, even though the testimony cannot be relied upon.

P'ninat Mishpat (777)
Various Rabbis
239 - Closing Agreement Under Pressure
240 - Listening to a Non-Kosher Witness
241 - Laying Off a Worker During Pregnancy
Load More

P'ninat Mishpat: Dispute upon Ending Rental
based on ruling 83133 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tishrei 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Upper Property’s Responsibility for Flooding
based on ruling 82008 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part I
based on ruling 82138 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 5784

Mutual Repairs Agreement – part I
(based on ruling 82031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | 16 Tammuz 5784

Carrying in Public and the Use of an Eruv
Part 2
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Shvat 16 5779
