Q&A: Established as a Liar
Established as a Liar
Question
- It is known that the rule is that someone who has been established as a liar is not believed except with regard to that specific monetary matter (Bava Metzia). My question is: why, if someone is found to be a liar in religious court, is his credibility not impaired? And in what situations can his credibility indeed be impaired?
And further: if someone made two claims in the same appearance, one about money and the second not about monetary matters (say, about prohibitions), can we still say that his credibility as a litigant has not been impaired, and that only regarding the monetary matter in which he was found to be a liar he is not believed, while regarding the second matter he remains believed?
Answer
You are overlooking the fact that this person is in possession, and therefore in order to extract money from him you need solid proof; suspicion that he is lying is not enough. The question is actually the opposite: why regarding this particular sum is he indeed established as a liar (that is, why do we take it away from him)?
See about this here: https://etzion.org.il/he/talmud/seder-nezikin/massekhet-bava-metzia/%D7%91%D7%91%D7%90-%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%90-%D7%93%D7%A3-%D7%99%D7%96-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%97%D7%96%D7%A7-%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%9F-0
If these are two different claims, then he will be believed about the second one. Even if the second one is also a monetary claim, that is still the case.
Discussion on Answer
Yes, in the case of a witness lying. By the way, I haven’t checked, but if it was proven that he lied, perhaps he would be disqualified from testimony. He is not considered established as a liar in the sense that claimants can extract money from him, but it has been proven that he is a liar. Maybe one should distinguish between lying in testimony and lying in a litigant’s claim.
But if, according to your words, it was proven that he is a liar, then why in the latter part of your first answer did you say that regarding two different claims he will be believed on the second one? After all, it has been proven that he is a liar.
I didn’t understand the distinction between lying in testimony and lying in a litigant’s claim. Are you saying that a litigant’s credibility remains, and only for testimony is he disqualified?
Because credibility regarding claims means leaving the money in the hands of the one who currently possesses it. That is not really credibility; it is simply that there is no proof to extract it from him.
That is the answer to both of your questions.
In the second question at the beginning of the thread, I asked about credibility regarding claims that are not monetary. And you said that there is credibility there.
But now I understand you to be saying that this is not credibility, but rather that there is no possibility of extracting money.
But I asked about credibility regarding other kinds of claims that are not monetary; with respect to those, does he remain believed?
If it concerns only himself, there is no question of credibility. He will do what he thinks is correct. If it concerns others, it works like monetary law: he will be believed if there is a presumption in his favor.
If so, is there a situation in which a person caught lying in religious court would indeed have his credibility damaged, not regarding that same monetary matter?