Q&A: A Question in the Talmud
A Question in the Talmud
Question
In Sanhedrin, chapter 6, page 44b, 12 lines from the bottom: “There was an incident involving a certain man who was taken out to be executed,” etc.
His verdict had already been finalized. Then the witnesses said, “We are liars,” and it was proven that they were lying. He still remains liable, unless other witnesses come from elsewhere and acquit him.
Why isn’t the ruling voided retroactively from the outset? And why don’t they acquit him?
Answer
The halakhic principle is that a witness cannot retract and testify differently. Once a witness has testified, he cannot withdraw his testimony. And certainly not here, where he is declaring himself wicked. But that is only the halakhic rule. If the judge is nevertheless convinced that they are now speaking the truth, or even if he has a reasonable concern, he can reverse the ruling on the grounds of a fraudulent judgment. The Talmud’s statement is only about what Jewish law formally requires one to do and what it does not. It does not require the judge to change the ruling. But after the formal halakhic determination, there is always the category of a fraudulent judgment.