Before us is the final Mishnah in the third chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin - Mishnah 8. In the previous Mishnayos, we learned the procedure for conducting a Torah court case, the method of determining the verdict, and the manner of its announcement. Our Mishnah discusses what happens after everything is concluded: the parties have returned to their homes, Reuven has paid Shimon the hundred dollars he was ordered to pay, and now Reuven wishes to appeal the verdict, because he has found the evidence that he previously lacked - the document he was unable to locate has suddenly turned up. Can the case be reopened, or is there some sort of 'statute of limitations' that prevents going back once the verdict has been issued?
The short answer is that there is no such limitation. Once new evidence is discovered, the losing litigant may return, reopen the case, and overturn the verdict, provided he has evidence to support this. The Mishnah discusses this in detail.
The Basic Principle:
"Kol zeman shemevi re'ayah, soser es hadin" - As long as he brings proof, he overturns the judgment. Whenever a litigant brings new information, whatever was previously ruled is voided or overturned. For example: the court ruled that Reuven must pay Shimon a hundred dollars, and a month later Reuven found the document and returned to the court. The judges will say to him: in light of the new evidence, Shimon must immediately return the hundred dollars, and what happened previously makes no difference.
May the Court Set a Deadline for Bringing Evidence?
What is the halachah if the court wanted to limit the litigant and set a deadline - thirty days to bring new evidence? Practically speaking, this is not the way of a court, and according to halachah, it should not do so. But if it did, does it have the authority to do this? May it say: you have thirty days at your disposal, and from then on the case is closed and sealed, and there is no reopening or appealing it under any circumstances?
The Mishnah states: "Amru lo: kol re'ayah sheyesh lecha havei mikan ve'ad sheloshim yom" - They said to him, "Any proof you have, bring from now until thirty days." If you have additional information that might change what was ruled, you have thirty days. According to the Tanna Kamma, they have the authority for this, and this deadline is binding: "Matza besoch sheloshim yom - soser; le'achar sheloshim yom - eino soser" - If he found it within thirty days, he overturns the judgment; after thirty days, he does not overturn it. If he found evidence within the timeframe, good; but after the deadline, his time has passed, and even if he finds evidence that could have caused the judges to change their verdict, they do not listen to him, because the court has the power to impose a time limit, and the time has expired.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel argues, objecting with a rhetorical question: "Mah ya'aseh zeh shelo matza besoch sheloshim umatza le'achar sheloshim?" - What should this person do who did not find it within thirty days and found it after thirty days? We know that he was unable to find the evidence within thirty days, but he found it afterward. Shall justice not be done? He has now found the document, he has now found the witnesses - can he not come to the court so that the true judgment will emerge?
The halachah follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: even if the court set a deadline, it does not block the litigant, and he may return to the court with his evidence - even after one, two, or three years - and demand a review of the case.
If He Said "I Have No Witnesses" and Found Them Later:
The Mishnah continues: "Amru lo: havei eidim, ve'amar: ein li eidim" - They said to him, "Bring witnesses," and he said, "I have no witnesses." The judges asked him to bring his witnesses, and he replied that he has no witnesses at all. "Amru: havei re'ayah, ve'amar: ein li re'ayah" - They said, "Bring proof," and he said, "I have no proof." Where is the document? Where is the contract? He replies that he does not have it. "Ule'achar zeman hevi re'ayah umatza eidim" - And after some time he brought proof and found witnesses. He later managed to find the document or bring witnesses.
The view of the Tanna Kamma: "Harei zeh eino klum" - It is nothing. We do not accept it from him. Since he declared that he has no witnesses and has no document, if he then presents witnesses or a document later, there are grounds for suspicion: we assume he forged the document, or that he reached an arrangement with those witnesses to testify in his favor, and therefore he is not believed.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel objects again with the same rhetorical language: "Mah yaaseh zeh shelo hayah yodea sheyesh lo edim umatza edim, velo hayah yodea sheyesh lo raayah umatza raayah?" - "What should this one do who did not know he had witnesses and found witnesses, and did not know he had proof and found proof?" He did not know there were witnesses who could be summoned, and now he found them; he did not know he had a document in his possession, and now he found it. Should justice not be served now, seeing as he has brought his proof?
The Third Case - "Raah shemitchayev badin":
Before we reach the practical halachah, the Mishnah adds a third case that sheds light on the matter: "Amru lo: havei edim, veamar: ein li edim; havei raayah, veamar: ein li raayah" - "They said to him: Bring witnesses, and he said: I have no witnesses; bring proof, and he said: I have no proof." Again, he declared that he possesses neither witnesses nor a document. "Veraah shemitchayev badin" - "And he saw that he was losing the case." When he saw that the court was about to rule against him, or that they had already ruled against him (there is a dispute regarding this), "veamar: kirvu ploni uploni veyeiduni" - "and he said: Let so-and-so approach and testify for me." Stop, let Reuven and Shimon come and testify in my favor. Initially he said he had no witnesses, and when he saw the case was not leaning in his favor he suddenly found witnesses - and this arouses great suspicion.
"O shehotzi raayah mittoch apondato" - "Or he brought out proof from his apondah." He suddenly pulled out, as if by magic, the document he was looking for from his apondah. Two explanations have been given for the meaning of 'apondah':
Belt: A kind of money belt with a hollow inner space for storing coins and the like.
Undershirt: An undergarment containing a hidden pocket.
In their days, clothes did not have pockets, and instead they used a belt or a hidden pocket inside the shirt. Either way, in this case even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel concedes that the matter is highly suspicious and is not accepted.
The Halachah:
The halachah follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: There is no "statute of limitations", and the court cannot limit a person regarding the time of bringing proof. However, if he stated explicitly that he has no proof or that he has no witnesses, extra caution is required. Here are examples where the court will accept the evidence:
Witnesses abroad: He thought he could not bring them, since they moved far away, but they happened to come here on vacation - initially he indeed did not have them available, but now he is able to bring them.
The father's papers: He received the papers of his deceased father, and while going through them he found the document that he had absolutely no idea existed.
But if he brings a local witness or a local document that was found by chance after the court ruled against him - we do not rely on this, for we assume he certainly took the trouble and made every effort to obtain all possible evidence and present it before the court the first time. And since he suddenly found, as if by magic, proof in his favor which he had previously declared was not in his possession - this arouses great suspicion, and we assume the presented proof is invalid, and therefore it is not accepted.