Rabbi Dayan was concluding the fifth session in a protracted case. “We will convene once more in 30 days,” Rabbi Dayan informed the litigants. “Any proof you want to bring must be submitted by then. Afterward, we will issue a ruling.”
At the final session, Mr. Shemtov continued to claim he’d paid whatever he owed. “Do you have any additional proof?” Rabbi Dayan asked him.
“No,” replied Mr. Shemtov.
In the absence of sufficient receipts, the beis din ruled in favor of the plaintiff and required Mr. Shemtov to pay.
A year later Mr. Shemtov met his parents’ lawyer, who mentioned that he’d come across a file containing records related to the case, including various receipts.
Mr. Shemtov returned to the beis din. “I found new evidence relating to my case from last year,” he said to the secretary. “I’d like to schedule another session.”
“What do you mean?” asked the secretary. “We already issued a ruling and closed the case.”
“New evidence just became available that can overturn the ruling,” said Mr. Shemtov. “I’d like to reopen the case and present the new evidence.”
I’m not sure you can do that,” said the secretary. “Did you already pay?”
“Yes, I paid promptly after the ruling,” said Mr. Shemtov. “But based on the new evidence, the whole ruling was in error and should be rescinded.”
“It don’t know if there’s anything to do now,” said the secretary. “A final ruling was issued. Certainly after you paid and accepted the ruling, I don’t see how you can reopen the case and try to overturn it.”
“Would you please check for me?” asked Mr. Shemtov.
“I’ll ask Rabbi Dayan,” said the secretary. “Please have a seat.”
The secretary went into Rabbi Dayan’s office. “Mr. Shemtov is here,” he said. “We ruled last year that he is liable, but he claims new evidence became available that can overturn the ruling. Should we reopen the case?”
“The Mishnah [Sanhedrin 31a] teaches that anytime the litigant brings new proof he can overturn the ruling,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “This is true even if beis din instructed the litigant to bring any proof within 30 days. The halachic scope of newly found evidence is broader than the legal one, which accepts only newly found evidence that could not have been uncovered through due diligence. Similarly, the SM”A [20:1] writes that beis din cannot set a time after which additional claims will not be heard, unless they made a kinyan with the litigant that he forfeits any rights after this time.”
“But Mr. Shemtov stated he had no more proof,” the secretary pointed out. “Does that change things?”
“In general, once the litigant declared he had no more proof or witnesses, he can no longer bring them; we are concerned that after losing the case he might produce false evidence,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Nonetheless, the Gemara qualifies that if witnesses arrived from abroad, or documents that were held by others became accessible, the litigant can overturn the ruling, even if he declared he had no further proof. Under these circumstances, we no longer have a basis to suspect that the evidence is false.” (SM”A 20:3)
“Is this the accepted halacha?” asked the secretary.
“Yes, the Shulchan Aruch [C.M. 20:1] codifies these rules,” said Rabbi Dayan. “He adds that the litigant’s declaration that he has no further proof can be understood to mean that he has no further proof available. However, if he explicitly stated that he has no proof ‘at all, anywhere,’ he cannot bring proof that became available later, since he disqualified it through his admission.”
