“Produce it, if you wish,” so that this does not amount to imposing an obligation on the claimant. Rather, he says, “If you wish.” If he uses different wording, saying, for example, “So-and-so, if you have evidence, bring it forward,” there is nothing wrong with that, because what matters is the meaning. These are not prescribed devotional formulas, so any wording that conveys the intended meaning is sufficient.

His statement, “If he produces it,” means: the claimant.

His statement, “He hears it,” means: the judge; that is, he accepts their testimony and says, “Your testimony is valid.”

His statement, “And rules accordingly,” means that he says: “It has been established before me that So-and-so owes So-and-so such-and-such.” Thus, hearing the evidence precedes the ruling.

The apparent meaning of his statement, “If he produces it, he hears it,” is that he hears it without qualification. However, this is restricted to cases in which the evidence is given by upright witnesses. If the judge knows that these witnesses are not upright, he does not hear them at all; and if he does not hear them, he does not rule on the basis of their testimony. The question here is: may the judge rule according to his own knowledge, or rely on his own knowledge concerning the probity of the witnesses if he knows them? Or should he not rely on his knowledge, but instead require that their uprightness be attested to?

The answer is that he may rely on his own knowledge. If he knows the two witnesses and knows that they are upright, he does not need to request from the claimant an attestation of their uprightness. But if he knows that they are not upright, he does not hear their testimony; rather, he rejects them.

May he test them by repeating his questions to them? For instance, he may ask: “How did he sell it to him? At what time? In what place? Was he angry or consenting?” and similar questions.

We say: it is not permissible for him to harass the two witnesses, for this leads to