His statement, “If the opposing party impugns the witnesses”: that is, he describes them in terms that render their testimony inadmissible, such as saying: “This one drinks wine; this one steals; this one commits fornication,” and the like—matters that invalidate testimony.

His statement, “He is required to produce evidence for it”: that is, he is obliged to establish proof, for two reasons:

First, to protect people’s honour, so that no one may assail another by impugning or insulting him.

Second, to prevent judgment from being issued on the testimony of these witnesses.

Must the evidence establishing an impugning defect consist of witnesses who personally observed what discredits the witnesses—such that one says, “I testify that I saw him do such-and-such,” and so forth—or is widespread public report sufficient? We say: the person making the impugning claim may testify on the basis of seeing, hearing, direct experience, or widespread public report. Thus, regarding many people, we do not know of their sinfulness through something we ourselves saw them do; rather, it becomes widely known among people that they are flagrantly sinful. Therefore, the one impugning them may testify on the basis of widespread public report. If he brings witnesses to establish the impugning defect, their testimony is accepted, and judgment is not issued on the testimony of the witnesses in the claim brought by the opposing party, since their probity is no longer established. Once their discrediting defect has been proven, their probity is nullified.

His statement, “and he is granted time”: that is, time to establish the impugning defect.

His statement, “three days, if he requests it”: If the defendant—who is the opposing party—says, “I impugn these people on the grounds that they are flagrantly sinful: they drink wine, steal, commit fornication, and the like,” he is required to produce evidence. We say: “You have three days,” if he requests time. If he does not request time, then we require him to bring them immediately; and if