“We were mistaken,” or, “We forgot that he had already paid him,” or something similar. In that case, the judge may not rule on the basis of their testimony. But are these two witnesses, who have retracted, to be disciplined? This requires consideration, for they may indeed have been mistaken or may have forgotten. The point is that, unless it is known that they gave false testimony, they are not to be disciplined.

The second case: if they testify concerning property and the judge rules on the basis of their testimony, saying to the claimant, “I have ruled that your opponent owes you such-and-such,” and the two witnesses then retract, the judgment is not overturned, because it has been finalized. If we were to overturn judges’ rulings on such grounds, judicial judgments would become a plaything—especially in our present time. Anyone against whom judgment had been issued could go to the two witnesses and ask, “Did he give you anything?” They would reply, “He gave us nothing; we testified truthfully.” He would then say, “I will give you such-and-such an amount of money.” Once he said this, they would retract their testimony. Just as false witnesses may testify to something that never occurred, so too may they retract what they testified to. Thus, if we were to overturn a judgment because witnesses retract, judges’ rulings would become a plaything in the hands of witnesses. Therefore, the judgment is not overturned.

The third case is where retraction occurs after enforcement: that is, the two witnesses testify, the judge rules, and the party in whose favor judgment was issued receives his right. The judgment is then not overturned all the more so, since if it is not overturned after judgment but before enforcement, then it is even less likely to be overturned after enforcement.

However, the jurists said: if two witnesses retract their testimony in a case of retaliation after judgment but before enforcement, retaliation is not carried out against the defendant, because retaliation is a grave matter. Yet blood money becomes due. Thus, in this case, the judgment is overturned in one respect but not in another.