2,706. Two Sets of Witnesses

Hilchos Shevuos 10:15

Let’s say that a plaintiff imposes an oath on two pairs of valid witnesses; the first pair denies having information, after which the second pair denies having information. In such a case, the first witnesses aren’t liable for an oath of testimony because they rely on the testimony of the second pair, which is sufficient to make the defendant pay. The result is that the defendant wouldn’t have to pay based on the testimony of the first alone. If the second pair were relatives by marriage to either litigant and their wives were dying, then the first pair of witnesses are also liable. This is because when the first pair denied having information, the second pair were not yet qualified to testify, even though they would be after their wives die. If the second witnesses deny after their wives die, then they’re liable for an oath of testimony.

Hilchos Shevuos 10:16

Let’s say that a plaintiff summoned witnesses to testify for him and they deny having information. He imposes an oath and they answer amen; he imposes four or five oaths and they answer each oath outside of court. However, when they come to the court, they admit to having information and testify. In such a case, they’re not liable for an oath of testimony, as was discussed in the previous chapter. If the witnesses come to court and continue to deny, then they’re liable for each of the oaths imposed outside of court.