Here, we'll talk about what happens if a person who is being tried in court brings proof after the verdict has already been announced against him. The Mishnah says that anytime a person brings evidence supporting his claim, even after the verdict has been decided, he is able to undo the verdict, and the judges would give a new verdict—a new conclusion—in his favor. But if the judges told him, “If you have any proof, if you have any evidence that supports your side of the story, you have to bring it within 30 days,” the Halacha (Jewish law) is that if he finds that evidence within 30 days, the court could undo his verdict and give a new verdict in his favor. But if he does not find evidence until after those 30 days are over, the court would not undo his verdict. That’s the opinion of the Tanna Kamma (first Tanna). If they set a condition of 30 days and he found the evidence after 30 days, they would not undo the verdict.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, “What will he do if he doesn’t find it within 30 days? He’ll find it after 30 days.” Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, “It’s not his fault. What should he do? He tried to find it. He didn’t find it within the 30 days they gave him; he found it after 30 days. Should he lose the case on a technicality? Should he lose the case because he was unable to find the evidence before the deadline?” The bottom line is that he has the proof right now, and the court cannot ignore him because of a deadline they gave him that he missed.
A similar type of situation: Amru lo, have edim (witnesses). Let’s say the judge tells him during the trial, “Bring witnesses to support yourself.” Ve'amar ein li edim. And he responds, “I don’t have any witnesses.” Or they told him, Amru, have re'aya (evidence). They told him, “Bring evidence. Bring a document. Bring a piece of paper that shows a certain piece of evidence.” Ve'amar ein li re'aya. And he told them, “I don’t have any documents to prove my side of the story, to show as evidence.” U'le'achar zman matza edim u'matza re'aya. Harei zeh eino klum (this is nothing). But later on, he did bring a document—more evidence.
The Tanna Kamma says, Harei zeh eino klum, meaning nothing, since he already stated that he had no proof, or that he had no document. What do we suspect? That later on, when he tried to bring witnesses as proof or brought a document as proof, he either forged the document or hired false witnesses to testify on his behalf.
Amar Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Similarly, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel responds here. Mah ya'aseh zeh? What should this guy do? Shelo hayah yode'a sheyesh lo edim u'matza edim. He didn’t know that he had witnesses. He only found his witnesses later on. Ve'lo hayah yode'a sheyesh lo re'aya u'matza re'aya. He didn’t know that he had a document as evidence until later on, when he found it. If he was unaware of what he had when he made his earlier statement, he thought he had no edim. He thought he had no evidence. But then later on, he found it. So we don’t have to suspect him of having done something wrong. Maybe he was simply unaware of what he actually had.
But Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would agree in the following case that the new evidence would be assumed to be false. Amru lo, have edim, ve'amar ein li edim. If the court told him, “Bring witnesses to support your claim,” and he told them, “I don’t have any witnesses.” Have re'aya, ve'amar ein li re'aya. Or they told him, “Bring a document as evidence,” and he told them in response, “I don’t have any document to bring as evidence.” And then what happened? Ra'ah shehu mitchayev badin. He saw where the court was going, and he saw that he was about to be found guilty. They were going to find him liable in judgment. So what did he do? Ve'amar: kirvu peloni u'peloni ve'ha'iduni. He said, “Oh, let’s pause for a second. So-and-so are here. They could come forward, and they could testify on my behalf.” Or shehotzi re'ayah mitoch afundato. Right on the spot, he took a piece of paper from under his belt, took it out, and said, “Oh, I have a piece of evidence. It’s right here.” Harei zeh eino klum. We don’t count this as anything. He just told us that he had no witnesses and that he had no document with him that would serve as evidence for him. Then, right before he got his judgment, he grabbed something. He grabbed a document from under his shirt, or he claimed that he had witnesses there. If he’s doing something like that, it seems very suspicious, very shady, and we presume that the witnesses are false witnesses. They were there waiting in case he needed them, but they don’t really have the goods. They’re not legitimate. Or the document he is bringing forth is also forged; it’s fake evidence, and he’s making a desperate, last-ditch effort to avoid losing the case, but we assume that he is scamming the court.