כתשובת מיי' לס' שופטים סי' י"ג. וששאלת איךלבכ"י מנהיגו וט"ס. מנהגינו בישוב להחזיקו בעד אחד או בעד מפי עד. במקומינו אין לנו מנהג ברור בזה כי לא בא דין זה מעולם לכאן זה אומר ככה וזה אומר ככה מדעת הכרס ואם בא דין זה לפנינו היינו שואלים מן הקהילות מה משפטם:
Q. What is the custom of your locality regarding the admission of the testimony of a single witness as evidence, or of a witness reporting what he had heard from an eye-witness, in disputes involving settling rights? A. We have no definite custom regarding these laws, for we never had a case of this nature. Were we confronted with such a problem, we would inquire of the communities as to the ruling accepted by them. This Responsum was written by R. Meir in his youth, but in later life he decided that in disputes involving settling-rights, even the testimony of relatives or of witnesses reporting what they had heard from others, should be admitted in evidence; for, in such disputes, it is almost impossible to produce legitimate witnesses. The inhabitants of a town are the only ones who know whether or not a person possesses settling-rights, but such inhabitants are interested witnesses. Moreover, even they rarely remember what had happened years ago, and merely report vague memories, impressions, and hearsay. Therefore, when two groups of witnesses contradict each other, we admit the testimony of the group that has the most members. But usucapion is not a factor in proving settling-rights, since a person may have received permission to stay in town for a limited time only (Tesh. Maim.). SOURCES: L. 214; Tesh. Maim. to Shoftim. 13. Cf. Agudah B. B. 46; Terumat Hadeshen 342.
כתשובת מיי' לס' שופטים סי' י"ג. וששאלת איךלבכ"י מנהיגו וט"ס. מנהגינו בישוב להחזיקו בעד אחד או בעד מפי עד. במקומינו אין לנו מנהג ברור בזה כי לא בא דין זה מעולם לכאן זה אומר ככה וזה אומר ככה מדעת הכרס ואם בא דין זה לפנינו היינו שואלים מן הקהילות מה משפטם:
Q. What is the custom of your locality regarding the admission of the testimony of a single witness as evidence, or of a witness reporting what he had heard from an eye-witness, in disputes involving settling rights?
A. We have no definite custom regarding these laws, for we never had a case of this nature. Were we confronted with such a problem, we would inquire of the communities as to the ruling accepted by them.
This Responsum was written by R. Meir in his youth, but in later life he decided that in disputes involving settling-rights, even the testimony of relatives or of witnesses reporting what they had heard from others, should be admitted in evidence; for, in such disputes, it is almost impossible to produce legitimate witnesses. The inhabitants of a town are the only ones who know whether or not a person possesses settling-rights, but such inhabitants are interested witnesses. Moreover, even they rarely remember what had happened years ago, and merely report vague memories, impressions, and hearsay. Therefore, when two groups of witnesses contradict each other, we admit the testimony of the group that has the most members. But usucapion is not a factor in proving settling-rights, since a person may have received permission to stay in town for a limited time only (Tesh. Maim.).
SOURCES: L. 214; Tesh. Maim. to Shoftim. 13. Cf. Agudah B. B. 46; Terumat Hadeshen 342.