Rav Nachman was not concerned that overturning a ruling of the court based on new testimony would cause a lack fo respect in the future for the courts. He relied on Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s ruling in a case of a kohen about whom concern was raised that he was the son of a kohen and a divorcee. The details of the exact case are clarified and lead to the fact that all agree that one can overturn a ruling – the debate was over a different issue – can 2 individual witnesses testify each separately and it can be considered one testimony? Other cases are brought where one brings a document and the other side accuses him for bringing a false document. Then the one who brought the document says that the document is a forgery but there was a real document that got lot. Is the claim valid as a “ma li leshaker” – since he could have lied and said it was a valid docuemnt. The commentaries disagree as to the exact details of the case – was it really a forged document or was it a shtar amana? How do we rule in cases like this?