Abstract
AbstractThis article focuses on questions of pure fact‐of‐the‐matter and asks whether two omniscient judges (or jurists or scholars) may disagree over the legal answer to a straightforward question of a matter of fact. There are approaches to legal theory among some western and Jewish philosophers of law whereby at least superficially it is possible that two or more contradictory legal statements regarding a given reality can be equally correct. The article provides a critical analysis of three different models derived from the Jewish legal literature, and reviews the contributions of Jewish sources to the understanding of the phenomenon of disagreements concerning matters of fact.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
