the witnesses who testified that he is unfit and the judges who testified that he is fit are two witnesses and two witnesses who contradict them, and in that case, the allegation of theft is not completely eliminated. If it was a challenge based on an allegation of flawed lineage, e.g., he is a Canaanite slave and therefore unfit to serve as a judge, that is a mere revealing of a matter that will ultimately be revealed in any case and does not require actual testimony. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest preventing the judges from asserting his fitness after they signed. The Talmud concludes: Actually, I will say to you that it was a challenge based on an allegation of theft, and these judges say: We know about him that he repented and is now fit to serve as a judge. In that case, their testimony does not contradict the original testimony that he was guilty of theft.
אמר רבי זירא: הא מלתא מרבי אבא שמיע לי, ואי לאו רבי אבא דמן עכו, שכחתה: שלשה שישבו לקיים את השטר ומת אחד מהם — צריכין למיכתב: ״במותב תלתא הוינא, וחד ליתוהי״.
§ R' Zeira said: This matter, I heard from R' Abba, and if it was not for R' Abba of Akko, I would have forgotten it. With regard to a case of 3 judges who convened as a tribunal to ratify a document, and one of them died before signing the ratification, the surviving judges must emend the standard formula of the ratification and write: We were convened in a session of 3 judges, and one of the judges is no longer alive. In that way it is clear that although only two judges signed, the document was ratified by 3 judges.