(Please forgive the delay in response. Technical problems prevented the mailing of a number of responses.)

1.

a. The Rambam (Hilchos Klei ha'Mmikdash 9:1) in fact does take account of his Edus.

The Rambam writes that one should write "Kodesh Lashem" on two lines. However, he continues and writes that if one wrote it on one line, it is valid. The Rambam concludes that sometimes it was written on one line.

b. The Kesef Mishneh writes that the Rambam took into account what Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yosi saw and explains that even though the Halachah follows the Tana Kama, this means only that this is the way that one should write it l'Chatchilah, but b'Di'eved the Halachah follows Rebbi Eliezer who says that it is valid on one line. Since Rebbi Eliezer testified that this is what he saw, the Rambam concludes that it must have been written this way sometimes.

c. The Or ha'Chaim (to Shemos 28:36) adds that even according to the Tana Kama it is not Me'akev if one wrote it on one line. The source for this Din is the fact that Rebbi Eliezer saw such a Tzitz in Rome.

2.

a. However, the Me'iri has a different way of understanding this matter and does not take into account Rebbi Eliezer's Edus. The Me'iri (in Shabbos 63b, where this Sugya also appears) writes:

"Even though there were great Sages who testified, 'I saw it in Rome and Kodesh Lashem was written on it on one line,' the other Sages did not deny what they knew to be true even against sighted Edus."

(b) This statement of the Me'iri seems surprising, because it means that even though Rebbi Eliezer testified that he had seen it with his own eyes, this did not sway the opinion of the Tana Kama, who remained firm to what he knew the Halachah to be. Why should eye-witness testimony not influence the Tana Kama?

(c) I would like to suggest a possible way of understanding the Me'iri. Perhaps this case can be compared to the famous dispute between Rashi and Rabeinu Tam concerning the order in which the Parshiyos should be placed in the Tefilin. The Bach on the Tur (Orach Chaim 34:1, end of DH Seder) cites the Mordechai who reports that ancient Tefilin were found in the tomb of the Prophet Yechezkel and the order of the Parshiyos in them followed the opinion of Rashi. The Bach writes that some reject this proof and argue that, on the contrary, the reason they were placed in the tomb was because this order of Parshiyos is Pasul, and therefore they were placed in Genizah in the tomb to be buried.

(d) Perhaps the Me'iri understands that the Tana Kama returns a similar argument to Rebbi Eliezer's Edus. Just because he saw the Tzitz written on one line does not prove that this is the correct way of writing. There may have been a Tzitz which was written in the wrong way and later found its way to Rome. Since the Tana Kama had a tradition that "Kodesh Lashem" must be written on two lines, the circumstantial evidence seen in Rome does not affect the Halachah.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1) I posed your question to a Gadol and he replied concisely, "Edus bi'Mekom Halachah."

This is testimony in the place of, or instead of, Halachah. Halachah is more powerful than Edus. Halachah is eternal and fixed permanently throughout all the generations and down every century, while what was observed by a witness, even if that witness is the most reliable and righteous person in the world, is always subject to possible change according to the specific circumstances surrounding the way the witness made his observation.

2) This answer is similar to what I wrote above in the name of the Me'iri, that the other Chachamim did not change the Halachah that they knew to be true, merely based on Rebbi Eliezer's Edus.

3) I would like to cite one other source from the Rishonim where we find a similar idea. This is from the Halachos of Tereifos and is cited by the Shach in Yoreh Deah 57:48 in the name of the Rashba. The discussion there concerns an animal which possesses an extra limb, such as an animal with five legs. The Halachah states (see Shulchan Aruch there, 55:4) that an extra limb is considered equivalent to a missing limb. Therefore, an animal with five legs is considered equivalent to an animal with three legs and is consequently a Tereifah. However, there is another Halachah (see Chulin 57b) that a Tereifah cannot live for 12 months. The Rashba discusses a case in which we know that an animal with an extra limb indeed survived for 12 months. The Rashba writes that this fact does not change the Halachah whatsoever, because it is impossible in any way to contradict the words of Chazal who said that an animal with an extra limb is a Tereifah. The Shach writes that it appears from the words of the Rashba that we must conclude that the fact that this animal lived 12 months was a miracle. However, the Halachah remains firmly in place, that such an animal is a Tereifah.

4) We learn from the above the supremacy of Halachah over Edus. Even if we observed a pheomenon that seems to contradict the Halachah, we prefer to say that a miracle happened rather than to alter the Halachah by an iota.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom