I will begin with the affidavit of Rabbi Bronfman - an examination of this affidavit shows that what is stated in it can be divided into two - first, a halakhic reference to the meaning deriving from the heter of businessA in general, and secondly - a reference to the meaning deriving from the application of a heter businessA in this case.
With regard to the halakhic issue, Rabbi Bronfman specifies, in the first part of his affidavit, that in accordance with his professional experience - where in accordance with the terms of the Business A permit there is no profit for the borrower defined in the transaction permit, there is no debt to the lender, except for the principal that the borrower returns. He also detailed that in order to prove this, the borrower must swear that there were no profits or bring witnesses to it. This is unless it is clear to the lender that there is no profit. This detail in Rabbi Bronfman's affidavit constitutes testimony from her opinion as to the halakhic significance of the term "heter transaction." As such, the plaintiff should have brought this testimony in the framework of an opinion. In these circumstances, the defendant objected to the admissibility of Rabbi Bronfman's affidavit - as detailed at the beginning of the hearing on May 22, 2025. I will note that in her summary, the plaintiff argues that since the defendant did not question Rabbi Bronfman regarding his affidavit, its contents should be accepted. There is no substance to this argument, since the defendant did not give up the investigation without explanation, but rather she reasoned her refusal to cross-examine the witness on the grounds that although his testimony constitutes testimony from her opinion, it was not submitted as an opinion. Despite this, the plaintiff did not seek to correct the said defect at that time (and not even afterwards) and therefore, she cannot claim in her summaries that this is an affidavit that is admissible and that there were possibilities to correct the defect in her own conduct. In light of this, this part of Rabbi Bronfman's affidavit - which constitutes testimony from her opinion - is inadmissible as evidence. For the sake of completeness, I will note that below I will examine the terminology "heter transaction" as interpreted in the case law, and I am of the opinion that in any case, in light of this, it is doubtful whether it is possible to interpret the terminology in the simplistic manner attributed to it in the framework of this affidavit.