Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 24, 2022 | 讻状讛 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讘

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Ketubot 18

Why didn鈥檛 the Mishna mention a case of one who claimed that they borrowed money from another, but already paid it back? Why didn鈥檛 it mention the case of one who said 鈥淵our father lent me money but I paid him back half.鈥 Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the rabbis disagree regarding that case 鈥 what does each hold and why? Why is it different than a standard case of modeh b鈥檓iktzat, one who admits to part of the claim, who is obligated to swear regarding the half in question? The Mishna brings another case where one is believed as we only know of the claim at all from what the person told us and therefore, they are believed about the rest. The case is regarding verification of signature on a document. When the witnesses verified their signatures, they claimed they were forced into it or were too young to testify or were disqualified witnesses. Rami bar Chama limits one of the cases of the Mishna but there are two versions as to which one he is limiting. How does the Mishna work with the principle that once one has testified, one can no longer change their testimony? How does it work with the principle that a person does not come to court and self-incriminate themselves? A braita brings a debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding the law in our Mishna. The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion.

讚住转诐 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讙诇讬诇 讻砖注转 讞讬专讜诐 讚诪讜

The Gemara answers: The reason that the tanna cited specifically a case where each is located in a different land is that the standard situation with regard to travel between Judea and the Galilee is tantamount to a crisis period, as war was commonplace, and there was a strip of Samaritan territory between Judea and the Galilee.

讜诇讬转谞讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 诇讜讬转讬 诪诪讱 讜驻专注转讬讜 诇讱 砖讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讛讜讗 诇讜讛 诪诪谞讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 驻专注转讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇驻专注讜 讘注讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: And let the tanna teach in the mishna: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: I borrowed one hundred dinars from you and repaid the loan to you, that he is deemed credible. The Gemara answers: The tanna chose not to teach that case of the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted due to the fact that the tanna wanted to teach in the latter clause: If there are witnesses that he borrowed money from another, and he says: I repaid the loan, he is not deemed credible. However, the tanna would not be able to distinguish between a case where witnesses testify and a case where there are no witnesses, as don鈥檛 we hold that in the case of one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the borrower need not repay the loan in the presence of witnesses? Therefore, even if witnesses testify that he took the loan, his claim that he repaid the loan is accepted.

讜诇讬转谞讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讗讻诇转讬讜 驻专住 砖讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉

The Gemara asks: And let the tanna teach in the mishna: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession in the form of a loan, but I provided him with repayment of half that amount, that his claim is deemed credible.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讬 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讗 讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 讘注讬

The Gemara answers: There is a tannaitic dispute with regard to that case and the case that the Gemara suggested does not correspond to either opinion. In accordance with whose opinion would the mishna be taught? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, didn鈥檛 they say that in that case he is the equivalent of one returning a lost article? Since the son is unaware that the borrower owes his father money, and the borrower takes the initiative and admits that he owes part of the sum that he borrowed, it is as if he returned a lost article, and clearly his claim is accepted and no oath is required. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, didn鈥檛 he say that in that case the borrower is required to take an oath, and only then is his claim accepted?

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 谞砖讘注 注诇 讟注谞转 注爪诪讜 讻讬爪讚 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讗讻诇转讬讜 驻专住 讛专讬 讝讛 谞砖讘注 讜讝讛讜 砖谞砖讘注 注诇 讟注谞转 注爪诪讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讻诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讜驻讟讜专

This dispute is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: There are times when although no one claimed that another owes him money, a person takes an oath on the basis of his own claim. How so? If one says to another: Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession, but I provided him with repayment of half that amount, he is required to take an oath that he repaid half, and that is the case of one who takes an oath on the basis of his own claim. And the Rabbis say: In that case he is merely the equivalent of one returning a lost article, and is exempt from taking an oath.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讘讟讜注谞讜 拽讟谉 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇 讟注谞转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov not of the opinion that one who returns a lost article is exempt from taking an oath that he did not take part of the sum? He returns what he admitted taking without an oath. Rav says: The baraita is referring to a case where a minor makes a claim against him. The lender鈥檚 minor son claims that the borrower did not repay any part of the loan to his father. The borrower鈥檚 claim comes in response to that claim. Therefore, his admission is not at all comparable to returning a lost article. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the Master say: One does not take an oath on the basis of the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor? Due to their lack of cognition, they are not deemed halakhically competent to require another to take an oath based on their claim.

诪讗讬 拽讟谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 拽讟谉 讚诇讙讘讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讘讬讜 拽讟谉 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讟注谞转 注爪诪讜 讟注谞转 讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讗 讟注谞转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜讚讗转 注爪诪讜

The Gemara answers: In Rav鈥檚 statement, what is the meaning of minor? It means one who reached majority, and is therefore halakhically competent. And why does Rav call him a minor? It is due to the fact that with regard to his father鈥檚 matters, he is the equivalent of a minor, as he is uncertain about the particulars of his father鈥檚 dealings. If so, i.e., that the son making the claim has already reached majority, the language of the baraita is imprecise. Why does the tanna refer to this case as one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim? This is not his own claim; it is the claim of others. The Gemara answers: The baraita employed that language for the following reason: It is the claim of others, but he is taking an oath on the basis of his own partial admission.

讻讜诇讛讬 讟注谞转讗 讟注谞转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜讚讗转 注爪诪讜 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: All claims where an oath is required are cases of a claim of others and his own admission. However, in the baraita, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov introduces his opinion with the phrase: There are times, indicating that the case to which he is referring, that of one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim, is not the standard case of taking an oath.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讚专讘讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪讜讚讛 诪拽爪转 讛讟注谞讛 讬砖讘注 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讝 驻谞讬讜 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘讜 讜讛讗讬 讘讻讜诇讛 讘注讬 讚诇讻驻专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讝 驻谞讬讜 讛讜讗

Rather, the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation of the tannaitic dispute. Here, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the statement of Rabba, as Rabba said: Why did the Torah say that one who makes a partial admission in response to the claim is required to take an oath? It is because there is a presumption that a person would not be so insolent in the presence of his creditor as to deny his debt. Presumably, this borrower who made a partial admission would have liked to deny the entire loan, and the fact that he did not deny the entire loan is due to the fact that a person would not be so insolent in the presence of his creditor.

讜讘讻讜诇讛 讘注讬 讚诇讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖转诪讬讟 诇讬讛 讜住讘专 注讚 讚讛讜讛 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讜驻专注谞讗 诇讬讛 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 砖讘讜注讛 注诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛

And, as a result, he would have liked to admit to him that he owes him the entire loan. And the reason that he did not admit to him that he owes him the entire loan is so that he may temporarily avoid paying him. And he rationalizes doing so, saying to himself: I am avoiding him only until the time that I have money, and then I will repay him. Due to the concern that the partial admission is motivated by that rationalization and the claim of the lender is true, the Merciful One says: Impose an oath upon him so that he will admit that he owes him the entire loan.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讘谞讜 讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讝 讜讛诇讻讱 诇讗讜 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讝 讗讘诇 讘讘谞讜 诪注讬讝 讜诪讚诇讗 讛注讬讝 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讬

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov maintains: It is no different with regard to the creditor himself, and it is no different with regard to his son. The debtor would not be so insolent as to deny the debt. And therefore, he is not considered as one returning a lost article on his own initiative. Rather, he is considered as one who partially admits his debt in response to a claim, and is therefore required to take an oath. However, the Rabbis maintain: In the presence of the creditor one would not be insolent, but in the presence of his son, who did not lend him the money, he would be insolent and deny the claim entirely. Since he had the option of completely denying the loan and opted to admit to part of the claim, he is considered as one returning a lost article and his claim is accepted without an oath.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讚讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讻转讘 讬讚讬谞讜 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗讘诇 讗谞讜住讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 拽讟谞讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 驻住讜诇讬 注讚讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讛讜讗 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讬谞谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉

MISHNA: With regard to the witnesses who said in their testimony to ratify their signatures in a document: We signed the document and this is our handwriting; however, we were compelled to sign, or we were minors when we signed, or we were disqualified witnesses, e.g., we are relatives of one of the parties, they are deemed credible. Since the document is ratified on the basis of their testimony, it is likewise invalidated on the basis of their testimony. However, if there are other witnesses who testify that it is their handwriting, or if their handwriting emerges on a document from another place, enabling confirmation of their signatures by comparing the two documents, then the witnesses who signed the document are not deemed credible. The document is not invalidated based on their testimony, because ratification of the document is not dependent on their testimony, as their signatures can be authenticated independently.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诪专讜 讗谞讜住讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讞诪转 诪诪讜谉 讗讘诇 讗谞讜住讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讞诪转 谞驻砖讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉

GEMARA: With regard to the latter clause in the mishna, in which it is stated that if there is independent corroboration of the signatures of the witnesses the document is not invalidated based on their testimony, Rami bar 岣ma says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where they said: We were compelled to sign the document due to a monetary threat. Their testimony incriminates them, as they testified falsely for money, and the principle is: The testimony of one who incriminates himself is not accepted. However, if the witnesses said: We were compelled to sign the document due to a threat to our lives, they are deemed credible, as that testimony is not self-incriminating, since in that case it is permitted to testify falsely.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬讚 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诪讙讬讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注诇 驻讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讟专 诇讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讚讬诐 讛讞转讜诪讬诐 注诇 讛砖讟专 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞讞拽专讛 注讚讜转谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rava said to Rami bar 岣ma: Is it within their power to retract their testimony? There is a principle: Once a witness stated his testimony in court, he cannot again state testimony that contradicts his previous testimony. And if you say that this principle applies specifically to oral testimony, but with regard to testimony in a document, no, the principle does not apply and one may retract that testimony, didn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say: The legal status of witnesses who are signatories on the document becomes like those whose testimony was cross-examined in court. Therefore, just as one may not retract oral testimony, neither may he retract written testimony.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转诪专 讗专讬砖讗 讗转诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诪专讜 讗谞讜住讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讞诪转 谞驻砖讜转 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讗谞讜住讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讞诪转 诪诪讜谉 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪砖讬诐 注爪诪讜 专砖注

Rather, when the statement of Rami bar 岣ma is stated, it is stated with regard to the first clause of the mishna, that if there is no independent corroboration of their signatures they are deemed credible. Rami bar 岣ma said: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the witnesses said: We were compelled to sign the document due to a threat to our lives, as in that case they do not incriminate themselves. However, if the witnesses said: We were compelled to sign the document due to a monetary threat, they are not deemed credible. What is the reason that they are not deemed credible? It is based on the principle: One does not render himself wicked, and self-incriminating testimony is not accepted.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬诐 诇驻讜住诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讻讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 砖讛驻讛 砖讗住专 讛讜讗 讛驻讛 砖讛转讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘砖诇诪讗 驻住讜诇讬 注讚讜转 诪诇讜讛 讙讜驻讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬讚拽 讚讬讬拽 讜诪讞转诐 拽讟谞讬诐 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

The Sages taught: Witnesses who testify to invalidate their signatures on a document are not deemed credible to invalidate the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are deemed credible. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the Rabbis, their opinion corresponds to their reasoning stated previously: The mouth that prohibited it, i.e., ratified the document, is the mouth that permitted it, i.e., invalidated the promissory note. However, according to Rabbi Meir, what is the reason that their testimony to invalidate the document is not accepted? Granted, their testimony that they were disqualified witnesses is not accepted, as the lender himself initially ascertains that the witnesses are fit to testify and only then signs them on the document. Similarly, according to Rabbi Meir, their testimony that they were minors is also not accepted, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as Reish Lakish said:

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 14-20 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue learning key concepts of the Talmud, We will understand the concept of majority and when...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 18: Signing Your Life Away

What happens when two parties have a monetary claim? What level of responsibility is expected for one to be able...

Ketubot 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 18

讚住转诐 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讙诇讬诇 讻砖注转 讞讬专讜诐 讚诪讜

The Gemara answers: The reason that the tanna cited specifically a case where each is located in a different land is that the standard situation with regard to travel between Judea and the Galilee is tantamount to a crisis period, as war was commonplace, and there was a strip of Samaritan territory between Judea and the Galilee.

讜诇讬转谞讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 诇讜讬转讬 诪诪讱 讜驻专注转讬讜 诇讱 砖讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讛讜讗 诇讜讛 诪诪谞讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 驻专注转讬讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇驻专注讜 讘注讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: And let the tanna teach in the mishna: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: I borrowed one hundred dinars from you and repaid the loan to you, that he is deemed credible. The Gemara answers: The tanna chose not to teach that case of the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted due to the fact that the tanna wanted to teach in the latter clause: If there are witnesses that he borrowed money from another, and he says: I repaid the loan, he is not deemed credible. However, the tanna would not be able to distinguish between a case where witnesses testify and a case where there are no witnesses, as don鈥檛 we hold that in the case of one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the borrower need not repay the loan in the presence of witnesses? Therefore, even if witnesses testify that he took the loan, his claim that he repaid the loan is accepted.

讜诇讬转谞讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讗讻诇转讬讜 驻专住 砖讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉

The Gemara asks: And let the tanna teach in the mishna: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in a case where one says to another: Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession in the form of a loan, but I provided him with repayment of half that amount, that his claim is deemed credible.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讬 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讗 讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 讘注讬

The Gemara answers: There is a tannaitic dispute with regard to that case and the case that the Gemara suggested does not correspond to either opinion. In accordance with whose opinion would the mishna be taught? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, didn鈥檛 they say that in that case he is the equivalent of one returning a lost article? Since the son is unaware that the borrower owes his father money, and the borrower takes the initiative and admits that he owes part of the sum that he borrowed, it is as if he returned a lost article, and clearly his claim is accepted and no oath is required. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, didn鈥檛 he say that in that case the borrower is required to take an oath, and only then is his claim accepted?

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 谞砖讘注 注诇 讟注谞转 注爪诪讜 讻讬爪讚 诪谞讛 诇讗讘讬讱 讘讬讚讬 讜讛讗讻诇转讬讜 驻专住 讛专讬 讝讛 谞砖讘注 讜讝讛讜 砖谞砖讘注 注诇 讟注谞转 注爪诪讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讻诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讜驻讟讜专

This dispute is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: There are times when although no one claimed that another owes him money, a person takes an oath on the basis of his own claim. How so? If one says to another: Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession, but I provided him with repayment of half that amount, he is required to take an oath that he repaid half, and that is the case of one who takes an oath on the basis of his own claim. And the Rabbis say: In that case he is merely the equivalent of one returning a lost article, and is exempt from taking an oath.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讘讟讜注谞讜 拽讟谉 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 谞砖讘注讬谉 注诇 讟注谞转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov not of the opinion that one who returns a lost article is exempt from taking an oath that he did not take part of the sum? He returns what he admitted taking without an oath. Rav says: The baraita is referring to a case where a minor makes a claim against him. The lender鈥檚 minor son claims that the borrower did not repay any part of the loan to his father. The borrower鈥檚 claim comes in response to that claim. Therefore, his admission is not at all comparable to returning a lost article. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the Master say: One does not take an oath on the basis of the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor? Due to their lack of cognition, they are not deemed halakhically competent to require another to take an oath based on their claim.

诪讗讬 拽讟谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 拽讟谉 讚诇讙讘讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讘讬讜 拽讟谉 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讟注谞转 注爪诪讜 讟注谞转 讗讞专讬诐 讛讬讗 讟注谞转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜讚讗转 注爪诪讜

The Gemara answers: In Rav鈥檚 statement, what is the meaning of minor? It means one who reached majority, and is therefore halakhically competent. And why does Rav call him a minor? It is due to the fact that with regard to his father鈥檚 matters, he is the equivalent of a minor, as he is uncertain about the particulars of his father鈥檚 dealings. If so, i.e., that the son making the claim has already reached majority, the language of the baraita is imprecise. Why does the tanna refer to this case as one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim? This is not his own claim; it is the claim of others. The Gemara answers: The baraita employed that language for the following reason: It is the claim of others, but he is taking an oath on the basis of his own partial admission.

讻讜诇讛讬 讟注谞转讗 讟注谞转 讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讜讚讗转 注爪诪讜 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: All claims where an oath is required are cases of a claim of others and his own admission. However, in the baraita, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov introduces his opinion with the phrase: There are times, indicating that the case to which he is referring, that of one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim, is not the standard case of taking an oath.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讚专讘讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪讜讚讛 诪拽爪转 讛讟注谞讛 讬砖讘注 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讝 驻谞讬讜 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘讜 讜讛讗讬 讘讻讜诇讛 讘注讬 讚诇讻驻专讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注讬讝 驻谞讬讜 讛讜讗

Rather, the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation of the tannaitic dispute. Here, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the statement of Rabba, as Rabba said: Why did the Torah say that one who makes a partial admission in response to the claim is required to take an oath? It is because there is a presumption that a person would not be so insolent in the presence of his creditor as to deny his debt. Presumably, this borrower who made a partial admission would have liked to deny the entire loan, and the fact that he did not deny the entire loan is due to the fact that a person would not be so insolent in the presence of his creditor.

讜讘讻讜诇讛 讘注讬 讚诇讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬砖转诪讬讟 诇讬讛 讜住讘专 注讚 讚讛讜讛 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讜驻专注谞讗 诇讬讛 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 专诪讬 砖讘讜注讛 注诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讜讚讬 诇讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛

And, as a result, he would have liked to admit to him that he owes him the entire loan. And the reason that he did not admit to him that he owes him the entire loan is so that he may temporarily avoid paying him. And he rationalizes doing so, saying to himself: I am avoiding him only until the time that I have money, and then I will repay him. Due to the concern that the partial admission is motivated by that rationalization and the claim of the lender is true, the Merciful One says: Impose an oath upon him so that he will admit that he owes him the entire loan.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 住讘专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘讘谞讜 讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讝 讜讛诇讻讱 诇讗讜 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讘讜 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讝 讗讘诇 讘讘谞讜 诪注讬讝 讜诪讚诇讗 讛注讬讝 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讜讬

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov maintains: It is no different with regard to the creditor himself, and it is no different with regard to his son. The debtor would not be so insolent as to deny the debt. And therefore, he is not considered as one returning a lost article on his own initiative. Rather, he is considered as one who partially admits his debt in response to a claim, and is therefore required to take an oath. However, the Rabbis maintain: In the presence of the creditor one would not be insolent, but in the presence of his son, who did not lend him the money, he would be insolent and deny the claim entirely. Since he had the option of completely denying the loan and opted to admit to part of the claim, he is considered as one returning a lost article and his claim is accepted without an oath.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讚讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讻转讘 讬讚讬谞讜 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗讘诇 讗谞讜住讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 拽讟谞讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 驻住讜诇讬 注讚讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讛讜讗 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗讬谞谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉

MISHNA: With regard to the witnesses who said in their testimony to ratify their signatures in a document: We signed the document and this is our handwriting; however, we were compelled to sign, or we were minors when we signed, or we were disqualified witnesses, e.g., we are relatives of one of the parties, they are deemed credible. Since the document is ratified on the basis of their testimony, it is likewise invalidated on the basis of their testimony. However, if there are other witnesses who testify that it is their handwriting, or if their handwriting emerges on a document from another place, enabling confirmation of their signatures by comparing the two documents, then the witnesses who signed the document are not deemed credible. The document is not invalidated based on their testimony, because ratification of the document is not dependent on their testimony, as their signatures can be authenticated independently.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诪专讜 讗谞讜住讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讞诪转 诪诪讜谉 讗讘诇 讗谞讜住讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讞诪转 谞驻砖讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉

GEMARA: With regard to the latter clause in the mishna, in which it is stated that if there is independent corroboration of the signatures of the witnesses the document is not invalidated based on their testimony, Rami bar 岣ma says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where they said: We were compelled to sign the document due to a monetary threat. Their testimony incriminates them, as they testified falsely for money, and the principle is: The testimony of one who incriminates himself is not accepted. However, if the witnesses said: We were compelled to sign the document due to a threat to our lives, they are deemed credible, as that testimony is not self-incriminating, since in that case it is permitted to testify falsely.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬讚 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诪讙讬讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注诇 驻讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讟专 诇讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讚讬诐 讛讞转讜诪讬诐 注诇 讛砖讟专 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞讞拽专讛 注讚讜转谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rava said to Rami bar 岣ma: Is it within their power to retract their testimony? There is a principle: Once a witness stated his testimony in court, he cannot again state testimony that contradicts his previous testimony. And if you say that this principle applies specifically to oral testimony, but with regard to testimony in a document, no, the principle does not apply and one may retract that testimony, didn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say: The legal status of witnesses who are signatories on the document becomes like those whose testimony was cross-examined in court. Therefore, just as one may not retract oral testimony, neither may he retract written testimony.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转诪专 讗专讬砖讗 讗转诪专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诪专讜 讗谞讜住讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讞诪转 谞驻砖讜转 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讗谞讜住讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讞诪转 诪诪讜谉 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪砖讬诐 注爪诪讜 专砖注

Rather, when the statement of Rami bar 岣ma is stated, it is stated with regard to the first clause of the mishna, that if there is no independent corroboration of their signatures they are deemed credible. Rami bar 岣ma said: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the witnesses said: We were compelled to sign the document due to a threat to our lives, as in that case they do not incriminate themselves. However, if the witnesses said: We were compelled to sign the document due to a monetary threat, they are not deemed credible. What is the reason that they are not deemed credible? It is based on the principle: One does not render himself wicked, and self-incriminating testimony is not accepted.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬诐 诇驻讜住诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬诐 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘谞谉 讻讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 砖讛驻讛 砖讗住专 讛讜讗 讛驻讛 砖讛转讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘砖诇诪讗 驻住讜诇讬 注讚讜转 诪诇讜讛 讙讜驻讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讬讚拽 讚讬讬拽 讜诪讞转诐 拽讟谞讬诐 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖

The Sages taught: Witnesses who testify to invalidate their signatures on a document are not deemed credible to invalidate the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are deemed credible. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the Rabbis, their opinion corresponds to their reasoning stated previously: The mouth that prohibited it, i.e., ratified the document, is the mouth that permitted it, i.e., invalidated the promissory note. However, according to Rabbi Meir, what is the reason that their testimony to invalidate the document is not accepted? Granted, their testimony that they were disqualified witnesses is not accepted, as the lender himself initially ascertains that the witnesses are fit to testify and only then signs them on the document. Similarly, according to Rabbi Meir, their testimony that they were minors is also not accepted, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as Reish Lakish said:

Scroll To Top