Ketubot 18

דסתם יהודה וגליל כשעת חירום דמו

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.

וליתני מודה רבי יהושע באומר לחבירו מנה לויתי ממך ופרעתיו לך שהוא נאמן משום דקא בעי למיתני סיפא אם יש עדים שהוא לוה ממנו והוא אומר פרעתיו אינו נאמן והא קיימא לן המלוה את חבירו בעדים אינו צריך לפרעו בעדים

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’t 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.

וליתני מודה רבי יהושע באומר לחבירו מנה לאביך בידי והאכלתיו פרס שהוא נאמן

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.

אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבנן הא אמרי משיב אבידה הוי אי אליבא דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב הא אמר שבועה בעי

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’t 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’akov, didn’t he say that in that case the borrower is required to take an oath, and only then is his claim accepted?

דתניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר פעמים שאדם נשבע על טענת עצמו כיצד מנה לאביך בידי והאכלתיו פרס הרי זה נשבע וזהו שנשבע על טענת עצמו וחכמים אומרים אינו אלא כמשיב אבידה ופטור

This dispute is as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov 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.

ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב לית ליה משיב אבידה פטור אמר רב בטוענו קטן והאמר מר אין נשבעין על טענת חרש שוטה וקטן

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov 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’s minor son claims that the borrower did not repay any part of the loan to his father. The borrower’s 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’t 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.

מאי קטן גדול ואמאי קרי ליה קטן דלגבי מילי דאביו קטן הוא אי הכי טענת עצמו טענת אחרים היא טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו

The Gemara answers: In Rav’s 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’s matters, he is the equivalent of a minor, as he is uncertain about the particulars of his father’s 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.

כולהי טענתא טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו נינהו

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’akov 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.

אלא הכא בדרבה קמיפלגי דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו והאי בכולה בעי דלכפריה והאי דלא כפר ליה משום דאין אדם מעיז פניו הוא

Rather, the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation of the tannaitic dispute. Here, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov 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.

ובכולה בעי דלודי ליה והאי דלא אודי ליה כי היכי דלישתמיט ליה וסבר עד דהוה לי זוזי ופרענא ליה ורחמנא אמר רמי שבועה עליה כי היכי דלודי ליה בכוליה

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.

רבי אליעזר בן יעקב סבר לא שנא בו ולא שנא בבנו אינו מעיז והלכך לאו משיב אבידה הוי ורבנן סברי בו הוא דאינו מעיז אבל בבנו מעיז ומדלא העיז משיב אבידה הוי

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov 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.

מתני׳ העדים שאמרו כתב ידינו הוא זה אבל אנוסים היינו קטנים היינו פסולי עדות היינו הרי אלו נאמנים ואם יש עדים שהוא כתב ידם או שהיה כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר אינן נאמנין

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.

גמ׳ אמר רמי בר חמא לא שנו אלא שאמרו אנוסים היינו מחמת ממון אבל אנוסים היינו מחמת נפשות הרי אלו נאמנין

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 Ḥama 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.

אמר ליה רבא כל כמיניה כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד וכי תימא הני מילי על פה אבל בשטר לא והא אמר ריש לקיש עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמי שנחקרה עדותן בבית דין

Rava said to Rami bar Ḥama: 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’t 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.

אלא כי אתמר ארישא אתמר הרי אלו נאמנין אמר רמי בר חמא לא שנו אלא שאמרו אנוסין היינו מחמת נפשות אבל אמרו אנוסין היינו מחמת ממון אין נאמנין מאי טעמא אין אדם משים עצמו רשע

Rather, when the statement of Rami bar Ḥama 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 Ḥama 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.

תנו רבנן אין נאמנים לפוסלו דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים נאמנים בשלמא לרבנן כי טעמייהו שהפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר אלא לרבי מאיר מאי טעמא בשלמא פסולי עדות מלוה גופיה מעיקרא מידק דייק ומחתם קטנים נמי כדרבי שמעון בן לקיש דאמר ריש לקיש

§ 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: