Ketubot 19

חזקה אין העדים חותמין על השטר אלא אם כן נעשה בגדול אלא אנוסין מאי טעמא

There is a presumption that witnesses sign on the document only if the transaction was made when both parties to the transaction are adults. A corollary of that presumption is that each party would sign only adult witnesses to the document. However, if their testimony was that they were compelled to sign the document, what is the reason that Rabbi Meir rules that their testimony is not accepted?

אמר רב חסדא קסבר רבי מאיר עדים שאמרו להם חתמו שקר ואל תהרגו יהרגו ואל יחתמו שקר

Rav Ḥisda said that Rabbi Meir maintains: Witnesses that others said to them: Sign a document containing a falsehood and you will not be killed, should allow themselves to be killed and they should not sign a document containing a falsehood. Therefore, even when they testify that they were compelled to sign the document due to a threat to their lives, they are incriminating themselves.

אמר ליה רבא השתא אילו אתו לקמן לאמלוכי אמרינן להו זילו חתומו ולא תתקטלון דאמר מר אין לך דבר שעומד בפני פיקוח נפש אלא עבודה זרה וגלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים בלבד השתא דחתמו אמרינן להו אמאי חתמיתו

Rava said to him: Now, if the witnesses came before us to consult with the Sages, we say to them: Go sign the document and you should not be killed, as the Master said: You have no matter that stands before saving a life, other than idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and murder. Now that they signed, do we say to them: Why did you sign? Only in those three cases, when faced with a choice between violating the prohibition and being killed, must one be killed rather than violate the prohibition. Signing a false document does not fall into that category. Why then, according to Rabbi Meir, is their testimony that they were compelled to sign the document not accepted?

אלא טעמא דרבי מאיר כדרב הונא אמר רב דאמר רב הונא אמר רב מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו

Rather, the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir is in accordance with the statement that Rav Huna said that Rav said, as Rav Huna said that Rav said: In the case of a borrower who admits with regard to a document that he wrote it, the lender need not ratify the document in court. Once the borrower admits that he wrote the document, he cannot then claim that it is forged or that the debt was repaid. Similarly, once the witnesses testify that they signed the document, it is a credible document that they cannot then invalidate (Tosafot).

גופא אמר רב הונא אמר רב מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו אמר ליה רב נחמן גנובא גנובי למה לך אי סבירא לך כרבי מאיר אימא הלכה כרבי מאיר

§ With regard to the matter itself, Rav Huna said that Rav said: In the case of a borrower who admits with regard to a document that he wrote it, the lender need not ratify the document in court. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: Why do you need to conceal the reason for your opinion like a thief? If you hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Do not state your opinion in a manner that obscures its connection to a tannaitic dispute.

אמר ליה ומר היכי סבירא ליה אמר ליה כי אתו לקמן לדינא אמרינן להו זילו קיימו שטרייכו וחותו לדינא

Rav Huna said to him: And what does the Master hold in a case where the borrower admits that he wrote the document? Rav Naḥman said to him: When lenders come before us for judgment, we say to them: Go and ratify your documents and descend and stand before us for judgment. If a lender relies solely on the confession of the borrower, the borrower could claim that although he wrote the document, he then repaid the loan. However, if the document was ratified by the court based on the testimony of the witnesses who signed it, the borrower’s claim that he repaid the loan is not accepted.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב האומר שטר אמנה הוא זה אינו נאמן

§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who says with regard to a document: This is a document of trust, is not deemed credible. If one claims that the document is a valid document but that no loan actually took place, and instead the borrower trusted the lender and gave him the document in order to borrow money in the future, or as security, he is not deemed credible.

דקאמר מאן אילימא דקאמר לוה פשיטא כל כמיניה ואלא דקאמר מלוה תבוא עליו ברכה אלא דקאמרי עדים אי דכתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר פשיטא דלא מהימני ואי דאין כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר אמאי לא מהימני

The Gemara asks: In the case to which Rav’s statement is referring, who is saying that the document was a document of trust? If you say that it is the borrower who is saying so, it is obvious that he is not deemed credible. Is it within the power of the borrower to establish that the document is not genuine? But rather, say it is the lender who is saying that it is a document of trust. In that case, not only is he deemed credible, but let a blessing come upon him for admitting that a debt may not be collected with this document. Rather, say it is the witnesses who are saying that it is a document of trust. If so, the question arises: If it is a case where their handwriting emerges from another place, it is obvious that they are not deemed credible, as the document is ratified. And if it is a case where their handwriting does not emerge from another place, and the witnesses themselves testify that it is their signatures on the document, but that it was a document of trust, why are they not deemed credible? This is a clear case of: The mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted.

(סימן בא״ש) אמר רבא לעולם דקאמר לוה וכדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא אמר רב מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names of the amora’im who seek to explain Rav’s statement and resolve the problem: Beit, the second letter in the name of Rava; alef, the first letter in Abaye; and shin, the second letter in the name of Rav Ashi. Rava said: Actually, it is the borrower who is saying it, and it can be explained in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said that Rav said: In the case of a borrower who admits with regard to a document that he wrote it, the lender need not ratify the document in court. In this case, the borrower admits that he wrote the document and had witnesses sign the document. Rav Yehuda teaches the novel halakha that although the borrower later contends that it was a document of trust, once he admits that he wrote the document, that contention is not accepted.

אביי אמר לעולם דאמר מלוה וכגון שחב לאחרים וכדרבי נתן

Abaye said: Actually, it is the lender who said it, and it is in a case where he causes loss to others by invalidating the document and relinquishing his debt. If the lender owes money to others and lacks funds to repay his debt, then his invalidation of the document creates a situation where his creditor is unable to collect the debt. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan.

דתניא רבי נתן אומר מנין לנושה בחבירו מנה וחבירו בחבירו מנין שמוציאין מזה ונותנין לזה תלמוד לומר ונתן לאשר אשם לו

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that in a case where a creditor seeks to collect a debt of one hundred dinars from another, and the other person seeks to collect a debt from another, from where is it derived that one takes money from this second debtor and gives it to the first creditor without the money passing through the debtor of the first, who is the creditor of the third? It is derived as the verse states: “And he shall give to the one to whom he is guilty” (Numbers 5:7). One pays the person to whom the money is owed, even if he did not borrow the money directly from him. When the debtor of the first who is the creditor of the third invalidates the document, he causes a loss to his own creditor.

רב אשי אמר לעולם דקאמרי עדים ודאין כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר ודקאמרת אמאי לא מהימני כדרב כהנא דאמר רב כהנא אסור לו לאדם שישהה שטר אמנה בתוך ביתו משום שנאמר אל תשכן באהליך עולה

Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is the witnesses who are saying it, and it is a case where their handwriting does not emerge from another place. And with regard to that which you are saying: Why are they not deemed credible, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana said: It is prohibited for a person to keep a document of trust in his house, as it is stated: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents” (Job 11:14). This false document is likely to engender injustice when the lender seeks to collect payment with it.

ואמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי שמע מינה מדרב כהנא עדים שאמרו אמנה היו דברינו אין נאמנין מאי טעמא כיון דעולה הוא אעולה לא חתמי

And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, says: Conclude from the statement of Rav Kahana that witnesses who said: Our statement was a statement of trust, and the document we signed was a document of trust, are not deemed credible. What is the reason? Since that document is an injustice, they would not sign a document of injustice. Their contention that they signed the document would incriminate them and is therefore not accepted.

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אסור לו לאדם שישהה שטר פרוע בתוך ביתו משום שנאמר אל תשכן באהליך עולה במערבא משמיה דרב אמרי אם און בידך הרחיקהו זה שטר אמנה ושטר פסים ואל תשכן באהליך עולה זה שטר פרוע

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is prohibited for a person to keep a repaid document within his house, due to the fact that the verse states: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents” (Job 11:14). Even if he does not use the document to collect payment, the concern is that it might fall into the hands of one who will use it illegally to collect payment. In the West, in Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Rav: With regard to the first half of the verse: “If iniquity be in your hand, put it far away” (Job 11:14), this is referring to a document of trust and a document of security [passim]. With regard to the second half of the verse: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents,” this is referring to a repaid document.

מאן דאמר שטר פרוע כל שכן שטר אמנה ומאן דאמר שטר אמנה אבל שטר פרוע לא דזמנין דמשהי ליה אפשיטי דספרא

They note: With regard to the one who said that a repaid document is the injustice referred to in the verse, all the more so a document of trust is an injustice and may not be kept, as a document of trust is fundamentally false. And with regard to the one who said that a document of trust is the injustice referred to in the verse, however, with regard to a repaid document, perhaps it is permitted to keep it, as, at times people keep it and do not return it to the borrower. This is because in those cases it serves as security for the coins of the scribe, whose fee has not yet been paid by the borrower, who is legally responsible to pay the scribe for writing the document.

אתמר ספר שאינו מוגה אמר רבי אמי עד שלשים יום מותר לשהותו מכאן ואילך אסור לשהותו משום שנאמר אל תשכן באהליך עולה

On a similar note it is stated, with regard to keeping items with potential to lead to transgression: With regard to a Torah scroll that is not proofread and therefore contains errors, Rabbi Ami says: It is permitted to keep it without emending the mistakes for up to thirty days, and from that time onward it is prohibited to keep it, as it is stated: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents” (Job 11:14).

אמר רב נחמן עדים שאמרו אמנה היו דברינו אין נאמנין מודעא היו דברינו אין נאמנין מר בר רב אשי אמר אמנה היו דברינו אין נאמנין מודעא היו דברינו נאמנין מאי טעמא האי ניתן ליכתב והאי לא ניתן ליכתב

§ Rav Naḥman said that witnesses who say: Our statement was a statement of trust and we signed a document of trust, are not deemed credible. Similarly, witnesses who said: Our statement was a statement accompanied by a declaration by the person who is rendered a debtor by this document that he was coerced into the agreement, thereby invalidating the document, are not deemed credible. Mar bar Rav Ashi said that witnesses who said: Our statement was a statement of trust, are not deemed credible, but witnesses who said: Our statement was a statement accompanied by a declaration, are deemed credible. What is the reason for the difference between the cases? This document, which was accompanied by a declaration, may be written, as it is written under duress. And this document of trust may not be written, as it is fundamentally unjust.

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן תנאי היו דברינו מהו מודעא ואמנה היינו טעמא דקא עקרי ליה לשטרא והאי נמי קא עקר לשטרא או דלמא תנאי מילתא אחריתי היא אמר ליה כי אתו לקמן לדינא אמרינן להו זילו קיימו תנאייכו וחותו לדינא

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: In a case where the witnesses say: Our statement was a conditional statement, i.e., they verify their signatures, but add that the transaction was contingent upon fulfillment of an unwritten condition, what is the ruling? Perhaps it is similar to the cases of a statement accompanied by a declaration and a statement of trust. In those latter cases, this is the reason that their statement is rejected, as in doing so they undermine the document, and in this case too, he undermines the document. Or perhaps a condition is a different matter, as it does not necessarily undermine the document. Rav Naḥman said to him: When people come before us for judgment in this latter case, we say to them: Go and fulfill your conditions, and then descend before us for judgment.

עד אומר תנאי ועד אומר אינו תנאי אמר רב פפא תרוייהו בשטרא מעליא קא מסהדי והאי דקאמר תנאי הוה ליה חד ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים

The Gemara asks: What is the ruling in a case where one witness says: There is a condition attached to the transaction and one witness says: There is no condition? Rav Pappa says: Both are testifying that it is a valid document, and that witness who says: There was a condition attached, is only one witness whose testimony challenges that validity. And the statement of one witness has no validity in a place where there are two witnesses.

מתקיף לה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אי הכי אפילו תרוייהו נמי אלא אמרינן הני למיעקר סהדותייהו קאתו האי נמי למיעקר סהדותיה קאתי והלכתא כרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, strongly objects to this: If it is so that testifying that there is a condition is considered to undermine the document, then even if both of the witnesses testify that there was a condition, their testimony should also not be accepted. Once they testified that the document is valid, they cannot give additional testimony that contradicts their original testimony. Rather, we say: These two witnesses are coming to undermine their testimony that the document is valid. These are not two separate testimonies, one that the document is valid and one with regard to the condition. Rather, the second testimony revokes the first. Similarly, this single witness is coming to undermine his testimony as well. Therefore, there is only one witness testifying that the document is valid. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and the testimony of even one witness who says that there was a condition attached to the transaction is accepted.

תנו רבנן שנים חתומין על השטר ומתו ובאו שנים מן השוק ואמרו ידענו שכתב ידם הוא אבל אנוסים היו קטנים היו פסולי עדות היו הרי אלו נאמנים ואם יש עדים שכתב ידם הוא זה או שהיה כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר משטר שקרא עליו ערער והוחזק בבית דין אין אלו נאמנין

§ The Sages taught: If two witnesses were signatories on a document and they died, and two strangers from the marketplace came and said: We know that this is their handwriting, but they were coerced into signing the document, or if they said that they were minors when they signed the document, or if they said that they were disqualified witnesses when they signed the document, these strangers are deemed credible, as the mouth that prohibited and ratified the document is the mouth that permitted and undermined the document. However, if there are other witnesses who testify that it is their handwriting, or if their handwriting emerges from another place, from a document that one challenged and that was deemed valid in court, these witnesses from the marketplace are not deemed credible and their testimony does not undermine the validity of the document.

ומגבינן ביה כבשטרא מעליא ואמאי תרי ותרי נינהו

The Gemara asks: And if the testimony of these witnesses is not accepted, is that to say that we collect debts with that document as one would collect debts with a valid document? And why would that be the case? Aren’t the two signatories whose signatures were ratified and the two witnesses from the marketplace whose testimony invalidates the document contradictory witnesses? Therefore, the document cannot be used to collect payment.

אמר רב ששת זאת אומרת הכחשה תחלת הזמה היא

Rav Sheshet said: That is to say that contradiction of their testimony is the first stage in rendering them false, conspiring witnesses, in the sense that certain restrictions that apply to the latter apply to the former as well.