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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 25, 2022 | 讻状讜 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 19

If a person is told that they must sign this document as a false witness or else they will be killed, they should not sign. The Gemara tries to use this to explain Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion in the braita that if witnesses verify their signatures but say they were forced, we do not believe them as that is a statement that is self-incriminating. But it is rejected as the law is that one does not need to give one鈥檚 life if forced to sign a false document. One only needs to give one鈥檚 life for three things 鈥 murder, idol worship and forbidden sexual relations. Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion is explained in a different manner. If one says that the document is a document of trust, he is not believed. Is this said about the creditor, the borrower or the witnesses who are claiming it is a document of trust? Three different sages explain this is three different manners. What is a document of trust? A creditor should never leave a document of a loan that was already paid back in their house as it could allow the creditor to try to collect the loan twice. One should not have in one鈥檚 house a document of trust or a pasim document as these documents are false documents and could enable one to collect money that isn鈥檛 theirs. What is a pasim document? If witnesses who are signed on the document say it was a document of trust or they issue a declaration that the document was signed under duress, are they believed? If they say the document is valid, but was given upon a condition that was never met, do we believe them? What if one of the witnesses signed on the document says it was given upon and condition and the other says it was not?

讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 注诇 讛砖讟专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞注砖讛 讘讙讚讜诇 讗诇讗 讗谞讜住讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讞转诪讜 砖拽专 讜讗诇 转讛专讙讜 讬讛专讙讜 讜讗诇 讬讞转诪讜 砖拽专

Rav 岣sda 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛砖转讗 讗讬诇讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪谉 诇讗诪诇讜讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 讞转讜诪讜 讜诇讗 转转拽讟诇讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖注讜诪讚 讘驻谞讬 驻讬拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讗诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讙诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讛砖转讗 讚讞转诪讜 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪讗讬 讞转诪讬转讜

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?

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜

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).

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙谞讜讘讗 讙谞讜讘讬 诇诪讛 诇讱 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

搂 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 Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪专 讛讬讻讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪谉 诇讚讬谞讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 拽讬讬诪讜 砖讟专讬讬讻讜 讜讞讜转讜 诇讚讬谞讗

Rav Huna said to him: And what does the Master hold in a case where the borrower admits that he wrote the document? Rav Na岣an 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鈥檚 claim that he repaid the loan is not accepted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讜诪专 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

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.

讚拽讗诪专 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讜讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗诇讗 讚拽讗诪专 诪诇讜讛 转讘讜讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讗诇讗 讚拽讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 讗讬 讚讻转讘 讬讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜讗讬 讚讗讬谉 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬

The Gemara asks: In the case to which Rav鈥檚 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.

(住讬诪谉 讘讗砖) 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚拽讗诪专 诇讜讛 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names of the amora鈥檌m who seek to explain Rav鈥檚 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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗诪专 诪诇讜讛 讜讻讙讜谉 砖讞讘 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讻讚专讘讬 谞转谉

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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讜讞讘讬专讜 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讬谉 砖诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讝讛 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 诇讗砖专 讗砖诐 诇讜

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: 鈥淎nd he shall give to the one to whom he is guilty鈥 (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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讚拽讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 讜讚讗讬谉 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讻讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗住讜专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖讬砖讛讛 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转砖讻谉 讘讗讛诇讬讱 注讜诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd let not injustice dwell in your tents鈥 (Job 11:14). This false document is likely to engender injustice when the lender seeks to collect payment with it.

讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 注讚讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讗诪谞讛 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讗注讜诇讛 诇讗 讞转诪讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗住讜专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖讬砖讛讛 砖讟专 驻专讜注 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转砖讻谉 讘讗讛诇讬讱 注讜诇讛 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专讬 讗诐 讗讜谉 讘讬讚讱 讛专讞讬拽讛讜 讝讛 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讜砖讟专 驻住讬诐 讜讗诇 转砖讻谉 讘讗讛诇讬讱 注讜诇讛 讝讛 砖讟专 驻专讜注

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: 鈥淎nd let not injustice dwell in your tents鈥 (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: 鈥淚f iniquity be in your hand, put it far away鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd let not injustice dwell in your tents,鈥 this is referring to a repaid document.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讟专 驻专讜注 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讗讘诇 砖讟专 驻专讜注 诇讗 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖讛讬 诇讬讛 讗驻砖讬讟讬 讚住驻专讗

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.

讗转诪专 住驻专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讙讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讜转专 诇砖讛讜转讜 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗住讜专 诇砖讛讜转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转砖讻谉 讘讗讛诇讬讱 注讜诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd let not injustice dwell in your tents鈥 (Job 11:14).

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讚讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讗诪谞讛 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讜讚注讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗诪谞讛 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讜讚注讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬谞讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗讬 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘

Rav Na岣an 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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬谞讜 诪讛讜 诪讜讚注讗 讜讗诪谞讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚拽讗 注拽专讬 诇讬讛 诇砖讟专讗 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 拽讗 注拽专 诇砖讟专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转谞讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪谉 诇讚讬谞讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 拽讬讬诪讜 转谞讗讬讬讻讜 讜讞讜转讜 诇讚讬谞讗

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an 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.

注讚 讗讜诪专 转谞讗讬 讜注讚 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 转谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谞讬 诇诪讬注拽专 住讛讚讜转讬讬讛讜 拽讗转讜 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇诪讬注拽专 住讛讚讜转讬讛 拽讗转讬 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讬诐 讞转讜诪讬谉 注诇 讛砖讟专 讜诪转讜 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讜讗诪专讜 讬讚注谞讜 砖讻转讘 讬讚诐 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讗谞讜住讬诐 讛讬讜 拽讟谞讬诐 讛讬讜 驻住讜诇讬 注讚讜转 讛讬讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讻转讘 讬讚诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪砖讟专 砖拽专讗 注诇讬讜 注专注专 讜讛讜讞讝拽 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉

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.

讜诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讻讘砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讜讗诪讗讬 转专讬 讜转专讬 谞讬谞讛讜

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛讻讞砖讛 转讞诇转 讛讝诪讛 讛讬讗

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.

  • 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 19: Unreliable Documentation in Financial Halakhah

Defining and explaining the "shtar amanah" - and why a document of "trust" is not to be believed in terms...

Ketubot 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 19

讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 注诇 讛砖讟专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞注砖讛 讘讙讚讜诇 讗诇讗 讗谞讜住讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讞转诪讜 砖拽专 讜讗诇 转讛专讙讜 讬讛专讙讜 讜讗诇 讬讞转诪讜 砖拽专

Rav 岣sda 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛砖转讗 讗讬诇讜 讗转讜 诇拽诪谉 诇讗诪诇讜讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 讞转讜诪讜 讜诇讗 转转拽讟诇讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖注讜诪讚 讘驻谞讬 驻讬拽讜讞 谞驻砖 讗诇讗 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讙诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讛砖转讗 讚讞转诪讜 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪讗讬 讞转诪讬转讜

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?

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜

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).

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙谞讜讘讗 讙谞讜讘讬 诇诪讛 诇讱 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

搂 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 Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪专 讛讬讻讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪谉 诇讚讬谞讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 拽讬讬诪讜 砖讟专讬讬讻讜 讜讞讜转讜 诇讚讬谞讗

Rav Huna said to him: And what does the Master hold in a case where the borrower admits that he wrote the document? Rav Na岣an 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鈥檚 claim that he repaid the loan is not accepted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讜诪专 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

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.

讚拽讗诪专 诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讜讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗诇讗 讚拽讗诪专 诪诇讜讛 转讘讜讗 注诇讬讜 讘专讻讛 讗诇讗 讚拽讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 讗讬 讚讻转讘 讬讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜讗讬 讚讗讬谉 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬

The Gemara asks: In the case to which Rav鈥檚 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.

(住讬诪谉 讘讗砖) 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚拽讗诪专 诇讜讛 讜讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names of the amora鈥檌m who seek to explain Rav鈥檚 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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗诪专 诪诇讜讛 讜讻讙讜谉 砖讞讘 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讻讚专讘讬 谞转谉

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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讜讞讘讬专讜 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讬谉 砖诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讝讛 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞转谉 诇讗砖专 讗砖诐 诇讜

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: 鈥淎nd he shall give to the one to whom he is guilty鈥 (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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讚拽讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 讜讚讗讬谉 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讻讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗住讜专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖讬砖讛讛 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转砖讻谉 讘讗讛诇讬讱 注讜诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd let not injustice dwell in your tents鈥 (Job 11:14). This false document is likely to engender injustice when the lender seeks to collect payment with it.

讜讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 注讚讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讗诪谞讛 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讗注讜诇讛 诇讗 讞转诪讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗住讜专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 砖讬砖讛讛 砖讟专 驻专讜注 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转砖讻谉 讘讗讛诇讬讱 注讜诇讛 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专讬 讗诐 讗讜谉 讘讬讚讱 讛专讞讬拽讛讜 讝讛 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讜砖讟专 驻住讬诐 讜讗诇 转砖讻谉 讘讗讛诇讬讱 注讜诇讛 讝讛 砖讟专 驻专讜注

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: 鈥淎nd let not injustice dwell in your tents鈥 (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: 鈥淚f iniquity be in your hand, put it far away鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd let not injustice dwell in your tents,鈥 this is referring to a repaid document.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讟专 驻专讜注 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 讗讘诇 砖讟专 驻专讜注 诇讗 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪砖讛讬 诇讬讛 讗驻砖讬讟讬 讚住驻专讗

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.

讗转诪专 住驻专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讙讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讜转专 诇砖讛讜转讜 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗住讜专 诇砖讛讜转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转砖讻谉 讘讗讛诇讬讱 注讜诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd let not injustice dwell in your tents鈥 (Job 11:14).

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讚讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讗诪谞讛 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讜讚注讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗诪谞讛 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讜讚注讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬谞讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗讬 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讬讻转讘

Rav Na岣an 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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讗讬 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬谞讜 诪讛讜 诪讜讚注讗 讜讗诪谞讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚拽讗 注拽专讬 诇讬讛 诇砖讟专讗 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 拽讗 注拽专 诇砖讟专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转谞讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪谉 诇讚讬谞讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 拽讬讬诪讜 转谞讗讬讬讻讜 讜讞讜转讜 诇讚讬谞讗

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an 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.

注讚 讗讜诪专 转谞讗讬 讜注讚 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 转谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讞讚 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讗讞讚 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讬诐

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讜讬讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谞讬 诇诪讬注拽专 住讛讚讜转讬讬讛讜 拽讗转讜 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇诪讬注拽专 住讛讚讜转讬讛 拽讗转讬 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讬诐 讞转讜诪讬谉 注诇 讛砖讟专 讜诪转讜 讜讘讗讜 砖谞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讜讗诪专讜 讬讚注谞讜 砖讻转讘 讬讚诐 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讗谞讜住讬诐 讛讬讜 拽讟谞讬诐 讛讬讜 驻住讜诇讬 注讚讜转 讛讬讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讻转讘 讬讚诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪砖讟专 砖拽专讗 注诇讬讜 注专注专 讜讛讜讞讝拽 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉

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.

讜诪讙讘讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讻讘砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讜讗诪讗讬 转专讬 讜转专讬 谞讬谞讛讜

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛讻讞砖讛 转讞诇转 讛讝诪讛 讛讬讗

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.

Scroll To Top