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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 27, 2022 | 讻状讞 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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

Ketubot 21

Today’s daf is sponsored by Ilana Friedman for the shloshim of her grandmother, Henna Malka bat Harav Yaakov Yitzchak, yesterday. “She was a descendant of the Noam Elimelech, student of Sarah Schneirer, she survived Schindler’s list, illegally immigrated to Israel in 1946, and helped build the fledgling State of Israel. She merited to live just shy of 103 years and see 5 generations of descendants. May our learning give her neshama comfort and may we continue to have hatzlacha in our learning.”

When witnesses verify their own signatures, do they need another witness as well? Rebbi and the rabbis disagree 鈥 what is the root of the debate? The Gemara points out that it needed to be stated what the debate was so that we wouldn鈥檛 assume that Rebbi was just being stringent out of uncertainty. In what case would there be a relevant ramification if Rebbi was ruling out of uncertainty? Rav Yehuda quoted Shmuel鈥檚 ruling that he held like the rabbis. Why was it necessary for him to say this 鈥 don鈥檛 we always hold by the majority. Did Shmuel really hold this way? Wasn鈥檛 there a case with a document of orphans in which Shmuel ratified it by having each witness testify about his own signature and that of the other!? Why was that case unique and not indicative of Shmuel鈥檚 general policy? Another halacha that Rav Yehuda quoted in the name of Shmuel was that one can ratify a document if one witness testifies about himself and one of the judges testifies about his signature on the document called a henpeik that the judges issue when they ratify a document. While Rami bar Hama praised this ruling, Rava rejected it as each one is validating something different and therefore the two cannot be combined. Rav Safra ruled on how to handle a case where of the three judges who were ratifying the document, two recognized the signatures and were able to validate them. The Gemara derives three different halachot from there and Rav Ashi raises questions against the last two as it is not clear that they can be derived from his ruling. The first halacha derived was that a witness can become a judge. Is this really true? In determining the new moon, it is not the case. Why is there a distinction made between that case and the verification of documents. If a question is raised about one of the judges, can the other judges vouch for him? On what does it depend?

注诇 讻转讘 讬讚谉 讛诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 诪谞讛 砖讘砖讟专 讛诐 诪注讬讚讬诐

the witnesses are testifying about their handwriting and authenticating their own signatures. Therefore, if each witness testifies only with regard to his own handwriting, there is only one witness authenticating each signature. According to the Rabbis, the witnesses are testifying about the sum of one hundred dinars that is in the document and are not authenticating the signatures at all. Therefore, the testimony of the two witnesses who signed the document is sufficient to ratify the document.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 注诇 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讛诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜 注诇 诪谞讛 砖讘砖讟专 讛诐 诪注讬讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: That is obvious. No analysis is necessary to arrive at this explanation of the dispute. The Gemara answers: The analysis is necessary lest you say that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there is uncertainty whether they are testifying about their handwriting or whether the witnesses are testifying about the sum of one hundred dinars that is in the document, and due to the possibility that the purpose of the testimony is to authenticate their handwriting, he requires two witnesses for each signature.

讜谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讬转 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讘注讬 砖谞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 诇讛注讬讚 注诇讬讜

And the practical difference between whether the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is based on certainty or uncertainty is in a case where one of the witnesses who signed the document died. If his opinion is based on certainty that they are testifying about the signatures, one other witness testifying to the authenticity of both signatures would suffice, as both that other witness and the surviving signatory would testify to authenticate each signature. However, if his opinion is based on uncertainty, let them require two other witnesses from the street to testify about the signature of the deceased witness.

讚讗诐 讻谉 拽谞驻讬拽 谞讻讬 专讬讘注讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讞讚 住讛讚讗

That is due to the fact that if it is so that the witnesses are testifying about the sum of one hundred dinars that is in the document and only one other witness joined the surviving witness in testifying with regard to that signature, the result would be that the entire sum of money, less one-quarter, is collected based on the testimony of a single witness. The surviving signatory authenticates his signature and thereby facilitates collection of half the sum. In addition, his testimony together with the testimony of the witness from the street authenticating the signature of the deceased signatory facilitates collection of the other half. Based on the verse: 鈥淎t the mouth of two witnesses鈥hall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15), each witness is responsible for half the sum.

讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗

And one would have thought that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would rule stringently here: When both signatories are alive they must add another witness with them to authenticate the signatures of the two witnesses, as perhaps they are testifying about their handwriting; and he would rule stringently here: When one of the signatories died they must add two witnesses, as perhaps the witnesses are testifying about the sum of one hundred dinars that is in the document.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖谞讬诐 讛讞转讜诪讬谉 注诇 讛砖讟专 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 诇讛注讬讚 注诇讬讜 讘讝讜 专讘讬 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专讘谞谉 诇讞讜诪专讗

Therefore, the Gemara teaches us that the matter was clear to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that they are testifying about their handwriting, and he ruled accordingly both leniently, requiring only one additional witness when one of the signatories died, and stringently, requiring an additional witness when both signatories are alive. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to two witnesses who were signatories to a document and one of them died, they require two others from the street to testify about the signature of the one who died, and in this case, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules leniently and requires only one additional witness, and the Rabbis rule stringently and require two additional witnesses.

讜讗讬 诇讬讻讗 转专讬 讗诇讗 讞讚 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讻转讜讘 讞转讬诪转 讬讚讬讛 讗讞住驻讗 讜砖讚讬 诇讬讛 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜诪讞讝拽讬 诇讬讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 (讜讞讝讜 诇讬讛) 讜诇讗 爪专讬讱 讗讬讛讜 诇讗住讛讜讚讬 讗讞转讬诪转 讬讚讬讛 讜讗讝讬诇 讗讬讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讜诪住讛讚讬 讗讗讬讚讱

The Gemara asks: And if there are not two witnesses capable of authenticating each signature, but only one, what can be done to ratify the document? Abaye said: Let the surviving witness write his signature on an earthenware shard and cast it into the court. And the court then ratifies the document by seeing that it is his signature. And then he does not need to testify and authenticate his signature. But he and this other witness go and testify to authenticate the other signature of the deceased witness. In that case, even according to the Rabbis, one additional witness is sufficient.

讜讚讜拽讗 讗讞住驻讗 讗讘诇 讗诪讙诇转讗 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讻讞 诇讛 讗讬谞讬砖 讚诇讗 诪注诇讬 讜讻转讘 注讬诇讜讬讛 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜转谞谉 讛讜爪讬讗 注诇讬讜 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

The Gemara notes: And he writes his signature for the purpose of comparison specifically on an earthenware shard, but not on parchment, due to the concern that perhaps an unscrupulous person will find it and write on it whatever he wants, e.g., the undersigned owes him money. And we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 175b): If a creditor produced a document about another written in the other person鈥檚 handwriting, in which it is written that the other person owes him money, even if there are no witnesses he is obligated to pay, and the claimant may collect payment from unsold property. One can collect repayment of a loan that is documented on a promissory note signed by two witnesses even from the borrower鈥檚 land that was sold. With the document signed by the debtor, the creditor may collect payment from unsold property. Due to the potential for deceit with a signature on parchment, one provides a signature sample written on earthenware.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讘讬专讬讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna that each of the two signatories need testify only about his own signature to ratify the document. The Gemara asks: That is obvious, as the principle is: In a dispute between an individual Sage and multiple Sages, the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of multiple Sages. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that just as there is a principle: The halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in disputes with his colleague, there is also a principle that the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion even when he disagrees with his multiple colleagues; therefore, Rav Yehuda teaches us that Shmuel said that the principle applies only to disputes with an individual colleague.

住讬诪谉 谞讞 谞讚 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬

搂 The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names and patronyms of the amora鈥檌m associated with the statement cited below: Nun 岣t for Rav 岣nnana bar 岣yya, nun dalet for Rav Huna bar Yehuda, and 岣t dalet for Rav 岣yya bar Yehuda. Rav 岣nnana bar 岣yya said to Rav Yehuda, and some say it was Rav Huna bar Yehuda who said it to Rav Yehuda, and some say it was Rav 岣yya bar Yehuda who said it to Rav Yehuda: And did Shmuel say that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis?

讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诪讚讗转讗 专讘 注谞谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讜讗住讛讬讚 讗讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬讛 讜讗讚讞讚 讚注诪讬讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讛 讜诪讚讗转讗 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讛 讜讗住讛讬讚 讗讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬讛 讜讗讚讞讚 讚注诪讬讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘 注谞谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗砖专谞讜讛讬 讜拽讬诪谞讜讛讬 讻讚讞讝讬

But wasn鈥檛 there that document that emerged from the court of Master Shmuel, and it was written with regard to that document: From the fact that Rav Anan bar 岣yya came before the court and testified about his signature and about the signature of the one who signed the document with him, and who was that other signatory, Rav 岣nan bar Rabba; and from the fact that Rav 岣nan bar Rabba came before the court and testified about his signature and about the signature of the one who signed the document with him, and who was that other signatory, Rav Anan bar 岣yya; we certified and ratified this document as appropriate. If Shmuel ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis there would have been no need for each to testify about the signature of his fellow witness.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚讬转诪讬 讛讜讛 讜讞砖 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讟讜注讬谉 讜住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 诪讞讘讬专讬讜 讜讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讘讬专讬讜 住讘专 讗注讘讬讚 专讜讜讞讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诪驻住讚讬 讬转诪讬

Rav Yehuda said to him: That was a document for the benefit of orphans, and Shmuel was concerned about the potential for an error of the court. And Shmuel thought: Perhaps there is a court that holds that in general, the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in disputes with his colleague but not in disputes with his multiple colleagues, and in this case, the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion even in disputes with his multiple colleagues, and the court will not ratify the document if each witness testifies only about his own signature. Therefore he thought: I will perform ratification of the document in an expansive manner, in accordance with all opinions, to ensure that the orphans will not lose money to which they are entitled.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 讜讚讬讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If a document came before a court and the court ratified it, and then the document was produced in order to collect the debt, at which time the borrower contested its validity and claimed that it was forged, one witness who was a signatory on the document and a judge who ratified the document join together to testify that the document is valid.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻诪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 诪注诇讬讜转讗 诪讗讬 讚拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 住讛讚讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 讚讬讬谞讗 讜诪讗讬 讚拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 讚讬讬谞讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 住讛讚讗

Rami bar 岣ma said: How excellent is this halakha. Rava said: In what way is that excellence manifested? That which the witness testifies, i.e., authenticating his signature and confirming the incident that he witnessed, the judge does not testify, as the judge testifies that the document was ratified. And that which the judge testifies, the witness does not testify. There are not two witnesses testifying to either matter.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 转爪讬转讬谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 讚讻讬讬诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讞讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

Rather, when Rami bar Ye岣zkel came, he said: Do not listen to those principles that my brother Rav Yehuda bar Ye岣zkel established in the name of Shmuel with regard to a witness and a judge joining together to testify.

讗讬拽诇注 专讘谞讗讬 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇诪讝讘谉 砖讜诪砖诪讬 讜讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 讜讚讬讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讻诪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽诇住讛 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪讱 讗转 谞诪讬 诪拽诇住转 诇讛 讻讘专 驻专讻讛 专讘讗

The Gemara relates: Ravnai, brother of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, happened to come and sell sesame, and he said that this is what Shmuel said: A witness and a judge join together to testify. Ameimar said: How excellent is this halakha. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Due to the fact that Rami bar 岣ma, father of your mother, praised it, you also praise [mekallesat] it? Rava already refuted that statement and proved it incorrect.

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖讛 砖讬砖讘讜 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 讛砖讟专 砖谞讬诐 诪讻讬专讬谉 讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 注讚 砖诇讗 讞转诪讜 诪注讬讚讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讞讜转诐 诪砖讞转诪讜 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讞讜转诐

Rav Safra said that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yitzhak bar Shmuel bar Marta said that Rav Huna said; and some say that Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to three judges who convened to ratify a document, and two of them recognize the signatures of the witnesses on the document, and one does not recognize them; as long as the two judges did not yet sign to ratify the document, they testify and authenticate the signatures before the third judge, and based on that testimony, the third judge signs the document of ratification together with the first two judges. However, once the two judges signed the ratification, they may not testify before him and have him sign the ratification. The formula of the ratification is: We verified and ratified this document in a forum of three. Since when the first two judges signed the ratification, they were not a forum of three, the ratification is invalid.

讜诪讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讗讬 讗砖专转讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讚谞讬讻转讘 诪拽诪讬讛 讚谞讬讞讜讜 住讛讚讬 讗讞转讬诪转 讬讚讬讬讛讜 驻住讜诇讛 讚诪转讞讝讬 讻砖拽专讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪转讞讝讬 讻砖拽专讗

The Gemara asks: And do we write the ratification of a document before all of the judges verify the signatures of the witnesses? But didn鈥檛 Rav Pappi say in the name of Rava: This ratification of judges that was written before the witnesses related testimony about their signatures is invalid, even if the witnesses later authenticate their signatures, as it seems like a lie, since when they drafted the ratification they were not yet aware that they would be able to ratify the document? Here too, when the judges drafted the ratification before the third judge can verify the signatures, it seems like a lie.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注讚 砖诇讗 讻转讘讜 诪注讬讚讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讞讜转诐 诪砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讞讜转诐

The Gemara answers: Rather, emend the statement and say: As long as the two judges did not yet write the ratification of the document, they testify and authenticate the signatures before the third judge, and based on that testimony, the third judge signs the ratification together with the first two judges. However, once the two judges have written the ratification, they may not testify before him and have him sign the ratification.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛诪讻讬专讬谉 讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘驻谞讬讛诐 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讬讬谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘驻谞讬 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚

The Gemara notes: Conclude from the statement of Rav Huna three halakhot: Conclude from it that a witness can become a judge, as the two judges who testified to authenticate the signatures signed the ratification as judges and were not disqualified due to a conflict of interest. And conclude from it that judges who recognize the signatures of the witnesses do not require other witnesses to testify before them. And conclude from it that in cases involving judges who do not recognize the signatures of the witnesses, witnesses are required to testify before each and every one of them, and no judge may issue a ruling based on testimony brought before the other judges.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讘砖诇诪讗 注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉 砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛诪讻讬专讬谉 讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘驻谞讬讛诐 讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 爪专讬讻讬谉 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚拽讗 诪拽讬讬诪讗 讛讙讚讛 讘讞讚

Rav Ashi strongly objects to the conclusions drawn by the Gemara. Granted, the fact that a witness can become a judge we can conclude from the statement of Rav Huna. However, the fact that judges who recognize the signatures of witnesses do not require other witnesses to testify before them cannot be concluded from the statement of Rav Huna. Perhaps, I will say to you that actually judges require witnesses to testify before them; and here, in this case, it is different, as the requirement of the statement of testimony is fulfilled with the testimony of the two judges before the one judge who did not recognize the signatures. However, in a case where there is no statement of testimony at all, there could be no ratification of the document.

讜讚讬讬谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘驻谞讬 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪拽讬讬诪讗 讛讙讚讛 讻诇诇

And furthermore, with regard to the conclusion that in cases of judges who do not recognize the signatures of the witnesses, witnesses are required to testify before each and every one of them, perhaps, I will say to you that actually, in general, witnesses are not required to testify before each and every judge; and here, in this case, it is different, as were it not for the testimony of the two judges before the third judge, the requirement of the statement of testimony would not be fulfilled at all. In a case where there is other testimony, perhaps one may rely on the knowledge of others in order to ratify the document.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 专讗讜讛讜 砖诇砖讛 讜讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬注诪讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜砖讬讘讜 诪讞讘专讬讛诐 讗爪诇 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讬注讬讚讜 讘驻谞讬讛诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 诪拽讜讚砖 讛讞讚砖 诪拽讜讚砖 砖讗讬谉 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讗诪谉 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讬转讘讜 讘讚讜讻转讬讬讛讜 讜诇讬拽讚砖讬

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abba sat and stated this halakha that a witness can become a judge. Rav Safra raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Abba from a mishna (Rosh HaShana 25b): If three people saw the new moon and they constitute a court, two of them should stand and seat two of their colleagues to sit near the remaining individual judge. And the two should testify before the three judges, and they should then recite the standard formula for sanctifying the month: Sanctified is the month, sanctified. Two others must join the original judge to form a tribunal of three judges, as an individual judge is not deemed credible to sanctify the month by himself. And if it enters your mind to say that a witness can become a judge, why do I need all this? Let the three judges remain seated in their place and sanctify the month, as they can be both witnesses and judges.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 诇讚讬讚讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讜砖讗讬诇转讬讛 诇专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 讜专讘 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讜讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诇专讘 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛谞讞 诇注讚讜转 讛讞讚砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚专讘谞谉

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Safra: That mishna was difficult for me to understand as well, and I asked Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta about it, and Rav Yitz岣k asked Rav Huna, and Rav Huna asked 岣yya bar Rav, and 岣yya bar Rav asked Rav, and Rav said to them: Leave the case of testimony to sanctify the month, as it is mandated by Torah law, and the guidelines are more stringent, and the requirement of ratification of documents is mandated by rabbinic law, where the guidelines are more lenient. In that case a witness can become a judge.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖讛 砖讬砖讘讜 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 讛砖讟专 讜拽专讗 注专注专 注诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讞转诪讜 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讞讜转诐 诪砖讞转诪讜 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讞讜转诐

Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: In the case of three judges who convened as a tribunal to ratify a document, and a person raised a challenge with regard to the fitness of one of them to serve as a judge, thereby preventing ratification of the document, as long as they did not yet sign the ratification, the other two judges may testify about the acceptability of the judge whose fitness was challenged, and he then signs the ratification. However, once they signed the ratification, they may no longer testify about his fitness and thereby enable him to sign the ratification. Once they sign, their testimony is no longer impartial because there is a conflict of interest as they seek to avoid being associated with a tribunal tainted by an unfit judge.

注专注专 讚诪讗讬 讗讬 注专注专 讚讙讝诇谞讜转讗

The Gemara elaborates: With regard to a challenge of what sort was this halakha stated? If it was a challenge based on an allegation of theft,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

Ketubot 21: Witnesses, Judges, and Stumped Amoraim

Starting with the mishnah on the bottom of the previous daf - the case of witnesses who testify to their...

Ketubot 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 21

注诇 讻转讘 讬讚谉 讛诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 诪谞讛 砖讘砖讟专 讛诐 诪注讬讚讬诐

the witnesses are testifying about their handwriting and authenticating their own signatures. Therefore, if each witness testifies only with regard to his own handwriting, there is only one witness authenticating each signature. According to the Rabbis, the witnesses are testifying about the sum of one hundred dinars that is in the document and are not authenticating the signatures at all. Therefore, the testimony of the two witnesses who signed the document is sufficient to ratify the document.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 注诇 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讛诐 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜 注诇 诪谞讛 砖讘砖讟专 讛诐 诪注讬讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: That is obvious. No analysis is necessary to arrive at this explanation of the dispute. The Gemara answers: The analysis is necessary lest you say that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there is uncertainty whether they are testifying about their handwriting or whether the witnesses are testifying about the sum of one hundred dinars that is in the document, and due to the possibility that the purpose of the testimony is to authenticate their handwriting, he requires two witnesses for each signature.

讜谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讬转 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讘注讬 砖谞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 诇讛注讬讚 注诇讬讜

And the practical difference between whether the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is based on certainty or uncertainty is in a case where one of the witnesses who signed the document died. If his opinion is based on certainty that they are testifying about the signatures, one other witness testifying to the authenticity of both signatures would suffice, as both that other witness and the surviving signatory would testify to authenticate each signature. However, if his opinion is based on uncertainty, let them require two other witnesses from the street to testify about the signature of the deceased witness.

讚讗诐 讻谉 拽谞驻讬拽 谞讻讬 专讬讘注讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讞讚 住讛讚讗

That is due to the fact that if it is so that the witnesses are testifying about the sum of one hundred dinars that is in the document and only one other witness joined the surviving witness in testifying with regard to that signature, the result would be that the entire sum of money, less one-quarter, is collected based on the testimony of a single witness. The surviving signatory authenticates his signature and thereby facilitates collection of half the sum. In addition, his testimony together with the testimony of the witness from the street authenticating the signature of the deceased signatory facilitates collection of the other half. Based on the verse: 鈥淎t the mouth of two witnesses鈥hall a matter be established鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:15), each witness is responsible for half the sum.

讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讞讜诪专讗

And one would have thought that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would rule stringently here: When both signatories are alive they must add another witness with them to authenticate the signatures of the two witnesses, as perhaps they are testifying about their handwriting; and he would rule stringently here: When one of the signatories died they must add two witnesses, as perhaps the witnesses are testifying about the sum of one hundred dinars that is in the document.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖谞讬诐 讛讞转讜诪讬谉 注诇 讛砖讟专 讜诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 诇讛注讬讚 注诇讬讜 讘讝讜 专讘讬 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专讘谞谉 诇讞讜诪专讗

Therefore, the Gemara teaches us that the matter was clear to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that they are testifying about their handwriting, and he ruled accordingly both leniently, requiring only one additional witness when one of the signatories died, and stringently, requiring an additional witness when both signatories are alive. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to two witnesses who were signatories to a document and one of them died, they require two others from the street to testify about the signature of the one who died, and in this case, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rules leniently and requires only one additional witness, and the Rabbis rule stringently and require two additional witnesses.

讜讗讬 诇讬讻讗 转专讬 讗诇讗 讞讚 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讻转讜讘 讞转讬诪转 讬讚讬讛 讗讞住驻讗 讜砖讚讬 诇讬讛 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜诪讞讝拽讬 诇讬讛 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 (讜讞讝讜 诇讬讛) 讜诇讗 爪专讬讱 讗讬讛讜 诇讗住讛讜讚讬 讗讞转讬诪转 讬讚讬讛 讜讗讝讬诇 讗讬讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讜诪住讛讚讬 讗讗讬讚讱

The Gemara asks: And if there are not two witnesses capable of authenticating each signature, but only one, what can be done to ratify the document? Abaye said: Let the surviving witness write his signature on an earthenware shard and cast it into the court. And the court then ratifies the document by seeing that it is his signature. And then he does not need to testify and authenticate his signature. But he and this other witness go and testify to authenticate the other signature of the deceased witness. In that case, even according to the Rabbis, one additional witness is sufficient.

讜讚讜拽讗 讗讞住驻讗 讗讘诇 讗诪讙诇转讗 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讻讞 诇讛 讗讬谞讬砖 讚诇讗 诪注诇讬 讜讻转讘 注讬诇讜讬讛 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜转谞谉 讛讜爪讬讗 注诇讬讜 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

The Gemara notes: And he writes his signature for the purpose of comparison specifically on an earthenware shard, but not on parchment, due to the concern that perhaps an unscrupulous person will find it and write on it whatever he wants, e.g., the undersigned owes him money. And we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 175b): If a creditor produced a document about another written in the other person鈥檚 handwriting, in which it is written that the other person owes him money, even if there are no witnesses he is obligated to pay, and the claimant may collect payment from unsold property. One can collect repayment of a loan that is documented on a promissory note signed by two witnesses even from the borrower鈥檚 land that was sold. With the document signed by the debtor, the creditor may collect payment from unsold property. Due to the potential for deceit with a signature on parchment, one provides a signature sample written on earthenware.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讬讞讬讚 讜专讘讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讘讬专讬讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis in the mishna that each of the two signatories need testify only about his own signature to ratify the document. The Gemara asks: That is obvious, as the principle is: In a dispute between an individual Sage and multiple Sages, the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of multiple Sages. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that just as there is a principle: The halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in disputes with his colleague, there is also a principle that the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion even when he disagrees with his multiple colleagues; therefore, Rav Yehuda teaches us that Shmuel said that the principle applies only to disputes with an individual colleague.

住讬诪谉 谞讞 谞讚 讞讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞谞谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬

搂 The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the names and patronyms of the amora鈥檌m associated with the statement cited below: Nun 岣t for Rav 岣nnana bar 岣yya, nun dalet for Rav Huna bar Yehuda, and 岣t dalet for Rav 岣yya bar Yehuda. Rav 岣nnana bar 岣yya said to Rav Yehuda, and some say it was Rav Huna bar Yehuda who said it to Rav Yehuda, and some say it was Rav 岣yya bar Yehuda who said it to Rav Yehuda: And did Shmuel say that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis?

讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚谞驻讬拽 诪讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 诪讚讗转讗 专讘 注谞谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讜讗住讛讬讚 讗讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬讛 讜讗讚讞讚 讚注诪讬讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讛 讜诪讚讗转讗 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 专讘讛 讜讗住讛讬讚 讗讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬讛 讜讗讚讞讚 讚注诪讬讛 讜诪谞讜 专讘 注谞谉 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讗砖专谞讜讛讬 讜拽讬诪谞讜讛讬 讻讚讞讝讬

But wasn鈥檛 there that document that emerged from the court of Master Shmuel, and it was written with regard to that document: From the fact that Rav Anan bar 岣yya came before the court and testified about his signature and about the signature of the one who signed the document with him, and who was that other signatory, Rav 岣nan bar Rabba; and from the fact that Rav 岣nan bar Rabba came before the court and testified about his signature and about the signature of the one who signed the document with him, and who was that other signatory, Rav Anan bar 岣yya; we certified and ratified this document as appropriate. If Shmuel ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis there would have been no need for each to testify about the signature of his fellow witness.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚讬转诪讬 讛讜讛 讜讞砖 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讟讜注讬谉 讜住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讗 诪讞讘讬专讬讜 讜讘讛讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讘讬专讬讜 住讘专 讗注讘讬讚 专讜讜讞讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诪驻住讚讬 讬转诪讬

Rav Yehuda said to him: That was a document for the benefit of orphans, and Shmuel was concerned about the potential for an error of the court. And Shmuel thought: Perhaps there is a court that holds that in general, the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in disputes with his colleague but not in disputes with his multiple colleagues, and in this case, the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion even in disputes with his multiple colleagues, and the court will not ratify the document if each witness testifies only about his own signature. Therefore he thought: I will perform ratification of the document in an expansive manner, in accordance with all opinions, to ensure that the orphans will not lose money to which they are entitled.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 讜讚讬讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If a document came before a court and the court ratified it, and then the document was produced in order to collect the debt, at which time the borrower contested its validity and claimed that it was forged, one witness who was a signatory on the document and a judge who ratified the document join together to testify that the document is valid.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻诪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 诪注诇讬讜转讗 诪讗讬 讚拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 住讛讚讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 讚讬讬谞讗 讜诪讗讬 讚拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 讚讬讬谞讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 住讛讚讗

Rami bar 岣ma said: How excellent is this halakha. Rava said: In what way is that excellence manifested? That which the witness testifies, i.e., authenticating his signature and confirming the incident that he witnessed, the judge does not testify, as the judge testifies that the document was ratified. And that which the judge testifies, the witness does not testify. There are not two witnesses testifying to either matter.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 转爪讬转讬谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 讚讻讬讬诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讞讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇

Rather, when Rami bar Ye岣zkel came, he said: Do not listen to those principles that my brother Rav Yehuda bar Ye岣zkel established in the name of Shmuel with regard to a witness and a judge joining together to testify.

讗讬拽诇注 专讘谞讗讬 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇诪讝讘谉 砖讜诪砖诪讬 讜讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 讜讚讬讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讻诪讛 诪注诇讬讗 讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽诇住讛 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪讱 讗转 谞诪讬 诪拽诇住转 诇讛 讻讘专 驻专讻讛 专讘讗

The Gemara relates: Ravnai, brother of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, happened to come and sell sesame, and he said that this is what Shmuel said: A witness and a judge join together to testify. Ameimar said: How excellent is this halakha. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Due to the fact that Rami bar 岣ma, father of your mother, praised it, you also praise [mekallesat] it? Rava already refuted that statement and proved it incorrect.

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖讛 砖讬砖讘讜 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 讛砖讟专 砖谞讬诐 诪讻讬专讬谉 讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讻讬专 注讚 砖诇讗 讞转诪讜 诪注讬讚讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讞讜转诐 诪砖讞转诪讜 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讞讜转诐

Rav Safra said that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yitzhak bar Shmuel bar Marta said that Rav Huna said; and some say that Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to three judges who convened to ratify a document, and two of them recognize the signatures of the witnesses on the document, and one does not recognize them; as long as the two judges did not yet sign to ratify the document, they testify and authenticate the signatures before the third judge, and based on that testimony, the third judge signs the document of ratification together with the first two judges. However, once the two judges signed the ratification, they may not testify before him and have him sign the ratification. The formula of the ratification is: We verified and ratified this document in a forum of three. Since when the first two judges signed the ratification, they were not a forum of three, the ratification is invalid.

讜诪讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讗讬 讗砖专转讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讚谞讬讻转讘 诪拽诪讬讛 讚谞讬讞讜讜 住讛讚讬 讗讞转讬诪转 讬讚讬讬讛讜 驻住讜诇讛 讚诪转讞讝讬 讻砖拽专讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪转讞讝讬 讻砖拽专讗

The Gemara asks: And do we write the ratification of a document before all of the judges verify the signatures of the witnesses? But didn鈥檛 Rav Pappi say in the name of Rava: This ratification of judges that was written before the witnesses related testimony about their signatures is invalid, even if the witnesses later authenticate their signatures, as it seems like a lie, since when they drafted the ratification they were not yet aware that they would be able to ratify the document? Here too, when the judges drafted the ratification before the third judge can verify the signatures, it seems like a lie.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 注讚 砖诇讗 讻转讘讜 诪注讬讚讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讞讜转诐 诪砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讞讜转诐

The Gemara answers: Rather, emend the statement and say: As long as the two judges did not yet write the ratification of the document, they testify and authenticate the signatures before the third judge, and based on that testimony, the third judge signs the ratification together with the first two judges. However, once the two judges have written the ratification, they may not testify before him and have him sign the ratification.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛诪讻讬专讬谉 讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 讗讬谞谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘驻谞讬讛诐 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讬讬谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘驻谞讬 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚

The Gemara notes: Conclude from the statement of Rav Huna three halakhot: Conclude from it that a witness can become a judge, as the two judges who testified to authenticate the signatures signed the ratification as judges and were not disqualified due to a conflict of interest. And conclude from it that judges who recognize the signatures of the witnesses do not require other witnesses to testify before them. And conclude from it that in cases involving judges who do not recognize the signatures of the witnesses, witnesses are required to testify before each and every one of them, and no judge may issue a ruling based on testimony brought before the other judges.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讘砖诇诪讗 注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉 砖诪注讬谞谉 诪讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讚讬讬谞讬谉 讛诪讻讬专讬谉 讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘驻谞讬讛诐 讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 爪专讬讻讬谉 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚拽讗 诪拽讬讬诪讗 讛讙讚讛 讘讞讚

Rav Ashi strongly objects to the conclusions drawn by the Gemara. Granted, the fact that a witness can become a judge we can conclude from the statement of Rav Huna. However, the fact that judges who recognize the signatures of witnesses do not require other witnesses to testify before them cannot be concluded from the statement of Rav Huna. Perhaps, I will say to you that actually judges require witnesses to testify before them; and here, in this case, it is different, as the requirement of the statement of testimony is fulfilled with the testimony of the two judges before the one judge who did not recognize the signatures. However, in a case where there is no statement of testimony at all, there could be no ratification of the document.

讜讚讬讬谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇讛注讬讚 讘驻谞讬 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讬谉 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪拽讬讬诪讗 讛讙讚讛 讻诇诇

And furthermore, with regard to the conclusion that in cases of judges who do not recognize the signatures of the witnesses, witnesses are required to testify before each and every one of them, perhaps, I will say to you that actually, in general, witnesses are not required to testify before each and every judge; and here, in this case, it is different, as were it not for the testimony of the two judges before the third judge, the requirement of the statement of testimony would not be fulfilled at all. In a case where there is other testimony, perhaps one may rely on the knowledge of others in order to ratify the document.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讚注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讗 专讗讜讛讜 砖诇砖讛 讜讛谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬注诪讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜砖讬讘讜 诪讞讘专讬讛诐 讗爪诇 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讬注讬讚讜 讘驻谞讬讛诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 诪拽讜讚砖 讛讞讚砖 诪拽讜讚砖 砖讗讬谉 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讗诪谉 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚注讚 谞注砖讛 讚讬讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讬转讘讜 讘讚讜讻转讬讬讛讜 讜诇讬拽讚砖讬

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abba sat and stated this halakha that a witness can become a judge. Rav Safra raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Abba from a mishna (Rosh HaShana 25b): If three people saw the new moon and they constitute a court, two of them should stand and seat two of their colleagues to sit near the remaining individual judge. And the two should testify before the three judges, and they should then recite the standard formula for sanctifying the month: Sanctified is the month, sanctified. Two others must join the original judge to form a tribunal of three judges, as an individual judge is not deemed credible to sanctify the month by himself. And if it enters your mind to say that a witness can become a judge, why do I need all this? Let the three judges remain seated in their place and sanctify the month, as they can be both witnesses and judges.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 诇讚讬讚讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讜砖讗讬诇转讬讛 诇专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 讜专讘 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 讜讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诇专讘 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛谞讞 诇注讚讜转 讛讞讚砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚专讘谞谉

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Safra: That mishna was difficult for me to understand as well, and I asked Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta about it, and Rav Yitz岣k asked Rav Huna, and Rav Huna asked 岣yya bar Rav, and 岣yya bar Rav asked Rav, and Rav said to them: Leave the case of testimony to sanctify the month, as it is mandated by Torah law, and the guidelines are more stringent, and the requirement of ratification of documents is mandated by rabbinic law, where the guidelines are more lenient. In that case a witness can become a judge.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖讛 砖讬砖讘讜 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 讛砖讟专 讜拽专讗 注专注专 注诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讞转诪讜 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讞讜转诐 诪砖讞转诪讜 讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讞讜转诐

Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: In the case of three judges who convened as a tribunal to ratify a document, and a person raised a challenge with regard to the fitness of one of them to serve as a judge, thereby preventing ratification of the document, as long as they did not yet sign the ratification, the other two judges may testify about the acceptability of the judge whose fitness was challenged, and he then signs the ratification. However, once they signed the ratification, they may no longer testify about his fitness and thereby enable him to sign the ratification. Once they sign, their testimony is no longer impartial because there is a conflict of interest as they seek to avoid being associated with a tribunal tainted by an unfit judge.

注专注专 讚诪讗讬 讗讬 注专注专 讚讙讝诇谞讜转讗

The Gemara elaborates: With regard to a challenge of what sort was this halakha stated? If it was a challenge based on an allegation of theft,

Scroll To Top