Parallel
כתובות 19
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
It is a presumption that the witnesses do not sign a document unless [everything] was done by adults. But what is the reason with regard to 'FORCED?' — R. Hisda said: R. Meir holds that if one said to witnesses, 'sign a falsehood and you will not be killed,' they should rather be killed and not sign a falsehood. Raba said to him: Now. if they would come to us to ask [our] advice, we would say unto them: Go [and] sign and do not be killed, for a Master said: 'There is nothing that comes before the saving of life except idolatry, incest and bloodshed only.' Now that they have signed, can we say to them: why have you signed? But the reason of R. Meir is in accordance with what R. Huna [said in the name of] Rab: for R. Huna said [that] Rab said: If he admits that he has written the bond, there is no need to confirm it. [To revert to] the main text: R. Huna said [that] Rab said: If he admits that he has written the bond, there is no need to confirm it. R. Nahman said to him: Why do you go round about? If you hold with R. Meir, say: the halachah is according to R. Meir. He [then] said to him: And how do you Sir, hold? He said to him: When they come before us in court, we say to them: go [and] confirm your documents and [then] come to court. Rab Judah said [that] Rab said: If one said: This is a [loan-] deed of trust, he is not believed. Who said [it]? If the debtor said it, it is plain; why should he be believed? If the creditor said [it], may a blessing come upon him! And if the witnesses said [it], — [then] if their handwriting comes out from another place, it is plain that they are not believed, and if their handwriting does not come out from another place, why should they not be believed? (Mnemonic: BASH) Raba said: Indeed, the debtor said [it], and [it is] according to R. Huna, for R. Huna said [that] Rab said: If he admits that he has written the document, there is no need to confirm it. Abaye said: Indeed, the creditor said [it], and it is a case where he would injure others. And [this is] according to R. Nathan, for it has been taught: R. Nathan says: Whence [do we learn that], if one has a claim of a maneh against his fellow and that fellow against another fellow, we take out [the sun, of a maneh] from this one and give it to that one? The Writ says And he shall give [it] to whom he owes [it]. R. Ashi said: Indeed, the witnesses said [it], and [it is in a case] where their handwriting does not come out from another place; and as to your question, Why should they not be believed, [the answer is] as stated by R. Kahana, for R. Kahana said: It is forbidden for a man to keep a [loan-] deed of trust in his house, because it is said: Let not unrighteousness dwell in thy tents.
—
And R. Shesheth, the son of R. Idi, said: From [the words of] R. Kahana can be inferred [that] if witnesses said, 'Our words were [regarding a matter of] trust,' they are not believed, for this reason: Since it is 'unrighteousness' [we say that] they must not sign on [what is] unrighteousness. R. Joshua b. Levi. said: It is forbidden for a man to keep a paid bill of indebtedness in his house, because it is said: 'Let not unrighteousness dwell in thy tents'. In the West they said in the name of Rab: [It is said]: If iniquity be in thy hand, put it far away. This is a [loan-] deed of trust and a deed of good-will; [and it is said]: 'And let not unrighteousness dwell in thy tents'. This is a paid bill of indebtedness. He who says [that it applies to] a paid bill of indebtedness, how much more [does it apply to] a [loan-] deed of trust. [And] he, who says [that it applies to] a [loan-] deed of trust, [would hold that it does not apply to] a paid bill of indebtedness, because sometimes they keep it on account of the scribe's fees. It has been stated: A book that is not corrected — R. Ami said: Until thirty days one is allowed to keep it, from then and further on, it is forbidden to keep it, because it is said: 'Let not unrighteousness dwell in thy tents. R. Nahman said: If witnesses said, 'Our words were [regarding a matter of] trust.' they are not believed; [if they said]. 'Our words were [attended by] declaration,' they are [also] not believed. Mar. the son of R. Ashi. said: [if witnesses said]. 'Our words were [regarding a matter of] trust,' they are not believed; [but if they said], 'Our words were [attended by] declaration,' they are believed, for this reason: this one was allowed to be written and that one was not allowed to be written. Raba asked of R. Nahman: How is it [if witnesses say], 'Our words were [subject to] a condition'? [Are they not believed in the case of] 'declaration' and 'trust' because they invalidate the document, and [in] this [case of 'condition'] they also invalidate the document? Or is perhaps 'condition' a different thing? — He said to him: When they come before us in court, we say to them: go [and] fulfil your conditions and [then] come to court. If one witness says [that there was] a condition, and one witness says [that there was] no condition R. Papa said: they both testify to a valid document and only one says [that there was] a condition, and the words of one [witness] have no value where there are two witnesses. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua demurred to this: If so, even if they both say [that there was a condition] [their words should] also [have no value]! But we say [that] they come to uproot their testimony, and this one also comes to uproot his testimony. And the law is according to R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua. Our Rabbis taught: If two [witnesses] were signed on a document and died, and two [witnesses] came from the street and said, 'We know that it is their handwriting, but they were forced, they were minors, they were disqualified witnesses, they are believed. But if there are [other] witnesses that this is their handwriting. or their handwriting comes out from another place, [namely] from a document, the validity of which was challenged, and which was confirmed in Court, they are not believed. — And we collect with it as with a valid document? Why? They are two and two! — Said R. Shesheth: This teaches [that] contradiction is the beginning of rebuttal,
—