Ketubot

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,