Ketubot 18b — the Talmud in English

And

in truth, on the basis of this ḥazaka -

he should have admitted the entire amount!

Since he does not have the audacity to deny it,

and this—that he did not admit it to him—was so that he could evade him

[to be exempt from him for now, since he did not have cash with which to repay him],

and he thought: until I have money, I will repay him. And

therefore

the Merciful One said: place

[impose]

an oath upon him, so that he will admit the entire amount.

And in this they disagreed:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds -

it makes no difference with him

[that is, with the lender himself]

and it makes no difference with his son: he does not have the audacity; and therefore he is not one who returns a lost object,

and he is obligated in the oath of one who admits part of the claim.

And the Rabbis hold: with him he does not have the audacity, but with his son he does have the audacity

to deny everything,

and since he did not have the audacity, he is one who returns a lost object,

and therefore they exempted him from the oath.

Mishna:

The witnesses who

came to validate their handwriting in the court, and

said -

indeed,

this is our handwriting, but

we signed falsely because

we were coerced,

or

we were minors,

or

we were disqualified witnesses

these are believed

to invalidate the document. Since the document is validated only through them, the mouth that prohibited and validated the document is the mouth that permitted, and said: We were minors and so on.

And if there are witnesses that this is their handwriting, or if

their handwriting emerges from another place,

and if so, the document was validated not through them -

they are not believed

Gemara:

Rami bar Hama said: They taught

that they are not believed where their handwriting emerges from another place

only when they said -

“We were coerced because of money,”

for then they are not believed to disqualify themselves, because it is a wicked act to sign falsely because of money, and a person does not make himself wicked. [And in the first clause they are believed, because the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted].

But

if they said -

“We were coerced because of lives,” -

these are believed

to invalidate the document .

Rava said to him

to Rami bar Hama:

Is it within his power

to retract their testimony and invalidate the document?!

And surely we hold that

“Once he has testified, he may no longer retract and testify” ?!

And if you would say: these words—that he may not retract and testify—apply only where he testified before us

orally, but not in a document,

since there is no testimony here,

but Reish Lakish said: Witnesses who signed upon a document -

are considered as though their testimony had been investigated in court!

Rather, when it was stated

the words of Rami bar Hama,

it was stated concerning the first clause:

for we explained in the first clause: The witnesses who said, “This is our handwriting, but we were minors,” and so on,

these are believed.

And concerning this

Rami bar Hama said: They taught

that they are believed because “the mouth that prohibited”

only

when they

said -

“We were coerced because of lives,”

for they do not render themselves wicked,

but

if they

said -

“We were coerced because of money,” they are not believed!

What is the reason?

Because

“a person does not make himself wicked ” -

because he is considered related to himself, and a relative is disqualified from testimony. Rashi.

The Sages taught:

The witnesses who said, “This is our handwriting, but we were coerced, and so on” -

are not believed to invalidate it. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: They are believed

to invalidate it, because “the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted.”

And we raised the matter:

Granted, according to the Rabbis

they are believed to invalidate it,

for their reason -

is that “the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted”; but according to Rabbi Meir, what is the reason

that they are not believed?

Granted

when they claim, “Indeed, we saw the sale or the loan, but

we were disqualified witnesses

and the document is not valid, but it is like a loan by oral agreement.” They are not believed - because

the lender himself, from the outset, examines carefully and has it signed,

since “a person does not cast away money for nothing”; and if so, we are witnesses that they were valid.

And likewise, when they claim

“We were minors

they are also not believed,

as in the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, for Reish Lakish said:

не верят, согласно мнению Рабби Шимона бен Лакиша, поскольку Реш Лакиш сказал: