Ketubot 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

The presumption is that witnesses do not sign a document unless it was executed by an adult .

Rather, when they said

“We were coerced

—this is what we meant,”

for what reason

are they not deemed credible? Let us say: “The mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted.”

And we answer:

Rav Ḥisda said:

Rabbi Meir holds

that

witnesses who were told, “Sign falsely, or do not be killed,”

must be killed rather than sign falsely.

Therefore, even if they said, “We were coerced under threat to our lives,” they are not deemed credible to render themselves wicked, since they should have allowed themselves to be killed rather than sign falsely .

Rava said

to Rav Ḥisda:

Now, if the witnesses were to come before us

to

seek our counsel

whether to be killed or to sign falsely, surely

we would say to them:

“Go, sign, and do not be killed!”

Because

the Master said:

There is nothing that stands

before the preservation of life, except for idolatry, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed alone.

And

now that they signed, shall we say to them, “Why did you sign?!”

Surely they cannot be faulted for failing to conduct themselves with exceptional piety.

Rather,

it must be said that

the reason for Rabbi Meir’s

view, that they are not deemed credible to say, “We were coerced,” is that he holds

in accordance with what Rav Huna said in the name of Rav.

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

If a borrower

admits that he wrote the document, the lender does not

need to

need to authenticate it,

and the borrower is not deemed credible to claim that he repaid the debt in opposition to the document, even though the document was authenticated only on the basis of his admission .

Therefore, here we are dealing with a case in which the borrower admitted that he wrote the document. Consequently, the lender now does not need to authenticate it, and when the witnesses came and said, “This is our handwriting,” we do not need their testimony; therefore, this is not a case of “the mouth that prohibited.” They are consequently not deemed credible to say now: “We were coerced” .

The Rabbis disagree and hold that when a borrower admits that he wrote the document, it must be authenticated. Consequently, the testimony of the witnesses who said, “This is our handwriting,” is still necessary. They are therefore deemed credible to say, “But we were coerced,” because the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted.

The Gemara now presents the issue itself: Does a borrower who admits that he wrote the document render authentication unnecessary, or not?

The substance of the matter: Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

If a borrower

admits that he wrote the document, the lender does not

need to

need to authenticate it.

Rav Naḥman said

to Rav Huna:

Why do you engage in theft?

Why do you state this ruling in your own name?]

If you hold like Rabbi Meir,

who also held as you do,

say

that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

Rav Huna said

to Rav Naḥman:

And what is your position?

He said

Rav Naḥman:

When they come before us for judgment, we say to them:

“Go authenticate your document and then come to court!”

For without authentication the borrower would be deemed credible to claim that the debt had been paid, since a borrower who admits that he wrote the document must have it authenticated.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: One who says

“This is a document of trust,”

that is, he did not borrow anything under this document; rather, he wrote it for the lender so that, if he wished to borrow later, he could do so, and he trusted the lender not to claim payment under this document in the interim.]

is not deemed credible!

And we inquire about this:

Who is the one who says this?

Who is the claimant who is not deemed credible?]

If we say that it is the borrower who says it, it is obvious

that he is not deemed credible! Is he

entitled

to claim concerning the document that it is one of trust?! The witnesses signed it, and the document will be validated through their signatures?!

Rather, if it is the lender who says it,

and he admits that this document is invalid, then why is he not deemed credible?

May blessing come upon him

for admitting the truth!

Rather, it is the witnesses who say it.

What are the circumstances?

If their handwriting is recognizable from another source,

so that there is no case of “the mouth that prohibited,”

it is obvious that they are not deemed credible!

But if their handwriting is not recognizable from another source, why are they not deemed credible?

Surely the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted?

(Mnemonic: Ba”Sh)

Rava said: Actually, it is the borrower who says it. And

as for what you raised—that it is obvious that he is not deemed credible because there is a document against him—

I can say that this teaches us that we say

in accordance

with the ruling of

Rav Huna.

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

If a borrower

admits that he wrote the document, the lender does not

need to

need to authenticate it.

Here too, since the borrower admitted that he wrote this document for the lender, even though he claimed that it was a document of trust, the lender no longer needs to authenticate it, and the borrower is not deemed credible to claim that it was a document of trust, since a person does not ordinarily write and deliver a document without a loan. On the other hand, he admitted with regard to this document that he wrote it, and therefore the lender again does not need to authenticate it .

Abaye said: Actually, it is the lender who says it. And

as for what we asked—why is he not deemed credible, since blessing should come upon him for admitting the truth—

I can say that here we are dealing with a case

in which he causes a loss

through his admission

to others

who were his creditors and wished to collect this debt, and through his admission he causes them to lose it. Therefore, he is not deemed credible .

And

from where do we know that others could have collected this debt?

As in the teaching of Rabbi Natan. For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where

do we know that one

who is owed one hundred dinars by another, and that other

is owed one hundred dinars

by another—how do we know that we take it from this one and give it to that one? The verse states:

“And he shall give it to the one to whom he owes the debt,”

and we interpret: Since it is not written, “And he shall give it to the one who lent to him,” we learn from this that he gives it to the one to whom the principal—that is, the debt—is owed, namely, the first lender .

Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is the witnesses who say it. And

the case is -

that their handwriting is not recognizable from another source. And as for what you said, why are they not deemed credible,

since the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted—

I can say that our position is

in accordance with Rav Kahana, for Rav Kahana said: It is forbidden for a person to allow a document of trust to remain in his house, because it is stated:

“Do not allow injustice to dwell in your tents.”