Ketubot 19a — the Talmud in English

The presumption is that the witnesses sign the document only if it was executed by an adult .

Rather, when they said

“We were coerced

that is,”

for what reason are they not believed? Let us say: “The mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted”?

And we answer:

And we answer:

Rav Hisda said:

Rabbi Meir holds

that

when witnesses are told, “Sign falsely, and do not be killed,”

they should be killed and not sign falsely;

and therefore, even if they said, “We were coerced under threat to our lives,” they are not believed to render themselves wicked, because they should have allowed themselves to be killed and not signed falsely.

Rava said to him

to Rav Hisda:

Now, if they came before us

the witnesses

to seek counsel

whether to be killed or to sign falsely, certainly

we would say to them:

Go, sign, and do not be killed!

Because

the Master said:

There is no matter that stands

before saving a life, except idolatry, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed alone.

And

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

For certainly they cannot be charged with failing to conduct themselves with pious conduct.

Rather,

it must be said that

the reason of Rabbi Meir

that they are not believed to say, “We were coerced,” is because he held

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

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

A borrower who

admits that he wrote the document, the lender does not

need to

need to authenticate it,

and the borrower is not believed to claim, “I repaid,” in opposition to the document, despite the fact that the document was authenticated only through his own admission.

And therefore, here we are dealing with a case in which the borrower admitted that he wrote the document, and if so, now the lender does not need to authenticate it. And when the witnesses came and said, “This is our handwriting,” we do not need them, and it is not “the mouth that prohibited”; therefore they are not believed now to say, “We were coerced.”

And the Rabbis disagree and hold that a borrower who admits that he wrote the document must authenticate it. If so, there is still a need for the testimony of the witnesses who said, “This is our handwriting”; therefore they are believed to say, “But we were coerced,” because the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted.

And the Gemara brings the substance of the issue: whether a borrower who admits that he wrote the document must authenticate it or not:

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

A borrower who

admits that he wrote the document, the lender does not

need to

need to authenticate it.

Rav Nahman said to him

to Rav Huna:

Why do you steal furtively? [

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

If you hold like Rabbi Meir,

who also held like your words,

say

that

the halakha is like Rabbi Meir?

He said to him

Rav Huna to Rav Nahman:

And what is the Master’s view?

He said to him

Rav Nahman:

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

Go, authenticate your document and descend to judgment!

Because without authentication the borrower would be believed to claim that it was paid, since a borrower who admits that he wrote the document must authenticate it.

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

“This is a document of trust,” [

that is, he borrowed nothing through this document, but wrote it for the lender so that if he later wished to borrow, he could borrow, and he trusted the lender not to claim from him with this document in the meantime.]

is not believed!

And we examine this:

Who is saying this? [

Who is the one claiming that he is not believed?]

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

that he is not believed! And does

he have the power

to claim about the document that it is a document of trust?! But witnesses are signed upon it, and the document will be upheld by its signatures?!

Rather, it is the lender who says it,

and admits that this document is invalid. If so, why is he not believed?

May blessing come upon him

for admitting the truth.

Rather, it is the witnesses who say it.

What are the circumstances?

If their handwriting emerges from another place,

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

it is obvious that they are not believed!

And if their handwriting does not emerge from another place, why are they not believed?

But the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted?

(Mnemonic: BaSh)

Rava said: In truth, it is the borrower who says it! And

the answer to what you raised—that it is obvious that he is not believed because there is a document opposing him—

I can say to you that this teaches us

the law

of

Rav Huna.

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

A borrower who

admits that he wrote the document, the lender does not

need to

need to authenticate it.

And 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 believed to claim that it was a document of trust, since a person does not usually write and deliver [a document] without a loan. On the other hand, he admitted concerning this document that he wrote it, and therefore the lender again does not need to authenticate it.

Abaye said: In truth, it is the lender who says it! And

the answer to what we raised—that if so, why is he not believed, since “May blessing come upon him” for admitting the truth—

I can say to you that here we are dealing

with a case in which he thereby caused a loss

through his admission

to others

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

And

from where do we know that others could collect this debt?

As Rabbi Natan! For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Natan says: From where do we know concerning

one who

is owed one hundred by his fellow, and his fellow

is owed one hundred

by his fellow, from where do we know that they collect from this one and give it to that one? The verse states:

“And he shall give it to the one to whom he is indebted,”

and we expound: Since it is not written, “And he shall give it to the one who lent to him,” infer from this that he gives it to the one whose debt—that is, the principal—is his, and this is the first lender.

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

we are dealing -

with a case in which their handwriting does not emerge from another place! And as for what you said, why are they not believed,

but the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted?

I can say to you: Because we hold

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

“Do not let injustice dwell in your tents.”