Ketubot 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: Learn from the words of

Rav Kahana

that

witnesses who said,

“Our statement was one of trust,” are not believed.

What is the reason? Since it is a false document, they would not sign a false document!

And when they say that they signed it, they are not believed to incriminate themselves.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is prohibited for a person to keep a paid document in his house, as it is stated: “Do not allow injustice to dwell in your tents.”

In the West, they said in the name of Rav:

What is the meaning of that which is written

“If there is injustice in your hand, put it far away”? This is a document of trust and a document of fakes,

because they were false from the outset, and therefore they were called “injustice.”

“And do not allow injustice to dwell in your tents”—

this is a paid document,

which is now a false document, but originally was valid.

And we say: According to

the one who says

that it is prohibited to keep

a paid document, all the more so

it is prohibited to keep

a document of trust.

And the one who says

that it is prohibited to keep

a document of trust,

but did not prohibit keeping a paid document,

because

sometimes he keeps it for the fee of the scribe.

In order to collect the scribal fee, and consequently it remains with him afterward.

And in the West, in the name of Rav, they disagree and maintain that he should have taken care not to keep it.

But according to everyone, leaving it in his possession in order to collect the scribal fee is not negligence.

It was stated

in the beit-midrash:

A

biblical book

that has not been corrected

until when is it permitted to keep it?

Rabbi Ami said: It is permitted to keep it for thirty days; from that point onward, it is prohibited to keep it, as it is stated—

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

Rav Naḥman said: If witnesses said—

“Our statement was one of trust”

that is, he lent him nothing; rather, we wrote it for him so that if he needed to borrow, he would borrow from him, and he encumbered his property for him from then on, so that the document would not be an early document—

they are not believed.

And likewise, if they said—

“Our statement was one of a notice”

if it was a deed of sale, and the witnesses who signed it said that the seller had delivered a notice before us and disclosed to us the coercion to which he had been subjected, and we recognized that he had indeed been coerced—

they are not believed.

Even when their handwriting is not corroborated elsewhere, they are not believed, because “oral testimony cannot come and undermine a document.”

Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

If they said—

“Our statement was one of trust,” they are not believed.

But if they said—

“Our statement was one of a notice,” they are believed.

What is the reason?

Because

this

that is, “Our statement was one of a notice”

may be committed to writing,

and there is no wicked act in writing a notice. Therefore, they are believed to say, “Our statement was one of a notice.” And he holds that oral testimony can come and undermine a document, because they have a migo that it was forged.

And this

that is, “Our statement was one of trust”

may not be committed to writing,

as it is prohibited to write a document of trust, and it is a false document; therefore, they are not believed to say that they signed a false document.

Rava asked Rav Naḥman:

If they said

“Our statement concerned a condition,”

that is, we signed the document, but it contained an additional condition that had not yet been fulfilled,

what is the law,

are they believed?

And the sides of the uncertainty are as follows: Perhaps

the reason for a notice and a document of trust

that they are not believed is

that they uproot the document,

and oral testimony cannot come and undermine a document;

and this too

is not believed because

it uproots the document.

Or perhaps, a condition—

is a different matter!

And this is not considered uprooting the document; therefore, they should be believed.

He said to him

Rav Naḥman:

When litigants come before us

for judgment

to litigate,

and there are witnesses that there was a condition between them,

we say to them: Go and fulfill your condition, and

afterward

come down to judgment,

because a condition is a different matter, and the witnesses are believed to say, “Our statement concerned a condition.”

The Gemara further raised an uncertainty: What is the law in a case where

one

witness

says

that there was

a condition, and one

witness

says that there was no condition.

Is the document validated in such a case?

Rav Pappa said:

The document is validated, because

both of them testify concerning a valid document,

since according to both of them the document was valid,

and this

witness

who says

that there was

a condition is

only one witness,

and the statement of one

is not considered

equivalent to that of two.

Therefore, he cannot uproot the document that both of them signed.

And we challenge this:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised an objection: If so, even

if

both

say that there was a condition,

also

they should not be believed to uproot the document, since they testified that it was a valid document and cannot retract and add that there was a condition?

Rather,

certainly the reason they are believed to say, “Our statement concerned a condition,” is that

we say—

“These people have come to uproot their testimony!”

The document was not validated at all so long as the condition had not been fulfilled. And since a condition is a different matter, and they are not entirely uprooting the document, as in the cases of a notice and a document of trust, they are believed, because this is testimony in its own right.

And here too,

this

one witness who said that there was a condition

has likewise come to uproot his testimony,

and consequently the document is not validated so long as the condition has not been fulfilled, since only one witness signed it.

And the Gemara concludes:

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

that if one witness says that there was a condition, the document is not validated until they fulfill the condition.

The Sages taught: Two

who were

signed on a document and died. And two people came from the marketplace and said: “We know that this is their handwriting, but they had been coerced, they were minors, or they were disqualified from bearing witness

”—these witnesses are believed.

And if there are other witnesses

that this is their handwriting, or their handwriting is corroborated elsewhere,

such as

from a document that was challenged

by someone who claimed that it was forged, and these two witnesses were signed on it,

and it was established in court

that this was their handwriting—

these witnesses are not believed

to invalidate the document.

And we challenge this:

And

if

we collect with it as with a valid document, why?!

But

it is two witnesses against two witnesses!

The witnesses to the document are two, and the witnesses who disqualify them are two against them; we should therefore leave the money in its presumptive status due to the uncertainty!

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said—

This indicates that a contradiction

in which they contradicted them in a case of two witnesses against two witnesses

is the beginning of hazama!