Ketubot 19b — the Talmud in English

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

my

Rav Kahana—

that

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

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

And when they say, “We signed,” they are not believed to incriminate themselves.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: It is forbidden for a person to keep a paid document inside his house! For it is stated: “Do not let fraud dwell in your tents.”

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

what is the meaning of that which is written—

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

for from their outset they are false, and therefore they were called “wrongdoing.”

“And do not let fraud dwell in your tents”—

this is a paid document,

for now it is fraudulent, but originally it was true.

And we say: according to the one

who says

that it is forbidden to keep

a paid document, all the more so

that it is forbidden to keep

a document of trust.

And the one who says

that it is forbidden to keep

a document of trust,

but a paid document he did not

forbid, because

sometimes he keeps it for the fee of the scribe. [

in order to collect the scribes’ fee, and as a result it remains with him afterward as well].

And in the West, in the name of Rav, they disagree and hold that he should have been careful not to keep it.

But according to everyone, that he leaves it with him in order to collect the scribe’s fee is not negligence.

It was stated

in the beit-midrash:

a book

of Tanakh

that has not been proofread

until when is it permitted to keep it?

Rabbi Ami said: Until thirty days it is permitted to keep it; from then onward it is forbidden to keep it! For it is stated—

“Do not let fraud dwell in your tents.”

Rav Naḥman said: Witnesses who said—

“Our statement was one of trust” [

that is, he lent him nothing, but we wrote it for him so that, if he needed to borrow, he would borrow from him, and he subordinated his property to him from now, so that the document would not be an earlier document],

are not believed.

And likewise if they said—

“Our statement was a declaration of duress” [

if it was a sale document, and the witnesses signed upon it said that the seller delivered a declaration of duress before us and revealed to us his coercion, and we recognized that he had been coerced],

they are not believed.

And even if their handwriting is not produced from another place, they are not believed, because “what is said orally does not come and undermine the document.”

Mar son of Rav Ashi said:

if they said—

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

But if they said—

“Our statement was a declaration of duress,” they are believed.

What is the reason?

Because

this—

that is, “Our statement was a declaration of duress”—

is permitted to be written,

and there is no act of wickedness in writing a declaration of duress; therefore they are believed to say, “Our statement was a declaration of duress.” And he held that what is said orally does come and undermine the document, because they have a migo that it was forged.

And this—

that is, “Our statement was one of trust”—

is not permitted to be written,

for it is forbidden to write a document of trust, and it is fraudulent, and they are not believed to say that they signed a fraudulent document.

Rava asked Rav Naḥman:

if they said

“Our statement was one of a condition,”

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

what is the law,

are they believed?

And the sides of the doubt are: perhaps,

with a declaration of duress and a document of trust, this is the reason

that they are not believed, because—

they uproot the document,

and what is said orally does not come and undermine the document,

and this one too

is not believed because

he uproots the document.

Or perhaps, a condition—

is another matter!

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

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

when litigants come before us

litigating parties

for judgment,

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 another matter, and the witnesses are believed to say, “Our statement was one of a condition”

. The Gemara further raised a doubt: What is the law in a case where

one witness

one

says

that there was

a condition, and one witness

one

says, “There was no condition.”

Is the document established in such a case?

Rav Pappa said:

the document is established! 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 one

witness

alone, and the statement of one

is considered

not in place of two.

Therefore he cannot uproot the document upon which both of them signed.

And we challenge:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Joshua, objected to this: 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 they cannot retract and testify that there was a condition?

Rather,

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

we say—

these have come to uproot their testimony!

And the document is not established at all as long as the condition has not been fulfilled. And since a condition is another matter, and they are not uprooting the document entirely, as with a declaration of duress and a document of trust, they are believed, because it 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 established as long as the condition has not been fulfilled, since only one witness is signed upon it.

And the Gemara concludes:

and the halakha is according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Joshua,

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

The Sages taught: Two

who were

signed upon the document and died. And two came from the marketplace and said: “We knew that it was their handwriting, but they were coerced, they were minors, they were disqualified as witnesses

”— ” these are believed.

And if there are other witnesses

that this is their handwriting, or their handwriting was produced from another place,

such as

from a document that someone challenged [

where a person claimed that it was forged], and these two witnesses were signed upon it,

and it was established in the court

that this was their handwriting—

these are not believed

to disqualify the document.

And we challenge:

And

if

do we collect with it as with a valid document?! And why?!

Is it not that

they are two against two!

The witnesses to the document are two, and the witnesses disqualifying them are two against them, so we should have left the money in its presumptive status because of the doubt!

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said—

this is to say, the contradiction

that they contradicted them in a case of two against two is like

the beginning of a plot against witnesses!