Ketubot 21a — the Talmud in English

And

according to the words of the Sages

it is not necessary to have two witnesses for each and every signature, because

they testify concerning the maneh in the document,

that is, they testify that there was a loan, and therefore the two join together to say: “We saw the loan and signed upon it.”

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious

that this is where they disagree! And what has the Gemara made known with its words?

And we answer:

You might have said: according to Rabbi,

his reason is not because he certainly holds that they testify concerning their handwriting, but rather

it is doubtful to him—

whether they testify concerning their handwriting, or whether they testify concerning the maneh in the document,

and because of the doubt he requires two witnesses for each and every signature.

And the practical difference

between doubt and certainty is:

where one died

of

them

—of the witnesses—if Rabbi’s reason is because of the doubt,

he should require two

witness

es

other

from the marketplace

in order

to testify concerning him,

and the remaining witness cannot join with another witness and testify concerning the signature of his fellow,

for if so

he joins with another; perhaps they are testifying concerning the maneh in the document, and then

we bring out three-quarters of the money on the testimony of one witness,

that is: since he is testifying concerning the maneh in the document, half the money is brought out on his testimony without joining with the other witness, [since according to the one who says, “They testify concerning the maneh in the document,” a person is believed to say, “This is my handwriting,” even without joining with another witness together with him], and afterward, when he joins with the other witness in order to testify concerning the signature of his fellow, another quarter of the money is brought out on his testimony. It follows that three-quarters of the money are brought out on the testimony of one witness!

And this is impossible, because it is written: “By the testimony of two witnesses shall a matter be established,” and we expound that the matter must be established through both of them equally, half through the testimony of each one of them.

And

therefore, if it is doubtful to us whether he is testifying concerning the maneh in the document, we proceed

here stringently—

where one of the witnesses died, so that two others from the marketplace are required to testify concerning him, lest they are testifying concerning the maneh in the document.

And here stringently

—where one of the witnesses did not die, so that each one must testify concerning himself and concerning his fellow, lest they are testifying concerning their handwriting.

And

this teaches us

in the Gemara above

that it is completely clear to Rabbi

that they testify concerning their handwriting

both leniently

where one of the witnesses died, so that he can join with another witness and testify concerning the signature of his fellow.

And

both stringently

where he did not die, so that each of the witnesses must testify concerning his handwriting and the handwriting of his fellow.

And the proof that Rabbi held this way is:

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The two who signed the document, and one of them died, require two from the marketplace to testify concerning him,

as explained above: since according to the Rabbis they testify concerning the maneh in the document, if the remaining witness joins with one from the marketplace to testify concerning the signature of the witness who died, it follows that three-quarters of the money are brought out on his testimony. And

in this Rabbi is lenient,

as we said, for he holds that they testify concerning their handwriting even leniently,

and the Rabbis are stringent.

And we raise an objection: According to the Rabbis, who held that they testify concerning the maneh in the document, if one of the witnesses died, when the Rabbis said that two others from the marketplace must testify concerning him,

and if there are not two

from the marketplace

but

one

alone

from the marketplace and the remaining witness,

what

is the law? Is he unable to validate the document in any way?

Abaye said:

The witness who remains alive can

write

his

signature on earthenware

[on pottery]

and cast it

into the court,

[and place it in the court],

and the court recognizes it

(and sees it),

[and the court will validate his signature in the document on the basis of its resemblance to this signature],

and

then

he himself does not need to testify concerning his signature,

since it has already been validated,

and he goes, and this one

—that other witness from the marketplace—

and they testify concerning the other one —

concerning the witness who died—since now, even according to the Rabbis, three-quarters of the money are not brought out on the testimony of one witness, because the remaining witness never testified concerning the maneh in the document, and his signature was validated by means of the “earthenware” upon which he signed it. Therefore he can testify concerning the signature of his fellow by joining with the other witness from the marketplace.

And

the remaining witness shall sign

specifically on earthenware,

[on pottery]

but not on a scroll .

What is the reason?

Perhaps he will find it

—the scroll upon which he signed—

an unworthy person, and he will write upon it whatever he wishes

[and write in his name whatever he wishes],

and

he will be believed, because

we learned: If he produced against him

a document in

his handwriting that he owes him, he collects from unencumbered property,

even though there are no witnesses in the document . And here too, if he produces his signature against him, he can forge whatever he wishes and obligate him.

Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to the words of the Rabbis,

that they testify concerning the maneh in the document, and the remaining witness does not need to testify concerning his signature in order to validate it.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious!

For

an individual and the many—the halakha is according to the many!

And what did Shmuel make known with his words?

And we answer:

You might have said

that here the halakha is according to Rabbi, because we hold

“The halakha is according to Rabbi over his colleague,” and

we might have thought that

even over his colleagues

the halakha is according to him.

This teaches us

Shmuel that the halakha is according to the Rabbis, and only over his colleague, who is an individual, is the halakha according to Rabbi; but over his colleagues, who are many, the halakha is according to them.:

(Mnemonic: Nah Nad Had)

The Gemara brings another discussion that arose following Shmuel’s words that the halakha is according to the Rabbis:

Rav Hanana bar Hiyya said to Rav Yehuda, and some say

[there are those who say]

it was Rav Huna bar Yehuda

who said

to Rav Yehuda, and some say

[there are those who say]

it was Rav Hiyya bar Yehuda

who said

to Rav Yehuda: And did Shmuel say this,

that the halakha is according to the Rabbis?!

But,

there was an incident involving

a certain document that came forth from the court of Mar Shmuel,

and Rav Anan bar Hiyya and Rav Hanan bar Rabba were signed upon it as witnesses, and they came to validate their signatures in Shmuel’s court,

and it was written in it

in the validation document that the court issued:

“When Rav Anan bar Hiyya came and testified concerning his signature, and another was with him, namely Rav Hanan bar Rabba; and when Rav Hanan bar Rabba came and testified concerning his signature, and another was with him, namely Rav Anan bar Hiyya, we approved it and validated it as is proper.”

[Since Rav Anan bar Hiyya came and testified concerning his signature, and another witness was with him, namely Rav Hanan bar Rabba, and since Rav Hanan bar Rabba came and testified concerning his signature, and another witness was with him, namely Rav Anan bar Hiyya, therefore we approved and validated the document properly].

And it is explained that Shmuel held like Rabbi, that each of the witnesses must also testify concerning the signature of his fellow. And why did he say above that the halakha is according to the Rabbis?

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda said to him: In fact, Shmuel held like the Rabbis, but

that document

that came before him and which he validated according to the view of Rabbi was a document

belonging to orphans. And he was concerned

that

Shmuel

that the document might come

before

a

court of mistaken judges, and Shmuel held: Perhaps there is someone who holds

in general

that the halakha is according to Rabbi over his colleague, but not over his colleagues, whereas in this matter

the halakha is according to Rabbi

even over his colleagues .

And therefore

he held

Shmuel:

I shall make a profit, so that the orphans will not suffer a loss.

[I shall validate the document even according to Rabbi, so that the orphans will not suffer a loss in any event].

The Gemara further brings laws concerning validation of documents:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

A document that was validated in court, and the borrower claims that it is entirely forged, and the validation too is forged, and there are before us

one witness

of the witnesses to the document

and one judge

of the judges who validated the document,

they join together

both of them to validate the document a second time .

Rami bar Hama said: How excellent is this teaching!

Rava said: What is its excellence?

For the law is not so, because

what the witness testifies, the judge does not testify, and what the judge testifies, the witness does not testify.

Since the witness testifies concerning the maneh in the document, according to the Rabbis, whereas the judge testifies: “The document was validated in my presence” .

Rather, when Rami bar Yehezkel came, he said: Do not heed these rules that Yehuda my brother formulated in the name of Shmuel.

[Do not heed the rules that Yehuda my brother said in the name of Shmuel; in truth, a witness and a judge do not join]!