Ketubot 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

And there was an incident in which

Ravnai, the brother of Rav Hiyya bar Abba, happened to come to purchase sesame, [

to buy sesame], and

said: “This is what Shmuel said: ‘A witness and a judge may join together.’”

Ameimar said: How excellent is this statement! Rav Ashi said to Ameimar:

And is it

because your maternal grandfather praised it—

that is, Rami bar Hama—

that you

also praise it?!

But

Rava already refuted

this statement, and the halakha is not so!

Further laws concerning the ratification of documents:

Rav Safra said that Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yitzhak bar Shmuel bar Marta said that Rav Huna said—and some say that Rav Huna said that Rav:

If three people sat

in a court

to ratify a document,

and

two

of them

recognized the signatures of

the

witnesses, while one did not recognize them.

They wish to testify before the third judge and jointly write an ashtaḥta de-dayanei, the court ratification, on this document.

If they testified before him

before they signed

the ratification,

they testify before him, and he signs

with them, and they write: “We have ratified and upheld this document, in a session of three, after it became known to us that this is the signature of the witnesses.”

But if they testified before him

after they had signed

the ratification, and at the time of the signing the third judge had still not heard their testimony,

they may not testify before him and have him sign,

because the first signing was false, since there were not yet three who knew the signatures of the witnesses.

And

the Gemara infers that specifically the signing must take place after they have testified before the third judge, but the form of the ratification may be written even before the signing.

And we raise an objection:

Do we write

the form before they testified,

and

did

Rav Pappi say in the name of Rava:

“This court ratification, if it is written before the witnesses show their signatures, [

a ratification written before the witnesses showed their signatures]

is invalid,”

because

it appears to be false,

and if so,

here too,

how can they write the ratification before they testified? Does it not

appear to be false ?

And we answer: Indeed, that is so. The statement should not read, “Before they signed, they testify before him and he signs,”

but rather say:

“Before they wrote,

they testify before him and he signs. Once they have written,

they may not testify before him and have him sign,”

as Rav Pappi stated, that they may not write it because it appears to be false.

And we infer:

Conclude from this

from this statement of Rav Safra

three

laws:

1.

Conclude from this:

that the

witness

who testifies concerning the signatures

becomes a judge

and may also participate in ratifying the document. As in our case, the two who testified concerning the signatures of the witnesses became judges for the ratification of the document.

2.

And conclude from this:

that

judges who recognize

the

signatures of

the

witnesses need not testify before them.

As in our case, the two who knew the signatures of the witnesses testified before the third, who did not know them; but no one testified before the two of them.

3.

And conclude from this:

that if there are

judges

in the court

who do not recognize the signatures of the witnesses,

it is not sufficient for the witnesses to testify before only some of the court; rather, they

must testify before each and every one

of the judges. As in our case, the two had to testify before the third.

And we reject this inference:

Rav Ashi raised an objection to it: Granted

the law that

“a witness becomes a judge,” we can infer from it,

as the witnesses in our case became judges for ratifying the document.

But

the second law, that

“judges who recognize

the

signatures of

the

witnesses need not testify before them,”

how can we infer it from here?

Perhaps, I will say to you in fact:

Where all three judges recognize the signatures of the witnesses, they cannot ratify the document without testimony being given before them; rather,

they must

have the witnesses testify before them.

And

what we demonstrated from our case—that we were satisfied with the testimony of the two before the third judge and did not require the witnesses to testify before the first two as well—is not proof, since

here is different, for the giving of testimony is being carried out before

one

of

the judges. But where all three judges recognize the signatures of the witnesses and there is no giving of testimony before us at all, perhaps it is ineffective, since testimony exists only through the giving of testimony?

And

Rav Ashi further rejected the inference: How can we infer from the statement of Rav Safra the law that

“judges who do not recognize

the

signatures of

the

witnesses must testify before each and every one”? Perhaps, I will say to you in fact:

They need not

testify before each one,

and

the fact that in our case we did not ratify the document until the two had testified before the third is not proof, since

here is different, for

there still

was no giving of testimony at all;

therefore, they had to testify before him, so that there would be a giving of testimony here. But generally, perhaps it is sufficient for witnesses to testify before only some of the judges in order to ratify the document?

Rav Abba was sitting and stating this teaching—

that “a witness becomes a judge.”

Rav Safra raised an objection to him [

he challenged him]

from Rabbi Abba:

But we learned in tractate Rosh HaShana concerning testimony for sanctifying the new month: If

three saw it

the moon,

and they are the court,

and they wish to testify concerning it and sanctify the month,

two should stand

of them,

and they should seat

two others

of their colleagues beside the one, and they should testify before them, and they should say

the other three:

“Sanctified, the new month is sanctified,”

and the reason they must seat two of their colleagues beside the one is that

the individual is not trusted on his own.

This is the end of the Mishna.

And

we infer:

If it enters your mind that a witness

who testifies concerning a particular testimony

becomes a judge

with regard to that testimony,

why do I need all this,

seating two of their colleagues beside the one?

Let them sit in their places

the three of them themselves

and sanctify the month?!

Rather, it is proven that a witness does not become a judge!

Rav Abba said to him: This difficulty also occurred to me,

this question,

and I asked it of Rav Yitzhak bar Shmuel bar Marta, and Rav Yitzhak

asked

Rav Huna, and Rav Huna asked Hiyya bar Rav, and Hiyya bar Rav asked Rav, and he said to them

Rav:

Set aside the testimony concerning the new month,

which is testimony

by Torah law,

and therefore a witness does not become a judge in that matter.

But the ratification of documents is rabbinic,

and therefore here they were lenient, so that a witness becomes a judge for this testimony.

Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav: If three

judges

sat to ratify a document, and a challenge arose against one of them

that he was disqualified, and the other two judges wish to testify concerning him that he is fit and join him with them:

Before they signed

the ratification,

they testify concerning him

that he is fit,

and he signs

with them.

But

once they have signed, they may not testify concerning him, and have him sign

because now they have an interest in their testimony: It is disgraceful for them to have sat in judgment with a disqualified judge, and therefore they are not believed.

And we inquire about this:

What sort of challenge?

That is, with regard to which challenge are the two judges believed to validate him?

If

it concerns a case in which

a challenge of

disqualification was brought against him on the grounds of

robbery,

how can the judges be believed to validate him,