Ketubot 21b — the Talmud in English

And there was an incident that

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

to buy sesame, and

and he said: “Thus said Shmuel: ‘A witness and a judge may join together.’”

Ameimar said: “How excellent is this teaching!” Rav Ashi said to Ameimar:

And is it

because your mother’s father praised it

—he is Rami bar Hama—

you

also praise it?!

But

Rava already refuted this teaching

this teaching, and the halakha is not so!:

Further laws concerning validation of documents:

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

If three sat

in a court in order

to validate the document,

and

two

of them

recognized the signatures of

the

witnesses, while one did not recognize them.

And they wish to testify before the third and together write an asharta de-dayanei on this document.

If they testified before him

before they signed

the asharta—

they testify before him, and he signs

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

and at the time of the signing the third had still not heard their testimony—

they may not testify before him and he may not sign,

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

And

the Gemara carefully infers that specifically the signing must be done after they testified before the third, but the form of the asharta may be written even before the signing.

And we object:

do we write

the form before they testified,

and

is it not the case that

Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava—

“This judges’ asharta, which was written before the witnesses showed their signatures, [an asharta written before the witnesses showed their signatures]—

a validation statement written before the witnesses showed their signatures,

is invalid!

because

it appears to be false,

and if so,

here too,

how do they write the asharta before they testified, when it

appears to be false ?

And we answer: Indeed, so; and do not say, “Before they signed, they testify before him and he signs,”

rather, say—

“Before they wrote,

they testify before him and he signs. Once they wrote,

they do not testify before him and he does not sign,”

in accordance with the words of Rav Pappi, that they do not write because it appears false.

And we infer:

derive from this

from this statement of Rav Safra,

three

laws:

.

derive from this—

that the

witness

who testifies concerning the signatures

becomes a judge,

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

.

and derive from this—

that

judges who recognize

the

signatures of

the

witnesses do not need testimony to be given before them.

As in our case, where 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 .

.

and derive from this—

that if there are

judges

in the court

who do not recognize the signatures of witnesses,

it is not sufficient that the witnesses testify before part of the court; rather,

they must testify before each and every one

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

And we reject this:

Rav Ashi raised an objection to it: Granted,

the law that

“a witness becomes a judge,” we derive from it,

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

But

the second law, that

“judges who recognize

the

signatures of

the

witnesses do not need testimony to be given before them,”

how do we derive it from here?

Perhaps, I could always say to you—

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

the witnesses must

testify before them.

And

what we proved from our case—that we were satisfied with the testimony of the two before the third witness, and did not require the witnesses to testify also before the first two—is no proof, since

here is different, for testimony is being given before

one

one

of the judges; but where all three judges recognize the signatures of the witnesses, and there is no giving of testimony before us, I could always say to you that it is ineffective, since there is testimony only through the giving of testimony.

And

Rav Ashi further rejected: How do we derive from Rav Safra’s statement the law that

“judges who do not recognize

the

signatures of

the

witnesses must testify before each and every one,” perhaps, I could always say to you—

they do not need

to testify before each one,

and

the fact that in our case we did not validate the document until the two testified before the third is no proof, since

here is different, for

still

no testimony at all was being given,

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

Rav Abba sat and stated this teaching—

that “a witness becomes a judge.”

Rav Safra raised an objection to him [he challenged him]

to him,

Rav Safra to Rabbi Abba:

But did we not learn in tractate Rosh Hashana, concerning testimony for sanctifying the 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

from among their colleagues beside the single one, and they should testify before them, and the other three should say—

the other three:

“The month is sanctified, the month is sanctified,”

and the reason that they must place two of their colleagues beside the single one is because

a single one is not trustworthy by himself.

Thus far is the Mishna.

And

we infer—

if it enters your mind that a witness

who testifies concerning particular testimony

becomes a judge

in that testimony,

why do I need all this,

that they place two of their colleagues beside the single one,

let all three sit in their places [all three themselves]

themselves

and sanctify?!

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

Rav Abba said to him: This difficulty was also difficult to me

this difficulty,

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

asked it

of Rav Huna, and Rav Huna of Hiyya bar Rav, and Hiyya bar Rav of Rav, and Rav said to them:

Rav

said: “Set aside testimony about the month

for it is testimony

of Torah origin,

and therefore a witness does not become a judge in it .

But validation of documents is rabbinic,

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

Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: Three

judges

who sat to validate the document, and a challenge was raised against one of them

that he is disqualified, and the other two judges wish to testify concerning him that he is fit and join him to themselves.

Before they signed

the asharta,

they testify concerning him

that he is fit,

and he signs

with them.

But

once they signed, they do not testify concerning him, and he signs—

because now they have an interest in their testimony, since it is disgraceful for them that they sat to judge with a disqualified judge, and therefore they are not trustworthy.

And we inquire about this:

A challenge of what?

That is, against which challenge are the two judges trustworthy to declare him fit?

If

it is speaking when there was raised against him

a challenge that

he is disqualified because of

robbery,

how are the judges trustworthy to declare him fit,