## Ketubot Daf 19a

###### Ketubot 19a:1
[Ketubot 19a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/19a:1)

חֲזָקָה אֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נַעֲשָׂה בְּגָדוֹל. אֶלָּא אֲנוּסִין, מַאי טַעְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is **a presumption that witnesses sign on the document only if** the transaction **was made when** both parties to the transaction are **adults.** A corollary of that presumption is that each party would sign only adult witnesses to the document. **However,** if their testimony was that they were **compelled** to sign the document, **what is the reason** that Rabbi Meir rules that their testimony is not accepted?


###### Ketubot 19a:2
[Ketubot 19a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/19a:2)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, קָסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: עֵדִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ לָהֶם ״חִתְמוּ שֶׁקֶר וְאַל תֵּהָרְגוּ״ — יֵהָרְגוּ וְאַל יַחְתְּמוּ שֶׁקֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said** that **Rabbi Meir maintains: Witnesses that** others **said to them: Sign** a document containing **a falsehood and** you will **not be killed, should** allow themselves to **be killed and they should not sign** a document containing **a falsehood.** Therefore, even when they testify that they were compelled to sign the document due to a threat to their lives, they are incriminating themselves.


###### Ketubot 19a:3
[Ketubot 19a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/19a:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא אִילּוּ אָתוּ לְקַמַּן לְאִמְּלוֹכֵי, אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ: זִילוּ חֲתוּמוּ וְלָא תִּתְקַטְּלוּן, דְּאָמַר מָר: אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹמֵד בִּפְנֵי פִּיקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ אֶלָּא עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְגִלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים בִּלְבָד. הַשְׁתָּא דַּחֲתַמוּ, אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ: אַמַּאי חָתְמִיתוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: Now, if** the witnesses **came before us to consult** with the Sages, **we say to them: Go sign** the document **and you should not be killed, as the Master said: You have no matter that stands before saving a life, other** than **idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and murder. Now that they signed,** do **we say to them: Why did you sign?** Only in those three cases, when faced with a choice between violating the prohibition and being killed, must one be killed rather than violate the prohibition. Signing a false document does not fall into that category. Why then, according to Rabbi Meir, is their testimony that they were compelled to sign the document not accepted?


###### Ketubot 19a:4
[Ketubot 19a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/19a:4)

אֶלָּא: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר כִּדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, the reason** for the opinion of **Rabbi Meir is in accordance with** the statement that **Rav Huna said** that **Rav said, as Rav Huna said** that **Rav said:** In the case of a borrower who **admits with regard to a document that he wrote it,** the lender **need not ratify** the document in court. Once the borrower admits that he wrote the document, he cannot then claim that it is forged or that the debt was repaid. Similarly, once the witnesses testify that they signed the document, it is a credible document that they cannot then invalidate (*Tosafot*).


###### Ketubot 19a:5
[Ketubot 19a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/19a:5)

גּוּפָא. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: גַּנּוֹבָא גַּנּוֹבֵי לְמָה לָךְ. אִי סְבִירָא לָךְ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אֵימָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to **the matter itself, Rav Huna said** that **Rav said:** In the case of a borrower who **admits with regard to a document that he wrote it,** the lender **need not ratify** the document in court. **Rav Naḥman said to** Rav Huna: **Why do you** need **to conceal** the reason for your opinion like a **thief? If you hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, say: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.** Do not state your opinion in a manner that obscures its connection to a tannaitic dispute.


###### Ketubot 19a:6
[Ketubot 19a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/19a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמָר הֵיכִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי אָתוּ לְקַמַּן לְדִינָא, אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ: ״זִילוּ קַיִּימוּ שְׁטָרַיְיכוּ וְחוּתוּ לְדִינָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna **said to him: And what does the Master hold** in a case where the borrower admits that he wrote the document? Rav Naḥman **said to him: When** lenders **come before us for judgment, we say to them: Go and ratify your documents and descend** and stand before us **for judgment.** If a lender relies solely on the confession of the borrower, the borrower could claim that although he wrote the document, he then repaid the loan. However, if the document was ratified by the court based on the testimony of the witnesses who signed it, the borrower’s claim that he repaid the loan is not accepted.


###### Ketubot 19a:7
[Ketubot 19a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/19a:7)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הָאוֹמֵר ״שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה הוּא זֶה״ — אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: One who says** with regard to a document: **This is a document of trust, is not deemed credible.** If one claims that the document is a valid document but that no loan actually took place, and instead the borrower trusted the lender and gave him the document in order to borrow money in the future, or as security, he is not deemed credible.


###### Ketubot 19a:8
[Ketubot 19a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/19a:8)

דְּקָאָמַר מַאן? אִילֵימָא דְּקָאָמַר לֹוֶה — פְּשִׁיטָא, כָּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ?! וְאֶלָּא דְּקָאָמַר מַלְוֶה — תָּבוֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה. אֶלָּא דְּקָאָמְרִי עֵדִים. אִי דִּכְתַב יָדָם יוֹצֵא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר — פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלָא מְהֵימְנִי. וְאִי דְּאֵין כְּתַב יָדָם יוֹצֵא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר — אַמַּאי לָא מְהֵימְנִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In the case to **which** Rav’s statement is referring, **who is saying** that the document was a document of trust? **If you say** that it is the **borrower who is saying** so, it is **obvious** that he is not deemed credible. **Is it within** the **power** of the borrower to establish that the document is not genuine? **But rather,** say it is the **lender who is saying** that it is a document of trust. In that case, not only is he deemed credible, but **let a blessing come upon him** for admitting that a debt may not be collected with this document. **Rather,** say it is the **witnesses who are saying** that it is a document of trust. If so, the question arises: **If** it is a case **where their handwriting emerges from another place,** it is **obvious** that they are not deemed credible, as the document is ratified. **And if** it is a case **where their handwriting does not emerge from another place,** and the witnesses themselves testify that it is their signatures on the document, but that it was a document of trust, **why are they not deemed credible?** This is a clear case of: The mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted.


###### Ketubot 19a:9
[Ketubot 19a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/19a:9)

(סִימָן בָּאֵ״שׁ) אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם דְּקָאָמַר לֹוֶה, וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides **a mnemonic** for the names of the *amora’im* who seek to explain Rav’s statement and resolve the problem: ***Beit*,** the second letter in the name of Rava; ***alef*,** the first letter in Abaye; and ***shin*,** the second letter in the name of Rav Ashi. **Rava said: Actually,** it is **the borrower who is saying it, and** it can be explained **in accordance with** the statement of **Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said** that **Rav said:** In the case of a borrower who **admits with regard to a document that he wrote it,** the lender **need not ratify** the document in court. In this case, the borrower admits that he wrote the document and had witnesses sign the document. Rav Yehuda teaches the novel *halakha* that although the borrower later contends that it was a document of trust, once he admits that he wrote the document, that contention is not accepted.


###### Ketubot 19a:10
[Ketubot 19a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/19a:10)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם דְּאָמַר מַלְוֶה, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁחָב לַאֲחֵרִים, וְכִדְרַבִּי נָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Actually,** it is **the lender who said** it, **and** it is in a case **where he causes loss to others** by invalidating the document and relinquishing his debt. If the lender owes money to others and lacks funds to repay his debt, then his invalidation of the document creates a situation where his creditor is unable to collect the debt. This is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Natan.**


###### Ketubot 19a:11
[Ketubot 19a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/19a:11)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לַנּוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ מָנֶה, וַחֲבֵירוֹ בַּחֲבֵירוֹ — מִנַּיִן שֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין מִזֶּה וְנוֹתְנִין לָזֶה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנָתַן לַאֲשֶׁר אָשַׁם לוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Natan says: From where** is it derived that in a case where **a creditor** seeks to collect a debt **of one hundred dinars from another, and the other** person seeks to collect a debt **from another, from where** is it derived **that one takes** money **from this** second debtor **and gives it to the** first creditor without the money passing through the debtor of the first, who is the creditor of the third? It is derived as **the verse states: “And he shall give to the one to whom he is guilty”** (Numbers 5:7). One pays the person to whom the money is owed, even if he did not borrow the money directly from him. When the debtor of the first who is the creditor of the third invalidates the document, he causes a loss to his own creditor.


###### Ketubot 19a:12
[Ketubot 19a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/19a:12)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם דְּקָאָמְרִי עֵדִים. וּדְאֵין כְּתַב יָדָם יוֹצֵא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר. וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ אַמַּאי לָא מְהֵימְנִי — כִּדְרַב כָּהֲנָא. דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אָסוּר לוֹ לָאָדָם שֶׁיְּשַׁהֶה שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תַּשְׁכֵּן בְּאֹהָלֶיךָ עַוְלָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Actually,** it is **the witnesses who are saying** it, **and** it is a case **where their handwriting does not emerge from another place. And** with regard to **that which you are saying: Why are they not deemed credible,** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana said: It is prohibited for a person to keep a document of trust in his house, as it is stated:** “And **let not injustice dwell in your tents”** (Job 11:14). This false document is likely to engender injustice when the lender seeks to collect payment with it.