Gdyby świadkowie powiedzieli: To jest nasz podpis, ale byliśmy zmuszeni (podpisać) [grożono ich życiu (ale jeśli było to „wymuszanie pieniędzy”, „grożono” ich pieniędzmi) i, jest rzeczą oczywistą, jeśli powiedzieli: ( Podpisaliśmy) z powodu dużej sumy pieniędzy, które nam dano, że nie wierzy się im; ponieważ „człowiek nie czyni siebie złoczyńcą”. Albowiem „człowiek jest ze sobą spokrewniony” i uważa się, że nie świadczy on przeciwko sobie. vis on sam ani za, ani przeciw)], albo (jeśli mówili), że byliśmy nieletni lub nie byliśmy zdolni do składania zeznań, wierzy się im. [Tutaj również (wierzy się, że twierdzą, że byli) niezdolni do składania zeznań z powodu pokrewieństwa; ale jeśli z powodu przestępstwa nie wierzy się im.] A jeśli są świadkowie, że to jest ich podpis lub jeśli ich podpis był potwierdzony z innego źródła, nie wierzy się im. [Jeśli ich podpis pojawił się na innym akcie, który był poświadczony w bet-din, a ten akt był przed nami razem z tym, a podpisy były podobne (nie wierzy się)].
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
אנוסים היינו – compulsion at the pain of death lest he kill him, but compulsion of money, lest he take his money [from him] and all the more so, if he said to him: “for most of the money that he gave us,” they are not believed, for no one incriminates himself (i.e., his testimony against himself has no legal effect), for a person is close to himself, and is not believed about himself, neither for acquittal nor for conviction. And similarly, those who are ineligible for testimony, which is on account of nearness but on account of transgression, they are not believed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
Introduction
This mishnah contains another case illustrating the principle of “the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits”.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
יוצא ממקום אחר – inscribed in another document that is in the possession of the Jewish court , and this same document came before us with this one and the writing of the signatories are similar one to the other.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
If witnesses said, “This is our handwriting, but we were forced, [or] we were minors, [or] we were disqualified witnesses” they are believed. In this scenario, a person comes to court with a document signed by witnesses. When his opponent claims that the document is a forgery, the witnesses are summoned to the court to testify to their signatures. The witnesses state that the signatures are indeed their signatures, but that nevertheless the document should not be upheld. This is for one of three reasons: they were forced to sign, they were minors when they signed, or they were disqualified witnesses (see Sanhedrin 3:4). In this case they are believed, and the document is invalid. This is because of the principle of “the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits”. Without the witnesses admission that they signed the document, the document would have been invalid. When they admit that they signed, they are in fact “the mouth that forbade”. When they say they were forced, or that they were minors or otherwise disqualified, they are the mouth that permits, and they are believed. To state this another way, if they had wanted to lie they could have said that this was not their handwriting.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
But if there are witnesses that it is their handwriting, or their handwriting comes out from another place, they are not believed. If their signature can be validated in another way, for instance by other witnesses testifying that they recognize the signatures, or by another document that contains their signatures, then the witnesses are not believed when they say that they were forced, or they were minors or otherwise disqualified. This is not a situation where “the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted”. Since they are not believed to say that they were invalid, their signatures are validated and the document is upheld.
