And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, says: Conclude from the statement of Rav Kahana that witnesses who said: Our statement was a statement of trust, and the document we signed was a document of trust, are not deemed credible. What is the reason? Since that document is an injustice, they would not sign a document of injustice. Their contention that they signed the document would incriminate them and is therefore not accepted. וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַב כָּהֲנָא עֵדִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ אֲמָנָה הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין מַאי טַעְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּעַוְלָה הוּא אַעַוְלָה לָא חָתְמִי
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is prohibited for a person to keep a repaid document within his house, due to the fact that the verse states: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents” (Job 11:14). Even if he does not use the document to collect payment, the concern is that it might fall into the hands of one who will use it illegally to collect payment. In the West, in Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Rav: With regard to the first half of the verse: “If iniquity be in your hand, put it far away” (Job 11:14), this is referring to a document of trust and a document of security [passim]. With regard to the second half of the verse: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents,” this is referring to a repaid document. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָסוּר לוֹ לָאָדָם שֶׁיְּשַׁהֶה שְׁטָר פָּרוּעַ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אַל תַּשְׁכֵּן בְּאֹהָלֶיךָ עַוְלָה בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמְרִי אִם אָוֶן בְּיָדְךָ הַרְחִיקֵהוּ זֶה שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה וּשְׁטַר פַּסִּים וְאַל תַּשְׁכֵּן בְּאֹהָלֶיךָ עַוְלָה זֶה שְׁטָר פָּרוּעַ
They note: With regard to the one who said that a repaid document is the injustice referred to in the verse, all the more so a document of trust is an injustice and may not be kept, as a document of trust is fundamentally false. And with regard to the one who said that a document of trust is the injustice referred to in the verse, however, with regard to a repaid document, perhaps it is permitted to keep it, as, at times people keep it and do not return it to the borrower. This is because in those cases it serves as security for the coins of the scribe, whose fee has not yet been paid by the borrower, who is legally responsible to pay the scribe for writing the document. מַאן דְּאָמַר שְׁטָר פָּרוּעַ כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה וּמַאן דְּאָמַר שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה אֲבָל שְׁטָר פָּרוּעַ לָא דְּזִמְנִין דִּמְשַׁהֵי לֵיהּ אַפְּשִׁיטֵי דְסָפְרָא
On a similar note it is stated, with regard to keeping items with potential to lead to transgression: With regard to a Torah scroll that is not proofread and therefore contains errors, Rabbi Ami says: It is permitted to keep it without emending the mistakes for up to thirty days, and from that time onward it is prohibited to keep it, as it is stated: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents” (Job 11:14). אִתְּמַר סֵפֶר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּגָּהּ אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מוּתָּר לְשַׁהוֹתוֹ מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ אָסוּר לְשַׁהוֹתוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אַל תַּשְׁכֵּן בְּאֹהָלֶיךָ עַוְלָה
§ Rav Naḥman said that witnesses who say: Our statement was a statement of trust and we signed a document of trust, are not deemed credible. Similarly, witnesses who said: Our statement was a statement accompanied by a declaration by the person who is rendered a debtor by this document that he was coerced into the agreement, thereby invalidating the document, are not deemed credible. Mar bar Rav Ashi said that witnesses who said: Our statement was a statement of trust, are not deemed credible, but witnesses who said: Our statement was a statement accompanied by a declaration, are deemed credible. What is the reason for the difference between the cases? This document, which was accompanied by a declaration, may be written, as it is written under duress. And this document of trust may not be written, as it is fundamentally unjust. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן עֵדִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ אֲמָנָה הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין מוֹדָעָא הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר אֲמָנָה הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין מוֹדָעָא הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ נֶאֱמָנִין מַאי טַעְמָא הַאי נִיתַּן לִיכָּתֵב וְהַאי לֹא נִיתַּן לִיכָּתֵב

Koren Talmud Bavli (Koren Publishers)

The Koren Talmud Bavli is a groundbreaking edition of the Talmud that fuses the innovative design of Koren Publishers Jerusalem with the incomparable scholarship of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz.

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: In a case where the witnesses say: Our statement was a conditional statement, i.e., they verify their signatures, but add that the transaction was contingent upon fulfillment of an unwritten condition, what is the ruling? Perhaps it is similar to the cases of a statement accompanied by a declaration and a statement of trust. In those latter cases, this is the reason that their statement is rejected, as in doing so they undermine the document, and in this case too, he undermines the document. Or perhaps a condition is a different matter, as it does not necessarily undermine the document. Rav Naḥman said to him: When people come before us for judgment in this latter case, we say to them: Go and fulfill your conditions, and then descend before us for judgment. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן תְּנַאי הָיוּ דְּבָרֵינוּ מַהוּ מוֹדָעָא וַאֲמָנָה הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּקָא עָקְרִי לֵיהּ לִשְׁטָרָא וְהַאי נָמֵי קָא עָקַר לִשְׁטָרָא אוֹ דִלְמָא תְּנַאי מִילְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי הִיא אֲמַר לֵיהּ כִּי אָתוּ לְקַמַּן לְדִינָא אָמְרִינַן לְהוּ זִילוּ קַיִּימוּ תְּנָאַיְיכוּ וְחוּתוּ לְדִינָא
The Gemara asks: What is the ruling in a case where one witness says: There is a condition attached to the transaction and one witness says: There is no condition? Rav Pappa says: Both are testifying that it is a valid document, and that witness who says: There was a condition attached, is only one witness whose testimony challenges that validity. And the statement of one witness has no validity in a place where there are two witnesses. עֵד אוֹמֵר תְּנַאי וְעֵד אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ תְּנַאי אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בִּשְׁטָרָא מְעַלְּיָא קָא מַסְהֲדִי וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר תְּנַאי הָוֵה לֵיהּ חַד וְאֵין דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל אֶחָד בִּמְקוֹם שְׁנַיִם
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, strongly objects to this: If it is so that testifying that there is a condition is considered to undermine the document, then even if both of the witnesses testify that there was a condition, their testimony should also not be accepted. Once they testified that the document is valid, they cannot give additional testimony that contradicts their original testimony. Rather, we say: These two witnesses are coming to undermine their testimony that the document is valid. These are not two separate testimonies, one that the document is valid and one with regard to the condition. Rather, the second testimony revokes the first. Similarly, this single witness is coming to undermine his testimony as well. Therefore, there is only one witness testifying that the document is valid. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and the testimony of even one witness who says that there was a condition attached to the transaction is accepted. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אִי הָכִי אֲפִילּוּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ נָמֵי אֶלָּא אָמְרִינַן הָנֵי לְמִיעְקַר סָהֲדוּתַיְיהוּ קָאָתוּ הַאי נָמֵי לְמִיעְקַר סָהֲדוּתֵיהּ קָאָתֵי וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ
§ The Sages taught: If two witnesses were signatories on a document and they died, and two strangers from the marketplace came and said: We know that this is their handwriting, but they were coerced into signing the document, or if they said that they were minors when they signed the document, or if they said that they were disqualified witnesses when they signed the document, these strangers are deemed credible, as the mouth that prohibited and ratified the document is the mouth that permitted and undermined the document. However, if there are other witnesses who testify that it is their handwriting, or if their handwriting emerges from another place, from a document that one challenged and that was deemed valid in court, these witnesses from the marketplace are not deemed credible and their testimony does not undermine the validity of the document. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן שְׁנַיִם חֲתוּמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר וּמֵתוּ וּבָאוּ שְׁנַיִם מִן הַשּׁוּק וְאָמְרוּ יָדַעְנוּ שֶׁכְּתַב יָדָם הוּא אֲבָל אֲנוּסִים הָיוּ קְטַנִּים הָיוּ פְּסוּלֵי עֵדוּת הָיוּ הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִים וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁכְּתַב יָדָם הוּא זֶה אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה כְּתַב יָדָם יוֹצֵא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר מִשְּׁטָר שֶׁקָּרָא עָלָיו עַרְעָר וְהוּחְזַק בְּבֵית דִּין אֵין אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין
The Gemara asks: And if the testimony of these witnesses is not accepted, is that to say that we collect debts with that document as one would collect debts with a valid document? And why would that be the case? Aren’t the two signatories whose signatures were ratified and the two witnesses from the marketplace whose testimony invalidates the document contradictory witnesses? Therefore, the document cannot be used to collect payment. וּמַגְבֵּינַן בֵּיהּ כְּבִשְׁטָרָא מְעַלְּיָא וְאַמַּאי תְּרֵי וּתְרֵי נִינְהוּ
Rav Sheshet said: That is to say that contradiction of their testimony is the first stage in rendering them false, conspiring witnesses, in the sense that certain restrictions that apply to the latter apply to the former as well. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת הַכְחָשָׁה תְּחִלַּת הֲזָמָה הִיא