Week 2 Contracts and Agreements

§ The Master said in the baraita cited previously: 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 are not deemed credible. The Gemara infers: From a document that one challenged, yes, the signatures are authenticated and the testimony of the other witnesses is not accepted; however, if one did not challenge the document, no, the document cannot be used to authenticate their signatures. This supports the statement of Rabbi Asi, as Rabbi Asi said: One ratifies a document by authenticating the witnesses’ signatures only from a document that someone challenged and that was deemed valid in court.

If we leave it with the witnesses who signed the document, if they remember themselves the date when the deed was given to the woman, the date need not be written in the document itself, for let them come forth and testify from their memory. And if they do not remember by themselves, then there are times when they see the date that is written and come forth to testify on that basis. And the Merciful One states: “By the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). From this verse it is derived: From their mouths, and not from their writings, indicating that testimony is proper only if the individual stated it of himself, and not on the basis of what is written.

§ 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 said: With regard to three judges who convened to ratify a document, and two of them recognize the signatures of the witnesses on the document, and one does not recognize them; as long as the two judges did not yet sign to ratify the document, they testify and authenticate the signatures before the third judge, and based on that testimony, the third judge signs the document of ratification together with the first two judges. However, once the two judges signed the ratification, they may not testify before him and have him sign the ratification. The formula of the ratification is: We verified and ratified this document in a forum of three. Since when the first two judges signed the ratification, they were not a forum of three, the ratification is invalid.

The Gemara continues with the statement of Rava: An admission of a monetary obligation needs to be stated in the presence of two witnesses, and in this case, the one stating the admission needs to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the admission, as this document is to his detriment; they may not write one absent a directive. Acquisition by means of a symbolic act utilizing a cloth needs to be done in the presence of two witnesses, and the parties do not need to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the acquisition; they can write one even absent a directive. And ratification of legal documents needs to be done by means of three people.

The Gemara continues with the statement of Rava: An admission of a monetary obligation needs to be stated in the presence of two witnesses, and in this case, the one stating the admission needs to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the admission, as this document is to his detriment; they may not write one absent a directive. Acquisition by means of a symbolic act utilizing a cloth needs to be done in the presence of two witnesses, and the parties do not need to say to the witnesses: Write a document detailing the acquisition; they can write one even absent a directive. And ratification of legal documents needs to be done by means of three people.

When a person lends money to a colleague in the presence of witnesses, or a borrower tells witnesses: "Serve as witnesses for me that I owe this person a maneh" or "You are my witnesses that I owe this person a maneh," the obligation established is referred to as a milveh b'al peh, "a loan supported by an oral commitment." Such a debt need not be repaid in the presence of witnesses.' Therefore, if the debtor claims: "I repaid the debt," he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset and is discharged.
When, by contrast, a person lends money to a colleague and has the debt supported by a promissory note, the debtor must repay him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, if the debtor claims: "I paid this promissory note," his words are not accepted. Instead, we tell him: "Bring witnesses who testify that you paid or "Arise and pay the debt you owe him."
Therefore, when a person tells witnesses: "Serve as witnesses for me that I owe this person a maneh" they may not write down a record of their testimony and give it to the lender, unless the borrower tells them: "Write a promissory note, sign it and give it to the lender. The rationale is that their testimony, which is only oral, should not be given the legal power of a promissory note. Even when the borrower gives such instructions, they should consult with him after they have signed the promissory note. Only afterwards, may they give the promissory note to the lender in his hand.
If they performed a kinyan with the borrower affirming that he owes the lender a maneh, the witnesses may write a promissory note and give it to the lender, even though the borrower did not instruct them to do so. The rationale is that when a kinyan is performed without any further instructions, it is ready to be recorded in a legal document. There is no need to consult the borrower.

Whenever a person makes an admission in the presence of two witnesses, he cannot claim again: "I was speaking facetiously." Needless to say, this applies if he made the admission before three people. Instead, he is obligated to pay the sum that he admitted. For whenever a person makes a statement as an admission, it is as if he charges them with serving as witnesses.
Nevertheless, a legal record of his statements is not composed unless he charges them: "Compose a record, sign it and give it to the plaintiff." Even if he charged them, they must consult with him a second time before they give it to the plaintiff, as we have explained.
Similarly, if a person makes an admission in the court after he was summoned, a legal record may be composed, as will be explained in the following halachah. This applies provided the court knows the identity of both principals," so that two people will not perpetrate deception to obligate another person.

Whenever a person makes an admission in the presence of two witnesses, he cannot claim again: "I was speaking facetiously." Needless to say, this applies if he made the admission before three people. Instead, he is obligated to pay the sum that he admitted. For whenever a person makes a statement as an admission, it is as if he charges them with serving as witnesses.
Nevertheless, a legal record of his statements is not composed unless he charges them: "Compose a record, sign it and give it to the plaintiff." Even if he charged them, they must consult with him a second time before they give it to the plaintiff, as we have explained.
Similarly, if a person makes an admission in the court after he was summoned, a legal record may be composed, as will be explained in the following halachah. This applies provided the court knows the identity of both principals," so that two people will not perpetrate deception to obligate another person.

Whenever a person makes an admission in the presence of two witnesses, he cannot claim again: "I was speaking facetiously." Needless to say, this applies if he made the admission before three people. Instead, he is obligated to pay the sum that he admitted. For whenever a person makes a statement as an admission, it is as if he charges them with serving as witnesses.
Nevertheless, a legal record of his statements is not composed unless he charges them: "Compose a record, sign it and give it to the plaintiff." Even if he charged them, they must consult with him a second time before they give it to the plaintiff, as we have explained.
Similarly, if a person makes an admission in the court after he was summoned, a legal record may be composed, as will be explained in the following halachah. This applies provided the court knows the identity of both principals," so that two people will not perpetrate deception to obligate another person.

2. When someone lends to another before witnesses, they do not write down their testimony to give to the lender, so that the lender should not revert the written loan to a verbal loan [and claim on both], unless the borrower instructs them: "Write him a deed, sign it and give it to him." Even if he says this to them, they should still double-check with him after they have signed the deed, and only then do they give it to the lender. There are also those who rule that the witnesses do not have to double-check with him.