The Mishna says [Ketuboth 18b] if two witnesses say the signature on a doc is theirs, but that they were invalid witnesses at the time, they are believed [unless their signature can be validated from another source.] But Rav Nachman [Ketuboth 19b] said if they say it is their signature, but that the doc had an oral agreement that would invalidate it, they are not believed. The problem here is that in the first case they are believed because the same statement that validates it (but admitting it is their signature) is the same statement that invalidates it. Their claim is the signatures are invalid. But that same reasoning ought to apply to the second case. But we do not believe them in the second case. What is the difference? Tosphot asks this on page 19. Reb Aaron Kotler explains Tosphot as intending to say this: Where we do believe them, it is because they say the doc was not valid by law. In the second case, we do not believe them because they admit the doc was valid, but that there was an outside factor that invalidates it. The problem I see in this is that it seems different from what Tosphot says. On page 18, Tosphot says we believe them because we need them to establish the validity of the doc, and that is lacking. Tosphot did not say the reason we believe them is that they completely invalidate the doc. Lack of validation is not the same thing as invalidating it. [The fact that the witnesses that say it was a doc of confidence are not denying the validity of the signatures (only the validity of the loan) is a valid point that rav shach also says. But it does not seem to be the point of Tosphot] =====================================The Mishna says [כתובות 18b] if two witnesses say the signature on a שטר is theirs, but that they were invalid witnesses at the time, they are believed [unless their signature can be validated from another source.] But רב נחמן [כתובות 19b] said if they say it is their signature, but that the שטר had an oral agreement that would invalidate it, they are not believed. אם אומרים שהיה שטר אמנה אינם נאמנים The problem here is that in the first case they are believed because the same statement that validates it (but admitting it is their signature) is the same statement that invalidates it. Their claim is the signatures are invalid. But that same reasoning ought to apply to the second case. But we do not believe them in the second case. What is the difference? תוספות asks this on page 19. רב אהרון קוטלר explains תוספות as intending to say this: Where we do believe them, it is because they say the שטר was not valid by law. In the second case, we do not believe them because they admit the שטר was valid, but that there was an outside factor that invalidates it. The problem I see in this is that it seems different from what תוספות says. On page 18, תוספות says we believe them because we need them to establish the validity of the שטר, and that is lacking. תוספות did not say the reason we believe them is that they completely invalidate the שטר. Lack of validation is not the same thing as invalidating it.[The fact that the witnesses that say it was a שטר of אמנה are not denying the validity of the signatures (only the validity of the loan) is a valid point that רב שך also says. But it does not seem to be the point of תוספות] the question of Tosphot on page 18 is this. why do we believe the witnesses when they say they were not valid witnesses? It ought to be considered as a migo in place of witnesses. I.e., we know that we believe them because they could have said a better statement in which they would have been believed e.g., they could have said it is not our signature. But this is a kind of reasoning we only say when there are no other witnesses. But here there are other witnesses, they are the signatures on the doc as the gemara says later on page 19 that their verbal statement is considered a separate testimony from the signature on the doc. It is two against two. Tosphot answers that we consider their testimony separate from the signature on the doc only when the signatures on the doc have already been confirmed. But here we are in the stage where we have not yet confirmed their signature and there is a requirement to confirm the signatures on the doc before we can believe it. ------------------------the question of תוספות on page 18 is this. why do we believe the witnesses when they say they were not valid witnesses? It ought to be considered as a מיגו in place of witnesses. I.e., we know that we believe them because they could have said a better statement in which they would have been believed e.g., they could have said it is not our signature. But this is a kind of reasoning we only say when there are no other witnesses. But here there are other witnesses, they are the signatures on the שטר as the gemara says later on page 19 that their verbal statement is considered a separate testimony from the signature on the שטר. It is two against two. תוספות answers that we consider their testimony separate from the signature on the שטר only when the signatures on the שטר have already been confirmed. But here we are in the stage where we have not yet confirmed their signature and there is a requirement to confirm the signatures on the שטר before we can believe it.

ר' אהרון קוטלר מעלה את האפשרות שכאשר המשנה (כתובת י''ח ע''ב) אומרת שעדים שאומרים שחתימה זו על השטר הזה היא שלנו, אבל היינו קטינים כשחתמנו עליה, מאמינים להם, ושהשטר מושמד. אני חושב שיש נקודה טובה בכך, כי אם זה לא היה המקרה, אז מה יהיה ההבדל בין המקרה הזה שבו מאמינים להם, לבין המקרה שבו העדים אומרים שחתמנו עליה, אבל זה היה בהסכמה בעל פה שלא יפעלו על פי השטר, או שהיה סוג אחר של ביטול שהגיע עם זה, ש"שטר מודעה", שבמקרה הזה אנחנו לא מאמינים להם. אז במקרה המאוחר הזה ברור שאנחנו לא מקבלים את דבריהם לאמת ולא לפסול את השטר. אז מה יהיה ההבדל בין המקרה הזה למקרה האחר שבו אנחנו כן מאמינים להם? אם גם שם אנו מאמינים שזו חתימתם אך השטר בכל מקרה אינו תקף, ושלא נעשה דבר לשטר אלא נחכה עד שניתן יהיה לאמת אותו באמצעים אחרים, אז שני המקרים יהיו שווים. אז מה יהיה ההבדל אם נאמר שאנחנו מאמינים להם או שאנחנו לא מאמינים להם? בשני המקרים, החוק יהיה זהה. לכן, עלינו לומר שבמקרה של המשנה אנו משמידים את השטר

Mishna (ketuboth page 18b)

Reb Aaron Kotler brings up the possibility that when the Mishna (ketuboth page 18b) says witnesses that say this signature on this doc are ours but we were under age when we signed it, that they are believed, and that the doc is then destroyed. I think there is a good point to this because if this was not the case then what would be the difference between this case where you believe them, and the case when the witnesses say it we signed it but it was with oral agreement that it would not be acted upon or that there was another kind of invalidation that went along with it that in that case we do not belive them. so in this later case clearly we do not accept their word to validate oit not invalidate the doc. So what would be the difference between this and the other case where we do believe them? If there too we believe it is their signature, but the doc is anyway invalid and that the we would not do anything to the doc but rather we would wait until it could be validated by other means, then the two cases would be equal. Then what difference would it make if we say we believe them or if we do not believe them? In both cases, the law would be identical. So, we must say in the case of the Mishna we destroy the doc.----------------------------ר' אהרון קוטלר brings up the possibility that when the משנה (כתובת י''ח ע''ב)says witnesses that say this signature on this שטר are ours but we were under age when we signed it, that they are believed, and that the שטר is then destroyed. I think there is a good point to this because if this was not the case, then what would be the difference between this case where you believe them, and the case when the witnesses say it we signed it, but it was with oral agreement that it would not be acted upon שטר אמנהor that there was another kind of invalidation that went along with it שטר מודעאthat in that case we do not believe them. So in this later case clearly we do not accept their word to validate oit not invalidate the שטר. so what would be the difference between this and the other case where we do believe them? If there too we believe it is their signature but the שטר is anyway invalid and that the we would not do anything to the שטר but rather we would wait until it could be validated by other means then the two cases would be equal. Then what difference would it make if we say we believe them or if we do not believe them? In both cases, the law would be identical. So, we must say in the case of the משנה we destroy the שטר.

כתובות דפים י''ח וי''ט, והסבר של רב אהרן קוטלר

אני חושב שהרמב"ם מסביר שטר של אמנה או מודעא שזה פשוט שקר, ולכן העדים שאומרים "זו חתימתנו, אבל היא הייתה בדיונית" אינם נאמנים. כלומר, הרמב"ם מבין שהם אינם נאמנים משום שהם מעידים כעת שהם העידו על שקר, ולכן שום דבר שהם אומרים אינו ניתן להאמין. השטר עצמו אינו מאומת, וגם לא מבוטל. הגמרא עצמה מזכירה שבית המשפט עשוי למצוא מסמך אחר עם חתימתם, ולאשר אותו באמצעותו. ר' אהרון קוטלר מביא תוספות שיש להם סיבה אחרת שלא מאמינים להם כשאומרים שהשטר היה פיקטיבי, והייתה הבנה על זה בעל פה, ושלא הייתה למעשה הלוואה. תוספות מחזיקים הסיבה שלא מאמינים להם היא שהם מודים שהשטר נכתב כהלכתא. עכשיו ,רב אהרן מביא כמה הסברים על התוספות, אבל הוא החליט על הסבר של התוספות בדף י''ח, שזה מיגו במקום עדים, דהיינו העדים על השטר נחשבים בנפרד משני העדים המעידים כעת על החתימה ההיא, גם הווא אמינא הוא מיגו, לא מצב של הפה שהיתר הוא הפה שאסר

ketuboth page 18 and 19. Rambam laws of loans

I think the Rambam explains a doc of confidence or conscience that it is simply a lie, and therefore the witnesses that say'' this is our signature but it was fictious' are not believed. that is the Rambam understands that they are not believed because they are now testifying that they testified to a lie and therefore nothing they say can be believed. the doc itself is not validated, nor invalidated. The Gemara itself mentions the court might find another document with their signature and validate it by that. This approach suits the Rambam well. Reb Aaron Kotler brings Tosphot that holds a different reason they are not believed when they say the doc was fictious there was an oral understanding about it and that there was in fact no loan. Tosphot holds the reason they are not believed is that they admit the document was written according to law. Reb Aaron brings some explanations about Tosphot, but he decided the intension of Tosfot is based on Tosfot (pg. 18) that it is a migo in place of witnesses. That is the witnesses on the doc are considered separately from the two witnesses that now testify about that signature. Reb Aaron also shows that the ''I might have thought'' is a migo., not a case of the same witnesses that affirm also deny.----------------------------------------I think the רמב’’ם explains a שטר of אמנה or מודעא that it is simply a lie, and therefore the witnesses that say, "This is our signature, but it was fictious" are not believed. That is, the רמב’’ם understands that they are not believed because they are now testifying that they testified to a lie, and therefore nothing they say can be believed. The שטר itself is not validated, nor invalidated. The גמרא itself mentions the court might find another document with their signature, and validate it by that. This approach suits the רמב’’ם well. ר' אהרון קוטלר brings תוספות that holds a different reason they are not believed when they say the שטר was fictious )there was an oral understanding about it, and that there was in fact no loan(. תוספות holds the reason they are not believed is that they admit the שטר was written according to כהלכתא. NOW ,רב אהרן brings some explanations about תוספות, but he decided the intension of תוספות is based on תוספות (דף י''ח) that it is a מיגו in place of witnesses. That is the witnesses on the שטר are considered separately from the two witnesses that now testify about that signature. ר' אהרן also shows that the הווא אמינא is a מיגו, not a case of the הפה שהיתר הוא הפה שאוסר.

zb14 E minor midi file zb14 nwc file

יש חוק בגמרא כתובות בדף י''ט ע''ב. חוק זה הוא מרב נחמן שאמר שעדים שאומרים על שטר בחתימתם שזה היה שטר של אמנה או של מודעה (כלומר, בדיוני) אינם נאמנים, והשטר נחשב תקף למרות דבריהם המאוחרים יותר. עם זאת, אנו יודעים מהמשנה שאם הם אומרים שהם היו ילדים או שהם חתמו באונס, הם נאמנים. אבל, בחוק אחר, אנו מוצאים שאפשר לכתוב שטר עבור לווה למרות שהמלווה אינו עמו אם באותו שטר כתובה רכישה באמצעות מטפחת (קניין סודר, היינו קניין חליפין). כתבתי פעם אחת ברעיונותיי בבבא מציעא שלא היה לי ברור אם אותו שטר אומר שיש הלוואה, (הווה), או שתהיה הלוואה, (עתיד). רב שך מציין באבי עזרי של הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק כ''ד הלכה א' ששני החוקים הנ"ל סותרים זה את זה. [במקרה אחד, אתה אומר שהם יכולים לכתוב שטר בדיוני. במקרה השני, אתה אומר שלא מאמינים להם כשהם אומרים שהם חתמו על אחד כזה.] מבחינתי, העובדה שהרמב"ם מביא את שני הדינים מראה בבירור שהרמב"ם מחזיק בחוק שאפשר לכתוב שטר עבור לווה למרות שהמלווה אינו איתו, פירושו שהשטר אומר שתהיה הלוואה בזמן עתיד, או שזה אומר שלמעשה כבר הייתה הלוואה בפועל (בעבר) ושבמציאות הייתה הלוואה