I am having some trouble in understanding the opinion of the Rambam concerning a document of confidence where there was a verbal agreement that it would not be enforced, and there was no loan. Rav Nachman said witnesses that say they signed on a document of confidence or protest that they are not believed. Mar bar Rav Ashi said on a doc of protest they are believed, but not a document of confidence. The Rif decided the law like Mar bar Rav Ashi. But the Rambam wrote in Laws of Testimony Ch. 3 law 7 if witnesses say the signature on the document is theirs, but it was a document of confidence [i.e., there was never any loan] they are not believed because one who signs on a document of confidence is as if he said false testimony. But in Laws of Loans Ch. 14 law 5 if a witness says he signed on a document of confidence is believed because he could have denied that it is his signature.----------------------I am having some trouble in understanding the opinion of the רמב’’ם concerning a שטר of faith-there was a verbal agreement that it would not be enforced. רב נחמן said witnesses that say they signed on a שטר of אמנה or protest מודעה that they are not believed. מר בר רב אשי said on a שטר of protest they are believed, but not a שטר of faith. The רי''ף decided the law like מר בר רב אשי. But the רמב’’ם wrote in ה' עדות פרק ג' ה' ז' if witnesses say the signature on the שטר is theirs, but it was a שטר of אמנה [i.e., there was never any loan] they are not believed because one who signs on a שטר of אמנה is as if he said false testimony. But in ה' מלווה ולווה י''ד הלכה ה' if a witness says he signed on a שטר of אמנה is believed because he could have denied that it is his signature.I saw the ספר מאירת עיניים asks and answers this in חושן משפט סימן מ''ו הלכה א'. the problem is the answer seem to be ad hoc, and not what the רמב''ם intended/The answer I think is this. the Rambam says clearly that both in laws of loans and laws of witnesses that the document has not yet been established. However, the case in laws of testimony is when the witnesses are saying they signed on a doc of confidence, and they are not believed because a person that signs on such a doc when there is no loan is as if he gave false testimony. But on the other hand, the case in laws of loans the case is when the borrower says it was a doc of confidence, and there was no loan, but there was an agreement to make a loan, and thus he could have said that there never was any agreement, i.e., not just that there never was a loan, but also there never was any agreement in the first place, and he would be believed because the doc has not been validated and thus cannot be acted on. The main point is it is not his fault if the lender never gave him a loan after there had been a agreement. The reason this answer makes sense to be because it is clearly spelled out in the words of the Rambam himself, i.e., one case is witnesses and the other is the borrower.-------The answer I think is this. the רמב''ם says clearly that both in laws of loans and laws of witnesses that the שטר has not yet been established. However, the case in laws of testimony is when the witnesses are saying they signed on a שטר of confidence אמנה , and they are not believed because a person that signs on such a שטר when there is no loan is as if he gave false testimony. But on the other hand, the case in laws of loans the case is when the borrower says it was a שטר of confidence, and there was no loan, but there was an agreement to make a loan, and thus he could have said that there never was any agreement, i.e., not just that there never was a loan, but also there never was any agreement in the first place, and he would be believed because the שטר has not been validated and thus cannot be acted on. The main point is it is not his fault if the lender never gave him a loan after there had been a agreement. The reason this answer makes sense to be because it is clearly spelled out in the words of the רמב''ם himself, i.e., one case is witnesses and the other is the borrower.

המשנה אומרת [כתובות י''ח ע"ב] שאם שני עדים אומרים שהחתימה על שטר היא שלהם, אך הם היו עדים פסולים באותה עת, הם נאמנים [אלא אם כן ניתן לאמת את חתימתם ממקור אחר]. אבל רב נחמן [כתובות י''ט ע"ב] אמר שאם הם אומרים שזו חתימתם, אך היה לשטר הסכם בעל פה שיבטל אותו, הם אינם נאמנים. (אם אומרים שהשטר הוא שטר אמנה, אין נאמנים.) הבעיה כאן היא שבמקרה הראשון, הם נאמנים משום שאותה אמירה שמאשרת אותה (שמודים שזו חתימתם) היא אותה אמירה שפוסלת אותה. טענתם היא שהחתימות פסולות. אבל אותה נימוק צריכה לחול על המקרה השני. אבל אנחנו לא מאמינים להם במקרה השני. מה ההבדל? תוספת שואלת זאת בעמוד י''ט ע''ב. רב אהרון קוטלר מסביר את תוספת שכיוונו לומר כך: היכן שאנו מאמינים להם, זה משום שהם אומרים שהשטר לא היה תקף על פי חוק. במקרה השני, איננו מאמינים להם משום שהם מודים שהשטר היה תקף, אך היה גורם חיצוני שפוסל אותו. הבעיה שאני רואה בכך היא שזה נראה שונה ממה שתוספת אומרים. בדף י''ח, תוספת אומרים שאנחנו מאמינים להם משום שאנחנו צריכים אותם כדי לבסס את תקפותו של השטר, וזה חסר. תוספת לא אומרים שהסיבה שאנחנו מאמינים להם היא שהם פוסלים לחלוטין את השטר. חוסר אימות אינו זהה לפיסולו. במקרה של חוסר אימות, אפשר לקיימו ממקור אחר.העובדה שהעדים שאומרים שזה היה שטר של אמנה אינם מכחישים את תוקף החתימות (רק את תוקף ההלוואה) היא נקודה תקפה שגם רב שך אומר. אבל נראה שזו לא הנקודה של התוספות --------------------- השאלה בתוספות בדף י''ח היא זו. מדוע אנו מאמינים לעדים כאשר הם אומרים שהחתימות על השטר אינן חוקיים? הלא יש לראות זאת כמיגו במקום עדים? כלומר, אנו יודעים שאנו מאמינים להם משום שהם יכלו לומר הצהרה טובה יותר שבה היו נאמנים, למשל, הם יכלו לומר שזו לא חתימתנו. אבל זהו סוג של נימוק שאנו אומרים רק כאשר אין עדים אחרים. אבל כאן יש עדים אחרים, הם החתימות על השטר, כפי שהגמרא אומרת בהמשך דף י''ט שההצהרה המילולית שלהם נחשבת כעדות נפרדת מהחתימה על השטר. זה שניים נגד שניים, תרי כנגד תרי. התוספות עונים שאנו רואים את עדותם כנפרדת מהחתימה על השטר רק כאשר החתימות על השטר כבר אושרו. אבל הנה אנחנו בשלב שבו עדיין לא אישרנו את חתימתם ויש דרישה לאשר את החתימות על השטר לפני שנוכל להאמין לזה. ברור שתוספות מתכוונים לומר שמאמינים לעדים בגלל שהחתימות עדיין לא אושרו, לא בגלל שפוסלים את השטר

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.