Ketubot 18: Credibility, Oaths, Being Compelled to Transgress

Today's daf is the shortest I can recall.  Amud (a) completes yesterday's conversation regarding one who is in debt to another person who has deceased.  Amud (b) introduces a new Mishna, this time regarding the credibility of a signature.

The rabbis find a person credible if he uses a migo.  For example, if a person tells the son of a deceased person that he owed the father 100 dinars but he had already paid back 50, he is believed.  Why?  This man could have said that he owed nothing at all. The son would not have known the difference, as he did not know his father's accounts.  Thus the man in debt is believed.  The rabbis debate whether or not he is even required to state an oath.

They liken this sort of admission to the act of returning a lost object.  It is not necessary to do this - no-one other than oneself and G-d would know about the transgressions - but a person does the right thing anyway.

What about those three categories of witnesses that are treated differently from other men: minors, 'imbeciles' and 'deaf-mutes'?   Are they required to take oaths?  Are their oaths even credible?  What about partial oaths?  The rabbis consider whether a person would actually be so insolent as to lie to the face of a person to whom they owe money.  As always, I find it fascinating that people in power would offer people in dire straights the opportunity to take an oath. And lie.  But the notion of the 'fear of G-d' seems to be incredibly powerful.

Our new Mishna is all about handwriting on contracts.  If a person's signature is present and that person agrees that it is his handwriting but he was coerced, a minor, or disqualified (for example, a relative) as a witness, he is believed. But if witnesses say that the signature was collected legally, then the original witness is not deemed to be credible.

The Gemara teaches two possible reasons that a person might be compelled to sign a document.  First, he might be threatened with his life.  In this case, the rabbis suggest that it is appropriate to sign the document.  We know that saving a life, even one's own life, permits us to transgress laws.  On the other hand, the second reason for signing under duress would be because of a monetary threat.  This type of threat does not permit a person to transgress halachot.  If a person says that he signed under duress and it is learned that he was threatened monetarily, he is not deemed to be credible at all.