Yerushalmi Ketubot 2:3 ירושלמי כתובות ב׳:ג׳

MISHNAH: If witnesses said, this is our signature, but we were under duress, or underage, or disqualified⁴⁹If at the time they witnessed the document they lived off illegal or immoral earnings (e. g., as gamblers having no other employment, who cannot make money if the game is honest)., these are trustworthy⁵⁰They have witnessed a document of indebtedness or transfer of property which ended up in court. The court must first establish that the document is genuine by certifying the signatures of the witnesses. If the witnesses were unknown to the court, their testimony qualifies the document as genuine. But since theirs is the mouth which permits the introduction of the document, their mouth can prohibit its introduction by claiming that their signatures were obtained illegally.. But if there are witnesses to identify their signatures, or their signatures are confirmed from another document⁵¹If the witnesses were unknown to the court but another document was presented carrying their signatures and certified by another court as genuine, then the court judging the present document is empowered to certify their signatures by comparing them to the certified ones. Their mouth is not the one which permits; therefore, their mouth cannot prohibit., they are not trustworthy.

HALAKHAH: “If witnesses said, this is our signature,” etc. It was stated⁵²In slightly different wording in Tosephta Ketubot 2:1, Sanhedrin 6:5.: And similarly, the witnesses who testified whether to declare impure or pure, or to remove or include, or to forbid or permit, or to obligate or absolve⁵³These testimonies are all about personal status. To declare impure or pure is the same as to exclude (bastards from marrying Jewish partners or desecrated females from marrying Cohanim) or to include them in the pool of eligible marriage partners. Similarly, to forbid marriages (because the woman is still married) or to permit, to impose a purification sacrifice for sinful marriage or to absolve. The parallel Tosephta in Sanhedrin must be interpreted to deal with money matters, to impose payment or to absolve from payment., if they say we did invent this⁵⁴The text here is in doubt. The Erfurt ms. of the Tosephta reads מְבוּדִּין אָנוּin both places, “we were made to lie”; this is the reading of many German and Italian medieval authorities in the Yerushalmi. The text of the ms. and editio princeps is also the text of the Vienna ms. of the Tosephta and most African, Spanish, and French authorities; cf. Tosefta ki-Fshutah, part 6, p. 199–200. before their testimony was investigated by the court⁵⁵This does not necessarily mean investigation by cross-examination but indicates that identification of their signatures was accepted by the court; cf. Tosefta ki-Fshutah, part 6, p. 200–202., they can be believed; after their testimony was investigated by the court, they are not trustworthy.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been investigated by the court⁵⁶Once the signatures have been accepted, the witnesses cannot change their stories since “no witness can testify twice in the same matter” (Babli 18b; Bikkurim 3:4, Note 72). The Babli agrees, 18b. Cf. also Ševi‘it 10:5, Note 96.. If they say, these are our signatures, and others say, these are their signatures, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Their [testimony] does not add and does not detract⁵⁷Since their testimony is not needed, they do not have the power to modify the terms of the contract which they signed as witnesses.. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah says so, “if there are witnesses to identify their signatures, or if their signatures are confirmed from another document⁵¹If the witnesses were unknown to the court but another document was presented carrying their signatures and certified by another court as genuine, then the court judging the present document is empowered to certify their signatures by comparing them to the certified ones. Their mouth is not the one which permits; therefore, their mouth cannot prohibit., they are not trustworthy.”

They say, these are our signatures, but others⁵⁸Witnesses before the court. say, not their signatures. Rebbi Mana said, that becomes a document which has been put under acloud⁵⁹A document signed by unidentified witnesses is worthless.. Issi said, only if it had been put under a cloud but was confirmed by the court⁶⁰This refers to the statement of the Mishnah, that witnesses are not needed if “their signatures are confirmed from another document.” He holds that signatures can be confirmed from other documents without asking the witnesses if there was a problem with the other document and it was confirmed by a court after due investigation. Since the signatures on a document whose validity is acknowledged by all parties do not have to be investigated, those signatures should not be used to validate documents in dispute. This opinion is quoted in the Babli, 19b, as tannaїtic. Later, 20a, in the name of R. Assi (Issi), it is interpreted to mean that one may use a document in dispute to validate other documents only if the first document was confirmed by a court, implying that an undisputed document can be used even if no court ever had given its opinion on it. This cannot be the meaning in the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Eleazar said, if it was not confirmed by a court⁶¹Any document accepted by a court, after investigation or without, is valid to compare signatures.. Rebbi Ila said, the reason of Rebbi Eleazar is, that after the witnesses were confirmed as the signatories of the document, it is as if their testimony had been investigated by the court.

Rav Ḥana said, one learns from a corrected scroll, like those who say, Issi’s scribe⁶²A document in the characteristic handwriting of a known scribe can be accepted, since that scribe would not be a party to a dishonest document.. From letters it is problematic⁶³Letters cannot directly be used to identify handwriting since it is known, from Geniza documents and Sephardic documents through the 18th Century, that people develop very intricate signatures that cannot be compared directly to their fluent writing in letters.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only from three documents in the hands of three people⁶⁴The Babli, 20a, accepts two documents in the hands of two people to verify signatures. It is explained that two documents in the hand of the same person are no help since just as he forged one document so he may have forged the other..

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The witnesses can be trusted if they say, that is a document given in good faith⁶⁵A document of indebtedness while no debt exists, to be activated later if the debtor needs money, given in good faith that the lender will not use it unless there really will be a loan (naturally interest-free).
In a more general sense, a good faith document is a document covering eventualities which the parties expect never to happen. Such a document is not enforceable. Some rabbinic authorities hold that pre-nuptial agreements about eventual modalities of divorce are good faith documents since nobody marries with the idea of a divorce in mind., or a document in trust⁶⁶Greek πίστις “trust, credit, credence” (in the editio princeps the spelling is פיסיטיס; Musaphia reads פסטיס). A document which does not correspond to reality and is not intended ever to correspond to reality, but to make the holder appear richer than he really is.. But Rav said, it is forbidden to sign a document given in good faith, or a document in trust. Does this contradict what they say in the name of Rav, the witnesses can be trusted if they say, that is a document given in good faith, or a document in trust? One word of Rav contradicts a word of Rav! Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rav did not say it is forbidden to sign but it is forbidden to keep⁶⁷The Babli, in the name of Amoraim of the last generation, disagrees and holds that it is forbidden to sign inactive documents and that witnesses who claim the documents were not meant to be used declare themselves to be sinners and, therefore, unacceptable as witnesses. But if they say that the debtor stated before them that he agreed to the document only under duress, they are to be believed.. As the following⁶⁸Job 11:14. In the Babli, 19b, this is attributed to R. Joshua ben Levi., “if evil is in your hand, remove it,” that is a document given in good faith, or a document in trust, “do not let injustice dwell in your house,” that is a document of indebtedness which was paid⁶⁹It should be torn up rather than invalidated by a separate receipt..