Yerushalmi Ketubot 2:4 ירושלמי כתובות ב׳:ד׳

MISHNAH: If one says, this is my signature and that is my colleague’s signature, and the other says, this is my signature and that is my colleague’s signature, they are trustworthy⁷⁰There is a document before the court which should be certified and for that the court has to check whether the signatures of the two witnesses on the document are genuine. If each of the two witnesses testifies to the genuineness of both signatures, there are two witnesses for each signature and the document is validated. (While nobody can testify in his own behalf, here the witness testifies in behalf of the owner of the document.). If each of them says, that ismy signature, each of them needs another with him, the words of Rebbi, but the Sages say, everybody is trustworthy to confirm his own signature⁷¹As the Halakhah explains, Rebbi requires that each signature on the document be certified by two witnesses but the Sages hold that only the contents of the document have to be certified by two witnesses..

HALAKHAH: “If one says, this is my signature,” etc. Why was this necessary? For Rebbi. Even though Rebbi says, each of them needs another with him, here he agrees that they are trustworthy⁷²He accepts cross validations since there are two witnesses for every signature..

Rebbi Ze‘ira said: It was stated in Rav’s Ketubot: The words of Rebbi (Eleazar)⁷³This is in the ms. and editio princeps, but does not fit the context. The correct text is in Sefer Ha‘iṭṭur(vol. 1, 14b, Note 74): אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי כְּמֵעִיד עַל הַשְׁטָר וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים כְּמֵעִיד עַל הַמִּלְוֶה. This is the basis of the translation. However, since it leaves out the irrelevant information about Rav’s Ketubot, it probably is not an exact copy of the Yerushalmi text. that he testifies about the document, the words of the Sages that he testifies about the loan⁷¹As the Halakhah explains, Rebbi requires that each signature on the document be certified by two witnesses but the Sages hold that only the contents of the document have to be certified by two witnesses.’⁷⁴The Babli agrees (after some discussion), 20b/21a..

It was stated: A person may write down his testimony and testify about it even some years later⁷⁵Babli 20a; Tosephta 2:1 (there, the wording is: even after 100 years.) The problem is that the verse (Deut. 19:15) requires that “anything be confirmed by the mouth of two or three witnesses.” The disagreement of Rav Huna and R. Joḥanan is confirmed by the Babli, but not its explanation.. Rav Ḥuna said, only if he remembers his testimony. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he does not remember his testimony. It turns out that Rav Ḥuna follows Rebbi and Rebbi Joḥanan the Sages⁷⁶It is obvious that nobody has to refresh his memory in order to identify his signature, so the difference must be about testifying to the substance of the document. R. Joḥanan follows the Sages since his testimony about his signature certifies the document and any additional information is ancillary but for Rav Huna the testimony about the signature says nothing about the contents of the document; any additional testimony must be by the mouth of the witnesses and not by his writing. (The explanation of Tosaphot20a, s.v. ורבי יוחנן, is difficult to accept.).

Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥuna, in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the market place cannot together certify the signature of the second witness⁷⁷In the formulation of the Babli, 21a, one witness comes before the court but the other has died in the meantime. If the surviving witness were enabled to testify to his own signature and, with the help of an unrelated person, to that of the other witness, then 75% of the testimony would be from one witness (100% of his own half and 50% of the other half). But testimony of witnesses is acceptable only if both of them have equal validity.
The paragraph appears also in Roš Haššanah 2:1, 57d.. How is that? If one identified his own signature⁷⁸Which he is enabled to do by the Mishnah following the Sages. and that of his colleague, but that second witness’s signature was not known to anybody⁷⁹In court. except his colleague, may that colleague together with somebody from the market place⁸⁰I. e., unconnected with the court and the parties before the court. testify on that signature? That is what Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Ḥuna, said in the name of Rav: One witness and someone from the market cannot together certify the signature of the second witness. Another case where there are no two persons: The signature of one is known by everybody, but that second witness’s signature is not known to anybody except his colleague. Can that colleague testify on his signature as if he were someone from the market place? If you say so, the entire testimony is confirmed by one witness. Rebbi Yudan said, that is correct. If two people come from a town that is mostly Gentile, like Hippos⁸¹On the mountain ridge overlooking the Eastern Shore of Lake Genezareth.. One is known by everybody as a Jew, but the other is not known by anybody except his companion. Can the latter be considered one from the market place to testify about him⁸²To establish a Jewish identity, one witness is enough since it is a testimony about Torah prohibitions.? If you say so, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness⁸³If the two testify about a document executed in the city of Hippos, the second witness testifies only because he was enabled by the first. Therefore, the second witness cannot be considered to be independent of the first.! And in the prior case, the entire testimony would be confirmed by one witness.

Rebbi Ḥaggai said that Rebbi Ze‘ira asked: Can one witness testifying orally and one by a document be taken together? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything⁸⁴Mishnah Baba batra 10:2: A document signed by a single witness is invalid.? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second⁸⁵In the Babli, Baba batra 165a, this is a question, if one signature was confirmed from another document and one by oral testimony. It is resolved that the document is valid.. Rebbi Mana asked, is one witness on a written document enough to force anybody to swear⁸⁶Ex. 22:9 decrees that in all money matters in dispute, “if there is one who says, he is the one” who owes money, there should be an oath. This is interpreted to mean that the claimant can force the defendant to swear if he can support his claim by a single witness but does not have the two witnesses necessary to force the defendant to pay.? Is a single witness on a written document worth anything? Therefore, his question was, if there are two. They managed to confirm the first signature but not the second. ⁸⁷From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from Soṭah Chapter 1, Notes 46–71. The text here is from the hand of the corrector; the scribe of the ms. only notes גרש בהילכתא קדמיתא דסוטה כולה עד וכה כל סימן וסימן צריך שני עדים “One reads all this in the first Halakhah of Soṭah up to ‘and here, every single hair needs two witnesses’.” There are several differences in the sequence of sentences in addition to systematic differences in spelling; it is clear that the corrector copied from a different ms. which now is lost. Parallel to it: One does not accept testimony from witnesses unless they had seen together. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw one after the other⁸⁸R. Joshua ben Qorḥa will accept the written testimony of one witness (of two on a document) combined with the oral one of another; the Sages will reject it except in the three cases stated here. The same disagreement in the Babli 26b, Sanhedrin 30b.. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa for witnesses about primogeniture and rights of possession.

⁸⁷From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text is from Soṭah Chapter 1, Notes 46–71. The text here is from the hand of the corrector; the scribe of the ms. only notes גרש בהילכתא קדמיתא דסוטה כולה עד וכה כל סימן וסימן צריך שני עדים “One reads all this in the first Halakhah of Soṭah up to ‘and here, every single hair needs two witnesses’.” There are several differences in the sequence of sentences in addition to systematic differences in spelling; it is clear that the corrector copied from a different ms. which now is lost. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his back. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; similarly on his back and on his back. If two say, we saw one hair on his back and two others say, we saw one hair on his belly? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun and Rebbi Hoshaia ben Rebbi Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who saysid it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who said it is valid? Maybe they were rubbed off. One says, I saw two hairs on his back and one says, I saw two hairs on his belly. Rebbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid [testimony]. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid. Rebbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Ḥaggai, does not Rebbi Yudan⁸⁹The statement of R. Yudan is in the text in Soṭah, missing here. follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so much more with him. Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four witnesses and it was disputed, if one person verified the signature of two [witnesses] and another that of the other two, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rebbi Ḥanania learns it from the years of possession. If one [witness] testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another [witness] testified that he ate from it the fourth, fifth, and sixth, is that worth anything⁷¹As the Halakhah explains, Rebbi requires that each signature on the document be certified by two witnesses but the Sages hold that only the contents of the document have to be certified by two witnesses.? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, ever single hair needs two witnesses.